Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09/27/2011 - Work Session - Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 27 , 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Stan Penfold, Soren Simonsen, JT Martin, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love and Van Turner. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Dale Keller, Salt Lake Valley Health Department Environmental Health Services; Erick Peterson, Salt Lake Valley Health Department Code Enforcement Coordinator; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Michael Stott, Mayor' s Community Liaison, Districts 1 and 2 ; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; David Terry, Golf Enterprise Fund Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3 : 20 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; e) FOR ATTORNEY- CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . This item was not held. #2 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 3 :20 : 18 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for Announcements . #3 . 3 :23 : 15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM DALE KELLER, WITH SALT LAKE VALLEY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, REGARDING PENDING CHANGES TO NOISE ENFORCEMENT. (THE VALLEY HEALTH DEPARTMENT PROVIDES ENFORCEMENT OF NOISE VIOLATIONS BASED ON CITY ORDINANCES. MR. KELLER WILL BRIEF THE COUNCIL ON SOME CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED THAT AFFECT HOW AND WHEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT OFFICERS RESPOND AND ENFORCE. CHANGES INCLUDE CATEGORIZING DIFFERENT TYPES OF NOISE COMPLAINTS AND SHIFTING SOME ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES TO AGENCIES HOLDING SPECIAL EVENTS. BASED ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES, SOME AMENDMENTS TO SALT LAKE CITY CODE MAY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER DATE. ) Dale Keller, Erick Peterson, Michael Stott and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. ITEMS 4 AND 5 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER. #4 . 4 : 10 :49 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE CLEAR, CONSISTENT AND EFFICIENT LAND USE REGULATIONS. THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING CHANGES FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND APPEAL REQUIREMENTS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A, ZONING, MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITIONER MAYOR RALPH BECKER. (PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00784) View Attachments 1. ESTABLISHES A STANDARD NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEAL DEADLINE DATES FOR ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. REMOVES REPETITIVE LANGUAGE FOR EACH PLANNING PROCESS AND REPLACES IT WITH STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS. 2 . REQUIRES NOTIFICATION OF A PROJECT APPLICATION TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND ROUTINE AND UNCONTESTED MATTERS APPLICATIONS. REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS TO OBTAIN SIGNATURES FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 3 . REQUIRES ELECTRONIC MAIL NOTIFICATION TO RECOGNIZED AND REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS. REMOVES WRITTEN MAIL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE CLEAR, CONSISTENT AND EFFICIENT LAND USE REGULATIONS. THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A, ZONING, MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITIONER MAYOR RALPH BECKER (PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00223) View Attachments 1. FREEWAY SCENIC LANDSCAPE SETBACK - WOULD APPLY FREEWAY LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT SINGLE/TWO-FAMILY DISTRICTS. 2 . CLARIFY THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. 3 . REMOVE THE NEWSPAPER NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. 4 . REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO ACCESSORY LOTS CONSISTENT WITH CHANGES MADE IN DECEMBER 2008. THIS WILL ELIMINATE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TEXT AND THE USE TABLES. 5. REVISE VARIANCE AND CONDOMINIUM APPLICATION REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LAND USE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. 6. REVISE SIGN REGULATIONS TO DEFINE PENNANT FLAGS AND PROHIBIT THEIR USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. Michaela Oktay and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #6. 4:23 :44 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE CITY' S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM. THE PRESENTATION WILL FOCUS ON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. View Attachments Janice Jardine, Maryann Pickering, Cheri Coffey and Joel Paterson briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #7 . 5: 10 :26 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE GOLF FUND AND FUNDING PROPOSAL. View Attachments Rick Graham, Karen Halladay and David Terry briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Martin asked about paying more for prime time golfing. Mr. Terry said the intent was that when 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 they needed to stimulate demand they could discount the rates . Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted to explore prime time golfing. Council Members were in favor if there was a reasonable way to do that. Mr. Graham said the issue would be discussed by the Citizen' s Task Force. Councilmember Love suggested this issue be put on Open City Hall for suggestions and comments . #8. 6: 10 : 09 PM INTERVIEW MIKE CHRISTENSEN, DISTRICT 1; NAN WEBER, DISTRICT 2; MARGITH MAUGHAN, DISTRICT 3; MARIA TORRES, DISTRICT 4; ELIOT SYKES, DISTRICT 5; JAMES GUILKEY, DISTRICT 6 AND STEPHEN L. NELSON, DISTRICT 7 PRIOR TO BEING APPOINTED TO THE SALT LAKE CITY REDISTRICTING WORK GROUP. Councilmember Love said the names of Mr. Christensen, Ms . Weber, Ms . Maughan, Mr. Sykes and Mr. Guilkey would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal approval . Ms . Torres and Mr. Nelson were not present for the interview. #9 . 6 :21: 30 PM INTERVIEW DALE EVANS PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Councilmember Love said Ms . Evans name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal approval . #10 . 5:46: 54 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING UPDATED POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY' S COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN. THE INTENT IS TO ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVATION OF THE CITY' S EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND REFLECT CURRENT HOUSING AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. View Attachments LuAnn Clark, Frank Gray and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said this issue could be discussed again at the second meeting in October along with accessory dwellings and a Landlord/Tenant update . She said then a public hearing could be scheduled. Councilmember Love suggested this issue be placed on Open City Hall for comments and suggestions . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 24 p.m. COUN L CHAIR ,�v� c T\+ G 9 a ors:,. ► si s , R O ATE O�AP ' 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held September 27, 2011 . bj 11 - 5 Decibel Scale SI\ /LJD _r. -10 dB=limit of The healthy hearing LV SF ID* —20 dB=ticking watch,mosquito, 9/27/2011 vb a:au•,+sealth[Apartment —30 dB=whisper —40 dB=residential living area,refrigerator noise Health Regulation#21 —50 dB=quiet office noise,small running stream Community Noise Pollution Control —60dB=conversational speech,normal office —70 dB=vacuum,hair dryer —80 dB=heavy traffic,alarm clock, Py —90 dB=lawn mower ......, —100 dB=snow mobile,car horn,power saw —110 dB=jack hammer,jet engine at 100 ft —120 dB=thunder,firework display Demonstrated Effects of Noise Proposed Health Regulation #21 World Health Organization(7 categories): • Significant change in the core mechanic of noise regulation —Hearing impairment due to acute or chronic exposure • Based on contemporary scientific principles —Interference with spoken communication • More objective and quantitative standards —Sleep disturbances • Focus on the measurable levels of noise —Cardiovascular disturbances • Removed references to annoyances&nuisances —Mental health disturbances —Impaired task performance • Focus on noise levels known to cause harm —Negative social behavior and annoyance reactions • Departure from the"plainly audible"standard rat Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Levels New Technical Highlights (Leq)Table • Sound pressure limits based on Leq - -E uivalent continuous sound level Reedy* B< ..Io:oo p.m aet•ee.7:00..m q Property Use sod 7:00 aon. •.d IO:00 p.m —Time-weighted average • Maintain the Lparameter for: Type A 5 dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound max (single-f ly) ,at to exceed 50 dBA nol to exceed 60 dBA —80 dBA,from 10 pm—7 am for residential uses Type B 5 dBA above eminent soma 10dBA show ambient sound —100 dBA for any time and all other uses (Mulhdwellmeunds) not to exceed 55dBA not to exceed 65dBA ype• Use of octave band frequency analysis (Retail cum erc,ol 5dBA above ambient sound0dBA.nmeambientswua multi-use) not to exceed 60 dBA notto exceed 70 dBA • Infrasound(<16 Hz)and ultrasound(>20 kHz) TypeD are considered (Non-retail commercial and 5dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound adusb,al) ,sot to exceed 65 dBA not to exceed 75 dBA 1 • 9/27/2011 Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Levels Octave Band Sound Pressure Level Limitations (Lmax)Table The Maximum Octave Band Sound Pressure levels Shall Not Exceed: Octave Band Center Frequency,in Hz Receiving Between 10:00 p.m. Between 7:00 a.m. Property Use end 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Type A&B 80 dBA 100 dBA 45 64 58 51 46 42 39 36 33 30 (residential) 50 65 62 56 50 46 43 40 37 34 Type C&D 100 dBA 100 dBA 55 68 65 61 5S 52 49 46 43 40 (commercial/industrial) dRA level 60 72 68 64 60 56 54 51 48 45 65 76 72 68 64 61 59 56 53 50 70 79 76 72 69 66 64 61 58 55 75 82 79 76 73 71 69 66 63 60 Noise Restrictions Noise Restrictions (Continued) • Prohibited activities between 10 pm—7 am —Construction equipment&activities Activities with 200 ft distance restriction or requirement to comply w/Tables la,b,c: —Garbage Collection • Public Entertainment Venues —Parking Lot or Road Sweepers 00004 —Public notice for venues with 100 dBA —Loading/Unloading Operations —Hearing protection made available —Commercial Refuse Compactors Noise Exemptions Temporary Noise Permit • Emergency Events&Equipment Permits • Greater Good and Safety of the Community —Department application and permit • Heating,Ventilation,Air Conditioning(HVAC) —Proposed permit&review fee$120 • Municipal Approved Event —Late notification fee of$35 —Primarily issued for construction activities • Public&Community Snow Removal —Public Notice requirements retained • Sporting Events • Landscape/Yard Care equipment „04u 2 9/27/2011 Case Study 1:The pure tone Case Study 1:The pure tone (Continued) • Complaint received from a homeowner about • The graphs indicated a strong pure tone at noise generated by a hot tub. 125 Hz. • Two different inspectors responded. Both • The hot tub owner was written about the came with negative results based on current issue. He was suggested to contract the regulation limits. services of a hot tub technician. • The complainant requested further tests. • Within a week,the pure tone sound was • In a third attempt,a Type-1 sound meter with abated. octave band analysis capabilities was used for sampling. Case Study 1: Pre-remediation Case Study 1: Post-remediation 1/3 Octave Filter Summary Chart 1/3 Octave Filter Summary Chart A •I•uu•uuuur iur iui•••uuoumuauii ;q u•i••t uuueuiuur u•uiiiliiuiuuuu•iuieu x iuu••u!li9•i Iu•A•A•NI'i-i•iiani•uuuii ° iiiii.r19 1 I ^A•I•IIU .v., 1�u•u111 1u I 1 I i 1A uuui na uiuiuiA I I ;' I nu��uu nn, mosN I.I I 1 I I: i ! I T1ill tx,ti11/U UU!I I i 1. '..I it 11"1IU■ • 1IU• I I I I I I I II; I I I i I I 11UU 11 1 1 1 1 I I,1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 11=i 1 1 1 11 ,''1�� 1 I(i i I I 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 ▪ 11 1 :1111111 �,i ig I $ x:f$g.33i I IIiy .IF I. 1 Ii.1�"1 g$q€{ I lgl illl :zzinsia_'£Rnztzi g,` �RS,EDS)< AE_EEE i zz zizzzzz z:zz zzx•zzz:z z +•8_sA izz xisxs zz zxziiii• zzz • A zzzzxra zz zzzx zzz:azz alter Mier 3 Salt Lake Valley Health Department Health Regulation #21 COMMUNITY NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION Adopted by the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health September 6, 1984 Amended: August 1, 1991, December 7, 1995, May 3, 2001, August 7, 2008 Under Authority of Section 26A-1-114 Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended 1 1. PURPOSE & APPLICABILITY OF REGULATION 1.1 The purpose of this regulation is to establish standards for the control of noise pollution within Salt Lake County to reduce the making and creation of harmful sound to secure, protect, and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Salt Lake County. 1.2 Nuisance sound (e.g. sound that is commonly found to be annoying or bothersome) that is in compliance with this regulation may be addressed by the local legislative body. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 "dBA or A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level" shall mean the sound pressure level in decibels as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The unit for reporting is dB(A) or dBA. Sounds measured with the"A"weighting network approximate the response of human hearing when measuring sounds of low to moderate intensity. 2.2 "Ambient Sound" shall mean the sound pressure level which represents the summation of the sound from all the discrete sources affecting a given site at a given time, exclusive of the source under investigation. Ambient sound level is commonly referred to as neighborhood residual sound level or background sound pressure level. 2.3 "CFR" shall mean Code of Federal Regulations. 2.4 "Construction" shall mean any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration or similar action. 2.5 "Construction equipment" shall mean any device or mechanical apparatus used in excavation, construction or demolition. 2.6 "Decibel" shall mean a logarithmic unit used in measuring the magnitude of sound. Decibel is abbreviated dB. 2.7 "Department" shall mean the Salt Lake Valley Health Department ("SLVHD"). 2.8 "Director" shall mean the Director of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department or his or her designated representative. 2.9 "Dwelling" shall mean a building or structure that is intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let or hired out for human habitation. 2 2.10"Emergency power generator" shall mean the equipment used to generate electrical power in the event of an interruption, malfunction, or failure of the electrical power otherwise supplied by the service provider. 2.11"Emergency vehicle" shall mean an authorized motor vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft which can lawfully be used for the transportation of emergency personnel, equipment, and supplies while responding to the scene of an emergency. 2.12"Emergency work" shall mean 2.12.1 Work required to restore property to a safe condition following a disaster or declaration of emergency; 2.12.2 Work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger; or 2.12.3 Work that absolutely cannot be done otherwise during the daytime hours to protect the public's health by private or public entities for providing or restoring immediately necessary utility service. 2.13"EPA" shall mean the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2.14"Habitable space" shall mean a space within a building or structure intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, or eating. Bathrooms, laundry rooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces, accessory buildings, and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. 2.15"Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)" shall mean any system installed on or within a dwelling or facility for the purpose of providing heating, ventilation, or air conditioning. "Heating, Ventilation, and Air condition(HVAC)"may include furnaces, air exchangers, central air condensing units, evaporative"swamp" coolers, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and other similar equipment. 2.16"Impulse Sound" shall mean sound of short duration, generally less than one second, especially of high intensity, abrupt onset and rapid decay, and often rapidly changing spectral composition. 2.17"Infrasound" includes any sound frequency less than or equal to 16 Hz. 2.18"Leq" shall mean the average measure of continuous noise that has the equivalent acoustic energy of the fluctuating signal over the same time period. For the purposes of this regulation an Leq measurement will be taken for a minimum of 2 minutes. 2.19"Lmax" shall mean the highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time. For the purpose of this regulation Lmax will be the highest A- 3 weighted sound level occurring during a noise event. 2.20"Motor vehicle" shall mean any vehicle required to be licensed for on-road use in the State of Utah, and is propelled by a motorized power source. 2.21"Muffler" shall mean a properly functioning sound dissipative device or system consisting of a series of chambers, baffle plates, or other mechanical devices for abating the sound of escaping exhaust gases. 2.22"Multi-dwelling unit building" shall mean any building comprising two or more dwelling units, including, but not limited to, apartments, condominiums, co-ops, multiple family houses, townhouses, and attached residences. 2.23"Municipal Approved Event" shall mean an assembly of people which continues, and can reasonably be expected to continue for 2 or more hours per day, and has received a permit, license or authorization from the municipality in whose jurisdiction the event is located. 2.24"Noise" shall mean human created sound that is harmful to health or welfare. 2.25"Octave band" shall mean an interval in Hertz between two frequencies having a ratio of 2:1. For purposes of this Regulation, octave band sound pressure levels shall be measured at any of the following center frequencies: 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 and 8,000 Hz. Aft. 2.26"Off-highway vehicle" shall mean any vehicle not permitted to be licensed for on-road use in the State of Utah and is propelled by an engine. 2.27"Off-highway implement of husbandry" shall mean every all-terrain type I vehicle, motorcycle, or snowmobile used for agricultural operations. 2.28"Owner" shall mean any person who alone or jointly and severally with others: 2.28.1 has legal title to any premise, dwelling, or dwelling unit with or without accompanying actual possession thereof; or 2.28.2 has charge, care, or control of any premises, dwelling, or dwelling unit, as legal or equitable owner, agent of the owner, or is an executor, executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee, or guardian of the estate of the owner. 2.29"Person" shall mean any individual, public or private corporation and its officers', partnership, association, firm, trustee, executor of an estate, the State or its departments, institutions, bureau or agency thereof, municipal corporation, county, city, or any legal entity recognized by the law. 4 2.30"Property line" shall mean: 2.30.1 The imaginary line along the ground surface and its vertical extension that separates one parcel of real property from another; 2.30.2 The vertical and horizontal boundaries of a dwelling unit within a multi-dwelling unit building; or 2.30.3 On a multi-use property, the interface between two portions of the property on which different categories of activity are being performed (e.g. if the multi-use property is a building which is a residential upstairs and commercial downstairs, then the property line would be the interface between the residential areas and the commercial area). 2.31 "Public entertainment event" shall mean an indoor or outdoor activity of public assembly, regardless of whether or not a ticket or payment of any type is required for admission. 2.32 "Public property" shall mean any real property or structures thereon that are owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental entity. 2.33 "Pure tone" shall mean any sound that can be distinctly heard as a single pitch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of this regulation a pure tone shall exist if the one- third octave band sound pressure level, within the suspicious band with the tone, exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one- third octave bands by: 15 dB for bands with center frequencies less than 160 Hz 8 dB for bands with center frequencies of 160 Hz to 400 Hz 5 dB for bands with center frequencies greater than 400 Hz 2.34 "Receiving property" shall mean all property(see "Property line") that is receiving noise emissions. "Residential"shall mean a location intended for activities related to human habitation including activities such as sleeping, preparing food, bathing, or similar activities. 2.35 "Repetitive impulse sound" shall mean any impulse sound repeated at intervals such that a sound level meter set at "fast"meter characteristic will show changes in sound pressure level greater than 10 dB(A) within one second. 2.36 "Snow removal equipment" shall mean any mechanical equipment used for removing snow from land or building surfaces including snow plows, snow blowers, snow sweepers, and any spreader or applicator employed to apply a snow or ice melting product. 5 • 2.37 "Sound" shall mean an oscillation in pressure, particle displacement, particle velocity or other physical parameter in a medium with interval forces that cause compression or rarefaction of the medium. 2.38 "Sound level meter" shall mean an instrument that includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, integrator, or time averager, output meter and weighing networks used to measure sound pressure levels. 2.39 "Sound pressure level" shall mean twenty times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the RMS sound pressure to the reference pressure of 20 micropascals(20 micronewtons per square meter). The sound pressure level is denoted Lp or SPL and is expressed in decibels (dB). 2.40 "Ultrasound" includes any sound frequency higher than 20 kHz. 2.41 "Z-Weighted Sound Pressure Level or dBZ or dB(Z)" shall mean the sound pressure level in decibels as measured with a sound level meter using the Z-weighted filter. Infrasound shall be measured with the Z-weighted filter. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 Jurisdiction of the Department. 400. 3.1.1 This regulation is promulgated by the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health as authorized by Section 26A-1-121(1), Utah Code Ann., 1953 as amended and Chapter 9.04, Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances. 3.1.2 The Department is empowered to enforce this regulation in all incorporated and unincorporated areas served by the Department as authorized by Section 26A-1- I14(1)(a), Utah Code Ann., 1953 as amended and Chapter 9.04, Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances. 3.2 The Department shall have enforcement responsibility for this regulation. 3.3 It shall be unlawful for any person not to comply with any regulation promulgated by the Department unless granted an express variance by the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health. 3.4 Compliance with this regulation does not constitute a defense if charged with any environmental crime or violation of any local, state, or federal law. 3.5 Legal Action taken by the Department under this Regulation does not preclude prosecution for any environmental crime that may have been committed or violation of any other local, state, or federal law. 6 3.6 Nothing in this regulation affects or modifies in any way the obligations or liability of any person under any other regulation or provision thereof issued by the Department, any ordinance issued by Salt Lake County or any municipality located within Salt Lake County, or any state or federally issued law, including common law. However, Departmental regulations supersede other existing local and county standards, regulations and ordinances pertaining to similar subject matter that are inconsistent. 3.7 Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this regulation is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this regulation. 4. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS 4.1 General Prohibition of Noise. Notwithstanding the specific noise restrictions in Subsection 4.7, and noise exceptions in Subsection 4.8, no person shall emit, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the emission of any noise source so as to exceed the maximum allowable sound pressure levels set forth in Tables la, lb and 1 c when measured from the receiving property. 