09/17/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 , 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, September
17, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451
South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill
Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert and Van Turner.
Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative
Officer; Jay Magure, Chief of Staff; D J Baxter, Mayoral Senior Advisor; Roger Cutler,
City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council
Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy
Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy
Analyst; Sylvia Jones; Council Constituent Liaison; Roger Evans, Building Services &
Licensing Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing & Neighborhood Development Director; Stephen
Goldsmith, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use & Transportation/Subdivisions
Planner; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Margaret Hunt,
Community and Economic Development Director; David Dobbins, Community and Economic
Development Deputy Director; Gordon Hoskins, City Controller; Tim Harpst,
Transportation Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Oka,
Redevelopment Agency Director; Robert Farrington, Jr. , Executive Director of Downtown
Alliance; Tim Funk, Urban Crossroads Center; Marion Willey, Executive Director of Utah
Non-Profit Housing Corporation; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Cindy Gust-Jenson said each individual sub title and section number did not need to be
read into the motion for the Traffic Code Ordinance. She said the ordinance title
would be enough. Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed the best way for staff to reach each Council
Member. She asked how Council Members preferred to respond to written correspondence.
Councilmember Jergensen replaced Councilmember Christensen as Salt Lake City' s
representative for the Association of Council Members.
See File M 02-5 for Council announcements.
#2. INTERVIEW JENNIFER SEELIG PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
Ms. Seelig said becoming a homeowner helped her realize how differences can impact a
community. She said neighbors meeting together on a sidewalk could help bring balance
to the different land use needs. She said the perspective of affected people needed
to be taken into consideration.
#3. INTERVIEW SHELLEY LARSEN-MAHINA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Ms. Larsen-Mahina said she had always been involved in community service. She said
she liked the challenge of working on solutions to problems found in the community.
#4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. View
Attachment
Roger Evans and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Evans
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 , 2002
said he had met with both the Downtown Business Alliance and the Business Advisory
Board. He said both supported the proposed ordinance chance. He said the current
ordinance required a solid wall to enclose the outdoor area, which worked for locations
having a back or side yard. He said it put up a barrier at locations where the outdoor
area was adjacent to City sidewalks and streets.
Councilmember Saxton said right-of-way issues did not work in all areas of the City.
Mr. Evans said private clubs were only allowed in the downtown and Sugarhouse areas of
Salt Lake City. He said outdoor seating required leasing that area from the City. He
said most private clubs were not interested in leasing or the additional management
issues outdoor areas created.
Councilmember Saxton asked who enforced on noise from the outside areas of Private
Clubs. Mr. Evans said zoning only allowed Clubs in business areas, so noise had not
been an issue. He said the Health Department enforced the City' s noise ordinance.
Councilmember Buhler asked if the Clean Air Act would be violated if patrons were
allowed to smoke outside. Mr. Evans said many clubs were already encouraging patrons
to smoke outside.
Councilmember Buhler said he wanted to delay action until the proposed ordinance was
presented to the community councils in these areas. He asked the administration to
contact the community councils of areas containing three or more private clubs to see
if there would be interest. Councilmember Love asked that the City's liquor map be
brought to the next briefing.
Councilmember Jergensen suggested that the proposed ordinance be for the downtown, or
Central Business District only. He said additional districts could be revisited after
the proposal had gone before the community councils. The Council was in favor.
#5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL
FLAG LOTS STANDARDS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. View Attachment
Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Janice Jardine and Sylvia Jones briefed the Council
from the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert said the Sugarhouse Community Council
suggested the Planning Commission review the requirements for Planned Community
Developments (PUB' s) . He said flag lots were a challenge in that area.
Councilmember Jergensen asked why flag lots became available with the 1995 ordinance.
Mr. Wheelwright said flag lots had always been available. He said prior to 1995 they
were approved through the Board of Adjustments. He said the proposed ordinance change
would fine-tune the current process.
Councilmember Saxton asked about height restrictions. Mr. Wheelwright said in most
cases zoning allowed 2 1/2 stories. He said the change would require additional setbacks
for new structures. He said current ordinance required a flag lot to be 1 1/2 times
larger than the zoned minimum. Mr. Wheelwright said fieldtrips for interested Council
Members could be arranged.
Councilmember Turner said some of the nicest homes in his district were on flag lots.
He said he was aware of potential problems with water and utility lines when adding
new homes in these existing neighborhoods.
#6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 9. View Attachment
Tim Harpst, Robert Farrington, DJ Baxter, Gordon Hoskins, Rocky Fluhart and Michael
Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said
clarification was needed on the transit parking and token program. Mr. Harpst said
02 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 , 2002
the City would be entering into a 3-year contract. He said the total amount for the
3-year contract was available now in the City' s fund balance. He said if the contract
were paid on a year-to-year basis, the remaining funds would lapse at the end of the
year. Ms. Gust-Jenson said it was unusual to appropriate money for an agreement up
front. Councilmember Buhler said he was supportive of the program, but hesitated to
pay for a 3-year experiment up front. Councilmember Jergensen said the City should be
committed and move forward. Councilmember Turner said he also supported the program.
Councilmember Christensen asked how the program would be monitored for success. Mr.
Farrington said a steering committee which included City representation, would oversee
the program. He said the agreement also included the clause that any dollars not spent
would be refunded to the City.
A straw poll was taken to appropriate the total $159,000 multi-year commitment for the
transit parking and token program. The Council was in favor.
Mr. Baxter said the administration had met with parade organizers. He said several
issues needed to be discussed with other departments. He asked the Council to hold
this portion of the budget amendment. He said he recommended Council approve funding
of the Library Block with the exception of the crosswalk. Mr. Sears said State Code
allowed a portion of an ordinance to be tabled, while approving the rest. Councilmember
Turner asked the administration to include a drawing of the proposed crosswalk.
Councilmember Saxton asked the administration to provide additional traffic plans for
the area.
Councilmember Lambert recused himself from the Odyssey House issue. Mr. Sears said
the resolution would follow later. He said the issue could be voted on without the
resolution.
Councilmember Saxton asked for clarification on landscaping Washington Square. Mr.
Hoskins said the contract with Professional Landscapers had been terminated, and the
Public Services Department had taken over. He said the original contract amount
included laying new sod. He said it was decided to replant with seed. He said the
original amount budgeted for the sod fell to fund balance because it was not
appropriated.
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY' S HOUSING PROGRAMS. View
Attachment
LuAnn Clark, Janice Jardine, Marion Willey and Tim Funk briefed the Council from the
attached handout. Ms. Clark said there were a number of affordable housing needs. She
said a growing number of families incomes were too low for bank loans, but too high
for Federal funding. She said it was becoming more difficult to build new housing due
to the amount of subsidies required on each project.
Ms. Clark said approximately 5000 people were on waiting lists for Section 8 Housing.
She said some families were on lists for more than one City. She said a master list
was needed for accurate information. Councilmember Love asked how property became
Section 8 Housing. Ms. Clark said the property owner applied and determination was
based on the amount Congress appropriated each year. She said the owner needed to
give a one-year notice to be removed from a Section 8 Housing list.
Councilmember Buhler asked if those worried about losing their Section 8 Housing had
valid concerns. Ms. Clark said Congress had the responsibility to find a way to
continue. She said the number of those needing this service grew, while the number of
available Section 8 Housing became smaller.
Councilmember Saxton asked if Utah Non-Profit organizations participated in the City's
housing issues. Mr. Willey said Utah NonProfit housed about 1900 people. He said
02 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 , 2002
they received about 50 phone calls a day requesting housing assistance. He said it
had taken 19 months and about $15, 000, 000 to rehabilitate 333 units on the last project.
Mr. Funk said years ago rehabilitating housing was profitable with the many subsidies
available. He said now just finding funding for projects was difficult. He said
without the City' s partnership needed housing projects would stop. He said one time
Olympic monies could provide a continuing legacy for Salt Lake City by helping people
now and into the future. He said if the cash flow could reach a certain amount,
housing programs could become self-sustaining.
Councilmember Turner asked if the First Time Homebuyers Program was still used. Ms.
Clark said 18 applications were submitted for the 9 houses available. She said several
locations within the City would provide affordable housing lots mixed in with other
new homes.
Councilmember Jergensen asked if rehabilitated homes were easier to find funding for.
Ms. Clark said lead based paint was often found in older homes. She said in order to
receive Federal monies, a home had to pass environmental testing.
Councilmember Jergensen asked for additional information on the marketing of programs
addressing the promotion of homeownership. Ms. Clark said she would provide that. Mr.
Funk said 51% of the City' s population rented. He said Salt Lake City had more elderly
and disabled residents than any other municipality in the State.
The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p. m.
pj
02 - 4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 2002
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Briefing:Proposed Ordinance to Amend City Code Pertaining to Outdoor
Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt,Roger
Evans, Stephen Goldsmith,David Dobbins,Alison McFarlane,Linda Cordova,
Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Gary Mumford,Janice Jardine
This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance to amend City Code Section
5.50.170 regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs.The proposed amendment is
scheduled for a briefing on September 17.The proposed amendment is supported by the
Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees and those in attendance at a Business Advisory Board
meeting where the issue was presented.
OPTIONS
• Adopt the proposed amendment.
• Do not adopt the proposed amendment.
• Adopt the proposed amendment but restrict its effect to the"traditional"Central Business
District of South Temple, 200 East,600 South and 400 West.
• Adopt the proposed amendment but restrict its effect to an area bordered by South
Temple, 300 East,600 South,and 600 West.
• Adopt the proposed amendment with a requirement that the City's Planning Director and
Building Services Director review the design of a barrier for compliance with City
ordinances and aesthetics.
ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Should the proposed amendment be applied citywide?
• Who should be responsible to determine if a barrier meets standards outlined in the
proposed ordinance?
• Should the City determine the aesthetics of a planned barrier built in the public way by a
private club?
DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND
The proposed amendment to Section 5.50.170 regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs apparently arose from two sources: 1.)The Administration's efforts to bring activity
to sidewalks downtown.2.)For some reason,the current ordinance's requirement of a five-foot-
1
high barrier was overlooked in the approval of two barriers in the public way around entrances to
private clubs.
As the Administration's transmittal letter indicates, Section 5.50.170 apparently
originally was adopted to control access into private clubs from outdoor areas.The current
ordinance requires that barriers in outdoor areas should be five feet high and be"capable of
preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the
licensed premises"
According to the Administration's transmittal letter,although the"ordinance may work
for clubs that have a back yard or side yard area that needs to be fenced off and are located on
private property, it poses a problem for clubs in the downtown area that wish to establish an
outdoor area on public sidewalks."
It is City Council staffs understanding that three downtown private clubs have built
barriers on public sidewalks downtown to accommodate club patrons. Apparently,two of the
barriers were approved although they did not meet the current ordinance's height requirement of
five feet. Under standard practice,a business that would like to build a barrier applies to the
Property Management Division. Property Management then reviews the application with the City
Design Review Team. Once the review is complete,Property Management enters into an
agreement with the business, and the application is completed. With respect to private clubs, at
least one of the private clubs was told by a City Building Services inspector that the barrier did
not meet the ordinance's five-foot-high height regulation after a barrier had been built.
Perhaps three items should be noted:
According to state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department Attorney Earl Dorius,State
law regulating private clubs has no provision regulating barriers on public sidewalks to control
access to the clubs. The closest provision involving the issue is a provision in the regulation of
restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages to submit any change in a restaurant's floor plan to the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission for approval.
According to Mr. Dorius,the Commission has the authority to take into account the
layout, design,and physical characteristics of a restaurant in its consideration of granting a liquor
license to the restaurant. State law requires that restaurants submit any change to floor plans,
including having tables outside a restaurant,for approval by the Commission because the
Commission relied on the original floor plan in granting a restaurant a liquor license.No similar
provision exists in State law regulating private clubs,he said. However,the common practice of
reviewing changes of floor plans in restaurants might apply to private clubs,he said.
The second item involves whether the proposed ordinance amendment should be applied
citywide. As the proposed amendment is written, it would apply citywide.According to a list of
private clubs provided by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department,there are about 85 private
clubs in Salt Lake City. Of those,about 35 private clubs are located in the"traditional"Central
Business District bordered by South Temple,200 East,600 South,and 400 West streets.About
10 of the private clubs are located in hotels within those boundaries.If the east and west
boundaries of the traditional Central Business District were expanded to 300 East and 600 West,
perhaps another five private clubs would be included with the 35 clubs already in the district.
Council Members may wish to consider whether the proposed amendment should apply
throughout the City or only to the Central Business District.
2
The third item involves approval of barrier designs,particularly on public sidewalks.The
current and proposed ordinances require that"barriers shall be in conformity with the City's
planning and zoning ordinances,the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances."The
City Council may wish to consider adding language that designs for barriers be reviewed by the
Planning Director,the Building Services Director,or both for conformity to planning and zoning
ordinances,the building code and other ordinances before the barriers are built. That raises two
issues: 1.) Should division directors be involved in the design of the barriers,or should review
remain with the City Design Review Team?2.) Should designs be reviewed for aesthetics as well
as conformity with City ordinances?
Council staff has attached three photographs depicting a barrier on private property and
two barriers on City sidewalks downtown.
3
... . N i- I I ill - ..`1-''''':-''',.1'..,:;11:2)16...:';:. ............„.,„12;-4 *106/'-'6'27—.., -'4;
R j
i
. ' . fiii- - ]- . .k,„-„, v ,
..--,,<„,.,- Pk4i-:;., II ik.."- ' ' r:,- .: - :, •.':. -; --'-
# ' i Erb - _, fr _ - -
( E , jy e .1. d «. , Y. 4� ,,,ni74 3 za
• r' .i- •.,��' ,k` ;�'' - k "''^5� tLJ4
1 { .4! tart Q' 4
� a �
f1!i I '1- V „42iii1::1•111 71110'' . ; --'.'7,1 r=„:4:,---1
1j.4"r4 1------...----. .1' !4°‘•«,:;'.• sl;;IllikIligit,Li!
/ • F . . ` ,y ;', - :1: / ",=-- s tir 'i
F
.s'.'sq.,°sAs!s`-""AVy. '„.h1=‘,1,i4,:-1-4t1titte.:177An'10-'''' ''''„1,t„),4'.11i4,4„., 4X,Ming4titIN
•
•
.
_ Pe
.M. .. s
lLlx r l C 'a,:
c . i E .��a"j�° (...+A wF~'ts' 4 `3- "3
.;:......1 timi,ti,,,„.:, .t., ,,- - i
£ %f. 1'
y
! a i,:. s
' f30 j
CSIY j �.5..�..� x t zt 17 .,7 j . 1, ,;:x
e!,"a,?Aii/lifL3lY7t./8 #0#4 ) ( F ' ' ({
s .. r 4 r F } ' i 4 41 ilr i {e :4 i li f ,1'!' ,i:`:
s * n. j rE. t.iiiii..� ;u7 n i;iF 7rEli{ .
.. .��_....... ( � l6� e i`7 � 3 ^,
�.. `- -Ti"-------;,--:,
•;HdV,.` `a`y ^ :sue: ._, ....."..... -._.. - `i,N ,... - '
.. - - st ,::M, Y ,Yn{z''g's•%'o r�i�?"G'.' ° .. - y ..e:
p
f,,r
1
1 g _ rr .:::-:','AT:'-':,'
t 4
I '�3, ¢ C";^'+ ,! i tik ",;. F 4 - ! ?35''J'�f.,...s.f.iii!"4.. . .f.,.!.i" q '17.!. 1 I '*".4' -.-.;' „,.. '. -, 4ti./4; ,di
' '.. i.„.4 : if .'7'
at "T .., ..,711. ,..* ,,,,,,,,-;.,,i,,,k,,,;:„,!.i.,,,,,-.7.,-, , �2 3 •,
•
��{/Frh
7.
aF _ 7' t '1.1 1.ki _ d ' , x ; ffa s,.< �rh i s s,
5
• JUL " G GM(
MARGARET HUNT Sl'� !`' r� a r`t v1�T,Y EM jPO �fA. I��Y[
'a`� � �avwsi 'A- 1 '.s ►sw�►. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office DATE: July 1 2002
FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED pir,egtor
Orr �� 4,67 -uZ�.
RE: An ordinann /amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code
regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs.
STAFF CONTACT: Roger Evans, Director of Building Services & Licensing
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: In 1998, a City team, consisting of the Police Department,
Attorney's Office, and Business Licensing, recommended several changes to the
ordinance governing private clubs. One of these changes was to require a five-foot(5')
high barrier for any outdoor areas of private clubs. The current wording of the ordinance
is:
Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas, ingress and egress into any private club
Shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet(S) high and
Which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed
premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. The barriers shall
in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building code,
and all other applicable City ordinances.
After doing some research on the ordinance, it was found that the intent of this section
was to provide a means of controlling entry into a private club. While this ordinance may
work for clubs that have a backyard or side yard area that needs to be fenced off and are
located on private property, it poses a problem for clubs in the downtown area that wish
to establish an outdoor area on public sidewalks. Having a five-foot(5')high barrier
(fence) on downtown sidewalks would be contrary to current attempts to make the area
more pedestrian friendly and attractive. The Police Department is neutral on this issue.
The Downtown Alliance voted to support the proposal, as did the City's Business
Advisory Board. The Police Department does not believe that the ordinance change will
present any problems.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801.535-6230 FAX: B01.535-5005
July 8, 2002
TO: Margaret Hunt
FR: Bob Farrington
Executive Director
RE: Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees Action on Outdoor Barriers
At the June 18 meeting of the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees, the Board
unanimously voted to approve the changes presented by Roger Evans regarding outdoor
barriers. The Board approved the proposal which stated that"ingress and egress into any
private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three feet(3') high
and a maximum of four feet (4') high if the barriers are located on City property."
We welcome the opportunity to review and comment on city ordinances and policies that
impact downtown businesses, property owners, and their customers and tenants.
Minutes from Business Advisory Board
June 24, 2002—Cannon Room
Attending: Greg Gruber, Tony Caputo, Yolanda Sanchez,Alison McFarlane, Sally Jones
Zoning/Ordinance Request: Roger Evans, Building and Zoning Director, requested a
change to Private Club-Membership Restrictions (5.50.170). It was requested that for
outdoor areas, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers
which are a minimum of 3 feet high and a maximum of 4 feet high. The existing
ordinance is for barriers to be a maximum of 5 feet high.
All present members of the Business Advisory Board agrees with the change to 4 feet
high, following slight discussion of the aesthetic advantages of a lower barrier. It was
determined that for private clubs who have put higher barriers to discourage patrons from
jumping over the barrier thereby entering the establishment without paying at the
entryway, it is an enforcement issue for the establishment to address rather than a barrier-
height issue.
Not enough members of the Business Advisory Board were in attendance for a quorum, a
vote was not taken,but the three members agreed with the proposed change to the
ordinance.
Review of Board Membership: The remainder of the meeting was directed toward
discussion of the board's composition and effectiveness. Several names were
recommended to fill four open board positions. Alison will submit those names as well
as others recommended by division directors of CED to Diana Karrenberg in the Office
of Community Affairs.
Intermodal Hub. An overview/update of the intermodal hub was postponed from the
June meeting to July so that more board members will see the presentation.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 17, 2002
7:30—8:30 am Room 542—City and County Building
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code
Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE
CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE
CLUBS.
WHEREAS, the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas, ingress
and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet
high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises
and persons outside the premises; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that those height requirements
{ are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the
public way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that a reduced height
requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way, in connection with private
clubs,would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein
is in the best interest of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Section 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby
is amended to read as follows:
B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property
in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be
controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three (3') feet high and a
4111 maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the public
way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by
barriers which are a minimum of five feet (5')high and which are capable
of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and
persons who are outside the licensed premises. All barriers shall be in
conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building
code, and all other applicable City ordinances.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C. ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
(Q-Zo-oz
Bill No. of 2002. E 4 ._.7Z.."--�` -G-
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-Clean-June 19,2002.doc
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code
Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE
CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE
CLUBS.
WHEREAS,the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas, ingress
and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet
high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises
and persons outside the premises; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has now determined that those height requirements
are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the
public way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that a reduced height
requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way, in connection with private
clubs,would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein
is in the best interest of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Section 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby
is amended to read as follows:
B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property
in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be
controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three(3') feet high and a
maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the public
4
•
way,ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by
barriers which are a minimum of five feet(5')high and which are capable
of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and
persons who are outside the licensed premises. All The barriers shall be in
conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building
code, and all other applicable City ordinances.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C. ANDERSON
MAYOR -
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002.
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-June 19,2002.doc
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 13,2002
SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-47-Planning Commission-request to amend the text of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to Residential Flag Lot and Planned Development
Standards
STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Constituent Liaison/Policy and Research Analyst and Janice
Jardine,Planning&Policy Analyst
Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts _
Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has
budget impact. presented to revise an clearly stated the
existing ordinance. positive aspects of the
proposal.
KEY ELEMENTS:
1. As noted by the Administration,the proposed text changes were developed in response to a
request from the Sugar House Community Council that the City re-examine the Flag Lot and
Planned Development sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Issues include:
A. Proximity of a new structure to existing rear yards creating a privacy concern.
B. Disruption of neighborhood character by building a house behind a house instead of fronting
onto a street.
C. Height of new buildings in relation to existing buildings.
D. Setbacks of the new building from adjoining property.
E. Orientation of multi-family dwelling units front and rear yard space relative to the overall
site(private rear yard patio areas adjacent to side yard).
2. The Planning staff report notes that the proposed revisions"increase the compatibility of a site by
increasing required side yard setbacks for two-story structures and requiring garages to be built in
the buildable are of the lot away from side and rear yard property lines." The Administration's
transmittal provides a detailed background relating to the proposed zoning ordinance text
amendment. (Please see the attached drawing for a visual representation of the proposal.) The
proposed zoning text amendment would do the following:
A. Increase the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate fire-fighting equipment. (The
paved portion of the access strip would be 16 feet.)
1
B. Require a 4-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines to provide separation
between driveways and adjoining property.
C. Increase the required side yards for a 2-story structure to equal the rear yard setback,allowing
more privacy and distance from adjoining lots.
D. Require all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot,allowing more privacy and
building separation.
E. Require Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in the rear yard
that require a building permit.
F. Clarify existing language in the planned development standards.
3. Flag lots are defmed as a lot with an access strip(a strip of land with a width less than the
required lot width)that connects the main body of the lot to the street frontage. (Please see the
attached illustration from the Zoning Ordinance.)
4. Planned developments are defmed as a lot or contiguous lots where there are multiple principal
buildings on a single lot or where not all of the principal buildings have frontage on a public
street. A planned development is controlled by a single landowner or by a group of landowners
in common agreement. Planned developments are intended to be developed as a single
development which is compatible with the character of adjacent parcels and the intent of the
zoning district in which it is located.
5. As noted by the Administration,prior to the 1995 Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, flag lots were not
permitted in the City. The flag lot option was added as a permitted use in 1995 in order to
provide a flexible development tool to encourage infill development. In 1997,the flag lot section
of the Zoning Ordinance was amended to require flag lots to be approved as a conditional use
rather than a permitted use. At that time it was noted that in many cases new flag lots were not
in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The Administration's transmittal indicates that community councils were contacted by mail.
Attached please fmd a letter dated July 29,2002 from the Sugar House Community Council and a
letter dated March 8,2001 from the East Central Community Council Executive Board. The
letters indicate support of the proposed text amendments and identify additional concerns relating
to the conditional use process and planned developments in general. Please refer to number 1 in
the Matters at Issue section for further discussion.
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
1. Council Members may wish to request that the Administration address the planned development
issues identified by the Community Council representatives and provide options for Council
consideration. Planning staff indicated to Council staff that the Planning Commission chose not
to address the planned development issues raised by the Community Councils. As previously
noted,the Council Office has received comments from representatives of the Sugar House and
East Central Community Councils. (It should be noted that the recently adopted Sugar House
Master Plan identifies specific policies that relate to flag lots and planned developments. Please
see the policy section of this staff report for details.) Issues that continue to be raised by
community councils include:
A. Require dedicated public improvements rather than allowing private improvements
2
including streets,sidewalks,park strips and street trees.
B. House(s)closest to a public street should be oriented to the street.
C. Establish compatibility review to address neighborhood preservation,the potential for
assembling properties by combining previously subdivided lots,and loss of open space
due to infill construction.
D. Application of the proposed text changes as a type of overlay zoning applied to specific
areas of the City.
2. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of removing the
flag lot provision from the Zoning Ordinance. As noted by the Administration,prior to 1995 flag
lots were not permitted in the City. The 1995 Zoning Rewrite added flag lots as a permitted use.
In 1997,the Zoning Ordinance was amended to require flag lots to be approved as a conditional
use. It was noted that in many cases new flag lots were not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. In the past,Planning staff has indicated that site development and utility service requirements are
evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use,development review and building
permit processes. Council staff contacted City divisions and departments requesting comments
and feedback regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations. The Police and Fire
departments indicated they had no concerns regarding the proposed text changes. The
Transportation Division indicated that flag lots may create additional on-street parking needs.
They also indicated that the residential parking program would not solve the problem. Council
Members may wish to request that the Administration review the proposed text changes with City
departments and divisions and identify options to address potential unintended impacts including
the parking issues identified by the Transportation Division.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Sugar House Master Plan identified the following policies relating to flag lots and planned
developments:
A. Flag Lot Policy
i. Explore the feasibility of maintaining interior block areas for use
as parks and community gardens.
ii. Support more restrictive standards for flag lots or planned
developments.
iii. Approve flag lots only if it is demonstrated that negative impacts
can be minimized or avoided.
iv. Review flag lots under the following guidelines:
a. Preserve the existing privacy of the surrounding properties
to the extent possible;and
b. Support new structures of a similar scale that incorporate
the desirable architectural design features common
throughout the neighborhood.
B. Planned Development Policy
i. Ensure the site and building design of residential planned developments
are compatible and integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.
ii. Discourage the development of"gated communities."
3
iii. Review all proposed residential planned developments using the following
guidelines:
a. Support new projects of a similar scale that incorporate the
desirable architectural design features common throughout the
neighborhood;
b. Maintain an appropriate setback around the perimeter of the
development;
c. Position houses so that front doors and front yards face the street;
d. Require front yards to be left open wherever possible—when front
yard fences are provided,they should be low and open;
e. Design houses so that the garage doors do not predominate the
front façade--detached garages are preferred with access from an
alley wherever possible;
f. Design streets to be multi-purpose public spaces—comfortable
for the pedestrian and bicyclist—not just as roads for cars;
g. Provide at least two access points wherever possible in order to
connect the street system to the larger street network to maintain
an integrated network of streets; and
h. Incorporate a pedestrian orientation into the site design of each
project with sidewalks,park-strips and street trees as well as trail-
ways wherever possible.
2. The Community Housing Plan notes the goal"to enhance,maintain and sustain a livable
community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that
offer a wide range of housing choices,mixed uses,and transit oriented design. The City
encourages a family friendly urban environment that combines commercial development and
housing designs with programs that welcome children." Housing policy statements address a
variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,
transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,
rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities
as well as business opportunities.
3. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that
growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria:
A. Is it aesthetically pleasing;
B. Contributes to a livable community environment;
C. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is
served;and
D. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
4. The City's Strategic plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as
maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic
standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of •
minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a
high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,
friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including
retention and attraction of large and small businesses.
4
5. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's
image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and
economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include:
A. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics
within the overall urban design scheme for the city.
B. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement
and stability.
C. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
D. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies
of the City regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
E. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's
image.
F. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale
are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian.
CHRONOLOGY:
Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the
proposed text amendment.
• February 6,2001 Letter and Draft Ordinance sent to all Community Council
Chairpersons requesting input and comments.
• October 4,2001 Planning Commission Hearings
cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,D.J.Baxter,Steven Allred,Lynn Pace,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,Roger Evans,Stephen
Goldsmith,Harvey Boyd,Craig Spangenberg,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Larry Butcher,Enzo Calfa,Ray McCandless
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,Flag lots
5
•
21A.62.050
ZONING ORDINANCE ILLUSTRATION
FLAG LOT
DEFINITION :
Flag Lot
A lot of irregular configuration in which an
access strip[a strip of land of a width less
than the required lot width] connects the
main body of the lot to the street frontage
1;y -
>
\\ \\ y%%ty:r 7' 'du� v..kiYfLt314
'R-:-S�is
MAIN BODY OF FLAG LOT
aka: .:
FRONT YARD
►♦♦♦i
►!�•
i
I i:llI
♦♦♦♦♦♦'
•
•
•
STREET
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS MEASURED
ACCESS STRIP TO FLAG LOT[POLE] FROM WHERE THE ACCESS STRIP JOINS THE
MAIN BODY OF THE FLAG LOT
(Salt take c. v), 960-302
20 \
,,, r \•
1 -Story Structure
i re 2 -Story Structure
': 4' Landscaped Yard
102
///di
I
20 \,
. FLAG LOT EXAMPLE
`i
16 ; R-1-5000
a:
F
5000 Sq. Ft. Minimum loo
Lot Area
PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE
ILLUSTRATION
E
—24
-50
i
Mr. Ray McCandless
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State Street,Room 406
Salt Lake City,.UT 84111
March 8,2001
Dear Mr. McCandless,
Thank you for contacting the East Central Community Council regarding the Planning
Commission's subcommittee on flag lots. Although our community council has not
experienced petitinns for fin lot development,we doliave_ahistoric pattern of development
which we believe,relevant for the subcommittee's consideration.
East Central has several examples of structures that developed on the same lot.Following is
a brief survey:
24 S 1.000E.
138-136 S 900 E and 140-134 S 900 E
840-842 E 100 S
836-838 E 100 S
235-237 S 900 E and 233 S 900E(accessed off Pennsylvania Place)
59-61 S 900 E
315 S 1-300 E with duplex in rear
327 S 1300 E with duplex in rear
1228-1234 E 600 S
We think that these historic properties in the Bryant,University,and Douglas neighborhoods
offer some good lessons for the development of a policy regarding flag lots.In all cases
listed above,the two residential structures are oriented to the main street and share a
common driveway or off-street access. None ofthe properties interestingly enough are on
corner lots,but this would seem to be the only situation where separate driveways would be
appropriate. In all cases,the structure closest to the major street is larger(24 S 1000 E and
1228-1234 E 600 S)or the two structures are approximately the same size. In none of the
cases we identified was the rear structure significantly larger than the structure fronting the
major street.
The problems which have affected East Central with incompatible in-fill development are
very hlely to occur in the development of flag lots.We hear from residents in Sugar House
and Yalecrest neighborhoods that this incompatible in-fill housing has become an issue for
them as well.We urge you to consider the compatibility review process outlined in the
1984 East Central Community Master Plan and the work done by a subcommittee of
the Planning Commission several years ago on the subject.
The issue was discussed during the East Central Community Council's Board meeting on
February 28,and one of the suggestions was to make certain that neighbors had an
opportunity to participate in the approval process.
Sincerely,
East Central Community Council Executive Board
Chair,Julia Robertson,583-5663
Vice Chair,Penny Archibald-Stone,583-2439
Past Chair,Mark Bunce,531-8584
cP+ary,Kathy Scott,322-5288
Treasurer,Fran.Schwab,581-9643
Land Use Advisory Group,Cindy Cromer,355-4115
Neighborhood Representatives:
Beomon,John Anderson,364-6086
Bryant,Maba Barrani,364-2114
Douglas,Cathey Dunn,582-6804 Tim Lambeck,581-9060
East Liberty,Margaret Brady,521-8377
Emerson,- hristineDriscoll,483-150
Garden Part,Terri Winkler,581-9192
University,l;)ennis Guy-Sell,582-0383
Committees:
Community Growthand Maintenance Committee,-Debora Wrathali,363-3317
Moving People Committee,Creed Raymond,583-8510
cc:
Robert Glessner,Salt Lake City PlanningDepartment
Helen Peiers;Slgarliouse Community Council
Nancy Saxton,Salt LakeDistrict 4 Cesmcil Member
Roger Thompson,Sak Lake District 5 Council Member
;Lif
SUCOMMGUNiTCOUNCIL
July 29, 2002
Councilmember Dave Buhler, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
City and County Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Re: Support for Proposed Residential Flag Lot ordinance
Dear Councilmember Buhler,
In July 2000, at the request of Sugar House Community Council, the Planning Division began
a process to revise the City's Zoning standards for Residential Flag Lots and Planned Unit
Developments. SHCC questioned the impact of flag lots on neighborhood character, and was
concerned about the type of development that flag lots encourage, and about whether they are
compatible with SLC housing policies. Other issues that often were heard include privacy and the
proximity of new structures to neighboring backyards, the size of new structures, setbacks, setback
requirements for accessory buildings, orientation, loss of public open space, and lack of connectivity
with other houses. Many of these concerns were addressed as policies in the Sugar House Master
Plan Update.
In October 2001, the PC approved the proposed amendment, and it has been transmitted to
the City Council. In general, the Sugar House trustees supported approval for the proposed
standards for flag lots, but want stricter standards in the Planned Unit Development ordinance.
The proposed Residential Flag Lot standards seem to address many of the concerns that we
have in Sugar House, such as compatibility review, circulation, pedestrian access, buffering,
landscaping, and crime prevention. Some issues remain unresolved. We see a conflict between the
City's policy to preserve traditional neighborhoods, and the preference for infill development and
increased density in order to preserve open space on the outskirts of the City. Noting that the City
didn't allow flag lots until the 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite, one trustee said that SLC was
subdivided rationally originally and should not be subdivided further. In addition, Council members
voiced objections to the notification process and the approval process. Recognizing that flag lot
i
development may be more desirable in other parts of the City, several trustees supported a proposal
to look into a overlay prohibiting flag lots in Sugar House.
Trustees recognized that the underlying problem with the ordinance is that it doesn't
discourage aggregating property in residential neighborhoods. Concerns were expressed that we
may see huge blocks of these types of development unless there is something in the code against
aggregation. Trustees supported the suggestion that if someone aggregates lots, they have to do a
Residential Planned Development, to ensure that new developments are of a similar and
complementary nature to the surrounding historic pattern of residential development.
The Sugar House Community Council feels that further refinement of the Planned Unit
Development ordinance is needed to address concerns regarding this type of development pattern.
Specifically, the Council supports the following elements in planned developments.
• Dedicated streets
• Sidewalks and park strips
• Street trees
• House(s) closest to the public street should be oriented to the street.
• Compatibility review for planned unit developments.
In addition, because the proposed Planned Developments ordinance will permit PUD's in
every zone, we would like to understand what ramifications there might be in industrial or commercial
zones.
Sugar House Community Council trustees voted 10-2 to support the revisions and changes
that have been made to the zoning ordinance for Residential Flag Lots, and we recommend adoption
of that ordinance citywide. We request that the City Council initiate a petition to look at further
revisions to the PUD ordinance citywide.
Sincerely,
Lynne Olson
Lynne Olson, Correspondence Secretary
Sugar House Community Council
Cc: Ray Pugsley, Chair, SHCC
Dennis Guy-Sell, Chair, ECCC
Melissa Anderson, SLC Planning
2
i rJ r �' U a�sis
S'? ` 1 ,', TY G Ro
P ° � ,I,=11
+�� ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer' DATE: April 16,2002
FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director (4..-/ /yl¢)
RE: Petition 400-01-47: A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to consider
amending Chapter 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot Standards) and Section 21A.54.150E
(Planned Development Standards)of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner 535-7282
Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney 535-6613
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: Some time ago, the Sugar House Community Council requested
that the City re-examine its Flag Lot and Planned Development Ordinances to address recurring
issues resulting from flag lot development. Each year, the City receives a few requests to create
flag lots and planned developments, which have, at times, been controversial. Issues that have
been raised include:
• Proximity of a new structure to existing rear yards creating a privacy concern.
• Disruption of neighborhood character by building a house behind a house instead of
fronting onto a street.
• Height of the new building in relation to existing buildings.
• Setbacks of the new building from adjoining property.
• Orientation of multi-family dwelling units front and rear yard space relative to the overall
site(private rear yard patio areas adjacent to site side yard).
In response to the community council's request, the Planning Commission initiated a petition to
consider amending the current ordinance and created a subcommittee which met several times to
review the ordinances as they relate to these issues. A draft ordinance was prepared by the
Planning Staff and was reviewed by the subcommittee.
On October 4,2001,the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes and recommended
the revisions include:
• Increasing the access strip from 20 to 24 feet (16'driveway plus a 4' wide landscaped
strip on each side of the driveway, 24 feet total) to accommodate fire-fighting
equipment.
• Requiring a 4-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines to provide
separation between driveways and adjoining property.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005
0 RECYCLED PAPER
• Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the rear yard setback
allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots.
• Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again giving more
privacy and building separation.
• Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in the rear yard
that require a building permit.
• Clarification of existing language in the proposed development standards.
A copy of the draft ordinance is included with this Report.
Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission has determined the proposed ordinance is
appropriate based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies
of the adopted general plan of the City.
2. The proposed amendment will improve site and neighborhood compatibility.
Public Process: On February 6, 2001, a letter was sent to all Community Council
Chairpersons requesting that they help identify any issues or concerns relating to flag lots and
planned developments.
Notices also were sent to the Community Council Chairpersons informing them of the Planning
Commission Hearing for October 4,2001.
Section 21A.10 requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to
amendments to the zoning ordinance. Newspaper advertised notice is required prior to
consideration by the City Council. A draft notice has been provided in this transmittal packet.
Relevant Ordinances:
Title 21A. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
• Chapter 10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures
• Chapter 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot Standards) and Section
21A.54.150E(Planned Development Standards)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Chronology
2. Ordinance
3. Strike and Bold Ordinance
4. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
A. Newspaper Publication Draft
B. Notice of City Council Hearing
C. Mailing List and Labels
5. Agenda of Planning Commission Hearing for October 4, 2001
6. Staff Report for Planning Commission Hearing for October 4,
2001
7. Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2001
8. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice
CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• July 13, 2000 Planning Commission Flag Lot Subcommittee established.
• July 2000 -March 2001 Data collection /Subcommittee meetings & field trips/
Ordinance Preparation
• February 6, 2001 Letter and Draft Ordinance sent to all Community Council
Chairpersons requesting input and comments via the
Mayor's Office of Community Affairs
• October 4,2001 Planning Commission Hearing
• October 29, 2001 City Council Transmittal Prepared.
• October 24,2001 Ordinance requested from City Attorney
• February 26, 2002 Ordinance received from City Attorney
• February 26,2002 Transmittal Packet Completed
• April 10,2002 Transmittal Packet Reviewed by Deputy Planning Director
ORDINANCE
r
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Revisions to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
Regarding Flag Lot and Planned Development Standards)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE
RELATING TO FLAG LOT REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-47.
WHEREAS, each year the City receives a few, but a steady number of requests to
create flag lots and planned developments that have, at times, been controversial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission created a subcommittee to review City
ordinances relating to flag lots; and
WHEREAS,that subcommittee has made certain recommendations for revisions
to the City's existing flag lot and planned development ordinances, which include the
following:
1. Increasing the width of the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate
fire-fighting equipment;
2. Requiring a four-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines
to provide separation between driveways and adjoining properties;
3. Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the
rear-yard setback, thus allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots;
4. Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again
giving more privacy and building separation;
5. Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in
the rear yard that require a building permit; and
6. Clarification of existing language relative to planned developments.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined, after public hearings
before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, that the interests of the
public would be better served by making those recommended changes to the ordinance;
NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Sections 21A.24.010.G.5 and 6 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be
and hereby are amended to read as follows:
5. Flag lots shall have a minimum lot depth of one hundred feet(100')
measured from the point where the access strip joins the main body of the
lot;
6. The flag lot access strip shall have minimum of twenty four feet(24')
of frontage on a public street. No portion of the flag lot access strip shall
measure less than twenty four feet(24') in width between the street right-
of-way line and main body of the lot. A minimum sixteen (16')wide
hard-surfaced driveway shall be provided along the entire length of the
access strip. A four foot(4')minimum landscape yard shall be provided
on each side of the driveway. (see illustration in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62
of this Title).