4.2 Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Level Tables. Table la Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Levels (Leq) Table Receiving Between 10:00 p.m. Between 7:00 a.m. Property Use* and 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Type A 5 dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound not to exceed 50 dBA not to exceed 60 dBA Type B 5 dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound not to exceed 55 dBA not to exceed 65 dBA Type C 5 dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound not to exceed 60 dBA not to exceed 70 dBA Type D 5 dBA above ambient sound 10 dBA above ambient sound not to exceed 65 dBA not to exceed 75 dBA * See Appendix A referencing property use examples. 7 Table lb Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Levels (Lmax) Table Between 10:00 p.m. and Between 7:00 a.m. and Receiving Property Use* 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m. Type A& B 80 dBA 100 dBA Type C & D 100 dBA 100 dBA * See Appendix A referencing property use examples. Table lc Adjusted Maximum Permissible Sound Pressure Levels (Leq) Using Octave Band Frequencies The Maximum Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels Shall Not Exceed: Octave Band Center Frequency, in Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 45 64 58 51 46 42 39 36 33 30 50 65 62 56 50 46 43 40 37 34 When the 55 68 65 61 55 52 49 46 43 40 Permissible 60 72 68 64 60 56 54 51 48 45 dBA level 65 76 72 68 64 61 59 56 53 50 is: 70 79 76 72 69 66 64 61 58 55 75 82 79 76 73 71 69 66 63 60 4.3 Sound Pressure Level Measurements. 4.3.1 Sound pressure level measurements shall be made with a calibrated and certified Type 2 sound level meter or better instrument as specified in American National Standards Institute's publication S1.4-1983 (Reaffirmed 2001) entitled"Specifications for Sound Level Meters" or its current 8 successor. 4.3.2 All sound level measurements required by this Regulation shall be taken in dBA„unless specifically measuring infrasound and ultrasound which shall be taken in dBZ. 4.3.3 The owner or operator shall upon request by the Health Department turn off equipment to determine the ambient sound, in order to determine the source sound level. 4.4 Infrasound and Ultrasound. For any source of sound which emits infrasound (below 16 Hz) or ultrasound (above 20 kHz) frequencies, the sound pressure level shall not exceed 100 dBZ when measured from the receiving property. 4.5 Pure Tone and Repetitive Impulse Sound. For any stationary source of sound which emits a pure tone or repetitive impulse sound the limits set forth in Tables la and lc shall be reduced by 5 dBA when measured between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and reduced by 10 dBA when measured between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4.6 Non-Sound Based Vibrations. The transmission of vibrations that are not sound based and cannot be measured by a sound pressure meter are not restricted by this regulation. 4.7 Specific Noise Restrictions. 4.7.1 Construction Equipment and Activities. No person shall operate nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation of any construction equipment or conduct any construction or demolition activities outside between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless a waiver has been issued in accordance with Section 5. 4.7.2 Garbage Collection. No person shall collect garbage, waste, or refuse nor shall any person cause, allow,permit, or fail to control the collection of garbage, waste, or refuse within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables 1 a, lb and lc. 4.7.3 Parking Lot or Road Sweepers. No person shall operate, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation of any motorized mechanical sweeper or vacuum within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and lc. 4.7.4 Loading/Unloading Operations. No person shall load or unload any equipment, vehicle, box, crate, container, garbage container, or other object or 9 open, close, or otherwise handle these objects within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and lc. 4.7.5 Commercial Refuse Compactor. No person shall operate or use, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit or fail to control the operation or use of any commercial refuse compactor within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and lc. 4.7.6 Public Entertainment Venue. No person shall operate, play, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation or playing of any noise emitting device in such a manner: (i) That the maximum sound pressure level exceeds 100 dB(A) at a point normally occupied by a patron on the premises of a public entertainment venue unless conspicuous and legible written notification is provided to the public prior to entrance into the event stating"WARNING: SOUND LEVELS ON THESE PREMISES MAY CAUSE HEARING DAMAGE. HEARING PROTECTION IS AVAILABLE." In the alternative, the above warning may be provided on a sign of a color and lettering design in high contrast with its background and posted where it is plainly visible at each public entrance in bold letters of at least 1" inch in height. This Sub Aft - part shall not be construed to permit conduct prohibited by any other %,.. provision of this regulation; and (ii) Every venue with the potential of exceeding 100 dB(A) shall have readily available for public distribution, at a cost not excessive of the retail value, single-use earplugs that have a Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) of at least 20 decibels. 4.7.7 Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate or use nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation or use of any motor vehicle upon any public property, publice or private right-of-way; (i) Without a noise control system that meets the original specifications installed by the manufacturer; (ii) Unless the noise control system is in constant operation and free of defects that affect sound reduction; (iii) With any cut out, bypass or similar device which increases sound pressure levels; (iv) When the noise control system has been modified, punctured, or rendered inoperative; and 10 (v) Unless the noise control system of the motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration, at any time or under any condition of grade, load, acceleration or deceleration does not exceed the maximum allowable sound pressure levels set forth in Table 2 at a distance of 25 feet or more for the category of motor vehicle, based on the legal speed limit, posted or not, of the road on which such vehicle or vehicles are operated using testing methods as prescribed by the Department. TABLE 2: MAXIMUM SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES Sound Pressure Level, dBA Measured at a Speed limit 40 Speed limit over Distance of mph or less 40 mph Any motor vehicle with a gross manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross combination 25 ft. 88 dBA 94 dBA weight rating(GCWR) of 10,000 pounds or more or any combination of vehicles towed by such motor vehicle Any other motor vehicle and any combination of motor vehicles towed by 25 ft. 80 dBA 84 dBA such motor vehicle Any motorcycle or moped 25 ft. 82 dBA 84 dBA 4.7.8 Competition Motorcycles. No person shall operate, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation of any motorcycle identified by the noise emission control label or mark as being for "competition use only" on any property other than within a motor sports facility for the purpose of participating in a practice session or racing event. 4.7.9 Defect in Vehicle. No person shall operate, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation or use of any motor vehicle that emits excessive or unusual noises because of disrepair or mode of operation. 4.7.10 Motor Vehicle Repair and Testing. No person shall repair, rebuild, modify, idle, run, accelerate, or test any motor vehicle, nor any auxiliary equipment attached to such vehicle within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and lc. 4.7.11 Off-Highway Vehicles. No person shall operate, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit, or fail to control the operation of any off-highway vehicle 11 between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and ic. 4.7.12 Power Equipment. No person shall operate, nor shall any person cause, allow, permit or fail to control the operation of any mechanically powered generator, compressor, power washer, vacuum, blower, dryer, lawn or gardening equipment, or similar devices, except construction equipment: (i) Within 200 feet of a Type A property use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless this activity complies with Tables la, lb and lc; (ii) That is not in good mechanical working condition so as to emit excessive or unusual sounds; and/or (iii) Without a noise control system in constant operation and in good working order. 4.8 Exemptions. 4.8.1 Emergency Events and Equipment. Noise resulting from a response to any emergency event shall be exempt from this regulation, including the use of emergency equipment, emergency vehicles, emergency relief valves, emergency work, and emergency power generators which provide emergency , , power or potable water to any hospital, health clinic, nursing home, similar facilities, or physician prescribed home based personal medical equipment as approved by the Director, where the loss of electrical power or potable water poses an immediate risk to the health, safety, and welfare of any person, or as required by federal or state law shall be exempt from this regulation. During a power failure, other commercial or personal emergency power generators operating between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. may reach but not exceed the maximum day time sound pressure levels set forth in Tables 1 when measured from the receiving property. 4.8.2 Activities Related to the Greater Good and Safety of the Community. Noise resulting from activities related to the greater good and safety of the community shall be exempt from this regulation as approved by the Director. 4.8.3 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC). Noise resulting from the operation of any HVAC system, including central air conditioning units, evaporative coolers, or window cooling units, regardless of the time or frequency of operation, shall be exempt from this regulation, provided the system is in good repair and operating within manufacturer's specifications. 4.8.4 Municipal Approved Event. Noise resulting from a municipal approved event shall be exempt from this regulation on the condition that the Amok municipality shall assume responsibility for responding to any noise-related 12 matters associated with the event approved by the municipality. The Department shall, upon request, provide noise related technical assistance to a municipality. 4.8.5 Public and Community Snow Removal. Noise resulting from snow removal equipment and snow removal operations shall be exempt from this regulation provided the noise control system installed on the equipment or vehicle used complies with Subsection 4.2, Tables la, lb and lc, and Part 4.7.7. 4.8.7 Sporting Events.Noise directly related to the field of play during a sporting contest or similar event including crowd cheering shall be exempt from this regulation. This provision shall not be construed to permit conduct prohibited by other statutes, ordinances, or regulations governing sporting events. 5. WAIVERS and FEES 5.1 Director Authority. The Director has the authority to waive the requirements and restrictions of this regulation on the basis of undue hardship or for a temporary event. The Director may prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements upon a waiver deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon a community or the surrounding neighborhood. 5.2 Temporary Noise Waiver Permit Requirements. 5.2.1 To apply for a Temporary Noise Waiver Permit, the applicant shall complete and submit the Department-approved application form. 5.2.2 Permit Duration: A Temporary Noise Waiver Permit is valid only at the location stated in the application and for the length of time approved by the Department on the application. 5.3 Public Notice Requirements. 5.3.1 Upon approval of any waiver granted by the Director, the applicant shall notify, in writing, each dwelling and facility located within 800 feet of the event or activity unless otherwise required by the Director at least 48 hours in advance. The Director shall approve the content of each notice before it is distributed. 5.3.2 The public notice shall contain the following information: (i) The name of the event or company name; (ii) The name of the coordinator or project manager; 13 (iii) The contact phone number(s) of the coordinator or project manager; (iv) The name and contact phone number(s) of the on-site manager; (v) The address of the event; (vi) The specific date(s) and operating times; and (vii) A detailed description of the activities. (viii) A brief description of all measures taken to maximize the abatement of the noise emission (or to minimize the noise emission) by means of Source Reduction Practices, Best Management Practices, and Best Operational Practices. 5.4 The Department may establish and collect appropriate fees for licenses, certificates, and permits as set out in this regulation. The Department may collect appropriate fees as set out in this regulation for the performance of services, including plan reviews. If information on a license, certificate, or permit application changes, the applicant shall notify the Department in writing within 20 calendar days. 5.4.1 Temporary Noise Waiver Permit Fee. Any applicant who applies for a , . Temporary Noise Waiver Permit shall remit to the Department a Permit fee in the amount of$120. 5.5 Late Fees. 5.5.1 The Department may impose upon any party subject to this regulation penalties and charges for failure to timely pay service and license or permit fees as set out in this regulation. Attorney's fees and collection fees may also be applied. 5.5.2 Fees unpaid to the Health Department after one month of the due date will be assessed a penalty of 10% of the outstanding balance. Failure to pay the fees and additional charges after two months of the due date will be assessed an additional penalty of 15% of the outstanding balance including previous penalties. Failure to pay the fees and additional charges after 100 days of the due date will result in suspension of the permit and the right to operate. A $40.00 charge will be assessed for each returned check. 5.5.3 Any applicant who fails to give at least 10 days notice to the Department of their intent to obtain a Temporary Noise Waiver permit shall remit to the Department a late notification fee of$35. 6. INSPECTIONS & INVESTIGATIONS 14 6.1. To ensure compliance, the Department has the authority to perform inspections, investigations, reviews, and other actions as necessary. 6.2. Authority for Department to Enter Premises. 6.2.1. Regulated Commercial Premises. Upon presenting proper identification, authorized representatives of the Department may enter upon the premises of properties regulated by the Department to perform routine inspections to insure compliance with rules, standards, regulations, and ordinances adopted by the Department, the Departments of Health &Environmental Quality, county or municipal governing bodies, or the division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. 6.2.2. Unregulated Commercial Premises. The Department may enter upon the premises of unregulated commercial properties upon the consent of the owner or otherwise responsible party or upon a warrant issued by a court. 6.2.3. Private Dwellings. Inspections of private dwellings are made by consent of owner or otherwise responsible party or upon a warrant issued by a court. 6.2.4. Consent by License or Permit: The Department may require licensees or permitees to consent to access for inspections as part of their license or permit. Failure to allow access for inspections as set out in the license or permit may result in the suspension or revocation of the license or permit. 6.3. The owner or other responsible person may request information gathered by the Department during an investigation, inspection or review as authorized by the Government Records Access and Management Act, §§ 63-2-101 to 63-2-1001 Utah Code Ann., 1953 as amended. 7. ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS If the Department has investigated or inspected any property or facility and believes the property owner or other responsible party is in violation of this regulation or the division has other reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a violation of any part of this regulation or that the property owner or otherwise responsible party is not in compliance with this regulation, the division may take civil enforcement action as authorized by statute, rule, ordinance, and regulation and may also refer the matter for criminal prosecution. Civil enforcement may involve court or administrative actions, injunctive actions, and closures and may involve cost recovery, penalties, and other remedies. Civil and criminal actions may be brought simultaneously. A person does not need to be first adjudged liable in a civil matter before facing criminal charges. 7.1. Criminal Enforcement Actions. The Department may recommend criminal prosecution for environmental violations either alone or in conjunction with civil enforcement. Criminal prosecutions for environmental violations of state or federal 15 law may be filed by the District Attorney, Utah Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, or other enforcement entity. Factors that the Department may consider in recommending criminal enforcement include the following factors and any other relevant factors. 7.1.1. The nature and seriousness of the offense including the immediacy of the threat of danger to the life or safety of another or the harm or threatened harm to human health or environment; 7.1.2. The degree to which the violation was designed to provide economic gain or cost avoidance or it involved a pattern of conduct or a common attitude of illegal conduct; 7.1.3. The degree to which the offender is a known violator and has avoided prior actions by the department; 7.1.4. The degree to which prosecution might deter future violations; 7.1.5. The person's actual culpability in connection with the offense including the presence in connection with the offense including the presence of criminal intent; 7.1.6. The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation including whether the violator has attempted to conceal evidence or prosecution of others; 7.1.7. The appropriateness of referring the case to other agencies having prosecutorial interest; and 7.1.8. Possibilities of civil remedies which would be more appropriate than initiating the criminal justice process. 7.2. Civil Enforcement Actions. The Department may request that the District Attorney bring an action to restrain or enjoin actions in violation of public health, environmental laws, and other laws or abate conditions in violation of such laws. 7.3. Administrative Actions. 7.3.1. The Depaitiuent may, at its discretion, issue a Notice of Violation & Order of Compliance (NOV). 7.3.2. Service of NOV. The Department may provide notice to the owner of the property or otherwise responsible person by sending the NOV via first class mail to the last known address of the owner of the property or other responsible person. If notice is returned undeliverable, the owner of the property or other responsible person may be personally served or be given notice by other methods reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the owner or other responsible party. 16 7.3.3. Contents of NOV. The NOV shall: (i) Describe the property and the persons believed to be in violation; (ii) Describe the violation; (iii) Describe remedial action that will comply with the provisions of this regulation; (iv) Set a reasonable time for the performance of any required remedial action(s); (v) Describe the procedure to contest the NOV and the time limits for such a contest; and (vi) Notify the owner or other responsible person that if no written contest is filed within the time required, the NOV will become final and unappealable to any administrative entity or court. 7.3.4. Challenging an NOV. As detailed in the SLVHD's Adjudicative Hearing Procedures, a party aggrieved by an NOV may request a departmental conference, departmental hearing, or departmental appeal in writing within ten (10) days of the date of the NOV. 7.3.5. Departmental Conference, Settlement Agreements, and Stipulations & Orders. (i) After issuance of the NOV, the alleged violator has the option to request and attend a Departmental Conference to discuss the NOV and settlement with the Department and its legal counsel. No hearing officer will be present. The process of requesting a Departmental Conference are more fully described in the SLVHD's Adjudicative Hearing Procedures. (ii) If the parties agree to a settlement, the Department will prepare, in conjunction with the District Attorney's Office, a binding Settlement Agreement or Stipulation & Consent Order which may require the payment of penalties and the costs of investigation. Parties may also agree to a settlement at any time subsequent to the Departmental Conference. After signing a Settlement Agreement or Stipulation & Consent Decree, the parties waive all rights to further department and court hearings or appeals. Settlement Agreements or Stipulation & Consent orders may be enforced in state courts. 7.3.6. Hearings & Appeals. Parties Aggrieved by an NOV may also request a Departmental Hearing or a Departmental Appeal. A hearing officer is present at these proceedings and makes a written determination. The methods of 17 challenging an NOV are more fully described in the SLVHD's Adjudicative Hearing Procedures. Departmental Hearing Orders and Departmental Appeal Orders may be appealed to the entities and within the time limits set out in the SLVHD's Adjudicatory Hearing Procedures. 7.3.7. Failing to respond to an NOV. If a party fails to respond to an NOV within the required time, the NOV becomes a final order unappealable to any administrative entity or court. The Department may then enforce the order in state court. 7.4. Additional Administrative Enforcement Authority. 7.4.1. Any variances allowed by the Department to the requirements of this regulation shall be only by written approval of the Board. 7.4.2. Emergency Enforcement. If the Director finds that an emergency exists that requires immediate action to protect the public health, he or she may without notice or hearing issue an order declaring the existence of an emergency and requiring that action be taken as he deems necessary to meet the emergency. The order shall be effective immediately. Any person to whom the order is directed shall comply and abate the nuisance immediately; but may petition the Director for a hearing in accordance with the Salt Lake Valley Health Department's Adjudicative Hearing Procedures. After the hearing and depending upon the findings as to whether the person has complied with the provisions of this regulation, the Director shall continue the order in effect or modify or revoke it. If circumstances warrant because of the seriousness of the hazard, the Department may act to correct or abate the emergency without issuance of an order or directive or without waiting for the expiration of compliance time previously given in an order. 8. CRIMINAL, CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES 8.1. Criminal Penalties. 8.1.1. Any person who is found guilty by a court of violating any of the provisions of this regulation, either by failing to do the acts required herein or by doing a prohibited act, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, pursuant to Section 26A-1-123, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. 8.1.2. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate violation. 8.1.3. Each similar subsequent violation occurring within two years of the initial violation may constitute a class A misdemeanor. 8.2. Civil & Administrative Penalties. 18 8.2.1. Penalties may be included in a Settlement Agreement or Stipulation & Consent Order. Penalties may be assessed according to the following factors: (i) The violator's history of compliance or non-compliance; (ii) The violator's economic benefit of non-compliance; (iii) The documented costs associated with environmental or health damage; (iv) The violator's degree of willfulness or negligence; and (v) The violator's good faith efforts to comply and cooperate. 8.2.2. The Director may multiply the penalty by the number of days the violation occurred 8.3. Recovery of Investigation & Abatement Costs 8.3.1. The Department may recover its inspection, investigative and abatement expenses and costs from owners or other responsible person. 8.3.2. The Department may record a judgment lien on a violator's property to recover its expenses and costs. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE 9.1. This regulation shall become effective upon its adoption by the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 20_ SALT LAKE VALLEY BOARD OF HEALTH By: TOM GODFREY, Chair ATTEST: 19 By: GARY L. EDWARDS, M.S. Executive Director Salt Lake Valley Health Department APPENDIX A Noise Area Classifications Type A Property Use Activities/Examples • Single family residential structure that does not share a common wall with residential or any other use. Type B Property Use Activities/Examples • All other residential use not included in Type A including but not limited to: o Apartment/Condominium/Twin Home/Poli-Plex '"t'° o Group home, community living o Residential hotel/motel o Mobile home park or court o Transient lodging • Correctional institution • Medical/other health service • Religious, Church activity • School, Educational Institution activity • Cultural activity and nature exhibition • Camping and picnicking areas (designated) • Resort, group camp • Other cultural, recreational activity Type C Property Use Activities/Examples • Retail trade o building materials o hardware o farm equipment o general merchandise o food, eating and drinking, other recreation(bar, discotheques, clubs) o automotive & accessories, gas stations 20 o marine craft & accessories o aircraft & accessories o apparel & accessories o furniture, home furnishings and equipment • Other retail trade o Finance, insurance, and real estate services o Personal services o Business services o Repair services o Legal services o Other professional services o Contract construction services o Governmental services (except correctional institutions) o Miscellaneous services (except religious activities) o Amusements (except fairgrounds and amusement parks) o Parks o Automobile parking Type D Property Use Activities/Examples • Food and kindred products -manufacturing • Textile mill products - manufacturing • Apparel & other finished products made from fabrics, leather & similar materials - manufacturing • Lumber and wood products (except furniture)—manufacturing • Furniture and fixtures -manufacturing • Paper and allied products- manufacturing • Printing, publishing, and allied industries • Chemicals and allied products—manufacturing • Petroleum refining and related industries • Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products—manufacturing • Stone, clay, & glass products—manufacturing • Primary metal industries • Fabricated metal products - manufacturing • Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments, photographic & optical goods, watches and clocks - manufacturing • Miscellaneous manufacturing(except motion picture production) • Railroad, rapid transit, and street railway transportation (except passenger terminals) • Motor vehicle transportation (except passenger terminals) • Aircraft transportation(except passenger terminals) • Marine craft transportation(except passenger and freight terminals) • Highway and street right-of-way Communication(except telegraph message centers) • Utilities • Other transportation, communication & utilities (except transportation services and arrangements) 21 • Event and entertainment venues • Race tracks • Fairgrounds and amusement parks • Agricultural • Agricultural and related activities • Forestry activities and related services (including commercial forest land, timber production, and other related activities) • Fishing activities and related services • Mining activities and related services • Other resource production and extraction • All other activities not otherwise listed • Undeveloped and unused land area(excluding noncommercial forest development) • Noncommercial forest development • Water areas • Vacant floor area • Under construction • Other undeveloped land and water areas • All other property uses not previously identified 22 City Council Announcements September 27, 2011 A. Information Needed by Council Staff 1. Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Education: Creating Collaborative Solutions, Innovations in Governance (Attachment 1) There is an opportunity to attend a conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sunday, Octber23 thru Friday, October 28, 2011.The conference is titled Creating Collaborative Solutions: Innovations in Governance, an Executive Education program at Harvard Kennedy School.The description of the program indicates it will help explore new modes of working across traditional jurisdictions and sectors to identify, comprehend, and address emerging social problems.The cost to attend is $6,600 and includes tuition,housing, curricular materials and most meals. This Conference interferes with the Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Are any Council Members interested in attending? 1 September 22,2011 Council Work Session—Changes to the City's zoning regulations to provide clear,consistent,and efficient land use regulations.(Zoning Code Maintenance) Petitioner—Mayor Ralph Becker-Petition PLNPCM 2010-00784 • This proposal includes the following changes for Public Notice and Appeal Requirements. 1. Establishes a standard notice requirement for public hearings and appeal deadline dates for all boards and commissions.Removes repetitive language for each planning process and replaces it with standard language for all public hearings. 2. Requires notification of a project application to surrounding neighbors for Special Exceptions and Routine and Uncontested Matters applications. Removes the requirement for applicants to obtain signatures from the adjacent property owners. 3. Requires electronic mail notification to Recognized and Registered Organizations. Removes written mail notification requirement. • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • COUNCIL PROCESS:The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing from the • Administration at the September 22"d Work Session. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the 111 hearing. if the Council is comfortable moving this item forward,Council staff has identified the following tentative dates: • October 4,2011 Set public hearing date • October 25,2011 Council public hearing&possible action • November 1,20111 Council action SFRANK B. GRAY '�'��12 a� '�+ '^A + '+' e r_+0 RALPH BECK R DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNEDA' : ! DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1P�{SD�` ,N /. Et DEPUTY DIRECTOR • a,/i/ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DATE: DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITT #ECEIVED RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2011 Date Received: Day' Everitt, hief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sen1Cigakb i ►,:.,�tit,°t ( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 11, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, CEI Director SUBJECT: Petition PLMPCM2 S 1-00784 Code . .mtenance-Noticing Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner 801-535-6003, michala.oktay@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance COMMISSION MOTION & FINDINGS: Based on information presented in the staff report and at the Public Hearing, Planning Commissioner Mary Woodhead motioned, as to PLNPCM2010-00784, that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Emily Drown seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs DeLay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead voted "aye,"the motion passed unanimously. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 16, 2010 Mayor Ralph Becker, represented by Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director, initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner, and appeal period dates be consistent for all boards and commissions. The proposal also includes removal of the signature gathering requirements for routine and uncontested special exceptions and replaces it with an official notice of application process. The purpose is to provide further clarity and efficiency. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: B01.535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED i�♦ wccvcco vnaev Analysis: The following provides a brief summary of the proposed changes to the ordinance: Item 1. Chapter 21A.10-General Application and Public Hearing Procedures-Removes repetitive language listing noticing requirements for each planning process. Replaces it with standard language that will apply to notification standards for all public hearings. The standard language requires that all public hearings are notified in the same manner to provide consistency. For example: mailing notice 12 days prior to hearing, all owners and tenants notified within 300 feet of the subject property, sign posting will be 10 days prior to public hearings, etc. This will clarify the ordinance language and provide consistency for all public hearing notification. A new noticing process is included in this chapter that replaces the Routine and Uncontested Matter's signature gathering requirement and replaces it with an official mailing notice. The new notification process is called"Notification of Application for Special Exceptions." The notice will ensure that abutting neighbors are correctly and consistently notified about a project. Item 2. Chapter 21A.12-Administrative Interpretations-Allows the Planning Department to notify Recognized and Registered Organizations by email rather than requiring first class mail notification. This is a more efficient notification. Item 3. Chapter 21A.14-Routine and Uncontested Matters- Removes signature gathering requirement. . , Item 4. Chapter 21 A.16 Appeals of Admin Decisions- Changes the notice of appeal language for Administrative Decisions so that it is consistent with other boards and commissions. The change is from 30 days to 10 days. Item 5. Chapter 21A.18 Variances- Deletes repetitive language and refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 6. 21A.26 Commercial Districts- Refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 7. 21 A.34 Overlay Districts- Deletes subsection language, refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 8. 21 A.36 General Provisions- Deletes subsection language. Clarifies language about Conditional Home Occupation applications and deletes Sexually Oriented Business noticing language which gets moved to Chapter 21A.10, General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 9. 21A.50 Amendments- Deletes public notification language and makes reference to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 10. 21A.52 Special Exceptions- Refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 11. 21A.54 Conditional Uses- Clarifies language and refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Item 12. 21 A.56 Condominium Approval Procedures - General clarification of language and refers to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Changes the language for appeal of Planning Commission decisions regarding condominium approval, from 30 days to 10 days, making it consistent with other Planning Commission Decision Appeal periods, which are 10 days. Previous Discussions/Public Process: On March 16, 2009 Planning Staff met with a Zoning Text Amendment Task Force (ZAP) to review issues, new policies and procedures to meet transparency initiatives of the city and reached consensus regarding removal of the Routine and Uncontested Matters signature requirement and to create a new notification process. On May 19, 2011. Staff held an Open House where notice was sent to all Community Council Chairs, business groups and those names on the Planning Division list serve. Staff has received one public comment which was in favor of this petition. On June 22, 201 1, The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this petition. The overall project was quite positively viewed as an improvement to the ordinance and to public process, and a positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. The vote was unanimous. On July 14, 2011, Staff received public comment after the Planning Commission Public Hearing, where it was suggested that the new "Notification of Application for Special Exceptions." an administrative noticing requirement proposed to replace the Routine and Uncontested Matter signature collection with an official mailing notice, also include notification to Community Councils. (See Public Comments) On August 10, 2011. in Staffs preparation of this Transmittal, a minor oversight was discovered in the proposed ordinance where the Newspaper Noticing for Text Amendments was deleted in 21A.10-General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. Although newspaper noticing was presented to the Planning Commission as deleted. Staff recommends amending the language to keep the required newspaper noticing for text amendments only. This is State law and we should be congruent with State law. This is a minor change and consistent with the discussion and intent of the Planning Commission to be consistent with State Law. Relevant Ordinances • 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures • 2l A.12 Administrative Interpretations • 21A.14 Routine and Uncontested Matters • 21A.16 Appeals of Admin Decisions TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL HEAPING NOTICE B. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (JUNE 22, 2011) 6. ORIGINAL PETITION REQUEST PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2010-00784 11.18.10 Petition received by Planning. 12.08.10 Petition assigned to Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner for staff analysis and processing. 1.15.11 Researched SLC zoning regulations concerning noticing requirements 2.20.11 Met with Management to discuss pass Zoning Amendment Task Force (ZAP) meetings & discussions 3.21.11 Reviewed previous ZAP meeting information and memorandums 3.22.11 Drafted `Notice of Application Process for Special Exceptions" Process 5.19.11 Planning Division Open House: Public Review of petition and final draft ordinance 5.15.11 Management review of Staff Report 6.17.11 Planning Commission Packet mailed 6.22.11 Newspaper Notice Published 6.22.11 Planning Commission held public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council 6.23.11 Staff requests ordinance from City Attorneys Office 7.13.11 Planning Commission ratifies minutes from June 22. 2011 meeting 8.01.11 Petition transmitted to Community and Economic Development SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00784 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker(petition no. PLNPCM2010-00784) to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake Cite Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has deternlined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending_ text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.10.020. That section 21A.10.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Notice Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.10.020: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Providing all of the information necessary for notice of all public hearings required under this title shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall be in the form established by the zoning administrator and subject to the approval of the zoning administrator pursuant to the standards of this section. A. Public Hearing Required: Projects requiring a public hearing as required by this title shall be held after the following public notification: 1. Mailing for Public Hearing: Notice by first class mail shall be provided_ a. a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearingi b. to all owners and tenants of the land as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic infoiniation system records. Mailing labels shall be generated by the city at the time of application submittal and created using the Salt Lake City geographic information system records unless as stated otherwise in this title._A list of parties entitled to notice pursuant to chapter 21A.56 of this code shall be provided by the applicant with the application; and c. within three hundred feet (300') from the periphery of land subject to the application, inclusive of streets and right-of-ways, or one thousand feet (1,000') of the periphery of the land subject to application for Sexually Oriented Businesses requiring Conditional Site Plan Review pursuant to chapter 21A.36. 2. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give email notification, or other form of notification chosen by the planning director, a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearing to any organization Airek which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. 3. Contents Of Mailing Notice For Public Hearing: The first class mailing notice for any public hearing required pursuant to this title shall generally describe the subject matter of the application and the date, time and place of the public hearing, and the place where such application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. 4. Posting for Public Hearing: The land subject to an application for a public hearing shall be posted by the city with a sign giving notice of the public hearing, providing the date of the hearing including contact information for more information, at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing. a. Location: One notice shall be posted for each five hundred feet (500') of frontage, or portion thereof, along a public street. At least one sign shall be posted on each public street. The sign(s) shall be located on the property subject to the request or petition and shall be set back no more than twenty five feet (25') from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. Where the land does not have frontage on a public street, signs shall be erected on the nearest street right of way with an attached notation indicating generally the direction and distance to the land subject to the application. b. Removal: If the sign is removed through no fault of the applicant before the hearing, such removal shall not be deemed a failure to comply with the . standards, or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. c. Exemption: This posting requirement shall not apply to applications for amendments involving an H historic preservation overlay district, applications for an administrative certificate of appropriateness or applications for comprehensive rezonings of areas involving multiple parcels of land, including boundaries of a Historic District, or for text amendments to this ordinance. 5. Publication: as required by State Law, at least twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing for an application for an amendment to the text of this title or other processes as required by State Law, the City shall publish a notice of such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City. B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: 1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: The planning commission shall consider requests for conditional building and site design review at a public hearing if there is an expression of interest after providing notice as follows: la. Notification: The city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application. Recognized and Registered Organizations are also entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code by email or other form chosen by the planning director. At the end of the twelve (12) calendar day notice period, if there are requests for a public hearing, the planning commission will schedule a public hearing and consider the issue; if there are no requests for a public hearing, the planning director may decide the issue administratively. 2. Determination Of Noncontributing Status Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days of the determination of noncontributing status of the property to all owners of the land and tenants, within eighty five feet (85') of the land subject to the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to the historic landmark commission. 3. Notice of Application for Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52, the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to Appeal an Administrative Decision set forth in chapter 21A.16. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.12.040.A.7. That section 21A.12.040.A.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Administrative Interpretations: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 7. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give notification, by email or other form chosen by the planning director to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code, that a use interpretation has been determined. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.14.060.B. That section 21A.14.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters: Procedure for Review and Decision), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Notification of Application for Special Exceptions shall be required pursuant to 21A.10. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.16.030.A. That section 21A.16.030.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Appeals of Administrative Decisions: Procedure), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. Notice Of Appeal: Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed with the zoning administrator and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.18.040.A.1.f. That section 21 A.18.040.A.1.f of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Variances: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: f. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.26.078.C.3.b(1). That section 21A.26.078.C.3.b(1) of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District: Review Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: (1) Notice And Posting Requirements: Notice of the administrative hearing shall be done in accordance with chapter 21A.10 of this title. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.020.F.1.d. That section 21A.34.020.F.1.d of the Salt Lake Cite Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: d. Notice For Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing structure shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.34.020.F.2.d. That section 21A.34.020.F.2.d of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: d. Notice:_Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require notice pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.020.K.3.a. That section 21A.34.020.K.3.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: a. Review Of Evidence: All of the evidence and documentation presented to the historic landmark commission shall be made available to and reviewed by the economic review panel. The economic review panel shall convene a meeting complying with the open meetings act to review the evidence of economic hardship in relation to the standards set forth in subsection K_2 of this section. The economic review panel may, at its discretion, convene a public hearing to receive testimony by any interested party; provided, that notice for such public hearing shall be in accordance with chapter 21A.10, "General Application And Public Hearing Procedures". SECTION 10. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.36.030,E.5. That section 21 A.36.030.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5. For conditional home occupations, approval of the apartment management or property owner if the business is conducted on a leased property is required. Notification is subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.10. SECTION 11. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.140.H. That section 21A.36.140.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Sexually Oriented Businesses: Public Notice), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Amok H. [Deleted] SECTION 12. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.140.I. That section 21A.36.140.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Sexually Oriented Businesses: Public Hearing Notice Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Public Hearing Notice Requirements: The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing to review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional site plan review application after public notification pursuant to chapter 21A.10. SECTION 13. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.040.A. That section 21A.50.040.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. Application: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information: 1. A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language, boundaries and zoning district; 2. Street address and legal description of the property; 3. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate; 4. Site plans drawn to scale (where applicable); and 5. Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the applicant and the zoning administrator. SECTION 14. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.040.C. That section 21A.50.040.0 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Determination of Completeness), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: C. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for an amendment, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10, "General Application Procedures", of this title. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.52.040.B. That section 21A.52.040.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Exceptions: Procedure: Determination of Completeness), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. SECTION 16. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.060.A.10. That section 21A.54.060.A.10 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Conditional Uses: Procedures: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 10. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. SECTION 17. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.155.B.1. That section 21A.54.155.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Conditional Uses: Administrative Consideration of Conditional Uses), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Noticing And Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. SECTION 18. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.040.A.3. That section 21A.56.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3. Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. SECTION 19. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.080. That section 21A.56.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Any person adversely affected by the decision of the planning commission may, within Auk ten (10) days after such decision, file an appeal to the land use appeals board. SECTION 20. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.050.D.1. That section 21A.56.050.D.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: New Construction Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning official shall schedule the time for, and hold an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium application. Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. SECTION 21. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.060.C.1. That section 21A.56.060.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: Condominium Conversion Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium conversion project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning director shall schedule the time for an • administrative public hearing to consider the condominium conversion application. Notice for the public hearing shall be pursuant to chapter 21A.10. SECTION 22. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: Bill No. of 2011. Published: By. aul ..Niels tor City Attorney HB ATTY-r1S 50-v5-Ordnance- Fine Tuning-_NoticeDOC SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00784 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City'Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00784) to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City.Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION.1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.10.020. That section 21A.10.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Notice Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.10.020: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Providing all of the information necessary for notice of all public hearings required under this title shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall be in the form established by the zoning administrator and subject to the approval of the zoning administrator pursuant to the standards of this section. A. c 1 >~ Pe its V, es nd n.p als O f u n dm ^+ at Y Y � rr� Decisions: The board of adjustment shall hold at lea consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a special b administrator. Public Hearing Required: Proiects requiring a public hearing as required by this title Such hearing shall be held after the following public notification: 1. Mailing for Public Hearing: Notice by first class mail shall be provided_ . a. a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearing: b. to all owners and tenants of the land as shown on the Salt Lake_City geographic information system records. Mailing labels shall be generated by the city at the time of application submittal and created using the Salt Lake City geographic information system records unless as stated otherwise in this title. A list of parties entitled to notice pursuant to'chapter 21A.56 of this code shall be provided by the applicant with the application. in the application for a special ex , administrator, " " f' d '' + t , sho non the Salt Lake City geographic information system records,: and c. within eighty five feet(85') or three hundred feet (300') from the periphery of land subject to the application, inclusive of streets and right-of-ways. or one thousand feet (1.000') of the periphery of the land subject to application for "'"rak, Sexually Oriented Businesses requiring Conditional Site Plan Review pursuant to chapter 21A.36.if the proposal involves construction of a new principal building of the periphery of the land-subjectt the ^ plication for a nvt special exceptieti--flar-ar-varianc ^' of^ do nby-tl ems administrator. Notice shall be given to each individual property owner and t t 'f f ec ed property is held-in �....''omi.....m .,nership. 7 giving notice of the public hearing at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing. a. Location: One notice shall be posted for each five hun red f et (500') of frontage, or portion thereof, along a public street. At least one sign shall be b five feet (25') from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. Where the land does not have €rent ge „blic street, y shall be b n 11 tl e a' t' d a' to e to the land su ect to the ^ ,Beat' b. Removal: If the sign is removed through no fault of the applicant before the 1 1, y ^1 hal of l e de ed f ili e s 1 with-, the standards, or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give email notification. or other form of notification chosen by the planning director. a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearing to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2. chapter 2.62 of this code. to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. Contents Of Mailing Notice For Public Hearing: The first class mailing notice for any public hearing required pursuant to this title shall generally describe the subject matter of the application and the date. time and place of the public hearing. and the place where such application may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. 4. Posting for Public Hearing: The land subject to an application for a public hearing. shall be posted by the city with a sian giving notice of the public hearing., providing the date of the hearing including contact information for more information, at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing. a. Location: One notice shall be posted for each five hundred feet (500') of frontage, or portion thereof. along a public street. At least one sign shall be posted on each public street. The sign(s) shall be located on the property subject to the request or'petition and shall be set back no more than twenty five feet (25') from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. Where the land does not have frontage on a public street. signs shall be erected on the nearest street right of way with an attached notation indicating generally the direction and distance to the land subject to the application. b. Removal: If the sign is removed through no fault of the applicant before the hearing, such removal shall not be deemed a failure to comply with the standards. or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. c. Exemption: This posting requirement shall not apply to applications for amendments involving an H historic preservation overlay district. applications for an administrative certificate of appropriateness or applications for comprehensive rezonings of areas involving multiple parcels of land. including boundaries of a Historic District, or for text amendments to this ordinance. 5. Publication: as required by State Law. at least twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing for an application for an amendment to the text of this title or other processes as required by State Law, the City shall publish a notice of such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City. B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: Conditional^ Uses: The ,� 'l planning commi , crative h g ofears feerwheezn-app-liicable, shall hold .,t least one public hearing to review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or d l' .t � nd t: a after the follr�i ing bl' notification: b puVlll. 11V LL11Vueavu. Mailing: Notice by first class mail shall be provided a minimum of twelve (12) g, ll owners of the land, as shown b b application for a conditional use, as well as to all owners of land and tenants, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, within three hundred feet (300') of the periphery of the land subject to the application for a conditional use.Netic, h ll h t„ eµch irdiyid„a1 r^ erty o ne_ and tenant if an affected property is held in condominium ownership. 22.. Posting: The land subject to an application shall be posted by the city with a sign giving notice of the public hearing at least ten(10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing. a- T t• O t' h ll l osted for o ch f ye hundred feet (500') of frontage, or pei ion thereof, along a public street. At-least-one-sign-shall-be post eE�c puvi ctre�e+ The g (s) sh ll be located on tl ert �'b lie p'avpa..l �• subject to the request or petition and shall be set back no more than twenty f f• t (2'') f the front . e.-t •l; na shall-be_visib f o,�. the t. of 4�1J1 Vll. 11 Vlll \. Jul liv�. • Where the land does not have frontage on a publictfee t, signs shall be erected on the n rest street right of way with an attached notation indicating generally the-direction and distance to the land subject to the application. b,- Removal: If the sign is removed through no fault of the applicant before the h h a hall of be aee., ea ., failure to � pl, 1 ith the standards,-or be rounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. 3- Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give notification a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearing by first class mail to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. 1. C. Conditional Building aAnd Site Design Review: The planning commission shall consider requests for conditional building and site design review at a public hearing if there is an expression of interest after providing notice as follows: , 4-a. Notification: The city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, included in the application, as well as to the planning commission and to all owners of land records adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application. Recognized and Registered Organizations are also entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code by email or other form chosen by the planning director. At the end of the twelve (12) calendar day notice period, if there are requests for a public hearing, the planning commission will schedule a public-hearing and consider the issue; if there are no requests for a public hearing,the planning commission may authorize the planning director may te-decide the issue administratively. 2. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall also provide notification to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code.Determination Of Noncontributing Status Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing structure. the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days of the determination of noncontributing status of the property to all owners of the land and tenants. within eighty five feet (85') of the land subject to the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period.the planning director shall either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to the historic landmark commission. 3. Postin ppl;cation shall be posted b,•_the cit with a iign giving notice of the pending action at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing.Notice of Application for Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52. the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application. as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision. and include the procedures to Appeal an Administrative Decision set forth in chapter 21A.16. r t : n t hall be posted for o ch five hundred feet (5nn') f , frontage, „ ortion thereof al g a public street. t least ^ sign shall he posted on each public street. The sign(s) shall be located on the property subject to the request or petition and shall be set back no more than twenty five feet (25') from the front property line and shall be visible from theft:eet. Where the land does not have frontage erl ectcd on the nearest street right of way with an attached notation ining generally the direction and distance to the land subject to the applicat b— A 1: rf tl e through r.o f„lt of the . 1icant before the hearing, such removal shall not be deemed a failure to comply with the standards, or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. D hl' u Iftl, pl „ holds blic ho the_c shy " •,� ^ "rt�, ittery-:rrrull provide IATitten notice a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public hearing to all owners of the land and tenants subject to the application, as h th e It r ake Cit<, n phic inform tion system records, included in the application, as well as to the planning commission"and to all owners of land and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application. The city shall also provide notification to any organization which is entitled to receive Adak application shall be posted by the city with a sign giving notice of the pending action at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearing. In the event that the city and applicant are aware of advanced interest in the proje^* the . rlicant Y est to forgo the time frame for determining interest and request a public hearing with the planning commission. D. Amendments To The-Zoning Map Or The Text Of This Title: The planning commission, the city council and the historic landmark commission where applicable, shall each hold at least one public hearing on an application for an amendment to the text f tl tits the „g . n t its r„blic hearing, the planning commission, recommend to the city council that the council adopt, modify or reject the proposed amendment. t its public ho n the cit. 1 1 ll adopt, modify er reject the _ ^�, �un�cr� s��a�� proposed amendment. Public notification shall be provided as follows: �— Publication (First Public Hearing): At least twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing on an application for an amendment to the text of this title or the zoning map, the city shall publish a notice of such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City. Z Mailing: Notice by first class mail shall be provided a minimum of twelve (12) - calendar days in advance of the public hearing(s) before the planning commission, •t •1 1 tL e 1,;stor 1 amark 1; 1 to t 11 owners of the land and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, included in the application for a zoning map rake C;ty i ^gy ph cfe in matio s em ecords, within three hundred feet b (300') of the periphery of the land subject to the application for an amendment to the zoning map. Notice for amendments to the text of this title shall not require a 1 f notice t eYt< Re e n otice f zoning b b ilaY amendment shall be given to each individual property owner and tenants if an affected property is held in condominium ownership. J � l y st,rim• t to .]pll tion for_an m ndment to the zoningT map shall be posted by the city with a notice on a sign of the planning commission or historic landmark commission at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the public hearings. Location: n t shill be r steal fore ch five hiindre l of (inn f frontage, or portion thereof, along a public street. At least one sign shall be to ch p bl; sti of The n;gins) shall be loc to the e t. � CCil1 VlI CII. pr�p�I,i. subject to the request or petition and shall be set back no more than twenty five feet(25') from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. If the owner of the property is not the,applicant and the owner objects to the r't' the the g he pl:i ed o the ubl; right of I � t f th , �i� t, v'ay iii 11 via vI t,II�. property. Where the land does not have frontage on a public street, signs shall be erected on the nearest street right of way with an attached notation indicating generally the direction and distance to the land subject to the application. b- Removal: If the sign isremoved thi•oiigh no fault f the . plicant before the hearing, such removal shall not be deemed failure to comply with the standar-Els, er be a t hallo the .,lidit- f. , de .,do the application. c- Exemption: This posting requirement shall not apply to applications for amendments involving an H historic preservation overlay district, applications for a certificate of appropriateness or applications for comprehensive rezonings of areas involving multiple parcels of land. 4- Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give h g f rgn ratio i hich i[ entitled to receive notice p Y1sL7,ant to itle 2. chapter 2.62 of this code. E. Certificates Of Appropriateness For Landmark Sites Or Contributing Structures Located Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: T11 historic landmark commission shall hold-at least public he g t ", {rl,onsi " aland "uYYr o alteration, new construction, relocation or demolition of a landmark site or b such public hearing shall be required in the event the application is to be administratively approved subject to subsection 21A.31.020F 1 of this title. Where a b b notification: Z�LL 1111111111 U'1 V calendar days in advance of the public hearing, or determination of noncontributing status involving demolition, to all owners of the land and tenants, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, included relocation and demolition, as well as to all owners of land and tenants, as shown •entl} demolition of the periphery of the land subject to the application of a landmark site or contributing structure(s) in the'H h' atie „ erl -a strict. • ,,qk property is held in condominium ownership. 2 Posting: The land subject to an application for demolition, or relocation of a 1 a +- + 1, 11 b t a 1,<•+1 0 ;+<. it ,tic f the . .l l: c�z,vil a .il rtll V v Locatio : ffrontag + A+ least on.e sigi shall be subject to the request or petition and shall be set-back ne m-ere than twenty five feet(25') from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. W +1 1 !1 .1 t 1 e f:-...tage . „blic street signsshall be i b b generally the direction and distance to the land stl ' b- Removal: If the s'b th gl fa It f the . „licart bef the hear, such removal shall t b a e a failure t„ l.. ._;:th the standards, or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. T notification a minimum of twelve (12) calendar ,lays l advance of tho blic ..sue r[l l�. puvll�. hearing by first class mail to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. E Determination Of Noncontributing Status Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing structure, the planning director shall provide written notice of the determination of noncontributing status of the geographic information system records, included in the application for determination a. owners of land and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records within eighty five feet (85') of the land subject to the application. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to the historic landmark commission. . Contents O Notice or Aug: The tice fo •ling for ublic �,eari„„ required pursuant to subsections A through E of this section shall state the substance b, where such applicatio y be pected--by-the-pubblie:-The-netice so that interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.12.040.A.7. That section 21A.12.040.A.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Administrative Interpretations: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 7. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give notification, by first class mail email or other form chosen by the planning director to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code, that a use interpretation has been determined. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.14.060.B. That section 21A.14.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters: Procedure for Review and Decision), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Notification of Application for Special Exceptions shall be required pursuant to 21A.1O. nb f+;ng n rty ignatures: n i t; t l„ •gnnt,,res --rvurcrrr�Tr6perr��c criersrSTbinimres-Tippri-iicrr9�n-rii'ccJc-rirEra�e-s=ryrrarm-c-� of approval of all abutting property owners on a form provided by the zoning administrator. If the zoning administrator determines it to be appropriate, due to the nature of the application, signatures of approval of property owners across the street(s) may also be requir-e4 • • 1 Tf 11 4 rl 1 + 2 +1 1 + • +L 7m tr + s 11 . f t 1 +' + t ad strati. e he ,,g_off:cer to be ide ed ltll �V Vr ^ rr special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 2. If all required signatures are obtained, the zoning administrator will approve, approve with conditions, deny or refer the application to the administrative hearing officer to be considered as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21 A.52 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.16.030.A. That section 21A.16.030.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Appeals of Administrative Decisions: Procedure), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. Notice Of Appeal: Notice of appeal shall be filed within -ten (3010) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed,with the zoning administrator and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.18.040.A.1.f. That section 21A.18.040.A.1.f of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Variances: Procedures), shall be, ''iraot and hereby is, amended to read as follows: f. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. Gummed mailing labels for all ov ners of property, as shown on the latest published property tax records of the Salt Lake County assessor, located within eighty five feet (851 or three hundred feet (300') if the proposal involves construction of a new principal building, ' l directio of the subject property(exclusive of intervening streets and alleys): SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.26.078.C.3.b(1). That section 21A.26.078.C.3.b(1) of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District: Review Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: (1)Notice And Posting Requirements: Notice of the administrative hearing shall be done in accordance with subsection chapter 21A.10.020BC, "Conditional Building And Site Design Review", of this title. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.020.F.1.d. That section 21A.34.020.F.1.d of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: d. Notice For Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing structure shall require notice for., determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to subsection chapter 21 A.10:_020F of this title. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.020.F.2.d. That section 21A.34.020.F.2.d of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: d. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require notice pursuant to subsection chapter 21A.10.020E of this title. SECTION 9. Amending text of Salt Lake Cite' Code section 21A.34.020.K.3.a. That section 21A.34.020.K.3.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: a. Review Of Evidence: All of the evidence and documentation presented to the historic landmark commission shall be made available to and reviewed by the economic review panel. The economic review panel shall convene a meeting complying with the open meetings act to review the evidence of economic hardship in relation to the standards set forth in subsection K,2 of this section. The economic review panel may, at its discretion, convene a public hearing to receive testimony by any interested party; provided, that notice for such public hearing shall be in accordance with chapter 21A.10, "General Application And Public Hearing Procedures"., subsection 21 A.10.020E and section 21 A.10.030 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.E.5. That section 21A.36.030.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5. For conditional home occupations, r^mes, sign * ^s and addresses of all abutting property owners, including property owners across the street(s). Aapproval of the apartment management or property owner if the business is conducted on a leased property is required. Notificationee to neighboring property owners is subject to the tr provisions of subsections 21A.11.060B1 and B2 chapter 21A.10 of this title. SECTION 11. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.140.H. That section 21A.36.140.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Sexually Oriented Businesses: Public Notice), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: T Tl, l' „t shall bt^ ., the „d add f ,ll H. jDeletedl uie�at� rtis,es o=u== property owners within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property lines of the property being considered and names and mailing addresses of chairs of all affected community councils as outlined in title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. SECTION 12. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.140.I. That section 21A.36.140.