SECTION 2. Sections 21A.24.010.G.8, 9 and 10 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be and hereby are amended to read as follows:
8. The minimum lot area of a flag lot shall not be less than 1.5 times the
minimum lot area of the applicable district. The lot area calculation
excludes the lot access strip;
9. The minimum required side yard for a single story building on a flag
lot is ten feet(10'). If any portion of the structure exceeds one story in
height, all side yard setbacks shall meet the required rear yard setback of
the underlying zoning district. The Planning Commission may increase
the side or rear yard setback where there is a topographic change between
lots.
10. Both the flag lot and any remnant property resulting from the creation
of a flag lot(including existing buildings and structures) shall meet the
minimum lot area, width, frontage, setback,parking and all other
applicable zoning requirements of the underlying zoning district.
SECTION 3. Sections 21A.24.010.G.12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Salt Lake
City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows:
12. Any garage,whether attached to or detached from the main building,
shall be located in the buildable area of the lot.
13. Accessory buildings other than garages may be located in the rear
yard area,however,Planning Commission approval is required for any
accessory building that requires a building permit.
14. A four foot wide landscaped strip is required along both side property
lines from the front to rear lot lines.
15. Reflective house numbers shall be posted at the front of the access
strip.
SECTION 4. Sections 21A.54.150.E.4 and 5 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows:
4. The perimeter side and rear yard building setback shall be the greater
of the required setbacks of the lot or adjoining lot unless modified by the
Planning Commission.
5. The Planning Commission may increase or decrease the side or rear
yard setback where there is a topographic change between lots.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
SECTION 6. Pending applications. Any application for a flag lot or
planned development which has not received final approval prior to the effective
date of this ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth
herein.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of
,2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL) v.1.c -.
Bill No. of 2002.
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Revisions to Code re Flag Lot Req-Clean-Feb 25,2002.doc
STRIKE AND BOLD ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Revisions to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
Regarding Flag Lot and Planned Development Standards)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE
RELATING TO FLAG LOT REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-47.
WHEREAS, each year the City receives a few,but a steady number of requests to
create flag lots and planned developments that have, at times, been controversial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission created a subcommittee to review City
ordinances relating to flag lots; and
WHEREAS, that subcommittee has made certain recommendations for revisions
to the City's existing flag lot and planned development ordinances,which include the
following:
1. Increasing the width of the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate
fire-fighting equipment;
2. Requiring a four-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines
to provide separation between driveways and adjoining properties;
3. Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the
rear-yard setback, thus allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots;
4. Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again
giving more privacy and building separation;
5. Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in
the rear yard that require a building permit; and
6. Clarification of existing language relative to planned developments.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined, after public hearings
before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, that the interests of the
public would be better served by making those recommended changes to the ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Sections 21A.24.010.G.5 and 6 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be
and hereby are amended to read as follows:
5. Flag lots shall have a minimum lot depth of one hundred feet(100')
measured from the point where the access strip joins the main body of
the lot;
6. The flag lot access strip shall have minimum of twenty feet(20')
twenty four feet(24') of frontage on a public street. No portion of the
flag lot access strip shall measure less than twenty feet (20')twenty four
feet (24') in width between the buildable area of the lot and the street
right-of-way line and main body of the lot. A minimum sixteen (16')
wide hard-surfaced driveway shall be provided along the entire length
of the access strip. A four foot (4')minimum landscape yard shall be
provided on both-sides each side of the access strip driveway. (see
illustration in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title).
SECTION 2. Sections 21A.24.010.G.8, 9 and 10 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be and hereby are amended to read as follows:
8. The minimum lot area of a flag lot shall not be less than 1.5 times the
minimum lot area of the applicable district. The lot area calculation
excludes the lot access strip;
9. b
' • The
minimum required side yard for a single story building on a flag lot is
ten feet(10'). If any portion of the structure exceeds one story in
height, all side yard setbacks shall meet the required rear yard
setback of the underlying zoning district. The Planning Commission
may increase the side or rear yard setback where there is a
topographic change between lots.
10. Both the flag lot and any remnant property All lots resulting from
the creation of a flag lot (including existing buildings and structures)
shall h ►ve + th t l +, +,
meet the minimum lot area,width, frontage, setback,parking and all
other applicable zoning requirements of the underlying zoning
district.
SECTION 3. Sections 21A.24.010.G.12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Salt Lake
City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows:
12. Any garage,whether attached to or detached from the main
building, shall be located in the buildable area of the lot.
13. Accessory buildings other than garages may be located in the rear
yard area, however, Planning Commission approval is required for
any accessory building that requires a building permit.
14. A four foot wide landscaped strip is required along both side
property lines from the front to rear lot lines.
15. Reflective house numbers shall be posted at the front of the access
strip.
SECTION 4. Sections 21A.54.150.E.4 and 5 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows:
4. The perimeter side and rear yard building setback shall be the
greater of the required setbacks of the lot or adjoining lot unless
modified by the Planning Commission.
5. The Planning Commission may increase or decrease the side or
rear yard setback where there is a topographic change between lots.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
SECTION 6. Pending applications. Any application for a flag lot or
planned development which has not received final approval prior to the effective
date of this ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth
herein.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002.
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Revisions to Code re Flag Lot Req-Feb 25,2002.doc
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
MEMORANDUM
To: Lynn Valdez
Newspaper Corporation
From: Salt Lake City Council's Office
Re: SPECIAL NOTICES -010—CLASSIFIED ADS
Date:
Please run the following ad, one time only,on ,in both papers
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
An amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
On ,the Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a
proposed amendment to Chapter 21A.24.010G(Residential Flag Lot Standards)and Chapter 21A.54.150E
(Planned Development Standards)of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The public meeting of the City
Council begins at p.m. in Room ,City and County Building,451 South State Street,
Salt Lake City,Utah.For more information,or special arrangements,call Mr.Ray McCandless at 535-
7282.
Posted
By
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-01-47 by the Salt Lake City
Planning Commission to amend portions of Chapters 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot
Standards and 21A.54.090E (Planned Development Standards) of the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance. Revisions to the proposed ordinance include:
• Increasing the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate fire-fighting equipment.
• Requiring a 4 foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines to provide
separation between driveways and adjoining property.
• Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the rear yard setback
allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots.
• Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again giving more
privacy and building separation.
• Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in the rear yard
that require a building permit.
• Clarification of existing language in the Planned Development standards.
Copies of the proposed revisions are available at the Salt Lake City Planning.Office.
The City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the
petition request. During this hearing, the Planning staff will present information on the petition
and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an
opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE: ROOM 315
City and County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City
If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Ray
McCandless at 535-7282.Monday through Friday.
Samantha Francis Shawn McMillen Jim Byrne
70 Van Buren Avenue 1855 South 2600 East 912 Foothill Drive
Salt Lake City UT 84 1 1 5-5322 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1353
Paul Tayler Mike Zuhl Lisette Gibson
1165 Oak Hills Way 2676 Comanche Drive 1764 Hubbard Avenue
Salt Lake City UT 84108-2025 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2809 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1340
Patrick Tan Tim Dee Katherine Gardner
566 North Sir Michael Drive 1575 Devonshire Drive 606 DeSoto Street
Salt Lake City UT 84116-1821 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2552 Salt Lake City UT 84103-2808
Jeffrey Mullins Kadee Nielson Ellen Reddick
873 Woodruff Way 1410 Baroness Place 2177 Roosevelt Avenue
Salt Lake City UT 84108-1459 Salt Lake City UT 84116-1402 Salt Lake City UT 84108
Jillene Whitby Bruce Alder William Cooley
846 West 400 North 1835 South Lakeline Drive 1009 Tally Ho Avenue
Salt Lake City UT 84 1 1 6-3440 Salt Lake City UT 84109-1413 Salt Lake City UT 84116
ris Kurz Doug Foxley Edie Trimmer
203 South 900 East 1449 Devonshire Drive 246 South 1300 West
Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Salt Lake City Utah 84104
Ray Pugsley Randy Sorenson Dr.Alan Condie
2171 Hannibal Street 1184 South Redwood Dr4ive 1375 Kristie Lane
Salt Lake City Utah 84106 Salt Lake City Utah 84104 Salt Lake City Utah 84108
Orson West Chris Viavant Ana Archuleta
562 Downington Avenue 404 South 400 West 204 East Herbert Avenue
Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City Utah 84111
Dennis Guy-Sell Richard Smiley Beth Bowman
436 South 1200 East 816- 16th Avenue 1445 East Harrison
Salt Lake City Utah 84102 Salt Lake City Utah 84103 Salt Lake City Utah 84105
Angie Vorher Dewey Hanson Salt Lake City Planning
88 Sir James Drive 1919 West 600 North Attn. Mr.Ray McCandless
Wit Lake City Utah 84116 Salt Lake City Utah 84116 451 South State Street, Rm.406
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street
Thursday, October 4,2001, at 5:45 p.m.
_ The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning
information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, September 20, 2001
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m. - Petition No. 410-554, a request by Pace Pollard Architects, representing the
Utah Opera Company, requesting a conditional use for additional building height of up to three stories or forty-
five feet for an addition to the Utah Opera Company production studios at 336 North 400 West. (Staff: Nelson
Knight at 535-6260)
-UBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m. - Petition No. 400-01-47, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
requesting to amend Chapter 21A.24.010G - Residential Flag Lot Standards and Section 21A.54.150E-
Planned Development Standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. (Staff: Ray McCandless at 535-
7282)
c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m. —Petition No. 400-01-04, by Joan and Ryan Williams, requesting to close a
portion of March Street(2955 West) between 500-570 South; and to declare the subject portion of the street as
surplus property. The requested action will facilitate current and future commercial redevelopment of the two
abutting properties (Williams property and Turner Gas Co.) and for security of the abutting business owners.
(Staff: Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354)
d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m. - Petition No. 400-01-48, a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a
Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition No. 400-01-12, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning, between 200 and
900 East. (Staff: Doug Dansie at 535-6182) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED
e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:30 p.m. -Petition No. 400-01-45, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission to amend the zoning district map so that all of the parcel at 1321 South 500 East Street is zoned
CN Neighborhood Commercial. The rear 60'of the parcel is presently zoned R-1-5000. (Staff: Everett Joyce
at 535-7930)
f. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:55 p.m. - Petition No.400-01-49, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting that
Salt Lake City adopt an ordinance that grants the Mayor authority to approve temporary uses relating to the
2002 Winter Olympic Games,which are not currently allowed by existing ordinances.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
a. The Woodbury Corporation is requesting an extension of time for petition number 410-458, which granted
approval for the renovation and expansion of the Redman building, located at 1240 East 2100 South in the
Sugar House Business District. The Commission granted planned development approval for residential
condominium ownership and subdivision approval on October 19, 2000. (Staff: Melissa Anderson at 535-6184)
Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to
a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the City 24 hours in advance of
the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR
REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR
AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111
TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174
STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Proposed Amendments to:
Section 21A.24.010G - Residential Flag Lot Standards and
Section 21A.54.150E - Planned Development Standards
of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
Petition: 400-01-47
October 4, 2001
REQUEST
Petition Number 400-01-47 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend
Chapter 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot Standards) and Section 21A.54.150E (Planned
Development Standards) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL REVIEW
Two letters were sent to the Community Council Chairpersons requesting input regarding
flag lots and planned developments. The first letter, which was sent on February 6, 2001,
requested general comments from the Community Councils. The second letter included a
draft ordinance detailing proposed changes as recommended by the Planning
Commission's Flag Lot Subcommittee. The draft ordinance was mailed August 7, 2001 to
the Community Council Chairpersons. No comments regarding the draft ordinance have
been received to date.
GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Applicant: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Purpose of proposal and
proposed amendment: Improve neighborhood compatibility of flag lots and
planned developments
Previous Case Files: N/A
Existing Zoning and
Overlay Districts: N/A
Existing Master Plan
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 1 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
Policies: Although there are a number general master plan policies
relating to infill development and neighborhood
compatibility, there are none specific to flag lot
development.
Affected areas and
parcel numbers: City wide -Residential flag lots and planned developments
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
Several areas of the City, particularly in the West Salt Lake and Sugar House
communities, contain a number of narrow and deep parcels that may be suitable for flag
lot or infill development. Each year, the City receives a few, but steady number of
requests to create flag lots and planned developments that have, at times, been
controversial. Issues that have been raised include:
• Proximity of a new structure to existing rear yards creating a privacy concern.
• Disruption of neighborhood character by building a house behind a house instead
of fronting onto a street.
• Height of the new building in relation to existing buildings.
• Setbacks of the new building from adjoining property.
• Orientation of multi-family dwelling units front and rear yard space relative to the
overall site (private rear yard patio areas adjacent to site side yard).
Some time ago, the Sugar House Community Council requested that the City re-examine
its Flag Lot and Planned Development Ordinances to address these issues.
In response to their request, the Planning Commission created a subcommittee which met
several times to review the ordinances as they relate to these issues. A draft ordinance
was prepared by the Planning Staff and was reviewed by the subcommittee. The proposed
revisions include:
• Increasing the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate fire-fighting
equipment.
• Requiring a 4-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines to provide
separation between driveways and adjoining property.
• Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the rear yard
setback allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots.
• Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again giving
more privacy and building separation.
• Requiring Panning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in the rear
yard that require a building permit.
• Clarification of existing language.
A copy of the draft ordinance is included with this Report.
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 2 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT
21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Discussion: The Planning Staff does not feel prohibiting flag lots altogether is an
acceptable alternative given there are numerous places in the City where
compatible infill housing could be created by flag lot development. Infill
development is supported by master plan policies.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character
of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Discussion: Whether a proposed development is harmonious with the overall
character of an area is determined by the Planning Commission through the
conditional use process. Both residential flag lots and planned development
proposals require conditional use review and approval. The proposed revisions to
the flag lot and planned development ordinances increase the compatibility of a
site by increasing required side yard setbacks for two story structures and
requiring garages to be built in the buildable area of the lot, away from side and
rear yard property lines.
Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of
existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent
properties.
Discussion: The proposed amendment will improve site and neighborhood
compatibility.
Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Discussion: This standard does not apply.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the
applicable overlay zoning districts.
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 3 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject
property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,
water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Discussion: This standard does not apply.
Findings: This standard does not apply.
The proposed changes to the ordinance address many of the issues raised from previous
development proposals and by the Sugar House Community Council, while at the same
time, preserving the option for allowing flag lot developments where appropriate.
Residential flag lot and planned development approval is ultimately the decision of the
Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the
City Council to approve the proposed revisions as submitted with this Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Ray McCandless
Principal Planner
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 4 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
7!"••
s:‘,....„.• ...
20 .,. .
.,....-,
....
,,-,•
:'.•,. i,/ // / // // / 1 1
1 — Story Structure
.• :-.-
A m
7 . 3 I zle- z if)pp • ••• y- -
,0
,„„
\„ /
/
/ 2 - Story Structure
/
2
,,-•.' / 7
"-:-,'*'
•'-,' , 7// //
. / /
,,,,,,
4' an Yard
2 p,....: //// /, , // ..,_,,,
•\,.. /// // /// / . ,'• 102
‘.,..
„. / /0 / / /////
., :,. / . ,..„
: , // // / // -•-<,N
, , / // / / -,•' •
:',•;-.; //-/ / / z
,
\\--,
L // / A -,..•.•
,.... .,
's.`,..
20 \:-:.:,•;
.\\\
...:-.:
‘,.\:„: •,,,,, ,
...
s ...
:•\‘: ,:‘,...N-,
.',-;: ,-* FLAG LOT EXAMPLE
s. - -
.. ..
16 ,:,:\.• R-1-5000
,,.,:...
\ ,...,
,.„
„..
::.::: •,-...-:•::.
...-: ..
. \\.
5000 Sq. Ft. Minimum 100
„,...
.: ,.: Lot Area
. •,.,,
.; :.: .....,„..„
•s:. :. ..
-:\,.. .„....,.
. „...
, ... \,,,..
111
„:V-----24 -.',',...
:- , 50
.:::.•,,.. Ns,,,,,
.. :,.,'
I 74 1
.,
Proposed Ordinance
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 5 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
Draft,July 31,2001
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FLAG LOT STANDARDS
Chapter 21A.24.010
G. Flag Lots In Residential Districts: Flag lots are a permitted use only as part of a new
subdivision in the FP, FR-1,FR-2 and FR-3 Districts. Flag lots in all other residential districts,
unless being approved through the planned development process,may be allowed as a conditional
use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title,provided that the Planning Commission
finds the flag lot proposal to be compatible with the existing pattern of property development of
the surrounding area.The Planning Commission shall also make findings on the standards listed
in subsections 21 A.24.010G 1 through G 10 below:
1. In residential districts other than new subdivisions in the FP,FR-1,FR-2,FR-3 Districts,flag
lots shall be approved only when one flag lot is proposed at the rear of an existing lot,unless
being approved through the planned development process;
2.Flag lots shall be used exclusively to provide lots for single-family residential dwellings;
3.All lot and yard requir?ments applicable to flag lots shall apply to the main body of the flag lot.
For flag lots,the front yard shall begin at the point where the access strip joins the main body of
the lot;
4. Except for the special provisions contained in this subsection G,the creation of a flag lot shall
not result in a violation of required lot area, lot width,yards or other applicable provisions of this
Title;
5. Flag lots shall have a minimum lot depth of one hundred feet(100')measured from the point
where the access strip joins the main body of the lot;
S.Language added for clarification.
6.The flag lot access strip shall have minimum of twenty fcct(20')twenty four feet(24')of
frontage on a public street.No portion of the flag lot access strip shall measure less than twenty
fcct(20')twenty four feet(24')in width between the buildab'c area ofthc lot and the street
right-of-way line and main body of the lot.A minimum sixteen (16')wide hard-surfaced
driveway shall be provided along the entire length of the access strip.A four foot(4')
minimum landscape yard shall be provided on each side of the access strip driveway.
(see illustration in Part VI,Chapter 21A.62 of this Title).
6. This section is modified to provide better access for fire fighting equipment. The proposed
change increases the minimum required access strip width from 20 to 24 feet. This allows for a
16 foot wide paved driveway instead of a 12 foot driveway as currently required. Four feet of
landscaping on each side of the driveway is required.
1
Draft,July 31,2001
7. Flag lots,including the access strip, shall be held in fee simple ownership;
8.The minimum lot area of a flag lot shall not be less than 1.5 times the minimum lot area of the
applicable district.The lot area calculation excludes the lot access strip;
8. Language added for clarification.
shall not be less than ten feet(10'); and The minimum required side yard for a single story
building on a flag lot is ten feet(10'). If any portion of the structure exceeds one story in
height,all side yard setbacks shall meet the required rear yard setback of the underlying
zoning district.The Planning Commission may increase the side or rear yard setback where
there is a topographic change between lots.
9. One story buildings can be built within 10 feet of the side property line. Two story structures
must be set back the required rear yard setback. The Planning Commission can modify the side
or rear yard difference where there is a change in elevation from one lot to another to minimize
impacts to adjoining uses.
10.Both the flag lot and any remnant property All-lets resulting from the creation of a flag lot
(including existing buildings and structures)shall have-a-let-width-not4ess-than-the-ntinimum
let-width-of the-appliefible-distriet-antl-sliall-be-measured-at-the-front-yard-setlaaek-line-:meet the
minimum lot area,width,frontage,setback,parking and all other applicable zoning
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10. Language added for clarification. Both lots created by the flag lot must comply with all
zoning requirements.
11.In addition to any other provisions that may apply,the creation of a flag lot is considered a
subdivision and shall be subject to applicable subdivision regulations and processes.
12 Any garage,whether attached to or detached from the main building,shall be located in
the buildable area of the lot.
12. Garages are considered accessory structures and can now be built in the rear yard within one
foot of the side or rear property line. This revision would require all garages to be located in the
buildable area of the lot, at least 10 feet from any side property line and at least 15 feet from any
rear property line.
2
Draft,July 31,2001
13.Accessory buildings other than garages may be located in the rear yard area,however,
Planning Commission approval is required for any accessory building that requires a
building permit.
13. Small gardening sheds etc. can be located in the rear yard, however if the structure requires a
building permit,(usually exceeding 120 sq.ft)Planning Commission approval is required.
14.A four foot wide landscaped strip is required along both side property lines from the
front to rear lot lines.
14. This requirement keeps driveways at least 4 feet from the side property line.
15.Reflective house numbers shall be posted at the front of the access strip.
3
Draft,July 31,2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
21A.54.150 Planned developments
E.Other Standards:
1. Minimum Area: A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single
ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district as set forth in
Table 21A.54.150 of this Section.
2. Density Limitations: Residential planned developments shall not exceed the density limitation
of the zoning district where the planned development is proposed. The calculation of planned
development density may include open space that is provided as an amenity to the planned
development. Public or private roadways located within or adjacent to a planned development,
shall not be included in the planned development area for the purpose of calculating density.
District
Minimum Planned Development Size
Residential Districts
FR-1/43,500 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres
FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres
FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres
R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres
R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet
R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet
SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential 9,000 square feet
SR-2 Special Development Pattern Residential Reserved
SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
R-2 Single-and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential 20,000 square feet
RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet
RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet
RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet
RMU Residential/Mixed Use 20,000 square feet
Commercial Districts
CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet
CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet
CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet
CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet
CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet
CG General Commercial District 1 acre
Manufacturing Districts
M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres
1
Draft,July 31,2001
M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres
Downtown Districts
D-1 Central Business District 2 acres
D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres
D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre
Special Purpose Districts
RP Research Park District 10 acres
BP Business Park District 10 acres
FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres
AG Agricultural District 10 acres
A Airport District 2 acres
PL Public Lands District 5 acres
I Institutional District 5 acres
UI Urban Institutional District 1 acre
OS Open Space District 2 acres
MH Mobile Home District 10 acres
EI Extractive Industries District 10 acres
3. Consideration Of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication:A residential planned development
application may include a request to dedicate the street to Salt Lake City for perpetual use by the
public.The request will be reviewed and evaluated individually by appropriate departments,
including transportation,engineering,public utilities,public services and fire. Each department
reviewer will consider the adequacy of the design and physical improvements proposed by the
developer and will make recommendation for approval or describe required changes.A synopsis
will be incorporated into the staff report for review and decision by the Planning Commission.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,no such street will be accepted as a publicly owned street unless
there is a minimum width of twenty feet(20')of pavement with an additional right of way as
determined by the Planning Commission.
4.The perimeter side and rear yard building setback shall be the greater of the required
setbacks of the lot or adjoining lot unless modified by the Planning Commission.
4. Side and rear yard setbacks must be at least as great as the side yards of the adjoining
property.
5. The Planning Commission may increase or decrease the side or rear yard setback where
there is a topographic change between lots.
F.Preapplication Conference: Prior to submitting a planned development application, an
applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference with the Planning Director and the
development review team(DRT).A member of the Planning Commission and the City Council
member of the district in which the proposed planned development is located may be invited to
attend the preapplication conference.Representatives of other City depai tnients and decision-
making bodies may also be present,where appropriate.
2
Letters to and Responses
From Community Councils
Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-47 6 October 4,2001
by Salt Lake City Planning Division
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ..,.\ �.S`aJ ' I (�J� S�.�OI ROSS C.ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Salt Lake City Community Council Chairpersons
From: Ray McCandless, Salt Lake City Planning
Re: Flag Lots and Planned Developments
Date: February 6,2001
At the request of the Sugar House Community Council,a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission has been convened to re-examine the City's Flag Lot and Planned Development
conditional use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.The Sugar House Community Council has
received several petitions to create residential flag lots(lot behind a lot)in their community
resulting in concerns about impacts to neighborhood character and privacy.
The Planning Commission subcommittee has been asked to look at the current ordinances to
determine if any changes need to be made and has asked that the Community Councils be
contacted to help identify any issues or concerns associated with these two types of development.
Examples of issues that have been raised include:
1.Proximity of a new structure to existing rear yards creating a privacy concern.
2.Disruption of neighborhood character by building a house behind a house instead of fronting
onto a street.
3.Height of the new building in relation to existing buildings.
4. Setbacks of the new building from adjoining property.
5.Minimum lot area requirements for a planned development.
6. Orientation of multi-family dwelling units front and rear yard space relative to the overall site
(private rear yard patio areas adjacent to site side yard).
The subcommittee would like to complete this process within 90 days if possible.As we are on a
short timeline,your written comments by February 23,2001 would be appreciated.
Please send your comments to:
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Attn.Mr.Ray McCandless
451 South State Street,Room 406
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
e-mail:ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us
Thank you.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE:501-535-7757 FAX:B01-535-6174
RA
SHMP Advisory Committee Meeting
Notes on the Residential Chapter
January 31, 2001
Issues related to Flag Lots and Planned Developments:
➢ Private streets and lack of maintenance.
➢ PD's, No sidewalks and prefer sidewalks; prefer dedicated public streets and the "skinny
street"ordinance helps us to provide that.
➢ People like big lots because no rear neighbor.
➢ There is a conflict in pushing for open space while trying to increase housing.
➢ Flag lot development conflicts with maintaining open space; the City is trying to preserve
open space with trailways and at the same time is trying to take away the little bit of open
space remaining in neighborhoods by building flag lots. This seems like a contradiction.
➢ Flag lots should be divided off similar to the alley vacation process where the abutting
property owners maintain their own portion. Private ownership helps assure maintenance of
the property.
➢ The closure of the alley at 1700 South and 1200 East the abutting property owners gain.
➢ There is a lack of park space (see 1980 M.P.). Are we currently meeting demand?
➢ Sugar House if overbuilt. Might have to loose some housing stock to get local usable open
space.
➢ Should explore mechanisms to absorb open land similar to a "community block"purpose.
o Could use the interior land area for community gardens or mini parks if combine
the interior lot area.
o Should provide City incentives to allow residents to purchase the open land and
preserve the neighborhood character by maintaining the open space.
o Need a mechanism to turn land over to the community for block use,maybe even
the interior area owned by a neighborhood association and fee helps maintain the
interior land area. Can use the open space for parks or gardens.
➢ Deep lots and the value of land provide an incentive for developers to build larger homes
and this may be an alternative to the flag lot.
➢ Typical scenario of the flag lot development is the front owner builds rear lot with a new
house and then sells both lots. Then the small front lot deteriorates and the front house is
not maintained well.
➢ Scale of new house on the flag lot is an issue if it is a lot larger than the surrounding
development.
➢ Privacy is also an issue when the new house looms over the surrounding houses.
➢ Important to have compatibility of new house with existing neighborhood houses.
➢ What protection is there for private property owners of flag lot owner when abutting
residents want a flag lot.
➢ PD needs more than one access, especially pedestrian access. Traffic circulation and
connectivity to existing street system is very important.
➢ See page 1: Sugar House housing stock is generally in good condition and so we should
not allow PDs in single-family neighborhoods. Put PDs in higher density zones.
➢ Don't want PDs because it encourages assemblage of property simply for the purpose of
speculation and the typical pattern is that the land deteriorates and becomes run down
before the new develop occurs.
➢ Existing PD above the Country Club called Wilshire Circle, the lot is large enough for good
PD. Envision Utah ideas are good on large open "agricultural land". The shared open space
of a PD only works if the parcel is large enough.
1
Mr. Ray McCandless
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State Street,Room 406
Salt Lake City,_UT 84111
March 8, 2001
Dear Mr. McCandless,
Thank you for contacting the East Central Community Council regarding the Planning
Commission's subcommittee on flag lots. Although our community council has not
experienced petitions for flag lot__development,we Mohave_a historic pattern of development
which we believe,relevant for the subcommittee's consideration.
East Central has several examples of structures that developed on the same lot.Following is
a brief survey:
24 S 1000E
138-136 S 900E and 140-134 S 900 E
840-842 E 100 S
836-838 E 100 S
235-237 S 900 E and 233 S 900 E(accessed off Pennsylvania Place)
59-61 S 900 E
315 S 1300 E with duplex in rear
327 S 1300 E with duplex in rear
1228-1234 E 600 S
We think that these historic properties in the Bryant,University,and Douglas neighborhoods
offer some good lessons for the development of a policy regarding flag lots. In all cases
listed above,the two residential structures are oriented to the main street and share a
common driveway or off-street access. None of the properties interestingly enough are on
corner lots,but this would seem to be the only situation where separate driveways would be
appropriate. In all cases,the structure closest to the major street is larger(24 S 1000 E and
1228-1234 E 600 S)or the two structures are approximately the same size. In none of the
cases we identified was the rear structure significantly larger than the structure fronting the
major street.
The problems which have affected East Central with incompatible in-fill development are
very likely to occur in the development of flag lots. We hear from residents in Sugar House
and Yalecrest neighborhoods that this incompatible in-fill housing has become an issue for
them as well. We urge you to consider the compatibility review process outlined in the
1984 East Central Community Master Plan and the work done by a subcommittee of
the Planning Commission several years ago on the subject.
The issue was discussed during the East Central Community Council's Board meeting on
February 28, and one of the suggestions was to make certain that neighbors had an
opportunity to participate in the approval process.
Sincerely,
East Central Community Council Executive Board
Chair,Julia Robertson, 583-5663
Vice Chair,Penny Archibald-Stone, 583-2439
Past Chair,Mark Bunce, 531-8584
Secretary,Kathy Scott,322-5288
Treasurer,Fran.Schwab,581-9643
Land Use Advisory Group, Cindy Cromer,355-4115
Neighborhood Representatives:
Bennion,John Anderson,364-6086
Bryant,Maha Barran,364-2114
Douglas,Cathey Dunn,582-6804 Tun Lunbeck, 581-9060
East Liberty,Margaret Brady, 521-8377
Eme .-Christine Driscoll, 483-150
Garden Park,Terri Winkler, 581-9192
University, nis Guy-Sell,582-0383
Committees:
Community Gr-owth.and Maintenance Committee,J)ebora Wrathall,363-3317
Moving People Committee, Creed Haymond, 583-8510
cc:
Robert Glessner,Salt Lake City Planning Department
Helen Peters,Sugar-House Community Council
Nancy Saxton,Salt Lake District 4 Council Member
Roger Thompson,Salt Lake District 5 Council Member
SALT` IA\ �€GjpYr .ORP: IA110N
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH - �� �� ..sc� �, � a.�9ar ROSS C.ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
PLANNING DIVISION
BRENT B. WILDE
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Salt Lake City Community Council Chairpersons
From: Ray McCandless, Principal Plannef1 itN
Re: Revisions to Flag Lot/Planned Development Ordinances
Date: August 7,2001
At the request of the Sugar House Community Council, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
created a subcommittee to re-examine the City's Flag Lot and Planned Development Ordinances.
In the last year, several petitions to create residential flag lots have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission which have resulted in concerns about impacts to neighborhood character and
privacy for existing residents.
The Planning Commission's subcommittee has reviewed the ordinance and is proposing the
modifications as shown in the attached draft ordinance.Proposed changes include:
• Increasing the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate fire-fighting equipment.
• Requiring a 4 foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines to provide
separation between driveways and adjoining property.
• Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the rear yard setback
allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining lots.
• Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot, again giving more
privacy and building separation.
• Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings in the rear yard
that require a building permit.
We will be forwarding the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission in the near future. If you
have any comments,please send them to me at:
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Attn. Mr. Ray McCandless
451 South State Street,Room 406
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
Phone:535-7282
e-mail:ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us
Thank you.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174
Is
`) RECYCLED PAPER
‘‘•;:l .....r..
.,.
••
,:..* 20
:•.,.,:,
_s,•-: •••••,..„
\--N
r——-1
t
t i
i
1 1 — Story Structure
L.. 1
A
7 o I -:,* i000•0•• m N‘. .. : , ....
-•,. 2 - Story Structure
7/1/// .•.W.
102 4' Landscaped Yard
2 ...
-:-,-.,-
--,, ,- •
,•;‘,.
•
:,,:\•; .\'• -,,.
,:, ••
\'•,,,, - :
/ , \
:' ,.•
•,, ., L J
1 :•.
• ,
k•';: ,,..: \
••N
\‘:
20
>,:•., •\, .
•
FLAG LOT EXAMPLE
..-.<
.....,
: .:. 16--,,\ R-1-5000
, N
*- . •, ioo
5000 Sq. Ft. Minimum
.:„..
' ',•- &: .,
Lot Area
„N..,
.,.N
. .,
_•.:. -.N.
.N..‘,.
.:•:-..
...
;.::. :.‘,..,...
.,..,.,:,
:, .-.
••\,
.\..,„
:•\ 24 L.
50
•
..,,,,•:,
74 I
Draft,July 31,2001
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FLAG LOT STANDARDS
Chapter 21A.24.010
G. Flag Lots In Residential Districts: Flag lots are a permitted use only as part of a new
subdivision in the FP,FR-1,FR-2 and FR-3 Districts. Flag lots in all other residential districts,
unless being approved through the planned development process,may be allowed as a conditional
use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, provided that the Planning Commission
finds the flag lot proposal to be compatible with the existing pattern of property development of
the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall also make findings on the standards listed
in subsections 21A.24.010G1 through G10 below:
1. In residential districts other than new subdivisions in the FP, FR-1,FR-2,FR-3 Districts, flag
lots shall be approved only when one flag lot is proposed at the rear of an existing lot,unless
being approved through the planned development process;
2. Flag lots shall be used exclusively to provide lots for single-family residential dwellings;
3.All lot and yard requirements applicable to flag lots shall apply to the main body of the flag lot.
For flag lots,the front yard shall begin at the point where the access strip joins the main body of
the lot;
4. Except for the special provisions contained in this subsection G, the creation of a flag lot shall
not result in a violation of required lot area, lot width,yards or other applicable provisions of this
Title;
5. Flag lots shall have a minimum lot depth of one hundred feet(100')measured from the point
where the access strip joins the main body of the lot;
5.Language added for clarification.
6. The flag lot access strip shall have minimum of twenty feet(20')twenty four feet(24')of
frontage on a public street.No portion of the flag lot access strip shall measure less than twenty
feet(20')twenty four feet(24')in width between the buildable arca of the lot and the street
right-of-way line and main body of the lot. A minimum sixteen (16')wide hard-surfaced
driveway shall be provided along the entire length of the access strip.A four foot(4')
minimum landscape yard shall be provided on both-sides each side of the access strip driveway.
(see illustration in Part VI,Chapter 21A.62 of this Title).
6. This section is modified to provide better access for fire fighting equipment. The proposed
change increases the minimum required access strip width from 20 to 24 feet. This allows for a
16 foot wide paved driveway instead of a 12 foot driveway as currently required. Four feet of
landscaping on each side of the driveway is required.
1
Draft,July 31,2001
7. Flag lots, including the access strip, shall be held in fee simple ownership;
8. The minimum lot area of a flag lot shall not be less than 1.5 times the minimum lot area of the
applicable district.The lot area calculation excludes the lot access strip;
8. Language added for clarification.
shall not be less than ten feet(10'); and The minimum required side yard for a single story
building on a flag lot is ten feet (10'). If any portion of the structure exceeds one story in
height, all side yard setbacks shall meet the required rear yard setback of the underlying
zoning district.The Planning Commission may increase the side or rear yard setback where
there is a topographic change between lots.
9. One story buildings can be built within 10 feet of the side property line. Two story structures
must be set back the required rear yard setback. The Planning Commission can modify the side
or rear yard difference where there is a change in elevation from one lot to another to minimize
impacts to adjoining uses.
10. Both the flag lot and any remnant property All lots resulting from the creation of a flag lot
(including existing buildings and structures)shall haw-a-lot-witIth-net-less-thati-the-minimum
meet the
minimum lot area,width,frontage,setback,parking and all other applicable zoning
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10.Language added for clarification.Both lots created by the flag lot must comply with all
zoning requirements.
11. In addition to any other provisions that may apply,the creation of a flag lot is considered a
subdivision and shall be subject to applicable subdivision regulations and processes.
12 Any garage,whether attached to or detached from the main building,shall be located in
the buildable area of the lot.
12. Garages are considered accessory structures and can now be built in the rear yard within one
foot of the side or rear property line. This revision would require all garages to be located in the
buildable area of the lot, at least 10 feet from any side property line and at least 15 feet from any
rear property line.
2
Draft,July 31,2001
13.Accessory buildings other than garages may be located in the rear yard area,however,
Planning Commission approval is required for any accessory building that requires a
building permit.
13. Small gardening sheds etc. can be located in the rear yard, however if the structure requires a
building permit,(usually exceeding 120 sq.ft)Planning Commission approval is required.
14.A four foot wide landscaped strip is required along both side property lines from the
front to rear lot lines.
14. This requirement keeps driveways at least 4 feet from the side property line.
15.Reflective house numbers shall be posted at the front of the access strip.
3 .
Draft,July 31,2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
21A.54.150 Planned developments
E.Other Standards:
1. Minimum Area: A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single
ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district as set forth in
Table 21A.54.150 of this Section.
2. Density Limitations:Residential planned developments shall not exceed the density limitation
of the zoning district where the planned development is proposed. The calculation of planned
development density may include open space that is provided as an amenity to the planned
development.Public or private roadways located within or adjacent to a planned development,
shall not be included in the planned development area for the purpose of calculating density.
District
Minimum Planned Development Size
Residential Districts
FR-1/43,500 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres
FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres
FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres
R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres
R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet
R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet
SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential 9,000 square feet
SR-2 Special Development Pattern Residential Reserved
SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet
RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential 20,000 square feet
RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet
RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet
RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet
RMU Residential/Mixed Use 20,000 square feet
Commercial Districts
CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet
CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet
CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet
CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet
CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet
CG General Commercial District 1 acre
Manufacturing Districts
M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres
1
Draft,July 31,2001
M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres
Downtown Districts
D-1 Central Business District 2 acres
D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres
D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre
Special Purpose Districts
RP Research Park District 10 acres
BP Business Park District 10 acres
FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres
AG Agricultural District 10 acres
A Airport District 2 acres
PL Public Lands District 5 acres
I Institutional District 5 acres
UI Urban Institutional District 1 acre
OS Open Space District 2 acres
MH Mobile Home District 10 acres
EI Extractive Industries District 10 acres
3. Consideration Of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication: A residential planned development
application may include a request to dedicate the street to Salt Lake City for perpetual use by the
public.The request will be reviewed and evaluated individually by appropriate departments,
including transportation, engineering,public utilities,public services and fire. Each department
reviewer will consider the adequacy of the design and physical improvements proposed by the
developer and will make recommendation for approval or describe required changes. A synopsis
will be incorporated into the staff report for review and decision by the Planning Commission.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,no such street will be accepted as a publicly owned street unless
there is a minimum width of twenty feet(20') of pavement with an additional right of way as
determined by the Planning Commission.
4.The perimeter side aad rear yard building setback shall be the greater of the required
setbacks of the lot or adjoining lot unless modified by the Planning Commission.
4. Side and rear yard setbacks must be at least as great as the side yards of the adjoining
property.
5.The Planning Commission may increase or decrease the side or rear yard setback where
there is a topographic change between lots.
F.Preapplication Conference: Prior to submitting a planned development application, an
applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference with the Planning Director and the
development review team(DRT).A member of the Planning Commission and the City Council
member of the district in which the proposed planned development is located may be invited to
attend the preapplication conference.Representatives of other City departments and decision-
making bodies may also be present,where appropriate.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Scenic Circle, and combining both lots into a single parcel of land, until staff analyzes
the revised plans and could be appropriately noticed. It was seconded by Ms. Short.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, and Ms. Short voted
"Aye". Mr. Mariger and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson did
not vote. The motion passed.