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Sexually Oriented Businesses: Public Hearing Notice Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Public Hearing Notice Requirements: The planning commission shall hold at least mak one public hearing to review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional site plan review application after the following public notification- pursuant to chapter 21 A.10. M •l• • N t' b . fi t cl^ i shall be ;pled f'fl „teen (1-4-) calendar days in advance of the planning commission's public hearing to all county assessor;included in the application requiring conditional site plan review, as well as to all owners of land, as shown on the latest published property tax records of the county assessor, within &Jae thousand feet (1,000') (exclusive of intervening streets), of the periphery of the land subject to the application requiring conditional site 1. Notic shall beg to each d• .i� l ��� u��� l��ul'.�u�,a� property owner if an affected property is held in condominium ownership. 2 Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give notification a minimum of fourteen (11) calendar days in advance of the planning, commission's meeting by first class mail to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. SECTION 13. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.040.A. That section 21A.50.040.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. Application: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information: 1. A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language, boundaries and zoning district; 2. Street address and legal description of the property; 3. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate; 4. Site plans drawn to scale (where applicable); and 5. Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the applicant and the zoning administrator_.; b. ' (300') of the periphery of the property where the map amendment is being proposed; and ?— Written confirmation by the applicant that any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2:62 ft is code has been notified e f the proposed amendment. SECTION 14. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.040.C. That section 21A.50.040.0 of the Salt Lake City Code.(Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Determination of Completeness). shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: C. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for an amendment, the zoning administrator shall make a deteiiuination of completeness pursuant to section chapter 21A.10.010, "General Application Procedures", of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of subsection 21 A.10.020D of this title. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.52.040.B. That section 21A.52.040.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Exceptions: Procedure: Determination of Completeness), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to section chapter 21A.10.010 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of subsection chapter 21A.10.020A of this title. SECTION 16. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.060.A.10. That section 21A.54.060.A.10 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Conditional Uses: Procedures: Application), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 10. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. Mailing labels I n�rh ro/ii itr IIV LIll public hearing en the proposed conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this SECTION 17. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.155.B.1. That section 21A.54.155.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Conditional Uses: Administrative Consideration of Conditional Uses), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Noticing And Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21 A.10: Notice of th owners and the property shall be posted pursuant to subsection 21 A.10.020B of this SECTION 18. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.040.A.3. That section 21A.56.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3. A printed list on gummed mailing label of all r al p e,-+. withinl t Fee hundred feet(300'), excluding streets, of the proposed condominium. Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10. Where conversion of an � it t it g l i st shall i s ++ + f t building SECTION 19. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.080. That section 21A.56:080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Any person adversely affected by the decision of the planning commission may, within thirty ten (1030) days after such decision, file an appeal to the land use appeals board. SECTION 20. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.050.D.1, That section 21A.56.050.D.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: New Construction Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning official shall schedule the time for, and hold an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium application. Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in chapter 21A.10 e shall be mailed to all pr-opertowilers-,--as-speeifieEl-in-subsectieti21 A.56.040A3-ef this chapter at least fourteen (11) days in advance. The notice shall inform the notified party of the date and time of the public hearing. SECTION 21. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.060.C.1. That section 21 A.56.060.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedures: Condominium Conversion Process), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium conversion project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning.official director shall schedule the time for an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium conversion application. Notice for the public hearing shall be pursuant to chapter 21A.10.020.shall be mailed to all property owners and current tenants of the building, and to the chair of the appropriate community-council, as specified in subsection 21A.56.010A3 of this chapter at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the scheduled hearing. The notice shall inform the notified party of the date and time of the public hearing. SECTION 22. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) "milk Bill No. of 2011. Published: • HB ATTY-41 85 50-v4-Ordinance-_Fine_Tuning-_Notice.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2010-00784 to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner, including appeal period dates to be consistent for all boards and commissions. The proposal also includes removal of the signature gathering requirements for routine and uncontested matters and replaces it with an official notice of application process. As part of its review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)* City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah *Please enter building from east side If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner, at 801-535-6003 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at michaela.oktay@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests or additional information, please contact the City Council Office at 801-535-7600. or TDD 801-535-6021. Oktay, Michaels gym: esther e hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] nt: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:59 PM To: Pickering, Maryann; Oktay, Michaela Subject: Fw: Discussion this a. m. notice and special exceptions Categories: Red Category fyi...please give me a call if you have any questions about my note or the meeting this am. e From: esther e hunter Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:57 PM To: Salt Lake Community Network Subject: Discussion this a. m. notice and special exceptions Dear All, While both of these items have been heard and advanced by the Planning Commission, I do not believe that they have yet been transmitted to the City Council so I have listed the Planning Division contacts. Here is the links for the staff reports: Special Exception Authority- Text Amendment http://www.slcgov.com/boards/nlancom/2011/July/specialexception.pdf The Planner is: `aryann Pickering J1.535.7660 or maryann.nickerinel'slceov.com Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing http://ww w.sl cgov.com/boards/plancom/2011/june/codemaintenance.ndf The Planner is: Michaela Oktay 801.535.6003 michaela.oktavrc'i slccov.com For this second item Notice for a few Special Exceptions to recognized and registered organizations will be by email instead of mail. Since the City can easily maintain a list serve with all organizations listed, this will be a very easy and cost effective solution to being both transparent and keeping the neighborhoods, business districts and community orgs notified. Please see the last item on page 11, last line regarding notice of application for Special Exceptions. SLCN P and I Committee spent considerable time on this topic. The recommendation is that recognized and registered organizations be added to this line item. This is also what was recommended in ZAP. 'y allowing. early notification of applications via email.the City will add tremendous transparency, save ,vervone time & money and will allow early and good discussion within each neighborhood uniting efforts rather than creating disharmony and changes that bring costs later on. 1 While good solutions and mitigations are not always possible (Walmart) , most of the time (i.e. IHC), the City is strengthened by this good early communication between neighbors. warmly, e Esther E.Hunter Co-Chair Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning. District 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102 east.central@live.com Ilk 4770 S. 5600 W. P.O. BOSS 704005 Z.rviir*att gakr vibttitr MEDIAE (te Deseret News \PEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84170 FED.TAX I.D.# 87-0217663 , - PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMERS COPY ,GU STOMERNATrIE:ANDADDRESS- - . --1 -. ACCOUNT-NUMBER". 1=.= DATE`S_< -• PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 6/13/2011 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 4 r ~:r — ; ."_ _: =..ACCOUNT=NAME, - _ __ _- .x_ . -_ PLANNING DIVISION, , - =. -!..4` �3ELEPIIONE=- _- :_ ==ADORDER#.:/,`tl 1VOICENUM ER 8015356184 0000698357 / " -r t- *!' •••"= -_ _ �-:. :S:__-_ _ `,.SCHEDVLE,fi"= ;-�==-`,6.,• _ ._--' '., �'vi::';;I"r: x.-._ __ .. 72 .;t _. -_ - _. - ,- _.- _,;.cep-- .. _._ - - - Start 06/10/2011 End 06/10/2011 h; = __ - _ - .7-,,: - a-' - - _ _ -t:tzl„. _ -c-,::.^� f.r- S::II Lake CityZoning I --,; r=a.a-"�s.�, .t:: nin Mali -_" _" -�E��- "�=��. _ _�>"`.u:�v'-�,�A.} CUST,aREF_NOr;�,.. , r��:- 'N�, - _ 9 - _ - - - :..c=f:,�'.-�_�i.-'`' 3'es� - s -- -r�.,ti-_: _-_ _ -,_.-,r wrap.=.;._ ,: - �� . „,,?Z-"'s=:- _ ..._'_._- - - ana -_ - -_ .- . - -. - - � - - . -- - Grdinance Amerdmenl On June 22, 2011, ire Suit' PC PH 06/22/11 Lake City Planning Commis-' sion will hold a public hear- ing to consider making iec- - �YivJ�a�-:S�:.s�_- - � --"_ =_ ,`_ _ _ - f Y;'A,;��?�r'� ` :,7:4'�_i�c�a,` i�;N"... ��_ma•=� �- --_�_��1 Cmme r s to the City Council regarding ego the follow- ; _,� �- - , ' . - .» $ .. - - � - - - --F--°P1-�.-.; ; :�= �1t_ _: .A, +-f_ .�Z';' i;` `�"- my petitions:PLNPCM2010-00784 Coon I Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On June 22, 2011, the Salt Lake City F Maintenance Noticing Tex:, Amendment - A request by I Mayor Ralph Becker in _ _ *� ,,. _•.H.#r,. _ amene sections 21A.10 C20, '�; 4.060 of _ ;�� ...v.;{r. - - -- � _ _ ____ __ -__ c �=�?t::=,y`�<:�•_ _��`.�-a` --'.wrzvk�vw��..�9a.}.;,3� - ?l A.l the zoning ..;: rM:y.:,�.='-';,-?ey- -"_ - -. ._ '- _ - _ _ -..-- = -..--. ,z7�a:,=:ei `r�._:_ _._':'-- r.. _;.'�,� _-�.�r.' ._ Ordirwnce to re . a.;,'..,a ,. .'-�'- require"�`���` - q.:=r ''� - y tic hearings to be noticed inae similar manner using hie most 48 Lines 1.00 COLUMN stringent of the eribing nchc-I mg requitement. The pro-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ pawl will remove signal-Lite I c _ _t-_ _ - �-,t�p _ _ - r- -__�" - _;°.' R_ _- _ ,,,v_' - -,?, -1" requirements for routine and _�.". _..,_ ;:�_r__T - _ - = - =v~� _: ...RAT&� . a.�,�: _ . IIVIES`r':.L:.:'.-";����L��-`-„ .-., � �xs` =T_ _ uncontested special ex•ep- .•. I Irons and replace wit I an of• I facial notice of application 4kelered provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be Iamended as port of this pet,- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _y.r_ - -=0, ,I RG-ES. „„-..,,- = hon. (Staff contact:Michaele - - _ - .a` -- --G: rF- s�C r3 -S,',4 G_a:,,4rr-�_ Okra 8011 �. SC..C'IIAR�JE.S"":__- - -- - - _ - - - - - - .. , .- -. ._ - I Y at( 53goc.cn or _- _.mac _ _ "` - -„,:.z.,3�:z ' ..,...-.t-e,..� _..�:,�_,_ :_,•. . _ --_- n �=a��,,.• �: ;• �•s_ I nnchaela.oktayCslcgoy.coni). The public hearing will banjo at 5:45 p.m.in room 326 cf the City County Building,45 i South State Street,Salt Lave __4a=-_-_ - _" - 21e City, UT. For more 'nfcima- -,,,. __ -- x ';� ' = -- _ clan or for special tno ' - � --�- -" --' -- commodations,which mop na- clude alternate formats, Ir- terpreters, and other eur.ili- 85.64 any aids or additional inter_ motion, please contort Michaele Oktay al 535-6003 or call TDU 535-6220. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION o°8357 utAZL" AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC dba MEDIAONE OF UTAI-I LEGAL BOOKER.I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF Salt Lake City Zoning Man and Ordinance Amendment On June 22.2011.the Salt Lake City Planninc,Commission will hold a public hearing to consider makinro reconi FOR PLANNING DIVISION.WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC dba MEDIAONE OF L'TAH,.AGENT FOR TI-IE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS_DAILY NE\\'SPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH. AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY.SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAI-i.NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINATELY. �"°"" YIRGINI4 CR?:FT , PUBLISHED ON Start 06/10/2011 End 06/10/2011 %'"'' i {tiv;;t1i)Notary Public Siteac of Utah (i?iv >�i Commission?is--:4691s1, u•, far My Ccrnmission ! 'pins -IGNATUI: -j-') _6 ,- ry 12.? ; _CAL DATE 6/13i2011 `1\` 'IB` ) 1h. ', \I. `� THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" 1: PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT Ij Planning Commission Staff Report ,°S. CODE MAINTENANCE —AMENDING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS • PLNPCM2010-00784 `,,•r,..T.��,••• Hearingdate: June 22, 2011 Community Planning DivisionDepartment of &Economic Development Applicant Request SLC Corp.,Mayor Ralph Becker On November 16, 2010 Mayor Ralph Becker, represented by Wilf Staff Michaela Oktay 801/535-6003 Sommerkorn, Planning Director, initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake michaela.oktay@slcgov.com City Zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar Current zone manner, including appeal period dates to be consistent for boards and N/A commissions. The proposal also includes removal of the signature gathering Current master plan designation requirements for routine and uncontested special exceptions and replaces it City-wide Council District with an official notice of application process. The purpose is to provide City-wide further clarity and efficiency. Community Council City-wide Recommendation Affected Ordinance Sections PLNPCM2010-00784—Code Maintenance-Amending Noticing Requirements • 21A.10 General Application Based on the findings in the staff report, it is the Planning Staffs opinion that and Public Hearing Procedures the Planning Commission transmits a favorable recommendation to the City • 21A.12 Administrative Council to adopt the proposed ordinance text amendments related to noticing Interpretations requirements, processes and appeals. • 21A.14 Routine and Uncontested Matters • 21A.16 Appeals of Admin Decisions • 21A.18 Variances • 21A.26 Commercial Districts • 21A.34 Overlay Districts • 21A.36 General Provisions • 21A.50 Amendments • 21A.52 Special Exceptions • 21A.54 Conditional Uses • 21A.56 Condominium Approval Procedures Notification • Notice mailed June 10,2011 • Published in newspapers June 23,2011 • Posted to Planning Dept and Utah State Public Meeting websites June 23,2011. Attachments A. Comparison Table for proposed amendments B. Proposed Notification of Application Process C. DRAFT Ordinance PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing Requirements Page of 8 Background Planning staff occasionally encounters issues with the Zoning Ordinance that require clarification or modification. The proposed revisions are generally intended to clarify the intent of the ordinance but not to substantially alter it and to improve the effectiveness of noticing processes. Petition Description In November 2010, Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to amend the noticing requirements in two ways: Standardize Public Hearing Requirements (See Attachment A for TABLE illustrating changes) First, that all public hearings are noticed in the same manner: • Official notice to all property and tenants 12 days prior to hearing • Increase notification to 300 foot radius from project property • Ensure sign posting 10 days prior to public hearing • Notice to Recognized and Registered organizations 12 days prior to hearing • Change Appeal of Decisions from 30 days to 10 days for the Board of Adjustment The goal is to standardize and reduce the Noticing Chapter Section 21A.10.020 by making the requirements the same for all types of processes requiring a public hearing. This will avoid errors when carrying out official notification and eliminate the need to amend the noticing chapter when a new type of process is created. It will also ensure that information is distributed to property owners and tenants in an official, correct and predictable manner. It will utilize the most stringent of the noticing requirements which is notification of property owners 300 feet from the subject property. Other current requirements include an 85 foot radius. The proposed Agnik standard 300 foot radius will ensure an appropriate property neighbor notification in the city. Part of the consistency effort of this proposed amendment is to also make the appeal period for the Board of Adjustment the same as for the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission, which have a ten day appeal period. State Law does not require more than a ten day review. In a 2009 text amendment, the appeal period for Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission decisions was changed from thirty days to ten days. It is the goal and intent of this amendment to provide further consistency in carrying out the planning processes by providing predictable appeal periods for each board and commission making planning related decisions. Remove signature gathering requirements for Routine and Uncontested Special Exceptions Secondly, the petition calls to remove the signature gathering requirement for Routine and Uncontested Special Exceptions and replace it with a new administrative process (Notice of Application for a Special Exceptions) by which abutting property owners and resident (tenant) if different receive an official notification from the city. Currently, a Routine and Uncontested Matter is a type of Special Exception which may be administratively approved if it meets the standards for special exceptions, and if signatures of abutting property owners are collected. Currently the signatures from abutting property owners signify that they are aware of the project and do not request a public hearing to offer evidence to contest the matter. It should be noted that a Routine and Uncontested matter must meet the standards for special exceptions to be approved administratively, regardless of completion of the signature gathering requirement. Previous Discussions/Issues relating to current signature gathering On March 16, 2009, Planning Staff met with a Zoning Text Amendment Task Force (ZAP) to review issues, new policies and procedures to meet transparency initiatives of the city, streamlining processes and PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing Requirements Page 2 of 8 strengthening predictability relating to special exceptions. Routine and Uncontested Matters were addressed and consensus was reached to remove the signature requirement and move towards creating a new notification and appeals process. The basic reasons for removing the signature gathering requirement are: • Often times an applicant's project has been held up by a neighbor who will not sign simply because they do not want to. • In many cases there have been not real objections to proposals and some have used the signature requirement improperly by extorting something from an applicant. • City cannot delegate its approval authority to a private property owner, it has created an improper expectation that your neighbor must sign in order for you project to be approved by the city. • The City has had no way of verifying signatures submitted as authentic. • Many times neighboring property owners are located out of state or out of the area and have been difficult to find. • The signature collection process has also gives the applicant a false sense of"approval." The Zoning Amendment Task Force (ZAP)that was convened in 2009 to review various zoning amendments discussed the issues relating to the signature gathering requirement and proposed a new "Notification of Application for Special Exceptions." The Notice of Application process would apply to those Special Exceptions which are designated as Routine and Uncontested Matters. The goal is to create a"Notice of Application for Special Exceptions"that would operate in the following manner: 1. An application for a Routine and Uncontested Special Exception is submitted. 2. Staff reviews application for completeness. 3. After application is deemed complete, abutting neighbors are officially notified. 4. Notification includes project information, future date of decision, where to inspect the application, and appeal information. 5. Neighbors would be given 12 days to contact staff with input which staff would use to utilize as part of the application analysis. 6. After 12 days, Staff would make a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. 7. The determination would be posted on the City website. 8. All parties reserve the right to appeal an Administrative Decision to the Board of Adjustment. Public Participation Community and Recognized Organizations An Open House was held on May 19, 2011. Notice of the Open House was sent to Community Council chairs, business groups and those whose names are on the Planning Divisions List serve. Notice was also posted on the City and State website. There was no public comment received. Public Comments Staff has received no public comment. City Department Comments Staff sent information regarding the proposed text changes to numerous City Departments and no comments were received. PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing Requirements Page 3 of 8 Analysis The proposed text amendments focus on Chapter 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures, and 21A.14 Routine and Uncontested Matters. A reorganization of the Noticing Chapter is intended to provide a clearer, more consistent and concise list of noticing procedures, along with the addition of a Notice of Application for Special Exceptions procedure. For ease of analysis, the most substantial amendments are presented relating to 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Requirements, while the other amendments are corrected to refer to the proper section. STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The community master plans and their land use policies generally outline neighborhood, community and regional uses of land and their characteristics. The purpose is to guide land use but not specifically address the level of detail as the zoning ordinance. „Aimok ,40.401 Finding: The proposed text amendments provide additional refinement of the zoning regulations of the City"s code by providing clarification of existing regulations and enhancement of processes. The proposed amendments will help insure compatibility and consistency with goals, objectives and policies of the adopted master plans of the City. Maintenance and updating of the code is often necessary to increase consistency with goals, objectives and policies of Salt Lake City. The proposed text changes are consistent with adopted policy documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Analysis: In Salt Lake City, the Zoning Ordinance has been the main tool used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. All of the proposed changes to the text, as outlined, are intended to clarify or further advance the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The proposed changes do not alter the various purpose statements included in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with current planning practices and further the specific purpose statements found throughout the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Analysis: The proposed text amendments are neither site nor overlay zoning district specific. Therefore they will not interfere with the character of specific properties. The proposed amendments reflect code PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing Requirements Page 4 of 8 maintenance issues intended to improve noticing effectiveness and processes and do not specifically relate to, nor impact provisions of any adopted overlay zone. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with the provisions of all applicable overlay zoning districts that may impose additional standards and do not modify any intent or purpose of the existing City code. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The proposed text amendments reflect current practices in urban planning and State law by enhancing processes that both create and ensure proper notification methods. These amendments will both update and enhance City's planning practices. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and implement best current and professional practices of urban planning and design and are consistent with State law. They provide increased noticing for public hearings, and procedures that ensure more consistency and provide a correct official notification to members of the community. PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance—Amending Noticing Requirements Page 5 of 8 Public Hearing Noticing Requirements (June 22, 2011) (Proposed new additions and dektions, PLNPCM2010-00784) PROCESS FIRST CLASS MAILING RADIUS POSTING OTHER EMAIL NOTICING Board of Adjustment/Admin Hearing Special Exceptions 12 calendar days prior public hearing 10 calendar days prior public hearing 12 calendar days prior public Every property owner&tenant hearing: Variances (including owners&tenants if held in • Include all recognized and condo ownership): registered organizations Appeals of 85 feet Administrative • within 300 feet+f-it-involves-the Decisions constri4 4i n-r)',-a--nc.av tEii3al 3i3ti din[? Planning Commission/Admin Hearing 12 calendar days prior public hearing 10 calendar days prior public hearing 12 calendar days prior public Conditional Uses hearing: Every property owner and tenant • Include all recognized and (including owners&tenants if held in registered organizations condo ownership): • within 300 feet PROCESS FIRST CLASS MAILING RADIUS POSTING OTHER EMAIL NOTICING Conditional Building 12 calendar days prior public hearing 10 calendar days prior public hearing 12 calendar days prior public and Site Design hearing: • General Every property owner and tenant • Include all recognized and applications n{�Id.�cii�7f;c7wnc+s_ti.tenants if lipW in registered organizations cup rlo ownership: • Mam-be f-the-'-1artn-ing • ad a€en-t-anal-r..c.utiguous_a00 feet Cfm+mist3terr Conditional Site Plan 4412 calendar days prior public hearing None. 14-12 calendar days prior public Review Every property owner and tenant hearing: • Sexually Oriented (including owners if held in condo • Include all recognized and Businesses ownership): registered organizations • Within 1,000 feet • JViea-hers-f414E landing Commission 12 calendar days prior public hearing 10 calendar days prior public hearing 12 calendar days prior public Zoning Map hearing: Amendment Every property owner and tenants • Include all recognized and (including owners &tenants if held in registered organizations condo ownership): • New,} apes-Eli -ice • within 300 feet Zoning Text No mailing. No posting. ?- lericar--dla }prier--public Amendment 43earing: • Newspapeg--1 ti€e z PROCESS FIRST CLASS MAILING RADIUS POSTING OTHER EMAIL NOTICING Historic Landmark Commission Certificates of 12 calendar days prior public hearing 10 calendar days prior public hearing 12 calendar days prior public Appropriateness for hearing: landmark sites or Every property owner and tenant • Include all recognized and contributing (including owners if held in condo registered organizations structures ownership): • vJrtllirl f 7 feet-for-CC-)As for ralteration& • within 300 feet if-it:-irwel' es-rle-w hr+ikiin f;;-ryaecYa4ien-dermfel+t+on Administrative Procedures Conditional Building 12 calendar days prior to admin decision Include all recognized and and Site Design registered organizations Every property owner and tenant: • adjacent and contiguous Arse n—fier`- f-the--P-far�r GO rn f)1i 55i 0 Determination of 12 calendar days prior to admin decision Include recognized and registered noncontributing for COA organizations status within and H overlay district in Every property owner and tenant Ad ortll-yens-ef--l-t-is-t ie-t-artrtnaFk regards to (including owners if held in condo rr;91 ' fl demolition ownership): • within 85 feet otice.!c,C 12 c«k ntJor d_ays pr io?r to admire decision t�1alirtit�n fgr Sl?cc0l Ex,cepttort13, Evers- ygpertv owner and tenant 0101(141ft Owricn if heldjo cotudo ntJstnr fti }: • aii ?€rant and c.ontiQrt(?b! to ion 'or Special,Exceptions &P.rcicess nh' Application Intake Application taken at the Planning Counter in the Building Permit's office. i i Staff Assignment Planner assigned petition. • Staff Review Planner reviews application for completeness and prepares"Notice of Application." Notice of "Notice of Application"mailed to all abutting property owners and tenants.Notice includes project Application Mailed description,where application can be inspected,future date of decision and appeal information. ♦ Substantive information Yes Decision made or received / ► ► referred to Public ►I' Public Hearing from Hearing neighbors / • No Decision is made after 12 days or is forwarded on to a public hearing process • Decision Decision posted to City website. Appeal Period All parties have 10 days to appeal decision. Application Closed DRAFT-PLNPCM2010-00784-Amending Noticing Requirements Chapter 21A.10 GENERAL APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES 21A.10.020: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: A Special Except-ion-Pe irr.V -r-ianee-s and ,4-ppealsOf-Zanit dr inistrat©r-&-?ecisions:T-he b ar f ad}-u-stet-mail hold-at least onQ-p lic-kaearir g o re\fiel:;;coa-sider arad-approve; approve-with conditionrs;er deny-an u plicatio #ora-s eaiaa exlc-eptien•or-fer-a--var-iaeiee;or to e-o}n-sider-an eal€r-o„ -a-derision-o€-t-he-zsa ag-ad i i t-ratoPublic Hearing Required: Projects requiring a public hearing as required by>' tiffs title,Sum-hear-iting shall be held after the following public notification: 1. Mailing For Public Hearing: Notice-by first class MailFsha1l.be provided: a. a minimum of twelve (12) calendardays in advance of the public hearing;-P�lailir, : Jot-ic--e-by-fir-st-clas-s-frail-shah-be-provided-a--r inimdm-ef-feu+rteen 14)calendUr-days-ir-adva nee - ef-the pl-an-ning-eornm- sioR,-pubic-hea-r g-to-alI o vners-e-f--the4and_--as-shown-on-the-latest f}t-.."btished-property-tax.r-eeord-s of-the-e F nty-as`eSser:,',nc--tided-In-the-aprrllisation-r-equirinh eonditio -al-site-plan revie\•sue a ell=a-s-tQ-ad-4-ov�r s f-l-a-nd as-shown Qom-the-latest-p ibl-i-sh-ed proper-t-y-to-x-r-e-0rds-of-t e-c-ou- t';%-usse-ssorT-ithiri-one--th u-sand-feet-(-1 0001-) Cexel4.lsiv& f in-teaven,r•• f-t-h e and-s-iib-ec-t-t-o-the-a^-;icaticn-r-e^-uiri-rru-c-ond-itioaaI site-plan review-NecieC shall-be i�i'en-te-eaeh-S ,d•.vidu l-prope-rt,i-av,me-r-if-anaff-ec-t-e pFc^, art`' is-held-in-c-andomini i -ownership b. to all owners and tenants of theland as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records, labels are generated by the city at the time of application submittal and created using the-Salt Lake City_geographic information system records unless as stated otherwise in this title, an applicant shall provide information that cannot be accessed through the city's G'S records.Notice shall be gv.en to_each individual property owner and tenant if an affected property is held in condominium ownership,inekided-in-the-applic-a-ion; and fora,pecial-except-ion;-var-i-anc-e;or-an-appe-al--of-a-decision-by-the-Zoning ad nin-istra-tor-;as .ell-as-to-all-ov,kner-s-of lard-a d-tenants, a-s-shewia-onthe-Saft-- -ke Citygeographic-information sy✓t-er„-rec-ordsrWith,n-eightyfive-fee -(-851)--or- c. within three hundred feet (300') from the periphery of land subject to the application ,inclusive of streets and right-of-ways, or one thousand feet (1,000'Lof the periphery of the DRAFT-Revised June 9.2011 Page 1 land subject to application for Sexually Oriented Businesses requiring Conditional Site Plan Review pursuant to 21A.36.if-the-pre a eleres-E-o-nstrs en-ef a ncv.Har-;ncipa4-'}gilding of t-he-peripne y of-the-Ind-s rbject to the-appficatio-n-fer-a-speed-exiaepi-en-fer-a-varia-�-ems er an appea1-ef-a-decision by the zon-iaag-ad-m-i-nfstra-te 23.. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations:The city shall give electronic email notification, or other form of notification chosen by the planning director, rctificatian-a minimum of twelve (12)calendar days in advance of the publichearing to any or an gization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter .62 of this code. 3. G:-Contents Of Mailing Notice For Ma-ii-ingPublic Hearing:The-first class mailing notice for mailing-for any public hearing required pursuant to bse-etie ,s reug -of-this sectiontitle shall generally state-describe the substanc-e subject matter of the application and the date, time and place of the public hearing, and the place where such application may be inspected by the public.The notice shall also advise that interested parties mayappear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the application.(-0rd--69-0 ;=2- 24. Posting for Public Hearing:The lanei subject to an application for a public hearing shall be posted by the city with a sign giving notice of the public hearing,'providin t� he date of the uk hearing including contact information for more information,,at least ten (10) calendar days in ''' advance of the publichearing. a. Location: One'notice shall be posted for each five hundred feet (500') of frontage, or portion thereof,along a public street. At least one sign shall be posted on each public street. The sign(s)shall be'located on the property subject to the request or petition and shall be set back noxnore than twenty five feet-(25')from the front property line and shall be visible from the street. Where the land does not have frontage on a public street, signs shall be erected on the nearest street right of way with an attached notation indicating generally the direction and distance to the land:subject to the application. b. Removal: If the sign is removed through no fault of the applicant before the hearing, such removal shall not be deemed a failure to comply with the standards, or be grounds to challenge the validity of any decision made on the application. c. Exemption:This posting requirement shall not apply to applications for amendments involving an H historic preservation overlay district, applications for an administrative certificate of appropriateness or applications for comprehensive rezonings of areas involving 'multiple parcels of land, including boundaries of a Historic District, or for text amendments to this ordinance. Amok DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 2 • • • B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: LC-Conditional Building aAnd Site Design Review:The planning commission shall consider requests for conditional building and site design review at a public hearing if there is an expression of interest after providing notice as follows: a. Notification:The city shall provide written notice y first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants subject to the application, as shown on the Salt;Lake City geographic information system records, adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application. included-in the-applic-a-tion1a-swell as to tThe-p4a ng-oc amis-siow-and-te-all us ers of-land-and ten anis-assl~;owra-oa-the-Bait-L-a-ke-C-ity-geog� pJa c-iw-fa-ma-Lion-syste•wa-recoFds-acijac-entt to and-contibueos-wi-th-t-h.4and-subjec*to-the-application Recognized and Registered Organizations are also entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code by electronic email or other form chosen by the Rlan-wir, a-rtaentplanning director. At the end of the twelve(12) calendar day notice period, if there are requests for a public hearing, the planning commission will schedule a public hearing and consider the issue; if there are no requests for a public hearing,'t=he,plaarai}ng carom scion-w,ay-authoraze.-the planning director may to-decide the issue administratively. 2.4-Determination Of Noncontributing Status Within An_H Historic Preservation Overlay District: a. Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing structure,the plawnin dir-eotarcity shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days of the determination of noncontributing status of the property to all owners of the land and tenants,within eighty five feet (85') of the land subject to the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system record s-ir ekii4ed-+n the-applic-ation-fo-r-d ter-rn-inatior- of -_ _+,.«s t -tTh ,��,, � _ 14-a_s--e---�- __ s+eia-aid-to allown,. f_ tenants as_shown-an-the-Salt_La_e C t Lzeo _ • _ system records. -he-lamp c- o-t-la _ ova-At the_end of the twelve 1,12Lday notice period, the planning director shall either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to the historic landmark commission. DRAFT-Revised June 9.2011 Page 3 3. Notice of Application for Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in 21A.522.O2:0,the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application:The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application,the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to Appeal an Administrative Decision set forth in 21A.16. 2--Notifi'C ion-To-Recog ized- nd-Re ytere-d-C anization- ity sift lso- rovide riot+is-a-tion-tos-hy-er-gan'izat-icon-m!✓ leh-i-s-entitied-ta-r-eeei-ve tie-e-p -r-suant tea- -it-le 2, chapter -2-•6—of-t41;•s-code: 3,-Posting:The-land-s bjcct to the-applic-a ien-sf: -ld-b o to by-the-eitya ith-,d=sf ing notice of-t-he pending action- t-lea-st=terra=- )-cafendar-day-*ada,-apace-of-the-pu1a14c-near4r-ig- a--Location -One-not-ice-shall-be-po5t-ed-for-each-five-h-u-n-dr-ed-feet-(5001)-of frontage; or-portion thereof;aloe-g-a-pu'blio street--A lea- e sigashad epested-on-each public-street:T-street. -si'g-n(s), oak shall-be-located-at tie-proper-ty-sty-bjeet-te--the-rec-i';.&t-car-petition-and-shaII-be-set-bac-k-no more-than-twenty-five-feet(25')f-rem-t-h-e ror t--propertyline-and-sh'all-be-visible-from-the str-eat-Wnefe-t- e-land-does-not-have-frontage-on-a--pubiic street;signs-.hall-be-er,-cted-on-the Rea rest-st-reet-r{ght-cost::43y-v:1th-an.attaehea--n t-at-ion-inAk•-at-iFg-gene-ralI'y'-the-d1reet'ion-and distance-t-o-the-lan subjea-to-the:'applic-,�t1on b:-Removal: If t-be--sig-r4-15-r-emcavecl afire gl3 na-fau-lt--of-the-a-p Ii nt befortethe..-,h-e-aaFi g, removtaa y41611,net be-deemed1.-a-faii-ure tocomply-with l~e-.,tand,-N-- s;-or-b— rou,nds-t-o-eh-a-llenge the-validity-Of r,-y-dec-ision-r-Rade-onthe-app- liEation: 4:-pu i—c-He. lf-the-plannin c m iss on-healers-a-pu c he-aringrt-he-eityLshali-provide .written-aao ic-e-a-min Um-o'ftweive ( -ale adar--da y,5--in-adva-n�-'e of t-he-public-heari-ng-to--all c.asne-,s-o4he4Unand-tenants-su-bject to-the-application, as-shown-en-the Sa-lt-Lak'e-C-itart geegraphre-rotor-rnadorn-system-reeds;-meta'ded-in--the-ar,p14eatien;ass,,,tel-as'-to-the lanr in-g comr"issian-ar+d e-all-owrier--oaf-la-rid-an -teraa ts-as-shown-on-the-Sal#L-ake-Gity-geQgraph-ic infer-rnat-ion sy&&tem roc-sus-acljac-east-t€n-anel-ee-ntigu aa-s witka-the-la- stbjec-;tom-t-he-appfic-a'tion, The- i y-sh&i-a vide-notif-ie tion t0 a'i�,`yt`forgan1zatio^,' '-ilvthieh'-is-entitled to-r'oc&v -net-Fee purstuant-to-i-tie-2-,-cha-pier 2:6'2-eat-tla-is-code:The-larld-strbjec-t-to-t-he-app-lie-anon--sh,a'll-be-posted by-the-city-with-a-sign-givingnotice-ef-the-pe>nc11ng-action-at-lea-st-ten-(-10)-calenu,:-days-in adva,n,ee-o-t-he public-kaea-ring: .400414 DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 4 5 'ent-that Eti d-a p + " "fie"�3f-advane,.� ' + ri+r+: +h.� nr�io of + q lTL-Ci'ft-i]-iYr U-Y"lYl-I L::Ti'lT'1-CT'C"P"fVt.1-t�a applizant-r-n-ay-r-e Est t-der-g-o-the-ta e-fl ,me--far determ•ning-i•Stec-est-and-regdest-a-public l ea iRg-with tbe-;anni-rgGer - iss.o: S-Arnend cents To The rking-iV!a- r-T-tae-Ter f-- lags-Tatle. he-pla b c-or l ai-ssio-n the-c-it-y eou- oil-and-the-his&teric Ian Iadl a-ric-c fie-e rpl4Ga-bl all-each-hold-at-least or e public fearing-en-an-a-ppliea-tion for--a•n-a-r end-r aen-t-ts--the-t.- t-caf-tla+s-title-or-the-zen�-lg d'i a p^-rct-i tsi ^�'.}1311i-h€'a ri�3b,t IV.�131a f�r3" ing-•c i ienra n d- -li is c-e,ri g'=-fai th na r-I<-C-C r3 F`'inis i-E',n- wheree-app!iGable, shall--feviewrcansief-e-and-i"eLemrne.nd-te7the-city-c-o neil-that-tf-ve-c-eunc-i areebtrmodify-or-re ect-the-pFeposed-a ofdrnent-At-it-s-p04e4ear-i„g, the city-Gounc-iI shall-adoptrr;Jodi#y-or-reject-' -propesed-are-ndrne-nt:,° bi-c--n tifioat-ion skald-be provicied as-folloW's: Publication-;F+rrt-Rtblic-hear-i-rfib; i-least-t-parel-ve-;r2)feadar-days-in-aelyance--ef-the-first ub1ibhea-ring-era a-n-a lication-for-an-a-rnendnlent-to-the-te-t lais`t+tle er-the-zani g-m,ap7 the-c-iityF-shall-pubdista-a-Hence-of suc-I•a-pul;lic--hear ng-in-a-ra-e-v.spaper-af-gerre-ral-cireulztion-in-Sa-It fake �-ity- -la,�dailinb ialetise-byffi-r-stclass.,-raaaff-514231-be=pr-ovide-d- minimunn-of-t„.'elve (12)-cafe:dar-days-in ad-anc-e-of-t-he--pa-blic-ben-ri-ng(sl-befcare-t e-pl-a - g-ec onrc-ityf-couneif-andz-he--lai 5t0 ie tanclm-a rk-c-orn ssio nrwhere appfic-able=io-afl-owne s--of the-iarrd-ar,d-tenants-as-shown-©n the Sa It-La ke-C2-it; e-cgr-a p-hi oinfo o n-sysiem-re Gard-s74nolude.d-In-t!,e-appii cat;onfor a-zoning map-amen& en rL'J$If t?rrto a ld o`.b n rs of-Ia nd--and-tents n tssru-s-sho-`+'Frl-o rl-t-he-.Sra It-Lake-City geograph -informatien-system-rec-Lrcisr:.'-rth4n-t fee-h'undred-fee t--{ n -ef-t e-I+' p he.ry-oof••the land-subject-tto-the-ap lic-ation-foran-arnendr neat-to-the-zorning-ragap--1>:-otice-,£cr-amendments to-the;ent-ofthis t-rtle-sl-4aff-rant-r egbtre-a-rasa+lrng f notice to- -ropey ty-ok,vners-Regrsrr-ed-notac-e- f-or-a-zoning-r,-ap-acne nlentshall-b gi n to eaeh-andi`✓;d-uaI preper-ty-own-er-a-nd-te,ants if-an ffected-prvpertyy-s-l?efu In-c-ondoInrlxm-rrwnership F-opertr(ies-}-slab}eel-lean-ar.plieati n-for-ar-arnendmen-t-to-tthe-zoning map-shall be-posted-by the-.c-it` with-a-netiCe e-A-va-s-ign-of-the--p anrling-•Ge mission or-histo iC-Iur;d-nna.rk COO-Triission at least-ten-(40)-c-,a-Ie-ndar-days in-advance-of-the-publicbe_aninb Location4-Qne 471ot-icce slaalt--be-r0sled--for-eae-h--five-hundred feet-5 OL)-e f-front a g e r-por-tion- thereo ire long-a-public-st-reef=At-beast ore-sign-5-hall--be-posted-oneac-h-public street-The-sign(&) seal!-be-boated-era the-property-s- bjeot-to the-reque-st--ar-pettionand-shall-be-set-back-no r-nor-e t,,arr:.v.nt ,-sve-feet(2-5-)-#-r-orrZ t-he-,re,,t pr-operty-i;rae-ar:.. „7af-1-13..-tiisib,e-frarn t,,.- treet-lf the c'rJner-of-t-he.-proper-ty-is-raet-the-applic-a-nt-and-the-e'✓r'rrerobjects-to-the-petI-ti , then-the s -plae-ed-cn-t8a.- o fic-r4g-h-t-of-„",gay in-froaat-of-the-pr-operty---fin.he;e.-lhaland does-gat-have-fr nt-ag-e--or-a-public street;-signs--Inns!--be-ereeted-on-the-Heartiest--street--r-ibht-af way--with/-an at+i-a oh ed-not d.ation-rn i•ea-ting gen r-a-lly-lhe-direetd�^{a and-dista-nee-to>t-he--land subject-tot.he-applicti}o DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 5 Admiik -Remoua -d#-the-si s-rerne through no-fac; t-ef tint-before-t; hea +ag7-s+_4eh- -emoval-shall-nets-b, ee ao -a-faik re t-o- oFnp+year.4it-h-the- tanda sror-be-gr-euno+-s-t-o-c-keallenbe the-validity-of-any-doe-ision-made-era-the--applic-ati n, . Exe tier #is-postinb rr-equ+rem,ent stem!-n-ot p-pl-y-te-a-p'p"lis-anon- -for-ti e'ndmeKts involving an-l=l-historic-prase--ry t n-eve -d-i&triet;a-ppiic-atio s-fef a certif cate of,ppfep-r+a-te.rress or ap lioa•tien-s-f r--C-£ rapre-hensiv'- ezzzoni-nbpi-of-areas-i'nvel-vif-g-F;ultiple-parceis-of-larid Not-i-f eanon'T R -6`gnii-ev-Anci- e ieAcee'.-aa-Op a -4za io s T-e- it'--sha-ll-givee-no'tifioati:n-a- mi"n-im -c'f twe+ve-(-2-)-eaiendaf-days-+n ad-aurae•e-e tl e-ptiblieheafing-toa,` organ-izatio which is entitled to rt -ive-,notic•-e-pursua-rt-t- e-2,e-tai z-.6-2-of th-i-s-c-ocle: E-C-e;-t ff e-aces-Of-Ap-p-Fopr-fa *'ss-1 o andmafrl:sates Or Contributing-Stf r u'Fe's-L-oc-ated 3.Mit#ie-An-l=!-14i,toFice-Rr-enervation--Over-la-Y:D s*rict T-he-hi"stepic-land, afk-c-omRli'ssion-steal1 hold at4caet one-pu-bl-ic-hear-i 'g t-o-r-evie`.J;c-el fiber-ane-a-p-rove;a-ppfeve-wi-tla-sdnditionr or-demiLan-appiic-ation-for a eer-tific-a-t-e--of-a'pj ce enees fir-alteration;-new c-on-sttreietion•; re-lac--anon-or-dernoli-tie'n-ef a-la'nd4ark-site-or contrib(*t-ing structtoe-(4located-i-n4he-H- 1145tOriEp'Feser-va tic)n-oveFl ay-di strieti-Flo-sileh-pa-bli-o- ear-ng-shah-be-r-ei 'aired-in-teae-eveiat the•,a-p-plic-a-ticsn•-is-to-be-adrniPis-tr-at-i`Jely-a'ppki d-s-ubjcct=te-spabsec-t orr A-:34:O2OF -of this-title,\^-here-a-publie-hearing is-Fag,uiFedr.Ac-14ea-ri g-s :al'l_be-held-afteF-the-following work 'pinotification-noti'ficati©n-: :-lvnru�il♦'i'� dotice-by first-clan-s-r-xaa"il-s.."'teal,-be-pr-ovidp,s-a-r in'mum-of twelve; }-calendar-day-s_i r' advance of the-p•u-blic-heari ,er-d-etei-ne 'ion ofaen-cunt-Fibs;iting-status-involving-dernol+tie4i to-all-oav-ne{-s-ofthe-lane+-uod-te-nahts;as-'shown-E s1�=1-�f�e---Salt-4a ke.-C- y--geogr, hio-iph -r ,a Lien s'�s-t-ern4e or lrelu.8i.e4i i-r +1��-u pli a- on-fer'-t -tifiea ✓-ef }p-p p at en es's-for 'e.,vt .rr .. .,-i - -;„-,: -�i'�., .-ram'- .. -a rf-3 '�i��.. Q oilsc3-uotion-,-relo.C-.ation-iaOcRlemolitiron a&- ll-e5-eo-al1 o`v"s`neF -ofr-lar' -a-iad-tenantsir us-s-hown en-t-he--Salmi-akc City- eogr„Phic-inform.a't;on-s"ystern-Peeords;`,,:ithin-ei hty-five-fear 8-524 for e tific-u-t-es-of-appFE3}pr ate.nAss-fe 1-eTrativiis three-hundreL-l-feet-(f.014-for-oertificate-s-of- appf pridte-iae.Sin- or-ne,„ -c-o st-Fuotien- r-el'ocart•it'n-ai' Serra lFtan.,_o£,t,-re..-pe-rioiler r^f tll 'd s=u4b--jeo.t-tO-t e-a-pplicatio,n-of a-la-ndma-pk-s-it-e--Or-C-`2nt-rib-ut-ing-st-Fl:eta-Fe(s)-fir rthe-H-hisf^ori preservation-overlay-disc-Piet:"!otice-5h per t"y,-owner and- te-nants if an-affecttad-pr-oper-ty4s-held--inc-end *miy' i m--owner-sh-ip: Postia e-land-subjeOt-to-a'n-application-for-- rem *!pion ar-relO£ati n-of-a landi7iar-k-site-or- con'tr-il u-ti tR-eture(&)-located in the--1 l h-isti-e--p-reser ion ova-er-l'ay-distriashall-be-posted' by t-he-si_ty-wi-th-a-notice-on--a-si -n-e€th-e-p-u•l l+e-h-eaFing-at-l'ea'st-ten-(-10-) a-lenda'r--day-s-in ad-van ee-of-the-public-hearing: -L©c-atiei r-One-neticc shall-be-posted-for each-five-hun4-Fed-.fe`t-( QO )-oo-fFontage,o, oFtion- thefeof,a•longa-pub'Iic-street. At-leas-t-ene-sign-sha1l-be-pi-steel-on-each-p'ubliestr-eet. The-sign(s-) DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 *41 Page 6 • shall-lye-ioeat-ed-on the property e tw�"e�,re e<< c-I%-no' mare-than twenty five-feet--(2-5')fro^ thefrant proparty-line-am-s aB b•e-vi-s re from-the t-reef Ather-e--the-1-and-does-net-have-frontage-an-a-pulatic street-sighs-shall-be erected-on-the nearest street right-cif-waya arn-a-tt-aelaed-notat~.,,n-i-au+ca n^�^�"11„tl e-d+re tion-a•�d- s s��'"�"r d;sta rs ce-t o-the-la ad-scab fe c44o-tdetap pa+E aka- —„R-emoval f-the-sib'a-ins-r-e ovied-th-roag-h-no#a-t-It-cif-t-he-appliea beferethe-hearingrsuoh- r-emoyal-F..,haadl-net-,*e-dee el-a-failw 4o-eompla, it-h4he-standards-or-bee-grounds to charge the-validity-of-any-deci-sion-made-on the-appf+c-at on -Notif;catisr T- R gei-z-ed-And-Regi-stereo-Gr-gahiza'tiehs:-The-e-t haN-givc notific-at-ion-a minirnurn of elve-(-12)-c-ale r-da-y-s-in-advae neofthe lyfiOear-i bye-f-rst-c-la L r,,mail-to-a y organizes ion-whi h-is-enfit-ledto-rases-vetn�it-ice-plot-s t-to titi -i2 -hu terr-2,62-of--h-is-c-6d, •the-dot f €444 .d-r -F4.04-f€ raa.-.--* ,rh4ai� • r a a r • the di t+ ;1.. �,�� ate•. "+..i • -r=isst -� - �a ,� er aiit ere -r-1h . t p-1 Chapter 21A.12 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS 21A.12.040: PROCEDURES A. 7. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations:The city shall give notification, by first-olass-m�•iI-electronic email or other form chosen by the planning director to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code, that a use interpretation has been determined. Chapter 21A.14 ROUTINE AND UNCONTESTED MATTERS 21A.14.060: PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND DECISION: B. Notification of Application for Special Exceptions shall be required pursuant to 21A.10. A,h.'.a. tidig-P+e.perty-wa rs' Sig-r-latclr optic-c-a on--m-ust-;hstu-de-signa'tur^es-of-a pp revel-of-all abutting-property-aw-n'eFs-en-a-for- -pr-evfded--bythe-Leaning-admi'n-i'str-ator -I'f-the-zoning DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 7 a ini-strater-dete pp pplicat-ien; sign-a-t res-ref-approval-of-p ert owners.,-ac-r-esss-the-st-r-ee-t alse-be-ceq-uir-eci, -1-lf-�li-of-tYhe equi-r-ed-si atures-carnet be-e-b ' ad-mfn-istr-at-er-sh-all-r-efe-r*she applieation-to t-he edrnini-strative4iea ^g-officer te-be considered-as a spedad-ex-eeptien c rsuan-t--to-chapter-t F,-S2-of-this-ti-t-le 2-d-f-all-requi,red-sigeature-s-are- btained;t-he-zor-ire -administca*er-will-appr-everaepr-ove .tith cerditionsrden r-refe-the-appl-ic-atien4e-tl e-a te,nist-rative-1 e,a in fficer tio--be con-side,&ed-as a sped-a x-caption-pu-rs -a-nt-te-chapter-2 AZ f .,-title. Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions to the board'of adjustment shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A. Notice Of Appeal: Notice of appeal shall`be filed within thirty-ten (3010) days of the administrative decision.The appeal shall be filed with the zoning administrator and shall specify the decision„appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in .*ter,, error. Chapter 21A.18 VARIANCES 21A.18.040: PROCEDURES: A. f. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in 21A.10.Gum-med-mailing la e;,-o f rroperty .s-shown-on-t-he-la-te-st pu rshed-pr-operty-ta-x records-of-the Salt-Lake-C-eunt',W-a essor, loc-aid--Y -t-h-ifa-eighty-five-feet( , -r-thr-ee-hundred-f-ee-t-¢300-}-if t-he-preposei-in.pelves-cbnstr-uc-tsar-cf-a-rye-w-principal-building in-e-ac-h-dire`-tis-n-of t-he--su!✓ject preperty{-exclusive-of-intervening-streets-and-alleys): Chapter 21A.26 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 21A.26.078: TSA TRANSIT STATION AREA DISTRICT: C 3.b. (1) Notice And Posting Requirements: Notice of the administrative hearing shall be done in accordance with subsection-section 21A.10_020BC, "Cenditior�al Ruildaa g Arad maize Oesign R,evie-w"-of this title. , , DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 8 Chapter 21A.34 OVERLAY DISTRICTS 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: F. 1._d. Notice For Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing structure shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to subsection 21A.10-0-20F of this title. F.2. d. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require notice pursuant to subsection 21A.10 020E of this title. K. 3. a. Review Of Evidence: All of the evidence and documentation presented to the historic landmark commission shall be made available to and reviewed by the economic review panel. The economic review panel shall convene a meeting complying with the open meetings act to review the evidence of economic hardship in relation to the standards set forth in subsection K.2 of this section. The economic review panel may,at its discretion, convene a public hearing to receive testimony by any interested;party; provided,Xharnotice for such public hearing shall be in accordance with chapter 21A.10;"'General Application And Public Hearing Procedures sub se ttion-2-1-A-40:420-E-s d seeti n-2-1A40MO-off this title: Chapter 21A.36 GENERAL PROVISIONS 21A.36.030: HOME OCCUPATIONS: E.-5. For conditional home occupations, names;s:rgnatur es-awed-add;esses-of-all,abutting property-owners;including-pr-op ty-yaw-Hers-acr-ess-t-he-stireet(s):-Aapproval of the apartment management or property owner if the business is conducted on a leased property is required. Notice to neighboring property owners is subject to the provisions of subsections 24,A.-1-4,05G81-and--B2 21A.10 of this title. 21A.36.140: SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES: 7 Pubtic Natic-e:-The-a-pplicant-sh-a-ll-obtain-the-n-anres-end-add sses-of-all--property-caw er-s w,vithin-one-thousand-feat-(-170001)-of the-property-!Ines-o€the-property being-considered and narises-and-rai4ing ad-tresses-of-chairs-ofp-a Rl-affectted-c-Gfl unity-cou-ncI!s 5-^.11tli4 d ir3-t�cl 2; hapter-2-6-2 of-thi, oue: I. Public Hearing Notice Requirements:The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing to review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional site plan review application after the following-public notification pursuant to 21A.10: DRAFT-Revised June 9,201 I Page 9 1. 1d g-Notic��„T t-:.lass-faa-it-.yh n-i +x -ef-fearteeia-(44-}-c-alendar-dad' in-aelJaffe-of-;e—pl niling-- miss on s-public-h ar-iPa-g-- o-all- "r'+Tets-of--he-iandras-5hown-o•R• the latest published property, *a carets-ef-the.-c-cat nt-y-asse.,sor, in,l b��-application -requiring conditienal-site-plan-review,as well as to ufl owRefs--of-lain as-&&h•ev s-n the-last published property tax roGofcis f4he-€-aunty assesse vimin-e,ae-thou-sancl-feet-( 044 ¢e,xclusivc of-intervening-streets-);-o'f-the peripl_i&ry-of—the subject t•the-applisatiori r-equ rihg-Ge•nd+ti-oaal ite-pla•n--r-evieVs,410tiec shall-be iven-tca-eeeh-inclividual-property-owner-if a-n,-affested-p pert•y'-is-held-in-condo fliu•na••ewt hip 2:- sti-ficat-ie��c- q zed-A gister xga al ions ,ThL c+�kl-gi otaf+cat4on-a �i in'imura-of-- ' tti en-(-14)— 'a tee-r' aa'r a�� �, d d s-in-a�l'vara�.;e-•of-tfte.,Sa_Flif) first-elass mail-to-any or-gafr+Y-atron-whit-h-is-entined-to rece e-nt t-ie-e-aur'suant-tc tit-le-2!chapter 2:0.2-of-t-h is-eede: Chapter 21A.50 AMENDMENTS 21A.50.040: PROCEDURE: ^ ;Y A:C-lelumesradclre,sps ai,d a-i g-la-bell-#- rppert3i-owners-).vithin-threc hood-red-feet-(3O4 of-the-peripl cry-of-the-pr-apefty-whe~e-the-Chap-ameiadment-is being-proposed;-and Amok A--z-:^,Fritten-eonfirrnatior+-by-the applicant t ahy-er-ga-n-lzzati.^.n-wf4 ch ;s-entitledto-reee+v4 notice puwsuant to-title-2;c-hap+e:1.62 of-this-•c--ede-has-bee'n-notified-of-the-proposed- anaende-nt: C. Determination Of Completeness Upon receipt of an application for an amendment, the zoning administrator shall malce a determination of completeness pursuant to section 21A.11M10, "General Application Procedures", of this title;-aad-that—the--apphc-ant-has sub fitted all-of-the-inform•at-ton--Re-ee.`iscar' OsatIsfy-the-notification requir-ernents_of r,ubsect-ie -O-O2O of this--tit-le Chapter 21A.52 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 21A.52.040: PROCEDURE: B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to section 21A.10,0-1-0 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of subsection 21A.10:020A of this title. DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 10 Chapter 21A.54 CONDITIONAL USES 21A.54.060: PROCEDURES: A.10. Noticing and Posting Requirements shall be met as specified in 21A.10 I'.4ailing-labels-and first-€ass-po,t-ag-e-for-l•l-peFs ris-req ir-eed-to-be-heti£fed-of-the-public-hearing-an th poposed-e-o ition-al-use-pur-&uan -too-c-h-apter 21A.10-ef-this title; 21A.54.155: ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USES: B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing And Posting Requirements shall be thetas specified in 21A.10 !otic-e-of-the 'l rop05e-d-c-ond tion &maileu iO arl-ulip-tie -l3`lE-p-Foperty-v^-wileFs-afi-d-the-prrSpe ty shall-be-posted-pursuant-to-subsection 2-1-A:1-Q 02-OB-of thiiss-title Chapter 21A.56 CONDOMINIUM APPROVAL PROCEDURE 21A.56.040: PROPOSED PROJECT; APPLICATION; FEES: A:3--A-pirinted-1 ist-oon_ggurnm ed--mail'.ng labeTsof-9,,,'.' 'e'rs-ef- 4keai-p'-operty-wit-hin-three_.- ,h-undr-ed-#pet-(-300i),-excluding streets, f-tltie-propssQd-cendomniurn-Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in 21A.10_Y":here-con- ersion--of-a„-e isting-building s-N,Yopssed;the fnail4ng-l+st-shall-inc-I'ude-eu;renttec nts-o{the-,buildifg: 21A.56:080: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS: Any person adversely affected by the decision of the planning commission may, within thirty ten (1039) days after such decision, file an appeal to the land use appeals board. (Ord. 77-03 § 10, 2003: Ord. 25-98 § 1, 1998) 21A.56.050: NEW CONSTRUCTION PROCESS: D. Preliminary Approval Procedures: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium project shall be approved without a public hearing.The planning official shall schedule the time for, and hold an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium application. Noticing requirements shall be met as specified in sections 21A.10 e shall-be-rnailedto-all-property-owrae;s;as-specified-in subsection DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 11 , c6.nn� 4043 f4h-i.7-C4 a -ttie:aat Oast-feu een-(4-4-- a k advance.The-no-tiee--stla41-iftform fiet-ified-pa t-y-af-the-u-ate and ime of e pub is-lea g 21A.56.060: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROCESS: C. Preliminary Approval Procedures: 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium conversion project shall be approved without a public hearing.The planning off-lc-jai-director shall schedule the;time for an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium conversion application'Notice for the public hearing shall be pursuant to sections 21A.10.020.shaf6-be-rnaiie8-to-a eft ow-ner-s-and- a„ent-terra t-& e~i # g;and-t th ch-a+ he-app-r-opria 44;-as-spec ie sub sec4ie �^T,,-5,6-.04OM-A, -h-is apter.at-leas ur ars-irl-advance-of-t-1 ehed ed- sea-rili l of-ice--shufl-ir;fcfm-t#e-r to-fied--p r #- iae t d-irne f-the p blie-i e rin Araks DRAFT-Revised June 9,2011 Page 12 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Acting Chair, Matthew Wirthlin, Commissioners Babs De Lay, Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, and Mary Woodhead. Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair Angela Dean, and Commissioners Michael Gallegos and Kathleen Hill were excused. The Field Trip was cancelled. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Mike Maloy, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary. 5:35:20 Work Session A discussion regarding the Special Exception process and transferring the review authority from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission and other text amendments related to special exceptions. Discussion Only. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com) Ms. Pickering gave a presentation that was recorded as part of the Channel 17 broadcast of the Planning Commission meeting. The following points were made by Ms. Pickering: Primary Purpose: To transfer the Approval authority of all special exceptions from the Board of Adjustments to the Planning Commission. Minor Modifications: • Change the approval process for special exceptions Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 1 o Notify property owners of the request for special exceptions and they will have a time to comment. • Removing the Routine and Uncontested Matters Chapter entirely. • Give the Historic Landmark Commission approval authority for Special Exceptions. • Basic cleanup of chapter 52, fixing incorrect references to the Utah State code. • Creating consistency. Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner De Lay asked about signs and what types of signs the document was referring to. Ms. Pickering responded that there might at times, be signs in Historic Districts that need special exceptions. Commissioner De Lay referred to page 25 and asked about unit legalization wording. Ms. Pickering stated that the wording was the current wording and had not been updated. Commissioner McHugh asked for clarity of word usage on*the memo. Ms. Pickering stated that she would make the appropriate changes. 5:40:19 Amok Senior Planner Doug Dansie led a discussion on Billboards and signs. Mr. Dansie stated that there had been a briefing regarding this issue on May 25, 2011. He asked the Commissioners the following questions: 1) Should billboards be allowed to move with state law being the default, or should the City still have some receiving zone beyond state law? If the City has a receiving zone, where should it generally be located (industrial areas, neighborhood areas, etc.)? (At the May 25 meeting the Planning Commission indicated that they were interested in not letting State law be the default) a) Allow movement to any non-residential zone? b) Receiving zone in CG General Commercial or M Manufacturing zones? c) Move to CG or M zones with conditions? d) Other? Mr. Dansie stated that whatever decision that would be made would not be a replacement for State Law. The City Ordinance would determine location and would allow relocation without having to negotiate the individual board. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 2 2) Should electronic conversions be allowed? If so where? a) Allowed? b) Allowed only in non-residential zones? c) Allowed only in CG and M zones? d) Allowed with conditions (i.e. removal of non-conforming or other boards)? e) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioners McHugh and Woodhead both felt that d would be their preference to allow boards in certain zones and under certain conditions. Commissioner Luke stated that he preferred b, allowed in non-residential zones. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he would like to see honest input from the industries if incentives would have made a difference, 3. Should conversion be based upon one to one square footage ratio or based upon a higher ratio; or a combination of the two, depending on what boards are being converted? a) One to one? b) Two to one? c) Higher than two to one? d) One to one if the board is being removed from residential (or neighborhood commercial) zones and higher if being removed from other zones? e) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioner De Lay stated that she did not feel that there had been enough information regarding a square foot ratio trade off to make a decision. Mr. Dansie asked for clarity on what level of trade the Commissioners would be comfortable with. Commissioners Wirthlin and Woodhead suggested that a 2:1 ratio would be a good start. Commissioner Drown asked if when something is converted, theoretically from the standard billboard to an electronic billboard, the billboard would be taxed at a higher rate. Mr. Dansie responded that if the value of the structure went up, it would be. Commissioner Drown asked if the tax was based on the fact that an electronic billboard can change multiple times, which would increase its profitability. Mr. Dansie replied that it was based on the value of the structure. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 3 Planning Manager Joel Paterson added that the structure for an electronic board would be more expensive than a regular board and clarified that billboards are taxed as personal property and not real property. Mr. Dansie made it clear that the industry does pay income and sales tax. 4.)Should boards that are non-conforming for specific reasons (spacing, residential location, etc.) be allowed to convert? a) Allow all to convert? b) Do not allow non-conforming boards to convert? c) Other? Commissioners' response: Mr. Dansie clarified that this was for electronic conversion. Commissioner Woodhead stated that the answer should be "b", no. She stated that was the point of non conforming. That would be contravention of what the City though the policy was, about where they should be and allowing them to convert made them more likely to stay where they were. Commissioner Wirthlin agreed. 5.)Should Gateway provisions be preserved as is or should they be modified to more Amok effectively encourage the removal of certain boards (such as those on 500 and 600 South)? Should movement and/or conversion be targeted or at least be "like for like"? a) Eliminate gateways? b) Allow conversion on freeways if non-conforming or on-ramp boards are removed? c) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioner Wirthlin asked if the Planning Commission still was in favor of Gateways. Commissioner Woodhead asked if it would be possible to trade Gateways to the West side of the freeway. Mr. Dansie responded that staffs intention was to trade Gateways for Gateways, to trade "like" for "like". Commissioner Wirthlin stated that this had been long standing City policy, and he did not see the City walking away from the Gateway idea. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner De Lay and Wirthlin suggested that "b" allowing conversions on freeways if non-conforming or on boards removed from freeway ramps was the best suggestion. Commissioner Wirthlin asked Mr. Dansie asked if there were other high priority billboards to remove that could be added to the suggestions of 500 and 600 South. Mr. Dansie responded that 600 North 900 South off ramp, residential boards, or CN boards could be added. He asked the Planning Commission if they would want to see a non-conforming board on a crowded commercial street. Commissioner De Lay stated that if there were fewer boards on residential streets then absolutely. Commissioner Luke said he felt the chances of compromise were greater if the industry had more options. Mr. Dansie responded that out of the six residential billboards in the City, four were located on land owned by the billboard company, and one was for sale. Therefore, if the billboard company owns the sign and the land there would be less incentive for them to move. Commissioner Luke offered that if there were other incentives, through conversion or otherwise, then the industry would potentially still change their mind. Mr. Dansie clarified that conversions, particularly on the freeway in exchange for removal of specific things elsewhere would be a good balance in order to remove the signs that they truly want removed, as opposed to just removing anything. Commissioner De Lay stated that she believed that the conversion to electronic boards would definitely be incentive enough for the billboard companies to move the residential signs. Mr. Dansie asked if the idea of moving billboards and allowing them to convert to electronic based upon a ratio and a priority system based on what signs are the most desirable to move first, would be acceptable. Commissioner De Lay asked if there was a list. 6.)Should urban design and/or removal of impediment to development be used as an incentive to the conversion process (require to be part of building architecture, etc.)? a) Do nothing? b) Allow conversion in Downtown or on Special Gateways if the new electronic board is part of the architecture? c) Allow conversion to electronic only if boards (residential, non-conforming, etc.) are removed first? d) Other? Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 5 Commissioners' response: „. Mr. Dansie explained that his intention was that if a billboard was part of the architecture, they would allow an existing sign to convert to electronic. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he felt that had possibilities and asked for a draft to look at. 7.)Direction regarding electronic signage in general (interactive, timing, size, location, etc.) a) Should there be limits on size depending on zoning district? b) Should the percentage of the sign that is electronic be limits? c) Should there be limits on motion - animation? d) Limits on lettering size for readability - are there legal issues? e) Other? Mr. Dansie stated that whatever decision that would be made would not be a replacement for State Law. The City Ordinance would determine location and would allow relocation without having to negotiate the individual board. Commissioner response: Commissioner De Lay stated that in regard to "a" there should be limits on size, regarding "b" seemed to be that they should be entirely electronic or not electronic. Mr. Dansie stated that in fact, there were signs that had a large percentage that were fixed images, adding that this applied to on and off premise signage. He clarified that in CN zones, there could possibly be percentage restrictions on fixed versus electronic portions of signs. Commissioner De Lay asked if in regard to "c" was there not a prior ban on motion/animation. Mr. Dansie replied that that the issue was mostly in regard to on premise signs and that the ban needed to be explicitly stated. Commissioner Drown asked if there was a limit to how many electronic billboards could be within 500 feet. Mr. Dansie stated that there can only be one billboard every 500 feet, however, there is no limit to how many on premise signs that could be between them. He stated the issue would be the possibility of too many electronic signs with too much animation. Commissioner McHugh asked if animation could include live feed. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Dansie stated that it was very limited to a television station. Mr. Dansie asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in limiting the size of lettering and readability. The Commissioners asked if there were any complaints regarding lettering size being distracting. Mr. Dansie responded that there had been and stated an example of a hospital sign in Sandy that said "look closer" forcing driving to look at small text. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he appreciated the hard work that Mr. Dansie had put into this issue. Commissioner De Lay said that she hoped that there were methods being created to ensure enforcement on the new rules, and suggested that the City made sure that the billboard companies were paying accurate taxes. 6:30:31 Mr. Dansie led a discussion regarding Chapter 21A.59 Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. Mr. Dansie gave a presentation that was recorded as part of the Channel 17 broadcast of the Planning Commission meeting. The following points were made by Mr. Dansie: • 1995 Salt Lake City rewrote the zoning code. Form based zoning was used where the zoning code defined what a building would look like and focused less on the use. • 2005 a Walkable Communities Ordinance that included more design issues. • Present intent, to remove anything that was not a "use" and create a new section and new process for site design. 6:32:42 Public Hearing 6:32:45 Approval of Minutes from June 8: Motion: Commissioner Woodhead moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2011. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 7 Second: Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. Report of the Vice Chair: Acting Chairperson Wirthlin had nothing to report. Report of the Director: PLNPCM2010-00188 - Time Extension for Al Auto Parts Conditional Use - A request by Mike Vanikiotis for a one-year time extension for a conditional use to operate an outdoor auto salvage and recycling facility at approximately 5 South 5100 West. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2010. The subject property is located in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district in City Council District 2, represented by Van Turner. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Planning Manager, Joel Paterson, stated that there was a request for a time extension for a period of one year. As part of the project the applicant was required to relocate the drain, because of the weather it has been too damp to complete the work and need an extension. Ammik Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion to approve the one year extension. Second: Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 6:33:51 Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin made a change to the order of the agenda. Petition 410-07-57 Rio Grande Office Conditional Use Planned Development - A request by the Boyer company for clarification to the approval of an office building, located at approximately 50 North Rio Grande. The building was approved with a dome height of 90 feet, however the mechanical equipment is now proposed to be enclosed, resulting in more square footage of the roof being at 90 feet. This change is being presented to the Planning Commission for their concurrence with the proposed change. The subject property is located in a GMU (Gateway Mixed-Use) zoning district and is located in Council District 4, Amok Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 8 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie stated that this was a request to clarify a planned development that was proposed at 50 North Rio Grande. Mr. Dansie gave a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the change to the original design. The change included the addition square footage to the 90 foot dome. Commissioner Wirthlin asked who was responsible for the need to change the original plan. Mr. Dansie explained that the original plan was conceptual and that the applicant had more mechanical equipment than expected and wanted to screen it and cover it. Commissioner Woodhead made the statement that she was disappointed that Rio Grande Street would be blocked by this project. Comment from the Applicant: Rob Cottle, Architect from Babcock Design Group clarified that the applicant wanted to be a LEED Silver design and therefore went with a more efficient mechanical system that required a cooling tower. He stated that the ordinance allowed them to have mechanical equipment on the roof and not be in violation. He added that it was their intent to have it blend in more with the architecture. 6:40:25 Open of Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. 6:40:31 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion regarding Petition 410-07-57 Rio Grande Office Conditional Use Planned Development after testimony heard tonight, that the Planning Commission approve the item. Second: Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 9 Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. . , 6:41:23 PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance Noticing Text Amendment - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend sections 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of the zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner using the most stringent of the existing noticing requirements. The proposal will remove signature requirements for routine and uncontested special exceptions and replace with an official notice of application. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Michaela Oktay as staff representative. Ms. Oktay stated that this was a request by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend sections 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of the zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner. Ms. Oktay added that there were three major changes in the proposal. 