There was some discussion regarding the meeting where this could be reviewed. Mr.
Smith stated that it was the Planning Commission's desire to move this along as quickly
as possible.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion — Staff is requesting the establishment of a Planning Commission
subcommittee to consider changes to the Conditional Use Flag Lot and Residential
Planned Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the subcommittee needed to consist of three Planning
Commissioners who would agree to about a six-month period of time. He said that
there would also be representatives from community councils, particularly the Sugar
House Community Council, whose members have been vocal on this issue in the past.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Short volunteered to serve on the
subcommittee.
Consider a request by Nancy Saxton for an extension of time regarding Case No. 410-
316, requesting a conditional use to use the James Freeze House as a reception center
located at 734 East 200 South in a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district. Original
approval was granted July 9, 1998.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings
of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms.
Giraud said that this was the second request that the applicant had made to extend their
conditional use approval. She said that the conditional use approval was for a reception
center located in the historic "James Freeze House". Ms. Giraud said that the
applicants were requesting a nine-month extension to March 15, 2001 in order to
finalize their financial arrangements.
• Ms. Giraud gave a brief history of James Freeze, who was a significant person in early
Salt Lake City. She said that in looking at the conditions that are placed on having a
conditional use, the staff found that those conditions were met, also the impact the
project would have in the neighborhood would be very minimal.
Mr. Goldsmith said that he had a conversation with Ms. Saxton after her election to the
City Council, and he said that the complexities of getting the money incurred, as an
incoming new council member, was such that she had to put her "work on hold".
Ms. Short talked about the one extension that had already been approved.
Planning Commission Meeting 19 July 13,2000
Mr. Jonas asked if trailer parking was permitted in the zoning district.
Mr. Wilde stated trailer parking is not a permitted use in the MU zoning.
Mr. Nelson asked how often performances would be held on-site.
Ms. Ewers explained that performances and dress rehearsals would not be held
on-site as the necessary lighting and rigging are not available in the building.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jonas explained the Planning Commission wrote the amendment to the
ordinance based on this project of the Utah Opera.
Motion for Case #410-554:
Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact to approve Petition No.
410-554, by Pace Pollard Architects, representing the Utah Opera Company,
requesting a conditional use for additional building height of up to three stories or
forty-five feet for an addition to their production studios at 336 North 400 West.
Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald,
Mr. Chambless, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Boyden and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye".
Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
ft..> PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-47, by the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission, requesting to amend Chapter 21A.24.010G - Residential Flag Lot
Standards and Section 21A.54.150E - Planned Development Standards of the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jonas, as a member of the subcommittee, presented the staff report.
Several areas of the City, particularly in the West Salt Lake and Sugar House
communities, contain a number of narrow and deep parcels that may be suitable
for flag lot or infill development. Each year, the City receives a few, but steady
number of requests to create flag lots and planned developments that have, at
times, been controversial. The Planning Commission created a subcommittee,
which met several times to review the ordinances. A draft ordinance was
prepared by the Planning Staff and was reviewed by the subcommittee. The
proposed revisions include:
• Increasing the access strip from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate fire-
fighting equipment.
• Requiring a 4-foot wide landscaped strip along both side property lines
to provide separation between driveways and adjoining property.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 4,2001
• Increasing the required side yards for a two-story structure to equal the
rear yard setback allowing more privacy and distance from adjoining
lots.
• Requiring all garages to be located in the buildable area of the lot,
again giving more privacy and building separation.
• Requiring Planning Commission approval for any accessory buildings
in the rear yard that require a building permit.
• Clarification of existing language.
Ms. McDonald asked if a 24-foot driveway was typical for a flag lot.
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the old standard was a 20-foot driveway, with a
minimum of 4 feet landscaping on each side. That gave only 12 feet of paved
access. The Fire Department asked this to be increased to 24 feet, so there
would be a minimum of 16 feet of paved access. This would allow 2-way traffic.
Ms. Barrows was concerned that a petitioner would have to have a hearing
before the Planning Commission if an accessory building other than a garage
was to be built in the rear yard area.
Mr. Wheelwright explained the petitioner would have to have a hearing before the
Planning Commission to have a flag lot approved. Any accessory buildings, etc
would be included in the hearing. If an accessory building were not included in
the original petition, it would have to be approved by the Planning Commission
before it could be built.
Mr. Jonas explained that there could be circumstances where an accessory
building would not be an impact on the neighbors, and it would make sense to
allow an accessory building built on the flag lot.
Ms. Barrows asked why reflective house numbers should be posted on the front
of the access strip.
Mr. Jonas explained that emergency vehicles needed to be able to easily identify
all house numbers for easy access. An emergency vehicle could easily miss a
flag lot if a reflective house number was not posted on front of the access strip.
Mr. Wheelwright explained the reflective house number could be placed on the
mailbox.
Mr. Jonas explained this was requested by the Fire Department.
Mr. Chambless asked if this would be the parameter that would apply to flag lots
in the foothill-zoning district.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 4,2001
Mr. Wheelwright explained that the foothill-zoning district has a special provision
that allows flag lots to be created within its original subdivision. The City
encourages flag lots in the foothills as it has less street and grading impact.
Mr. Muir stated it would be very difficult to drive inside an attached garage with a
20-foot setback. He felt it would require a greater amount of concrete to
maneuver and would cutback on the landscaping.
Mr. Wheelwright explained any accessory buildings could only be built in the rear
yard.
Mr. Nelson asked if a one-story garage could be built within 10 feet of the
setback, and then a two-story building could be built behind it.
Mr. Jonas doesn't believe that's correct.
Ms. Arnold explained that the intent is to not allow a mammoth house on a small
parcel of land.
Mr. Wilde explained that a large home built on small flag lots has been a problem
in the past. A two-story home built on a flag lot, must have 20-foot side yards.
Mr. Boyden congratulated the subcommittee for the hard work they did on the
ordinance.
Mr. Wheelwright explained minimal changes were made to the planned
development section.
Ms. Barrows asked if the subcommittee gave the Planning Commission the
option to decrease side yards.
Mr. Jonas explained the topography is an important factor. If a flag lot
development is in a residential area, the subcommittee requires a larger setback.
If the topography makes a larger setback unnecessary, the subcommittee
wanted the Planning Commission to have the ability to approve a lesser setback.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to modify
any standard within a planned development. He explained the subcommittee
spent 60 or 70 percent of their time looking at approved projects to see what they
could learn from them, and then incorporate their findings into the amended
ordinance. He stated the subcommittee wanted to make flag lots more
compatible with the neighborhood and at the same time allow enough flexibility to
allow flag lots to occur.
Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 4,2001
Samantha Francis, People's Freeway Community Council Chair, is concerned
that there are not enough Community Council Chairs attending the meeting with
the Mayor. Therefore, not many of the Community Councils are aware of
amendments to the ordinances. She stated that the amended ordinance makes
some existing flag lots non-conforming. She asked what would happen if an
existing home, that doesn't meet the amended flag lot requirements, burnt down.
She asked if that home could be rebuilt if it cannot meet the amended
requirements. She asked if the flag lot would be grand-fathered. She asked the
Planning Commission to make an allowance so the existing flag lots can be
rebuilt if the house got burnt down.
Mr. Wilde explained that a home that was damaged with an excess of 75% of the
value of the structure, would have to rebuild in conformance with the new
standard. He stated that in the past, where a home has been destroyed by fire,
the City has been quite lenient if it is a single-family dwelling.
Ms. Arnold explained that this is an issue for every building owner. She stated
there cannot be exceptions for flag lots.
Bonnie Mangold, trustee for Capitol Hill Community Council, stated the
amendments are an improvement and will ease some of the issues that residents
have who want to develop flag lots. She is concerned about the possibility of
decreasing the setbacks because of the topographical changes.
Peter Violette, property owner, stated he has property that he would like to
develop into a flag lot. He has an existing 100-year old house that is next to the
potential flag lot development. The problem is, the side yard of the existing home
is too small if he develops the flag lot.
Mr. Wheelwright explained he would have to demolish the existing home before
he could develop the flag lot.
Mr. Wilde explained that the City is sympathetic to Mr. Violette's concerns. The
City has continually had problems with flag lot standards and feels that if ways
are made to circumvent standards, it could cause problems. He felt that staff
needs to adhere to the standards. He doesn't believe it's appropriate to make
amendments to meet every potential flag lot development.
Mr. Jonas felt the public does not want the flag lot standards made too easy.
John Francis, member of the People's Freeway Community Council, asked if
there were two story houses on both sides of a flag lot, could the flag lot side
yard be reduced to the neighbor standard of ten feet instead of twenty feet. He
suggested flag lots should be presented to the Development Review Team
(DRT) to `tweak' the house to fit the lot under the current standards, ie., rotating
the house, using angles and windows that don't overlook certain areas of
Planning Commission Meetng 6 October 4,2001
backyards. He felt that not being able to build garages one foot from the property
line is unfair to the new property owner. He felt that a one-story garage would
not impact a neighbor.
Ms. Barrows asked if a DRT was required on a permitted process.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the DRT looks at most projects that have building
permits issued. Planned developments are reviewed by the DRT to determine
the zoning requirements.
Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing.
Members of the Planning Commission felt that the subcommittee and staff did a
great job reviewing and writing this amendment.
Motion for Case #400-01-47:
Ms. McDonald made a motion based on the finds of fact to forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed revisions for
Petition No. 400-01-47, to amend Chapter 21A.24.010G (Residential Flag Lot
Standards) and Section 21A.54.150E (Planned Development Standards) of the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald, Mr.
Chambless, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Boyden and Mr. Jonas voted "Aye". Mr.
Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING — Petition No. 400-01-04, by Joan and Ryan Williams,
requesting to close a portion of March Street (2955 West) between 500-570
South; and to declare the subject portion of the street as surplus property. The
requested action will facilitate current and future commercial redevelopment of
the two abutting properties (Williams property and Turner Gas Co.) and for
security of the abutting business owners.
Ms. Gasparik presented the staff report. This petition was reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2001. There was a possible
miss-communication as to whether third party rights are retained if a public street
is vacated. The Planning Commission needs to make the decision, whether or
not Mr. Evans' claim for continued use of the street, is sufficient to prevent the
approval of the street closure petition.
Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission.
Mark Harris, manager of Turner Gas, stated there has been a lot of vandalism on
his property. He believes closing the street will help to stop the vandalism.
March Street has no street lights. The only light that illuminates March Street is
Planning Commission Meeting 7 October 4,2001
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES
spiEr r C TY U) ►ION1
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ROSS C. ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING, DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will be reviewing Petition 400-01-47 relating to
proposed amendments to Sections 21A.24.010G (Residential Fla Lot Standards) and
21A.54.150E (Planned Development Standards)of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.A copy
of each ordinance outlining the proposed revisions was mailed to all Community Council
Chairpersons on August 7, 2001. The proposed revisions require review and approval by the
Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission will be holding a hearing to accept public comment on:
Date: Thursday,October 4, 2001
Time: 6:10 p.m.
Place: Room 126,City and County Building
451 South State Street
If you have any questions,please contact me at 535-7282.
Respectfully,
�►--�^1 M c(COAd
Ray McCandless
Principal Planner
We comply with all ADA Guidelines.Assistive listening devices and interpretive services
provided upon 24 hour advance notice.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-61 74
wEcrcLca.w.ew
•
NOTICE OF HEARING - - -
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State Street, Room 406
Salt Lake City UT 84111
T" 1 !
; •••;-
fte-Eivi 40 I c.oe
Otlieivid‘fir
4ni_
...nvv11.5r ■ccv.incw Ube teinindte WI )IOU"
Bruce Alder Ana Archuleta Jim Byrne
1835 South Lakeline Drive 204 East Herbert Avenue 912 Foothill Drive
Salt Lake City UT 84109-1413 Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1353
Dr.Alan Condie William Cooley Tim Dee
1375 Kristie Lane 1009 Tally Ho Avenue 1575 Devonshire Drive
Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2552
Doug Foxley Samantha Francis Katherine Gardner
1449 Devonshire Drive 70 Van Buren Avenue 606 Desoto Street
Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84115-5322 Salt Lake City UT 84103-2808
Lisette Gibson Dennis Guy-Sell Boris Kurz
1764 Hubbard Avenue 436 South 1200 East 1203 South 900 East
Salt Lake City UT 84108-1340 Salt Lake City Utah 84102 Salt Lake City Utah 84105
Howard McCosh Shawn McMillen Jeffrey Mullins
257 N Redwood Road,# 19 1855 South 2600 East 873 Woodruff Way
Salt Lake City Utah 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1459
lene Whitby Kadee Nielson Ray Pugsley
846 West 400 North 1410 Baroness Place 2171 Hannibal Street
Salt Lake City UT 84 1 1 6-3440 Salt Lake City UT 841 1 6-1 402 Salt Lake City Utah 84106
Ellen Reddick Richard Smiley Randy Sorenson
2177 Roosevelt Avenue 816- 16th Avenue 1184 South Redwood Dr4ive
Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City Utah 84103 Salt Lake City Utah 84104
Patrick Tan Paul Tayler Edie Trimmer
566 North Sir Michael Drive 1165 Oak Hills Way 246 South 1300 West
Salt Lake City UT 84116-1821 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2025 Salt Lake City Utah 84104
Chris Viavant Orson West Mike Zuhl
404 South 400 West 562 Downington Avenue 2676 Comanche Drive
Salt Lake City UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2809
alp Bowman 51.c ? A?Amur .
11,5 East Harrison Ana. RAy .y%q,npcOsS
Salt Lake City Utah 84105 4s 1 s. srAfF £ '`fad
5(.4_ took( 414ul
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
PETITION NO. 4/e0^6/ -4/7
PETITION CHECKLIST
Date Initials Action Required
Petition delivered to Planning
gip( _ Petition assigned to: Pal GU f( c([e-s.s
t i(4t ( . Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date
2.[Ida 6A. Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover
�xe it Chronology •
ALL t LA. Property Description (marked with a post it note)
Affected Sidwell Numbers Included
2.hcfoz, Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate
Community Councils
ziakt fatiA Mailing Postmark Date Verification
2/2 a2 et," Planning Commission Minutes.21111:1
t. 12,tv, Planning Staff Report
212416 z tett& Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief
•
description of what action the Planning Commission or
Staff is recommending.
2 aun Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office
tirl Ordinance property description is checked, dated and
initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by
Attorney.
TeAAi kl `(u.uot Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition
Date Set for City Council Action
Petition filed with City Recorder's Office
Scenic Circle, and combining both lots into a single parcel of land, until staff analyzes
the revised plans and could be appropriately noticed. It was seconded by Ms. Short.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, and Ms. Short voted
"Aye". Mr. Mariger and Mr. Snelgrove were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chairperson did
not vote. The motion passed.
There was some discussion regarding the meeting where this could be reviewed. Mr.
Smith stated that it was the Planning Commission's desire to move this along as quickly
as possible.
OTHER BUSINESS
also Discussion — Staff is requesting the establishment of a Planning Commission
subcommittee to consider changes to the Conditional Use Flag Lot and Residential
Planned Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the subcommittee needed to consist of three Planning
Commissioners who would agree to about a six-month period of time. He said that
there would also be representatives from community councils, particularly the Sugar
House Community Council, whose members have been vocal on this issue in the past.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, and Ms. Short volunteered to serve on the
subcommittee.
Consider a request by Nancy Saxton for an extension of time regarding Case No. 410-
316, requesting a conditional use to use the James Freeze House as a reception center
located at 734 East 200 South in a Residential "RMF-45" zoning district. Original
approval was granted July 9, 1998.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings
of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms.
Giraud said that this was the second request that the applicant had made to extend their
conditional use approval. She said that the conditional use approval was for a reception
center located in the historic "James Freeze House". Ms. Giraud said that the
applicants were requesting a nine-month extension to March 15, 2001 in order to
finalize their financial arrangements.
Ms. Giraud gave a brief history of James Freeze, who was a significant person in early
Salt Lake City. She said that in looking at the conditions that are placed on having a
conditional use, the staff found that those conditions were met, also the impact the
project would have in the neighborhood would be very minimal.
Mr. Goldsmith said that he had a conversation with Ms. Saxton after her election to the
City Council, and he said that the complexities of getting the money incurred, as an
incoming new council member, was such that she had to put her"work on hold".
Ms. Short talked about the one extension that had already been approved.
Planning Commission Meeting
19 July 13,2000
i REMARKS Petition a. 400-01-47
By Salt Lake City Planning Staff
Has been requested to initiate a
petition to amend Chapter 21A.24.01i
gesidential Flag Lot Standards)and
Section 21A.54.150 (Planned Develop
ments) of the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance
I I
i I
Dale Filed
Address
r^ ayG- TI YR. GOL °'�' II.LI
� • 4 �s � ROSS C. ANDERSON
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart DATE: September 12, 2002
Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Margaret Hunt
Director, Community and Economic Development
RE: City Council briefing on Housing Issues
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: The City Council has requested a briefing regarding housing issues. The
following information has been attached for your review:
• Overview and update on the City's Housing Programs
• Information on the role of boards and commissions on housing
• Information on the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City
• 2000 Census Data for Salt Lake City
• Housing Report for Salt-Lake-City 2000-2002
• Housing Preservation Report
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7902 TDD: 801-53S-6021 FAX: B01-535-6131
�� RECYCLED PAPER
Housing Briefing
Salt Lake City offers several housing programs through the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Division (HAND). Those programs include the first time homebuyer and
rehabilitation programs, the housing trust fund and the federal funds designated for
housing and community development activities. The Redevelopment Agency and the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City also offer housing programs. The following will
give an overview and update on the City's Housing Program, information on the role of
boards and commissions regarding housing, information on the Housing Authority, 2000
census data for Salt Lake City, a report outlining the projects funded by Salt Lake City,
and a report on housing preservation issues.
City's Housing_Programs
Housing Trust Fund—The housing trust fund was created by a resolution adopted by
the City Council in September of 1991. The source of funding was the repayment of the
loans provided under the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG). Two of the UDAG
programs funded the housing trust fund (Parkview Plaza and Rick Warner) and the other
two funded the small business revolving loan funds (City Center and STT). The fund
was established to meet the requirement of the non-federal funding match specified by
the National Affordable Housing Act 1990 for the Home Program.
In November of 2000, the City Council adopted an ordinance creating the housing trust
fund and the housing trust fund advisory board. The fund is used to address the housing
goals of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan through acquisition, leasing,
rehabilitation or new construction of housing units for ownership, rental or transitional
housing; emergency home repairs; retrofitting to provide access for persons with
disabilities; down payment and closing cost assistance; construction and gap financing;
land acquisition for affordable and special needs housing. The Board held its first
meeting October 17, 2001.
The Housing Trust Fund Board is relatively new, and the members have been developing
policy and procedures and determining the types of information they need to make
decisions on funding requests. We have just recently decided to add a staff report
outlining the strengths and weakness on the projects as well as motion options for the
Board to review and use if appropriate. The fine-tuning of our application will continue
with input from the Board as well as from applicants who request funding.
The Housing Trust Fund Board members have received informational briefings from the
Utah Housing Corporation on tax credit requirements, Florida Housing Coalition on
Section 8 Preservation, Planning Staff on the proposed housing overlay zone, the
Redevelopment Agency regarding their mission and goals as they relate to housing and
Paula Swanner-Sargetakis on transfer of development rights. At the September meeting
the Board will be briefed by Anne Gerber who has been hired by the Enterprise
Foundation to prepare a report identifying potential permanent funding sources that might
be considered by Salt Lake City to ensure the long-term health of the Housing Trust
Fund. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City will be briefing the Housing Trust Fund
Board in October. The Board has also reviewed four projects and recommended approval
of$1,260,000 of loans for the creation or rehabilitation of 223 units.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Funding—Many of the non-
profit agencies who receive loans from the trust fund also receive funding for operational
support from our federal funding sources. All funds received from HUD are based on a
funding formula which uses the information gathered from the 2000 census data. Over
the last ten years many of the States, Counties and Cities who receive funding have seen
major population and economic shifts. The census data had not been made available to
these entities at the detailed level needed to estimate the impact the new census will have
on their level of funding. The rumors out of all of the Regional Offices of HUD were
that some participating jurisdictions could receive a decrease of approximately 15%.
On August 19, 2002 HUD released estimates of CDBG funding based on the new census
data using the appropriation levels Congress adopted for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The
estimate for Salt Lake City's CDBG funding was $4,939,000; this is $85,000 more than
we received this year. The increase was small at 1.8%but better than other cities in Utah
who lost funds such as: Clearfield decreased by 16.3%, Sandy City decreased by 7.7%,
West Valley decreased by 2.5%, Ogden decreased by 3.7% and Salt Lake County
decreased by 6.7%. Based on this information the County will receive approximately
$219,000 less than they received this year. Please note that the dollar amount for Salt
Lake City is only an estimate because it is based on 2002-2003 fiscal year funding
allocations approved by Congress. Our new funding amount will be based on the
allocation and set asides that Congress appropriates for 2003-2004 fiscal year funding. In
the past HUD has notified us of our new allocation in December.
Housing Rehabilitation Program — Salt Lake City has been providing low and/or no
interest loans for rehabilitation for over 27 years. The program helps low and moderate
income homeowners bring their properties up to housing code standards adopted by Salt
_Lake City. The interest_rate is based on the income of the ownerand the size of the
family. The program also provides low interest rate rehabilitation loans to investors who
own single family or multi-family properties. The investor is required to rent the
properties to people who meet the required income guidelines established by HUD.
All of the waivers from implementing the lead based paint regulations have expired and
like the other rehabilitation agencies through out the country, it has been a struggle to
meet the requirements. Our work plan to the address lead issues on our residential
rehabilitation has been implemented and approved by the Denver Environmental Office.
We are now in compliance with HUD's rules concerning identification and treatment of
lead hazards. We have two employees who are licensed with the State as risk assessors
and lead supervisors. Two other employees are licensed as risk assessors. We have also
2
provided our contractors with the opportunity to attend the supervisor classes and all but
one are now certified with the state as lead supervisors.
The lead based paint regulations have and will continue to negatively impact the number
of rehabilitation projects we will accomplish over the next couple of years. However, the
economy has also negatively impacted the program. The clients we see are either
concerned about the economy and do not want to obligate themselves to additional
payments or they have no equity in the property and a debt ratio so high they cannot
qualify under the program. To overcome these problems, we have taken several steps:
• Increased our outreach efforts by mailing over 6000 flyers a year to households in
our target areas. Increased our participation in various fairs, public events and
communicating with the community councils in the target areas.
• Contacted local church organizations to inform them of our programs.
• Translated many of our brochures into Spanish to increase our penetration into
minority communities and will look to translate into other languages.
• Working with the Salt Lake County Health Department Office of Lead Hazards to
develop projects to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as having
high blood lead levels.
• Developing additional materials dealing with the dangers of lead for use in our
outreach efforts and have made lead information a bigger part of our initial
contact with our homeowners.
• We have participated in the grant application Salt Lake County has written to
receive grant funds for remediation efforts for lead based paint.
• We have not filled our vacant rehabilitation specialist position.
First Time Homebuyer Program—The program provides opportunities to assist
families in purchasing their first home. Buyers qualify if their income is below 80% of
median income, they have steady employment, fairly good credit and have not taken out
bankruptcy in the past two years. A family of four would need to make below $45,750 to
be eligible to participate in the program. The mortgage interest rate for the new
homebuyer is between 3% and 5% and is also based on the income and family size of the
buyers. Salt Lake City started the program in late 1993 and has assisted 209 families in
purchasing their first home.
Over the past several years we have advertised our program and accepted applications
only during the month of March and have always had 50 to 60 people on the list. This
has not been the case this year. After closing our list in March, we had 18 people on the
3
list and 9 homes ready for purchase. We have left the list open this year and are actively
advertising and recruiting qualified buyers for the program by using the same actions
listed above for the rehabilitation program. The economic times have also impacted this
program. We closed loans for 23 homes last fiscal year which is below our goal of 30
homes. We would have closed two additional homes but one of our buyers was laid off
from their job the day before they were to close. The other family worked at the same
company and retained their job but chose not to close because of the fear created by the
financial situation of the company. We have seen an increase in the stock of available
homes for sale in our price range due to the economy, but we are limiting the number of
homes we buy based on the number of people qualified for our program.
During this time we have also increased our collection efforts on our First Time
Homebuyers as well as our rehabilitation clients. We now make contact by phone with
the client as soon as the first payment is not received. This has created additional
workload for the staff but has dramatically improved our collection efforts. Our
delinquency rate is approximately 8%. This rate compares favorably to the delinquency
rate reported by FHA of 11.8%. The economic new reports have indicated that the
number of foreclosures and delinquent rates has increased dramatically over the last year
and ours has been decreasing due to our efforts.
New construction—The Division over the years has acquired property to build small 5
to 7 lot subdivisions. The information on the quarterly reports has been brief and not
informative. The information and the format will be updated to more adequately update
the City Council on our activities.
The subdivision located in the Guadalupe area has been on hold due to two abandoned
gas lines located on the property. Questar has a standard quit claim deed for all of their
easements which releases them from all liability. The Attorney's Office has
recommended, and the Mayor has agreed, that the City will not accept the standard
quitclaim deed requirements because of the precedent that would be set by the City if it
accepted the liability. Questar will not change the quit claim deed because of the same
liability issue. In an effort to resolve the issue,Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS)
has been contacted to partner with the City on developing the housing project. In the
past IS has-been able-toresolve the gas-line-issues on-other-properties --Aproject is---
now on hold until NHS sells their final market rate properties on Rendon Court.
Regulatory Monitoring - The new administration of HUD has determined that the
regional offices need to do more site visits and monitor participating jurisdictions on a
more regular basis than in previous years. During the last six months we have had
monitoring visits from the Office of Labor Relations, Office of Regional Environmental
Director, Office of Economic Development and the Office of Community Planning and
Development. The monitoring reviews have gone well and we have recommendations
from each the monitors regarding the additional information that they will now being
looking for on their yearly visits.
4
HUD has also reiterated its requirement regarding timely expenditure of CDBG funds by
requiring all agencies to have less than one and one half of their allocation 60 days prior
to the end of their fiscal year. During the allocation of CDBG funds the issue of
timeliness will need to be reviewed closely to assure that the City does not jeopardize its
funding because sub-grantees and City Departments have not spent their funds in a timely
manner.
Housing Leadership Initiative - A new initiative under consideration is designed to
improve the development of mixed income housing projects throughout Salt Lake City,
Mayor Anderson has asked the Community Planners to inventory their areas and identify
potential housing sites that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Salt Lake
City Community Housing Plan. The sites will be prioritized based on the potential for
land acquisition, cost, type of housing, timing and assessment of the market. The City
will also help to develop additional and alternative sources of financing and resources to
facilitate housing development projects. This may include gaining site control or land
banking of priority sites and providing resources for pre-development loans. Through an
RFP process with pre-qualified for profit and non-profit housing development concerns,
the City will link preferred project types and land options with developers who have
access to the financial and technical resources required to complete the project in a timely
fashion.
Role of the Boards and Commissions on Housing
Housing Role of Landmark Commission - The Salt Lake City Historic Landmark
Commission (HLC)reviews new construction, demolition and exterior alterations in six
locally designated historic districts in Salt Lake City. These districts include the
Avenues, Capitol Hill, Central City, Exchange Place, South Temple and University.
Almost 5,000 buildings are located within these districts. With the exception of the
Exchange Place Historic District, the city's historic districts are primarily residential, and
thus the HLC is an important component in housing considerations in Salt Lake City.
The HLC has many of the same goals and concerns of other City boards and
commissions-involved-with-housing considerations._These goals_andconcerns-include:_ -
1. The preservation of historic buildings, including single-family and multi-family
structures, and insuring that alterations respect the historic character of these
buildings
2. Encouraging ongoing maintenance of housing units, so that historic buildings will
not deteriorate
3. Encouraging new construction of housing units that reinforce the character of
historic districts
5
4. Listing neighborhoods on the National Register of Historic Places, so that
property owners can take advantage of federal and state historic preservation tax credits. National Register designation does not impose any regulatory review.
During the last ten years, the HLC has approved the construction of hundreds of new
housing units within the historic districts. Neighborhoods, such as the Avenues and
Capitol Hill, have undergone impressive transformations in 20 years thanks to historic
preservation. In the last three years, over 4,000 buildings in four neighborhoods have
been listed on the National Register, enabling owners to make use of the historic
preservation tax credits.
Housing Role of Housing Advisory and Appeals Board - The Housing Advisory and
Appeals Board (HAAB) goal is to protect the housing stock of Salt Lake City.
Preserving existing housing stock improves the safety and well being of individuals, the
integrity of neighborhoods, and the infrastructure of the City so it will be maintained
and/or enhanced for the present as well as the future. HAAB strives to accomplish this
goal and still be sensitive to the needs of individual property owners and community-
based organizations.
HAAB members take action and/or make recommendations on a wide range of issues
that directly relate to housing in Salt Lake City. Issues range from granting or denying
waivers on building permit fees to reviewing and recommending changes in the City's
ordinances governing housing to suggesting changes in the process used by City staff to
execute their duties to modifying building requirements on existing residential buildings.
Housing Role of the Planning Commission - The Planning Commission reviews the
following issues that affect housing:
• Conditional use permits, subdivision, and planned development projects, many of
which, are housing projects. In these processes, the Planning Commission
determines the appropriate location, density, design and scale of new housing in the
City.
• —Reviews,holds public-hearings and-makes decisions-regarding recommendations to
the City Council on any project that involves: 1) a master plan amendment or
adoption, 2) a zoning map amendment, and 3) an ordinance amendment or adoption.
The Planning Commission does not have the final decision making ability in the case
of master plans, zoning designation or zoning ordinances. They do,however,have
the ability to make recommendations to the City Council which may strongly
influence the final decision.
• Lastly,the Planning Commission has the ability to initiate petitions that relate to
housing issues. Petitions may involve a zoning evaluation, ordinance amendments
and planning studies that will determine appropriate housing location, density and
design throughout the City. The outcome of these studies conducted by staff may
ultimately recommend changes that affect housing decisions, which in turn may be
6
adopted by the City Council.
Housing Role of the Redevelopment Agency—The Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency adopted a Strategic Plan in the Spring of 2000 that includes
statements to focus the Agency's housing efforts. The adopted guidelines state that until
the redevelopment plans are fully implemented,the Agency's housing budget should be
split approximately 80/20 between the generating project area and city-wide housing
projects. The funds used for housing city-wide should be directly tied to the goals of
eliminating blight,stabilizing neighborhoods,and providing low and moderate income
housing. Briefly stated,the strategic plan describes the following city-wide housing
priorities:
• Undertake projects which combine the removal of blight with affordable housing
goals. The RDA should identify and undertake projects throughout the City
which both remove blight and introduce mixed income housing.
• Other than blight removal programs where the RDA has special expertise,the
RDA should not compete with other entities and initiate affordable housing
projects. Rather,the Housing Trust Fund should be the clearing house for the
City's affordable housing initiatives and the RDA should annually budget funds
to go to the Housing Trust Fund based on project specific applications submitted
by the RDA's March 1 application and budgeting deadline.
• At the request of the Housing Trust Fund or non-profit housing providers,the
RDA could issue bonds secured by loans for rehabilitation and new construction.
A portion of the affordable housing budget of the RDA could be used to establish
the reserve fund for the bonds. While the interest rate savings could be used to
lower the rents of the affordable housing units,because the underwriters will
require that the project provide cash flows in excess of the actual debt payments,
other funds may be needed to write-down the cost of the units if the subsidy is
deep(thus reducing debt service). RDA bonds may also be a source of non-profit
funding for acquisition of the Section 8 mod-rehab units.
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City,the Housing Development Corporation and the
Housing Assistance Management Enterprise
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City has been in existence since 1970 and its mission
is"to provide safe,decent,affordable housing opportunities for lower income families,
the elderly,people with disabilities and the homeless while many strive to achieve self
sufficiency and improve the quality of their lives. This is accomplished in an
environment of equal opportunity that maintains the client's and employee's dignity,
maintains the public's trust and is an asset to the community." Most of the programs are
HUD funded with 2,309 Section 8 vouchers and 735 units of public housing(elderly and
families)and special needs(homeless).
7
In 1982 and 1991, the Housing Authority created two non-profits,the Housing
Development Corporation and the Housing Assistance Management Enterprise,
respectively. The mission of the non-profits is "to create and/or buy mixed-income
housing projects for target groups or families while stabilizing neighborhoods where our
properties exist."
The Housing Authority and the non-profits have had great success in creating new
housing opportunities. In the last two years the federal programs have grown by 20%,
the homeless units by 140% and the non-profit units by 26%. Some of the wonderful
projects brought on line have been:
• 175 new vouchers for the disabled
• Valor House, a 60 bed SRO (Single Room Occupancy)which serves homeless
veterans and is a partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake
City Health Care System
• Jefferson School an 84 unit beautiful, mixed-income complex located at 1099
South West Temple, created to serve the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
Firearms and their bomb sniffing dogs during the Olympics
• Acquisition of the 72 unit Kingswood Apartments located at 1754 West 1300
North that was crime-ridden and run-down. Several of the problem tenants have
been evicted and the project is in the middle of a $500,000 rehabilitation.
2000 Census Data
Attached please find a copy of the general demographic characteristics for Salt Lake City
from the 2000 census data. Neil Olsen from Management Services is preparing this
information broken down by Council District and will send to the City Council Office
early October.
Report on Housing Preservation---- --
Attached please find a copy of a report prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Division and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The report outlines
the different types of Section 8 housing units,number of units in Salt Lake City, owner
options, tenant options and a history of the program.
8
2000 Census Data
Salt Lake City
•
Table DP-1.Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:2000
Geographic Area:Salt Lake City city,Utah
[For information on confidentiality protection,nonsampling error,and definitions,see text]
Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent
Total population 181,743 100.0 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total population 181,743 100.0
SEX AND AGE Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 34,254 18.8
Male 92,045 50.6 Mexican 25,430 14.0
Female 89,698 49.4 Puerto Rican 483 0.3
Under 5 years 14,432 7.9 Cuban 201 0.1
5 to 9 years 11,507 6.3 Other Hispanic or Latino 8,140 4.5
10 to 14 years 10,488 5.8 Not Hispanic or Latino 147,489 81.2
15 to 19 years 12.835 7,1 White alone 128,377 70.6
20 to 24 years 21.381 11.8 RELATIONSHIP
25 to 34 years 35,731 19.7 Total population 181,743 100.0
35 to 44 years 25,021 13.8 In households 177,170 97.5
45 to 54 years 19,630 10.6 Householder 71,461 39.3
55 to 59 years 6,058 3.3 Spouse 29,360 16.2
60 to 64 years 4,739 2.6 Child 48,080 26.5
65 to 74 years 8,852 4.9 Own child under 18 years 37,923 20.9
75 to 84 years 7,914 4.4 Other relatives 11,947 6.6
85 years and over 3,155 1.7 Under 18 years 3,766 2.1
Median age(years) 30.0 (X) Nonrelatives 16,322 9.0
Unmarried partner 3,860 2.1
18 years and over 138,773 76.4 In group quarters 4,573 2.5
Male 69.792 38.4 Institutionalized population 1,134 0.6
Female 68.981 38.0 Noninstitutionalized population 3,439 1.9
21 years and over 128,813 70.9
62 years and over 22,612 12.4 HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE
65 years and over 19,921 11.0 Total households 71,461 100.0
Male 7,894 4.3 Family households(families) 39,830 55.7
Female 12,027 6.6 With own children under 18 years 19,317 27.0
Married-couple family 29,360 41.1
RACE With own children under 18 years 13,861 19.4
One race 175,306 96.5 Female householder,no husband present 7,298 10.2
White 143,933 79.2 With own children under 18 years 4,173 5.8
Black or African American 3,433 1.9 Nonlamily households 31,631 44.3
American Indian and Alaska Native 2.442 1.3 Householder living alone 23,724 33.2
Asian 6,579 3.6 Householder 65 years and over 6,906 9.7
Asian Indian 654 0.4
Chinese 1,671 0.9 Households with individuals under 18 years 21,128 29.6
Filipino 327 0.2 Households with individuals 65 years and over.. 14,601 20.4
Japanese 959 0.5 Average household size 2.48 (X)
Korean 559 0.3 Average family size 3.24 (X)
Vietnamese 1,685 0.9
Other Asian 1 724 0.4 HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,437 1.9 Total housing units 77,054 100.0
Native Hawaiian 124 0.1 Occupied housing units 71,461 92.7
Guamanian or Chamorro 14 ' Vacant housing units 5,593 7.3
Samoan 523 0.3 For seasonal,recreational,or
Other Pacific Islander z 2,776 1.5 occasional use 638 0.8
Some other race 15,482 8.5
Two or more races 6,437 3.5 Homeowner vacancy rate(percent) 2.1 (X)
Race alone or in combination with one Rental vacancy rate(percent) 6.8 (X)
or more other races:a HOUSING TENURE
White 149,310 82.2 Occupied housing units 71,461 100.0
Black or African American 4,472 2.5 Owner-occupied housing units 36,592 51.2
American Indian and Alaska Native 3,523 1.9 Renter-occupied housing units 34,869 48.8
Asian 7,758 4.3
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 4,205 2.3 Average household size of owner-occupied units. 2.69 (X)
Some other race 19,259 10.6 Average household size of renter-occupied units. 2.26 (X)
-Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable.
'Other Asian alone,or two or more Asian categories.
z Other Pacific Islander alone,or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.
'In combination with one or more of the other races listed.The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages
may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race.
Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2000.
1
U.S.Census Bureau
Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000
Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah
[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text]
Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT NATIVITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH
Population 3 years and over Total population 181,456 100.0
enrolled in school 52,166 100.0 Native 148,204 81.7
Nursery school,preschool 2,906 5.6 Born in United States 146,368 80.7
Kindergarten 2,504 4.8 State of residence 89,166 49.1
Elementary school(grades 1-8) 17,574 33.7 Different state 57,202 31.5
High school(grades 9-12) 8,689 16.7 Born outside United States 1,836 1.0
College or graduate school 20,493 39.3 Foreign born 33,252 18.3
Entered 1990 to March 2000 22,601 12.5
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Naturalized citizen 7,711 4.2
Population 25 years and over 110,848 100.0 Not a citizen 25,541 14.1
Less than 9th grade 7,151 6.5
9th to 12th grade,no diploma 11,292 10.2 REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN
High school graduate(includes equivalency) 21,804 19.7 Total(excluding born at sea) 33,252 100.0
Some college,no degree 25,116 22.7 Europe 5,599 16.8
Associate degree 6,799 6.1 Asia 5,422 16.3
Bachelor's degree 22,970 20.7 Africa 1,198 3.6
Graduate or professional degree 15,716 14.2 Oceania 1,806 5.4
Latin America 18,533 55.7
Percent high school graduate or higher 83.4 (X) Northern America 694 2.1
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 34.9 (X)
LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
MARITAL STATUS Population 5 years and over 167,221 100.0
Population 15 years and over 145,159 100.0 English only 125,170 74.9
Never married 50,314 34.7 Language other than English 42,051 25.1
Now married,except separated 68,020 46.9 Speak English less than"very well" 22,055 13.2
Separated 2,803 1.9 Spanish 24,892 14.9
Widowed 8,313 5.7 Speak English less than"very well" 14,745 8.8
Female 6,678 4.6 Other Indo-European languages 8,156 4.9
Divorced 15,709 10.8 Speak English less than"very well" 2,884 1.7
Female 8,509 5.9 Asian and Pacific Island languages 6,786 4.1
Speak English less than"very well" 3,597 2.2
GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS ANCESTRY(single or multiple)
Grandparent living in household with Total population 181,456 100.0
one or more own grandchildren under 18 years 2,999 100.0 Total ancestries reported 199,694 110.1
Arab 800 0.4
Grandparent responsible for grandchildren 1,300 43.3 Czech' 599 0.3
VETERAN STATUS Danish 7,874 4.3
Civilian population 18 years and over 138,755 100.0 Dutch 3,421 1.9
Civilian veterans 13,191 9.5 English 37,879 20.9
French(except Basque)' 4,379 2.4
DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN French Canadian' 567 0.3
NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION German 19,672 10.8
Population 5 to 20 years 38,286 100.0 Greek 1,630 0.9
With a disability 3,759 9.5 Hungarian 355 0.2
Irish 12,246 6.7
Population 21 to 64 years 108,447 100.0 Italian 5,135 2.8
With a disability 20,819 19.2 Lithuanian 234 0.1
Percent employed 58.4 (X) Norwegian 4,770 2.6
No disability 87,628 80.8 Polish 1,774 1.0
Percent employed 78.8 (X) Portuguese 363 0.2
Population 65 years and over 19,398 100.0 Russian 1,041 0.6
With a disability 8,576 44.2 Scotch-Irish 2,312 1.3
Scottish 7,838 4.3
RESIDENCE IN 1995 Slovak 101 0.1
Population 5 years and over 167,221 100.0 Subsaharan African 1,263 0.7
Same house in 1995 72,015 43.1 Swedish 6,424 3.5
Different house in the U.S.in 1995 81,717 48.9 Swiss 2,105 1.2
Same county 49,219 29.4 Ukrainian 403 0.2
Different county 32,498 19.4 United States or American 7,825 4.3
Same state 10,093 6.0 Welsh 3,598 2.0
Different state 22,405 13.4 West Indian(excluding Hispanic groups) 81 -
Elsewhere in 1995 13,489 8.1 Other ancestries 65,005 35.8
-Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable.
'The data represent a combination of two ancestries shown separately in Summary File 3.Czech includes Czechoslovakian. French includes Alsa-
tian. French Canadian includes Acadian/Cajun. Irish includes Celtic.
Source:U.S.Bureau of the Census,Census 2000.
2
U.S.Census Bureau
•
Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000
Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah
[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text]
Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent
EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME IN 1999
Population 16 years and over 143,161 100.0 Households 71,492 100.0
In labor force 97,936 68.4 Less than$10,000 7,660 10.7
Civilian labor force 97,771 68.3 $10,000 to$14,999 5,193 7.3
Employed 92,074 64.3 $15,000 to$24,999 11,087 15.5
Unemployed 5,697 4.0 $25,000 to$34,999 9,920 13.9
Percent of civilian labor force 5.8 (X) $35,000 to$49,999 11,801 16.5
Armed Forces 165 0.1 $50,000 to$74,999 12,733 17.8
Not in labor force 45,225 31.6 $75,000 to$99,999 5,810 8.1
$100,000 to$149,999 4,304 6.0
Females 16 years and over 71,151 100.0 $150,000 to$199,999 1,326 1.9
In labor force 43,867 61.7 $200,000 or more 1,658 2.3
Civilian labor force 43,824 61.6 Median household income(dollars) 36,944 (X)
Employed 41,262 58.0
Own children under 6 years 15,773 100.0 With earnings 58,491 81.8
All parents in family in labor force 8,739 55.4 Mean earnings(dollars)1 50,876 (X)
With Social Security income 15,259 21.3
COMMUTING TO WORK Mean Social Security income(dollars)1 11,510 (X)
Workers 16 years and over 90,187 100.0 With Supplemental Security Income 2,933 4.1
Car,truck,or van--drove alone 62,542 69.3 Mean Supplemental Security Income
Car,truck,or van--carpooled 12,521 13.9 (dollars)1 5,937 (X)
Public transportation(including taxicab) 5,665 6.3 With public assistance income 3,007 4.2
Walked 4,427 4.9 Mean public assistance income(dollars)1 2,696 (X)
Other means 2,117 2.3 With retirement income 9,581 13.4
Worked at home 2,915 3.2 Mean retirement income(dollars)1 16,150 (X)
Mean travel time to work(minutes)1 19.2 (X) Families 40,386 100.0
Employed civilian population Less than$10,000 2,356 5.8
16 years and over 92,074 100.0 $10,000 to$14,999 1,890 4.7
OCCUPATION $15,000 to$24,999 5,243 13.0
Management, professional,and related $25,000 to$34,999 5,435 13.5
occupations 35,305 38.3 $35,000 to$49,999 7,298 18.1
Service occupations 14,190 15.4 $50,000 to$74,999 8,309 20.6
Sales and office occupations 24,349 26.4 $75,000 to$99,999 4,116 10.2
Farming,fishing,and forestry occupations 128 0.1 $100,000 to$149,999 3,265 8.1
Construction,extraction,and maintenance $150,000 to$199,999 1,075 2.7
occupations 7,026 7.6 $200,000 or more 1,399 3.5
Production,transportation,and material moving Median family income(dollars) 45,140 (X)
occupations 11,076 12.0
Per capita income(dollars)1 20,752 (X)
INDUSTRY Median earnings(dollars):
Agriculture,forestry,fishing and hunting, Male full-time,year-round workers 31,511 (X)
and mining 501 0.5 Female full-time,year-round workers 26,403 (X)
Construction 5,586 6.1 Number Percent
Manufacturing 8,755 9.5 below below
Wholesale trade 2,810 3.1 poverty poverty
Retail trade 9,033 9.8 Subject level level
Transportation and warehousing,and utilities 4,507 4.9
Information 3,854 4.2
Finance,insurance,real estate,and rental and POVERTY STATUS IN 1999
leasing 6,513 7.1 Families 4,189 10.4
Professional,scientific,management,adminis- With related children under 18 years 3,318 15.5
trative,and waste management services 11,282 12.3 With related children under 5 years 1,951 17.9
Educational,health and social services 20,774 22.6
Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodation Families with female householder,no
and food services 10,288 11.2 husband present 1,520 21.7
Other services(except public administration) 4,280 4.6 With related children under 18 years 1,351 29.3
Public administration 3,891 4.2 With related children under 5 years 681 38.4
CLASS OF WORKER Individuals 27,305 15.3
Private wage and salary workers 71,604 77.8 18 years and over 19,351 14.2
Government workers 15,602 16.9 65 years and over 1,658 8.5
Self-employed workers in own not incorporated Related children under 18 years 7,765 18.7
business 4,671 5.1 Related children 5 to 17 years 5,102 18.4
Unpaid family workers 197 0.2 Unrelated individuals 15 years and over 11,608 24.4
-Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable.
'If the denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30,then that value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator.
See text.
Source:U.S. Bureau of the Census,Census 2000.
3
U.S.Census Bureau
Table DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000
Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah
[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text]
Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent
Total housing units 77,016 100.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
UNITS IN STRUCTURE Occupied housing units 71,402 100.0
1-unit,detached 37,974 49.3 1.00 or less 65,600 91.9
1-unit,attached 2,625 3.4 1.01 to 1.50 2,835 4.0
2 units 6,175 8.0 1.51 or more 2,967 4.2
3 or 4 units 6,128 8.0
5 to 9 units 4,245 5.5 Specified owner-occupied units 30,689 100.0
10 to 19 units 4,818 6.3 VALUE
20 or more units 14,340 18.6 Less than$50,000 239 0.8
Mobile home 676 0.9 $50,000 to$99,999 4,314 14.1
Boat,RV,van,etc 35 - $100,000 to$149,999 10,256 33.4
$150,000 to$199,999 7,259 23.7
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT $200,000 to$299,999 4,557 14.8
1999 to March 2000 867 1.1 $300,000 to$499,999 2,920 9.5
1995 to 1998 2,989 3.9 $500,000 to$999,999 993 3.2
1990 to 1994 1,765 2.3 $1,000,000 or more 151 0.5
1980 to 1989 5,872 7.6 Median (dollars) 153,300 (X)
1970 to 1979 10,497 13.6
1960 to 1969 8,587 11.1 MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED
1940 to 1959 22,013 28.6 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
1939 or earlier 24,426 31.7 With a mortgage 21,756 70.9
Less than$300 97 0.3
ROOMS $300 to$499 821 2.7
1 room 2,979 3.9 $500 to$699 1,905 6.2
2 rooms 6,128 8.0 $700 to$999 5,740 18.7
3 rooms 12,056 15.7 $1,000 to$1,499 8,007 26.1
4 rooms 15,145 19.7 $1,500 to$1,999 2,863 9.3
5 rooms 11,605 15.1 $2,000 or more 2,323 7.6
6 rooms 8,468 11.0 Median(dollars) 1,116 (X)
7 rooms 7,071 9.2 Not mortgaged 8,933 29.1
8 rooms 5,800 7.5 Median(dollars) 269 (X)
9 or more rooms 7,764 10.1
Median(rooms) 4.7 (X) SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD
Occupied housing units 71,402 100.0 INCOME IN 1999
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Less than 15.0 percent 10,990 35.8
1999 to March 2000 20,861 29.2 15.0 to 19.9 percent 4,921 16.0
1995 to 1998 21,675 30.4 20.0 to 24.9 percent 3,767 12.3
1990 to 1994 9,474 13.3 25.0 to 29.9 percent 3,293 10.7
1980 to 1989 7,463 10.5 30.0 to 34.9 percent 2,063 6.7
1970 to 1979 4,371 6.1 35.0 percent or more 5,465 17.8
1969 or earlier 7,558 10.6 Not computed 190 0.6
VEHICLES AVAILABLE Specified renter-occupied units 34,812 100.0
None 9,076 12.7 GROSS RENT
1 28,680 40.2 Less than$200 1,618 4.6
2 24,168 33.8 $200 to$299 1,283 3.7
3 or more 9,478 13.3 $300 to$499 9,312 26.7
$500 to$749 14,688 42.2
HOUSE HEATING FUEL $750 to$999 4,661 13.4
Utility gas 59,872 83.9 $1,000 to$1,499 1,800 5.2
Bottled,tank,or LP gas 661 0.9 $1,500 or more 440 1.3
Electricity 9,672 13.5 No cash rent 1,010 2.9
Fuel oil,kerosene,etc 127 0.2 Median(dollars) 564 (X)
Coal or coke 22 -
Wood 37 0.1 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF
Solar energy 19 - HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999
Other fuel 655 0.9 Less than 15.0 percent 5,661 16.3
No fuel used 337 0.5 15.0 to 19.9 percent 5,090 14.6
20.0 to 24.9 percent 4,504 12.9
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 25.0 to 29.9 percent 4,238 12.2
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 377 0.5 30.0 to 34.9 percent 2,803 8.1
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 438 0.6 35.0 percent or more 10,735 30.8
No telephone service 1,336 1.9 Not computed 1,781 5.1
-Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable.
Source: U.S.Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
4
U.S.Census Bureau
Salt Lake City
Total population,Median Household Income,Median Family Income,Per Capita Income by Census Tract
Data Set:Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data
Total Median Median Per capita
Population household family income in
income in income in 1999
1999 1999
Census Tract 1001 1,587 28,867 27,500 15,252
Census Tract 1002 1,269 67,841 85,430 43,689
Census Tract 1003.02 103 13,750 13,750 7,152
Census Tract 1003.03(part) 86 68,250 68,250 30,530
Census Tract 1003.05(part) 8,898 42,649 42,543 12,321
Census Tract 1003.06 4,634 35,044 37,701 12,061
Census Tract 1004 3,680 39,512 43,750 15,327
Census Tract 1005 6,722 33,500 37,828 13,188
Census Tract 1006 6,573 30,250 34,387 11,825
Census Tract 1007 3,133 31,265 38,000 18,171
Census Tract 1008 2,204 28,125 41,786 28,108
Census Tract 1009 2,224 110,577 134,885 59,242
Census Tract 1010 3,279 52,621 74,063 30,209
Census Tract 1011 5,799 30,424 40,101 24,526
Census Tract 1012 4,082 39,012 63,966 27,399
Census Tract 1013 1,443 124,259 143,031 52,804
Census Tract 1014 4,167 22,778 23,750 9,740
Census Tract 1015 3,186 26,717 38,239 22,661
Census Tract 1016 3,552 31,420 41,900 20,275
Census Tract 1017 3,282 27,568 37,095 21,683
Census Tract 1018 3,321 33,481 37,286 17,711
Census Tract 1019 2,177 25,938 29,464 22,416
Census Tract 1020 3,014 24,385 27,992 13,361
Census Tract 1021 1,449 16,978 28,438 16,345
Census Tract 1022 693 21,131 23,750 20,404
Census Tract 1023 2,756 16,048 30,284 13,181
Census Tract 1024 596 23,125 26,250 7,558
Census Tract 1025 1,663 22,786 40,446 15,128
Census Tract 1026 4,343 31,426 32,594 11,364
Census Tract 1027 8,177 29,455 30,709 11,208
Census Tract 1028.01 5,611 35,462 38,125 12,447
Census Tract 1028.02(part) 4,515 34,531 35,997 11,337
Census Tract 1029 3,283 24,375 32,097 12,587
Census Tract 1030 3,233 32,067 33,514 16,653
Census Tract 1031 4,374 37,925 39,329 17,759
Census Tract 1032 4,881 27,222 35,441 15,363
Census Tract 1033 4,274 38,487 54,181 22,202
Census Tract 1034 4,073 42,286 49,107 22,520
Census Tract 1035 4,102 49,213 56,397 26,651
Census Tract 1036 2,783 68,929 74,800 44,184
Census Tract 1037 2,562 61,463 69,211 30,875
Census Tract 1038 2,255 51,141 61,319 26,604
Census Tract 1039 3,757 52,244 59,189 24,846
Census Tract 1040 3,276 57,007 63,158 28,221
Census Tract 1041 3,067 70,039 84,058 29,158
Census Tract 1042 (part) 6,527 82,608 94,861 43,581
Census Tract 1043 2,841 41,063 56,111 22,322
Census Tract 1044 (part) 2,019 80,344 88,671 38,522
Census Tract 1045 1,504 51,615 55,625 22,410
Census Tract 1046 1,058 38,000 46,136 18,816
Census Tract 1047 4,907 47,454 54,265 23,874
Census Tract 1048 (part) 4,957 40,812 46,781 19,953
Census Tract 1049 (part) 2,917 33,542 41,829 16,522
Census Tract 1102 (part) 0 0 0 0
Census Tract 1103 (part) 108 52,708 53,125 27,576
Census Tract 1114 (part) 62 40,000 28,750 17,800
Census Tract 1118 (part) 384 45,714 71,793 38,925
Census Tract 1139.01 (part) 34 80,488 31,250 28,862
Salt Lake City 181,743 36,944 45,140 20,752
U.S. Census Bureau
Census 2000
NOTE: Data based on a
sample except in P3, P4,
H3, and H4. For information
on confidentiality protection,
sampling error, nonsampling
error, and definitions see
http://factfinder.census.gov/h
ome/en/datanotes/expsf3.ht
m.
Housing Report
Salt Lake City
2000-2002
9/13/2002 HOUSING REPORT 1
SALT LAKE CITY
2000-2002
• # MARKET CITY SOURCE
PROJECT DEVELOPER AFFORD. RATE APPROVED OF STATUS COMMENTS
UNITS UNITS FUNDS FUNDS
1512 South 900 West SL CDC 9 120,000 CDBG 97/98 Under Total CDBG app'd 23rd Year
New Home Ownership construction Corradini Contract
New Construction 50,000 HOME 99/00 Corradini Contract-11/18/99
40,000 HTF Corradini Contract-3/30/99
HTF Time extension granted 6/23/00
Estimated Completion date:6/23/02
NORTHGATE VILLAGE ASSOC. Prowswood 160 170 1,850,000 Special Completed Anderson Contract-2001
Mixed Income Housing Purpose EDI
New Construction Grant
BRIDGE PROJECT Artspace 62 250,000 CDBG 99/00 Completed Corradini approved 25th Yr;Anderson Contract-4/26/00
Low Income Housing 150,000 HOME 99/00
New Construction
JEFFERSON APARTMENTS Housing Authority of SLC 36 50 850,000 HOME 98/99 Completed Corradini Contract-7/29/99-$300,000
Mixed Income HOME 00/01 Anderson Contract-12/19/00-$550,000
84/42%Low Income RDA HTF
New Construction
Estimated completion date: 12/01
TOWNHOMES Habitat for Humanity 4 105,000 HTF Planning Corradini Contract-4/26/99
Affordable Housing Stage Anderson amended contract-9/26/00
New Construction Anderson amended contract-10/01
Estimated completion date:5/02
DAYCARE/TEEN HOME 'YWCA 10 100,000 CDBG 00/01 Completed Anderson contract-2/02/01
New Construction 12 beds in 10 units
HOMELESS TEEN GRP HOME Volunteers of America 1 20,000 HTF Under Corradini contract-12/17/99
Rehabilitation - - 50,000 CDBG 00/01 construciion- -Anderson contract-12/04/01 --
Estimated completion date: 12/01
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING Family Support Center 47 50,000 HOME 99/00 Property Corradini approved-25th Year
(in SL County) acquired Anderson contract 2/07/01
New Construction Construction to begin: 7/02
Estimated completion date:8/03
LINCOLN ARMS&TROLLEY LANE Amberley Properties 33 140,000 RDA HTF Completed Anderson contract- 1/05/01
APARTMENTS
Rehabilitatoin
9/13/2002 HOUSING REPORT 2
SALT LAKE CITY
2000-2002
. # MARKET CITY SOURCE
PROJECT DEVELOPER AFFORD. RATE APPROVED OF STATUS COMMENTS
UNITS UNITS FUNDS FUNDS
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING Odyssey House 2 209,463 RDA HTF Completed Anderson contract-3/20/00
MEDICAID GROUP HOUSING 2 8 beds in 4 units;Transitional housing portion completed
WENDELL APARTMENTS Multi-Ethnic Housing 32 200,000 HTF Completed Anderson contract-11/14/00
Rehabilitation
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS SLC-HAND 198 3,402,728 CDBG Completed Anderson approved-2000/20001
Rehabiliation HOME
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS SLC-HAND 31 3,654,171 CDBG Completed Anderson approved-2000/2001
First Time Homebuyers HOME
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS SL CDC 63 126,000 CDBG Completed Anderson approved-2000/2001
Home Buyer Assistance HOME
1469 CHEYENNE STREET SL CDC 1 20,000 CDBG Completed Anderson approved-2000
Rehabilitation
HODGES PROJECT Neighborhood Housing 19 210,000 HTF In Corradini approved 9/13/99
Single Family-New Construction process Anderson amended contract-2001
Estimated completion date: 5/02
PUGSLEY HOUSING PROJECT Neighborhood Housing 6 250,000 RDA HTF In Anderson contract 12/19/00
.ehabilitation process
Estimated completion date: 2/02
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS Neighborhood Housing 3 358,779 HOME Completed Anderson approved-2000/2001
New Construction
VALOR HOUSE Housing Authority of SLC 41 180,000 CDBG Completed 58 beds in 41 units
Rehabilitation Anderson Approved-2001
Estimated completion date: 12/01
ESCALANTE APARTMENTS Utah Nonprofit Housing 100 300,000 HTF In Anderson Approved-2001
Rehabilitation process
Estimated completion date:3/02
CITY FRONT APARTMENTS Neighborhood Housing 94 61 1,500,000 HTF In Anderson Approved 2001
New Construction process
Estimated completion date:11/02
. 9/13/2002 HOUSING REPORT 3
SALT LAKE CITY
2000-2002
• # MARKET CITY SOURCE
PROJECT DEVELOPER AFFORD. RATE APPROVED OF STATUS COMMENTS
UNITS UNITS FUNDS FUNDS
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS Neighborhood Housing 9 165,363 CDBG Completed Anderson approved-2001
Rehabilitation
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS SLC Housing Authority 12 100,000 HOME Completed Anderson approved-2000
8 plex: 24 East 1700 South
4 plex: 846 East Fairmont Circle
In Anderson approved-2002
Kingswood Apartments SLC Housing Authority 72 720,000 RDA HTF Process
1754 West 1300 North
Westgate Apartments BC Development 60 270,000 RDA HTF In Anderson approved-2002
264 South Foss Street(1545 West) process
Safe Haven II Valley Mental Health 24 75,000 CDBG In Anderson approved-2002
552 West 700 South process
1131 281
Total Units 1,412 15,516,504
PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Capitol Villa Community Housing Service 108 300,000 HTF In
process
etigelow Apartments Bracken Development 45 305,000 HTF In
process
Second West Apartments Green Street Partners 25 390,000 HTF In
process -
Total 178 995,000 (approximate)
Housing Preservation Report
LUANN CLARK ►-�61-` 'EE r t` a W4Ji4 Gc��RP�?e�sI,OI ROSS C. ANDERSON
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
September 9, 2002
Mayor Ross C. Anderson
Salt Lake City
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Dear Mayor Anderson:
Attached please find a copy of a report prepared by the Housing and
Neighborhood Development Division and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The
information provided will assist you and your staff in responding to the many letters and
calls you have received regarding the preservation of the Section 8 affordable housing
units.
The report outlines the different types of Section 8 housing units and the number
of units located in Salt Lake City. Most importantly, it will outline the options available
to the tenants of these projects. We hope the information enclosed will help alleviate the
concerns raised that tenants will be evicted from their units when the subsidy expires on
these properties.
Please let us know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
d, f,(AZ/un
LuAnn Clark Rosemary Kappes
Director Director
Housing and Neighborhood Housing Authority of Salt Lake City
Development
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7902 TDD: 801-535-602 1 FAX: 801-535-6078
is
�= ECYCLEC PAPER
Salt Lake City
Housing Preservation Information
One of the goals of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan is to preserve,
rehabilitate and replace (when necessary) the existing housing stock. One group of
properties that is in need of assistance is the Section 8 project based housing projects.
Many low income residents depend on these projects to provide them with safe, decent
and affordable housing. Many of the residents are disabled and elderly and have very
few housing choices. The issues surrounding the preservation of these housing units are
complex with every project being slightly different depending on the type of financing
used to build or rehabilitate the project. The other problem has been that there is no
master list of the properties that received funding. HUD has provided a partial list but
other properties have been added to the list based on information provided by the owners
and local community residents. The following briefly outlines the different federal
subsidy programs and the current status of the units located in Salt Lake City.
Section 8 Project Based Properties
In Salt Lake City there are nine properties with 617 units that are Section 8
project based properties. Of those properties three of the projects have been or are in the
process of being purchased by local non-profit agencies. The non-profits have agreed to
preserve the units as affordable and Salt Lake City has provided low interest loans to
facilitate the preservation of these units. The Salt Lake City Housing Authority owns one
of the properties with 20 units and they will continue to maintain the units as affordable.
The other five property owners with 377 units have been contacted by City staff and all
of the owners have stated that they will continue to renew the section 8 subsidy, none of
the properties are for sale and that they will continue to maintain the properties as they
currently exist. Based on the current information available none of these units is
identified to be at risk. The attachment indicates the project, address and owner
comments.
Owners Options
Over the years HUD has offered several different programs for owners. An
owner currently is offered six different options regarding the properties. The options are:
1. Marking up to market rents
2. Renewing a contract where the rents are at or below market
3. Referring projects to OHMAR for market to more or OMHAR-lite,
4. Renewing a contract except from referral to OMHAR, even if its rents exceed
market
5. Renewing a contract for either; a) a portfolio reengineering demonstration
project; b) a preservation projects, i.e., a LIHPRHA deal
6. Opting out of the Section 8 program.
Many of the properties across the country have opted out of the programs some due to
the complexities involved with the HUD programs. Other have opted out because the
incentives offered to maintain the properties are not as advantageous to some owners as
opting out and having the units become market rate units. This is especially true in areas
where the housing costs are high, vacancy rates are low and the Section 8 properties offer
comparable amenities for the residents. Most owners will not opt out of the program if
they cannot compete favorably with the other available market rate properties. It is
important to note that it is completely up to the owner to decide what he or she will do
with their properties.
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Projects
The Salt Lake City Housing Authority has also provided a list of the properties
that are moderate rehabilitation properties that also receive a Section 8 subsidy project
based. There are 16 properties with 378 units of housing. Of the properties eligible for
renewal, owners of eight of the projects with 190 units have agreed to renew the section 8
subsidy. The owner of the Trenton Apartment with 37 units decided not to renew the
section 8 subsidy and let the contract expire. Of the other seven properties with 156 units
the original contract for the section 8 subsidy has not expired. One of the properties with
5 units has also lost its section 8 subsidy because the units failed the Housing Quality
Standards Inspection the Housing Authority is required to perform each year on these
types of properties. The attachment indicates each project, address, the date the section 8
subsidy expires and owner comments.
Of the moderate rehabilitation units there are four properties that have been
identified at risk. The properties are the Los Gables - 40 units, Lorna Doone - 36 units,
Annie Laurie - 34 units and the Whilshire—32 units. These units are usually referred to
as the Milestone Apartments or the Lorna Doone. The owner has renewed the Section 8
subsidy for a year but has been in discussions with a local non-profit agency regarding
selling the properties. The City has supported the efforts by the Utah HUD Tenants
Association to preserve these units by submitting the Housing Preservation Initiative to
our congressional delegation. The request for funding would be for an Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) grant. The City did not receive the funding last year and
has resubmitted the request for these funds. The grant is important to the financing
package that will need to be developed if the units are to be preserved as affordable. The
City will continue to recruit other agencies and individuals who support our preservation
efforts to write to their congressional delegation and ask for their support in funding our
proposal.
Owners Options
An owner of the moderate rehabilitation projects only has two options: 1) marking
up to market rents and 2) Opting out of the program.
Tenant Options—Both Programs
If a property owner decides to opt out of the program the tenants of the building
are offered an enhanced or"sticky"voucher. This voucher is offered to all of Section 8
project based properties as well as two other mortgage enhancement programs (Section
236 and Section 221(d)(3) loan programs). A sticky voucher allows the residents to
remain in their units paying 30% of their income for rent with HUD making up the
difference between that amount and market rent. The rent level would be approved even
if the rent would not normally be affordable for a family with a regular voucher. The
sticky voucher assistance level increases annually as landlords raise rents, so that this
difference does not come out of the family's pocket. If a tenant moves from the property
they may take the housing assistance voucher with them. However, once they move they
lose the increased value of the preservation voucher, and the level of Section 8 assistance
drops to the general payment standard for vouchers.
Notification Requirements
The owner must provide written notice to tenants assisted under the contract, not
less than one year before the termination or expiration of section 8 housing assistance
program. The owner also must notify the tenants of their intention to review or allow the
contract to expire. The law also requires that the owner submit the written notice to
HUD. If the housing project is a Section 8 Mod Rehab project the owner must notify the
public housing authority that administers the program. If the owner fails to give the
required notice to tenants, the tenant is protected as if there were an assisted tenancy until
one year from the time the owner actually provides the notice.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)
In 1986 Congress adopted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which eliminated many of the
general real estate investment incentives to owners and investors in real estate project. At
the same time Congress also wanted to create sufficient incentives for investment in low-
income housing. The end result was the creation of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC)program,which is included in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The
LIHTC is a tax benefit incentive program created to encourage the construction or
rehabilitation of buildings for low-income tenants.
The tax benefits can be used by the owner or by developers to attract investors who
commit their dollars to a project in return for a share of the tax credits and other benefits.
The tax credit program is a dollar-for-dollar credit or reduction of tax liability for owners
and investors in low—income housing. The credit is not a deduction or adjustment to
income, which is subtracted before the tax is calculated; instead it is subtracted after the
total tax amount is determined. A tax credit, is significantly more valuable than a
deduction.
Between 1987 and 1989 the Utah Housing Finance Corporation (UHFC) required the
properties to be affordable for 15 years. The UHFC determined that 15 years was not
adequate based on the amount of funding and the nature of the projects and decided to
increase the term of affordability. Between 1990 -1993 the requirement was 30 years;
between 1994-1995 it was 41 years and from 1996 till today the requirement is 99 years.
Those early projects are now expiring.
Of those early projects, there are seven projects with 264 units with a 15 year term of
affordability located in Salt Lake City. Of those projects, one of the projects (Cliffside
Apartments—19 units)was released out of the program in 2000 due to extensive casualty
losses due to water damage. Another of the projects is also a moderate rehabilitation
project and is shown under the moderate rehabilitation section 8 subsidy units. The
largest project is the Hartland Apartments with 120 units, even though the tax credit term
has expired the units will still be maintained affordable until 2007 because of the
requirements of an old HODAG grant the owners received from HUD. Two of the
housing projects expire in December of 2003, the owner was contacted by staff and told
that it was too early for them to determine what action they will take on the properties.
The other two projects do not expire till 2004 and 2006. Based on the available
information none of these projects can be determined at risk at this time. A yearly
evaluation will need to be done to determine status and risk of these projects.
How Did We Get Here—History of Section 8 Preservation Units
Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 Loan Programs— Section 8 Project Based Projects
Since 1965 the Federal government through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development had developed several programs to assist with the creation of
affordable housing. Between 1965 and 1975 over 600,000 units of affordable housing
were built under HUD's Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 program. The programs were
the first time the private sector was invited to participate in producing low and moderate
income housing,previously the sole domain of public housing authorities. Under these
two programs, FHA-insured 40 year loans were provided, accompanied by either a below
market interest rate (section 236), interest rate subsidies (Section 221(d)(3) or rent
subsidies similar to Section 8 for the residents (Section 221(d)(3). The programs required
a minimal amount of cash from the developer and they quickly became popular with for-
profit developers.
When the programs were developed, HUD viewed them as a solution to a
temporary problem that would evaporate as the economy grew and income rose.
However, during the 1970's many of these projects were driven in to mortgage defaults,
assignment and foreclosures. Many were rescued with infusions of new federal
subsidies. One commonly used approach was the Section 8 Loan Management Set-
Asides program, where project based Section 8 subsidies were provided both to increase
revenue and to make the housing more affordable to very low income families.
During this time, the national tax policy also played an important role in the
program. In the late 1960's, tax incentives provided a significant additional inducement
for private owners to sponsor development under these programs. The Economic
Recovery Tax Act of 1981 stimulated the transfer of about 40% of the nation's Section
221(d)(3) and 236 housing stock to new tax-motivated owners, generating some new
capital for the developments as well as substantial tax benefits for the original investors.
The way the programs were structured, they provided some of the most affordable rental
housing units, with rents far below market, in many communities across America.
Because the units have increased substantially in market value,they have become a tax
liability for their original owners because the tax benefits have expired and the projects
are generating income on which owners must pay taxes. More recent buyers have seen
their tax benefits eroded substantially by federal tax reform.
Section 8 —New construction, Substantial Rehabilitation and Moderate Rehabilitation
Program
Between 1974 and 1983, 800,000 apartments were developed under the project-
based program. These developments receive federal subsidies in return for which owners
are required to rent a specific number of units to low-income families and the elderly.
Unlike the older assisted housing programs,project-based Section 8 is solely a rental
subsidy program, not provided in tandem with a specific government mortgage loan
program. Owners were generally required to sign twenty-year subsidy contracts for new
construction and rehabilitation developments or 15-year contract for moderate
rehabilitation developments. These contracts began expiring in 1991, and some owners
already have exercised their right to opt-out of renewing contracts.
Unlike the 236 and 221(d)(3)programs, where the rents are based on each
development's annual operating budget, the Section 8 program originally used Fair
Market Rents (FMR) as its foundation. HUD establishes the norm for an area by housing
type. HUD then made up the difference between these FMRs and the amount a low-
income family can pay in rent using 30% of their adjusted annual income. When a
development was approved, the FMRs were set. After that, owners could apply for
HUD's Annual Adjustment factor to increase their rents automatically every year. In
some cases, this resulted in Section 8 rents exceeding comparable market rents.
Congress currently renews funding for the Section 8 contracts on a year-to-year
basis. All of the Section 8 contracts expire over the next decade. The total number of
Section 8 contracts renewals is therefore cascading because Congress must"re-renew"
funding for contracts that were renewed the year before.
Conclusion
Salt Lake City has 617 units of Section 8 projected based properties, 378 units of
Section 8 moderate rehabilitation properties and 245 units of low income tax credit
projects that have the 15 year requirement for a total of 1,240. There are many other
units of affordable housing in Salt Lake City, these units have been identified separately
because the subsidies they receive have expired or will expire in the next several years.
It appears that Salt Lake City is fortunate to have most property owners willing to
renew the Section 8 Project Based Subsidy or be willing to sell to a local non-profit who
will maintain the units as affordable. According to the records available, two properties in
Salt Lake City no longer have their project based assistance: 1) 801 Park Street, 5 units
lost subsidy when the units did not pass the Housing Authority's Housing Quality
Standards and 2) Trenton Apartments, 37 units, the Owner of the property opted out of
the program. The Housing Authority is currently working with HUD and the tenants of
the Trenton regarding the options available.
The properties determined to be at risk are the Los Gables - 40 units, Lorna
Doone - 36 units, Annie Laurie - 34 units and the Whilshire—32 units. These units are
usually referred to as the Milestone Apartments or the Lorna Doone. The owner has
renewed the Section 8 subsidy for a year but has been in discussions with a local non-
profit agency regarding selling the properties. The Housing Preservation Initiative Grant
Salt Lake City has submitted to our congressional delegation is critical to the successful
preservation of these units. If the grant is not awarded the non-profit agency will be
looking to the trust fund for a substantial amount of money to fill the gap.
The Housing Trust Fund Board has designated preservation projects as one of
their funding priorities. The Housing Trust Fund has approximately $2,484,000 currently
available for lending and there are two projects that have been approved by the Housing
Trust Fund Board requesting approximately $700,000 that have not received final
approval from the Mayor and/or City Council. In December approximately $711,000
will be made available from the 2002—2003 budget allocation from the Redevelopment
Agency. These funds are used for a variety of housing projects ranging from new
construction to rehabilitation. Over the last two and a half years the fund has assisted 542
units of affordable housing and 111 units of market rate housing.
The Housing Trust Fund Board has set as its primary goal this year to investigate
and recommend options for a permanent funding source for the trust fund to the Mayor
and City Council. The current funding sources are the repayment of a UDAG loan that is
approximately $33,000 a quarter, Redevelopment Agency contributions and loan
repayments. The Board will have its recommendations ready some time this fall.
Housing Report
Salt Lake City
2000-2002
SECTION 8 - PROJECT-BASED
PROJECT NAME ADDRESS #of UNITS EXP. DATE COMMENTS
Capitol Villa 239 West 600 North 108 5/10/01 Loan in process with Community Housing Services
Escalante I 1040 North Redwood Road 32 8/31/99 Owned by Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation -plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Escalante III 1040 North Redwood Road 80 9/30/99 Owned by Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation -plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Friendship Manor 1320 East 500 South 86 7/31/00 Owner plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Jackson Apartments 274 West 200 South 80 9/27/01 Owner plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Jefferson Circle 1750 Jefferson Circle 20 11/29/03 Owned by Housing Authority of Salt Lake City- plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Lincoln Towers 2017 South Lincoln Street 95 _ 11/30/01 Owner plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Village Apartments 250 North 200 West 24 4/30/00 Owner plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
Village Apts. North 666 North 900 West 92 7/31/00 Owner plans to maintain Section 8 subsidy
TOTAL 617
SECTION 8 -MOD/REHAB PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME ADDRESS #of UNITS EXP. DATE COMMENTS
Mountain View Park 535 North Grant Street 8 1997-2002 Continuing renewals-Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
Los Gables 135 East 300 South 40 2000-2002 Continuing renewals-Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
Lorna Doone 320 East 100 South 36 2000-2002 Continuing renewals-Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
Annie Laurie 326 East 100 South 34 2000-2002 Continuing renewals-Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
Wilshire 234 South First Avenue 32 2000-2002 Continuing renewals-Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
562 South 600 East 8 2001-2002 Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
Trenton Apartments 544 East 100 South 37 03-06 of 2002 Contract expired
2207 South Lake Street 13 7/9/02 Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy
801 Park Street 5 9/30/02 Units failed HQS inspection -Section 8 subsidy removed
Statemans 155 South 400 East 19 10/20/02 Owner plans to renew Section 8 subsidy-also a tax credit property
1861 South 400 East 2 1/31/03 Not expired,will not be eligible for renewal -less than 5 units
Meredith 160 East First Avenue 22 12/22/04 Section 8 subsidy has not expired
New Grand 7 East 400 South 80 4/30/05 Section 8 subsidy has not expired
626 Center Street 4 6/30/06 Not expired,will not be eligible for renewal-less than 5 units _
Ivanhoe 415 East 300 South 19 8/23/06 Section 8 subsidy has not expired
Harris 836 South 500 East 21 9/12/06 Section 8 subsidy has not expired
TOTAL 378
LIHTC PROJECTS
PROJECT NAME ADDRESS #of UNITS EXP. DATE COMMENTS
Hartland Apartments 1600 West 1700 South 120 12/1/02 HODAG affordable requirements are in effect until 12/2007
Statesman Apartments 155 South 400 East [19] 1/1/03 See Mod/Rehab section (above)
Cliffside Apartments 720 North Wall Street [22] 4/1/03 Left program in 2000 due to extensive casualty loss
Ritz Apts. (PSC) 435 East South Temple 30 12/1/03 LIHTC requirements have not yet expired.
Ashby Apts. (PSC) 358 East 100 South 27 12/1/03 LIHTC requirements have not yet expired.
Wandamere Place 2870 South 700 East 10 10/1/04 LIHTC requirements have not yet expired.
North Redwood Apts. 594 North Redwood Road 36 12/1/06 LIHTC requirements have not yet expired.
TOTAL 223
TOTAL UNITS 1218
—csor \ruot.,_5I' A(SCIti5SI On
SALT LAKE CITY CENSUS TRACTS
113e01s1
110103
IAPPxOA.zsuuN
113901A 100303 j_._._. APPROX. x
J • " p004 ,�, 1002
11-r M ,\
100301 BF�e
1009
APPNox.,aeON
§ 1001 I.
o
Salt Lake City (,.aoN I I • ,,,HAre
N.
_.--- International k 100306 �°N '; --- 1--1007 n ,....
IaA
L__... ._—. _.__. ; Airport ! 1006 I I3 ,a,Ni i 10 »rNA� 1014
S00 I. P°P°emoxP
I. ma N: AVE ANNWAY
S i 'I 1008 `; 1011 1012 < 1013 C
I--- it 1oz7 ioze
100302 Jr_ /� \. 1A'11' TI
_ --l0S1� .UNIVERSITY E.
��t x� .00s E._OF UTAH
0
..a i W i
-- rm s __; 1, � } a—
sxN Nr
10E AVE
•
ONC.°°
.— ---' ! 1 I 10 i 1038 q1041 a to92 /i 102801 1029 - ry
�
8 _ si s
CALIFORNIA AVEw fi 'I } _ ,3ms ; '
—!. -___. --.__---- - �.—. 1031 1034 r1037 1040 I
; 102802
• , s _
_ n
_ 1038 1039 i
_ 1032 ,1033 =1043
31M5 HIGHW �_� T006 ,�! 31r05_ 1 21Ot3 _.la
A
4f !'! 3 �.1 S 1044 94,s
,� ti
4.
W 1047
11147 R o
t 0_--7.7 .,
8 1103
^ 8 K t047 1,02
LGIN AVE -
eosrux. •.;.
Salt Lake City Planning Division if NOT TO SCALE
Geographic Information Systems s
April 2002 11+88