1. Clean up the language and standardize the public hearing requirements a. Eliminates the need to amend the chapter every time we need to list another process. b. Allows for more clarity and consistency. c. Shortens the chapter and makes it clearer. d. Changes and outlines the specifics and ensures that noticing is carried out using the correct predictable manner for staff and citizens. e. Increases the neighbor notification to 300 feet 2. Change the appeal period for the Board of Adjustment from 30 days to 10 days to make it more consistent to the other Boards. a. Consistency with State Law. State Law requires 10 days. b. Consistency with other Boards. c. Provides the citizens consistent and predictable appeal periods. 3. To remove the signature gathering requirement for routine and uncontested matters and replaces it with a modified process that would be called the Notice of Application Process. a. Technically is an administrative special exception authorized by the Board of Adjustment. b. Staff is not able to verify authenticity of signatures c. Creates animosity between neighbors. ,, Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 10 Ms. Oktay said that the new process would be called Notice of Application Process for Special Exceptions and staff believes that this new process would increase transparency of our process and provide predictable, consistent processes that would include official notification. Neighbors would know and be able to inspect the exactly the project that is being reviewed by the City staff and neighbors will be able to learn about the appeal process. 6:45:53 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner De Lay asked about the language referring to "including owners and tenants if held in condo ownership" she asked if the language could be changed to any tenants. Ms. Oktay stated that it was the current City process to notice all tenants. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she appreciated the removal of the sign gathering requirement. 6:47:08 Open of Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. 6:47:21 Motion: Commissioner Woodhead made the motion as to PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance Noticing Text Amendment, moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance text amendment based on the information in the staff report, the discussion during the meeting and the presentation by staff. Second: Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 6:48:04 PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR- 2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 11 R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Michael Maloy as staff representative. Mr. Maloy gave a brief overview Public Hearing Issues and Comments • Density • Property values • Neighborhood character • Design quality • Location restrictions • Occupancy restrictions • Parking (on-site and off-site) • Fees and penalties Mr. Maloy stated that he had a conversation with the chairman of the Avenues Community Council because they specifically said that this item was contrary to the Avenues Master Plan. Mr. Maloy stated that he reviewed the Master Plan looking specifically for language that dealt with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and found none. Mr. Maloy stated that an issue for the Mayor was that the City had removed the opportunity for an over-garage ADU that would be serviced by an alley. He stated the Nsoo reason for that was that ADU structure height requirements were for buildings up to 17 feet, and an average over-garage unit would be 19 feet. However, Mr. Maloy stated that the Mayor was aware of the public input and therefore the language had not changed. Mr. Maloy stated that he researched what other communities were doing to assess best practices and found that there were not many design guidelines and was not a common practice to add them to ordinances. Mr. Maloy stated that a suggestion had been made by citizen Cindy Cromer that the ADU ordinance could be linked to transportation. The decision was made to have the ordinance be linked to mixed rail, and be within a half mile of station location. The result was that west side did not benefit from this proposal. Commissioner Woodhead made the point that transit locations changes, and thusly would put the decisions in the hands of Utah Transit Authority instead of the City. Commissioner Luke added that with fixed rail transit it would be different, that there would not be too much movement. 7:02:14 ogeetwt Questions from the Commissioners: Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner McHugh stated that Mr. Maloy accommodated those who were worried about parking by saying that a one bedroom unit would have to have one onsite parking spot, however in another place in the ordinance it stated that the Department of Transportation could waive it if it became difficult. Mr. Maloy responded that the opportunity to modify the parking requirement was actually in prior drafts and was introduced by Clarion and Assoc. He added that the stand would be that an applicant would have to meet the onsite parking requirement, but if on-street parking was available they would have to go to the Transportation Division to demonstrate the availability and have them modify the onsite parking requirement for the ADU Commissioners discussed the pros and cons of on street parking. 7:10:04 Public Hearing: Esther Hunter, Co-Chair of East Central/Side Community Council spoke in favor of the ordinance. She stated that after extensive research about what really concerns them in their area in terms of density, they determined that their concerns were with illegal duplexes, triplexes and out of state landlords. Some options that they requested the City look at were: • Implementation of Good Landlord program and taking them down to one unit. • Consideration of doing away with the special exception process that legalizes the units. Ms. Hunter stated that their Community Council felt that the Ordinance should be across all zones and not limited to the transit zones. She stated that in the East Central Community they have nine neighborhoods and three business districts. Of those nine, four of them are CDBG eligible. She stated that without extending the area, five of their neighborhoods would not be able to take advantage of the Ordinance for the student or aged population. The East Central Communities do believe that the ADU's should be owner occupied. Ms. Hunter stated that she felt that Mr. Maloy did an excellent job with community outreach and really appreciated the work he put into this Ordinance. 7:20:20 Motion: Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 13 Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2O1O-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and information presented I move that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts as listed on page one of the staff report. Second: Seconded by Commissioner Woodhead. Commissioner Luke made a substitute motion. Commissioner Luke made the motion that based on public testimony, information received in the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating to petition PLNPCM2O1O-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts as listed on page one of the staff report. Seeing no second to the substitute motion, Acting Chairperson Wirthlin went back to the original motion. Discussion on the motion: Commissioner McHugh asked if the motion would include the 25 units, and will it include a year end review. Mr. Maloy stated that previous drafts of this ordinance did included that after two years, the City Council shall review the impact of the ordinance. Mr. Maloy stated that he was advised that the City Council could amend the text language at any time, and the review would then be useless. Land Use Attorney Nielson suggested that a "sunset" could be placed on the ordinance with the intent that the City Council could revisit the ordinance; however he felt that it would add complications to the ordinance. Commissioner Woodhead stated that there was negative feedback from the public, and it was her sense that after listening to the information through the presentations and through the reading materials, that the ADU ordinance could go forward without damaging the single family nature of the Avenues, Yalecrest and others. She felt like the ordinance provides a mechanism for those neighborhood to maintain their integrity and reflect the way families function now. She felt the ordinance would be a positive thing. Commissioner Luke stated that he read the ordinance differently. Land Use Attorney Nielson asked if the 25 units per year would be after the adoption of the ordinance or if it would be within the calendar year. Mr. Maloy responded that it was within the calendar year. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 14 Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". Charlie Luke voted ` nay". The motion passed. 7:23:35 Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on June 22, 2011. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 15 /4.LA/7'Grn 01'0.067S7 Y ���� Q Petition Initiation ,, 24at�w;is81'' �m == 1 T Re uest ""III 11,,, ,,,11 Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Mayor Ralph Becker From: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director a Date: November 16, 2010 cc: Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community& Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey,AICP, Assistant Planning Director;file Re: Revamp Zoning Ordinance relating to Noticing The Planning Division requests that you initiate a petition to revamp the noticing requirements of the Zoning Ordinance so all public hearings are noticed in the same manner rather than based on the type of project. The proposal includes the following: • Remove the various noticing requirements for each type of use (such as variances, conditional uses, historic preservation approvals)which all have different radius of notification and instead require that any project that requires a public hearing, will include a notice to property owners and tenants within a 300 foot radius of the project, the site will be posted, and registered organizations, including community council chairs,will be notified. This is the current most stringent of the noticing requirements. Other current requirements are an 85 foot radius notification requirement. • The proposal also would eliminate the signature gathering requirement for Routine and Uncontested matters and would replace it with a notification requirement that ' the City would send to abutting property Owners as an official notice of intent to approve a project that meets the adopted criteria. The purpose of the proposal is to 1. Sim 'fy ulations decrease the size of the noticing chapter) FIVETO: u/7/) SCANNED � J , NOV 1 0 2010 SCANNED BY: �J-u-‘&-<-) • Page 1 DATE: /i//tVid Salt Lake City Mayor 2. Make all of the noticing requirements the same for all types of processes, 3. Eliminate the need to amend the noticing chapter every time a new type of process is created (such as for design review etc) • 4. Ensure that information is distributed to the property owners and tenants in an official and correct manner. (The City has no way of knowing whether signatures on documents are authentic or forged). 5. Simplify the amendments when State Law dictates that noticing requirements are changed. As part of the process,the Planning Division will follow the City adoption processes including citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. • If you have any questions, please contact Cheri Coffey, x6188. Thank you. Concurrence to initiating the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. 4011 / �1' // zzlD Ralph Becker, Mayor Date Amok • Page 2 September 22,2011 Council Work Session—Changes to the City's zoning regulations to provide clear,consistent,and efficient land use regulations. (Zoning Code Maintenance) Petitioner—Mayor Ralph Becker-Petition PLNPCM 2010-00223 • This proposal includes the following changes: 1. Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback—would apply freeway landscaping regulations in all zoning districts except single/two-family districts. 2. Clarify that the Zoning Administrator is the Planning Director. 3. Remove the newspaper notice requirement for zoning map amendments. 4. Remove all references to accessory uses on accessory lots consistent with changes made in December 2008. This will eliminate confusion between the text and the use tables. 5. Revise variance and condominium application regulations to be consistent with other land use application requirements. 6. Revise sign regulations to define pennant flags and prohibit their use in all zoning districts. • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • COUNCIL PROCESS:The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing from the Administration at the September 22nd Work Session. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the hearing. If the Council is comfortable moving this item forward, Council staff has identified the following tentative dates: • October 4,2011 Set public hearing date • October 25,2011 Council public hearing&possible action • November 1,20111 Council action SCANNED "iu: ez' SCANNED BY:31 swum �1T �� li c DATE: S/i l l<< FRANK B. GRAY "� `���� � � RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF'THE DIRECTOR ' DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER RE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CEIVED ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MAY 1 9 2011 RECEIVED Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: l)s ict/27)1( Davi veritt, Chief of Staff KL,i 2 it 21.111 SLC iS riDFtFt4Iy Council: OS123/2p l 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 16, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community & conomic Development Department Dir r RE: Petition# PLNPCM2010-00223 Fine Tuning City Code Text Amendments initiated by Mayor Becker STAFF CONTACTS: Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner(801) 535-7236 or ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION Issue Origin In order to provide further clarity and efficiency in the use and interpretation of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Mayor Ralph Becker initiated a petition on April 21, 2010 to amend the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Freeway Landscaping Requirements—Amend the Freeway Landscape Requirements that currently applies to all zones, to exclude Single-Family, R-2 Single - and Two - Family Residential Districts 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454136, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-54136 i TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: B01-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED I► `1� wEGVCLED va PEw 2. Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance states that the Zoning Administrator is the Planning Director not the Building Official or the Director of the Building Services and Licensing Director. 3. Eliminate the requirement for newspaper notice for zoning map amendments. 4. Eliminate the verbiage in Chapter 21A.40 relating to accessory uses on accessory lots (in residential zones) 5. Eliminate the words `excluding streets' in Chapter 21A.56.040.A3, relating to noticing for condominiums. 6. 21A.18.040.A.1.f, relating to Variance application submittal requirements. 7. 21A.46 Signs Specifically Prohibited in the Zoning Districts. Analysis From time to time, staff encounters issues or problems with the code that require clarification or modification. These revisions are generally classified as "fine tuning" and are intended to clarify the intent of the ordinance, but not to substantially alter it. The following is a short synopsis of the changes proposed: .40006 1) Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback Requirement—This change would require freeway scenic landscape setback requirements to be applied to all zones except for single-family and duplex districts. The current verbiage enumerates each zoning district where these requirements apply. Once in a while, new zoning districts are created and this verbiage change will ensure that as new zones are created, unless they are for single-family or two family uses, all of the freeway landscaping provisions will apply. Affected Section: Section 21A.48.110 Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback 2) Zoning Administrator—This amendment would clarify that the Planning Director is the Zoning Administrator not the Building Official, nor the Director of Building Services and Licensing Director. Currently, Section 21A.06.060 recognizes the Director of the Division of Building Services and Licensing or its successor division as the Zoning Administrator. Section 21A.62.040A of the City Code defines the term Zoning Administrator as the director of the division of building services and licensing. Both will be changed to specify that the zoning administrator is "director of the planning division"to reflect current practice. Affected Sections: 21A.06.060 Zoning Administrator and 21A.62.040 Definition of Terms 3) Publication of First Public Hearing—Chapter 21A.10.020D1 establishes that for both zoning ordinance text amendments as well as zoning map amendments public hearing notice be given to the public in a newspaper of general circulation at least 12 calendar days in advance. This amendment will eliminate the newspaper noticing requirement for zoning map amendments in accordance to State Law. Newspaper notice for zoning text amendments will still occur since actual notice to all affected property owners is not practical and highly costly. Affected Sections: Chapter 21A.10.020.D.1 Publication (First Public Hearing) 4) Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots—In 2008 all accessory uses in accessory lots were deleted from the use tables except the language in chapter 21A.40.052. The proposed change will remove the entire text from the zoning code and will eliminate confusion between the text and the use tables. Affected Sections: 21A.40.052A-F Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots 5) Noticing for Condominiums—This change will eliminate the words "gummed" and "excluding streets" from the text to ensure consistency with the amendments relating to noticing for condominiums adopted by City Council in December 2009. This change will ensure that the noticing requirement language is consistent from one process to another. Affected Sections: 21A.56.040A.3 Proposed Project; Application Fees 6) Variances Application Submittal Requirements—This amendment will change the text relating to the variance application submittal requirements and will replace it with a reference to Section 21A.10.020.A.1 that describes the Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decisions. Affected Sections: 21A.18.040A.1.f Variances Procedures 7) Pennant Flags—The Zoning Ordinance is not clear whether pennant flags are prohibited. However. similar types of signs such as balloons and snipe signs, are included in the list of prohibited signs. As a practice, pennant flags have not been allowed. Moreover. Section 21 A.46.060.1 does not include pennant flags as a prohibited sign nor does Section 21A.46.020 have a definition for such sign. This amendment will specify the prohibition of pennant flags in all zoning districts as well as add a definition of what constitutes a pennant flag. This amendment will also make it easier for the Enforcement Officers to require the removal of such signs. Affected Sections: 21A.46.060.1 Signs specifically prohibited in all zones and 21A.46.020 Definitions Master Plan Considerations — The community master plan land use policies generally define neighborhood, community and regional land use locations and characteristics. They do not specifically address the level of detail that code maintenance addresses. In Salt Lake City, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance have been the main tools used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. All of the proposed changes to the text, as outlined, are intended to clarify or further advance the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted General Plan of Salt Lake City. The proposed changes do not alter the various purpose statements included in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments will help insure compatibility with the adopted master plans of the City. PUBLIC PROCESS: An Open House was held on June 17, 2010. Notice of the Open House was sent to community council chairs, business groups and those whose names are on the Planning Division's List serve. Notice was also posted on the City and State websites. No written or verbal public comments have been received by staff at the time of this writing. ANN The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 8, 2010. There were no issues raised at the public hearing. The Commission passed a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The vote was six in favor, none opposed. On April 13. 2011, the Planning Commission, at the request of the Planning Director, agreed to remove some sections originally proposed for modification. Those sections relate to Chapter 21 A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures. A new petition relating to all noticing- requirements is currently being processed. The fine tuning topics relating to noticing will be addressed in that petition and will be heard before the Planning Commission at a later time. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards. which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 2 l A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5.B.). TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 5.A. POSTMARK OF PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE 5.B. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 5.C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6. NEWSPAPER NOTICE 7. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition#PLNPCM2010-00223 April 21, 2010 Petition initiated by Mayor Becker. May 4, 2010 Project Assigned to Staff Planner June 17, 2010 Petition reviewed at a public open house. June 22, 2010 Routed petition to City Departments for comment and recommendation. August 27, 2010 Publication of Planning Commission hearing notice in paper and mailed. September 8, 2010 Planning Commission held public hearing and voted 6-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. September 13, 2010 Staff requested ordinance from City Attorney's office. September 22, 2010 Planning Commission ratified minutes for September 8. 2010 meeting. January 12. 2011 Staff received draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office on January 12, 2011. April 13. 2011 Planning Director requested the Planning Commission to remove some sections of this petition that are being processed as part of the petition to revise the Zoning Ordinance noticing Chapter 21 A.010 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures which will be heard before the Planning Commission at a later time. May 10. 2011 Staff received draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office on May 10, 2011. May 13. 2011 Staff finalized transmittal and extended it to the Community Development Department on May 13. 2011. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00223 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on September 8, 2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00223) to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake Cite Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS, at its September 8, 2010 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake Cite Code section 21 A.48.110.B. That section 21A.48.110.B of the Salt Lake Cite Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers: Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Applicability: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be required for all lots abutting an interstate highway that are subdivided after April 12, 1995, for construction of a principal building, or for a twenty five percent (25%) floor area increase of a principal building, or for any new use of a previously undeveloped site or twenty five percent (25%) expansion of an existing use on a developed site, in all zones except Single-Family, R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential Districts. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.060. That section 21A.06.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Zoning Administrator), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.06.060 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this title shall be delegated to the Planning Official. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this title, the director may designate a staff person or staff persons in the division to carry out these responsibilities. The staff person(s) to whom such administrative and enforcement functions are assigned shall be referred to in this title as the "zoning administrator". SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to revise the definition of"ZONING ADMINISTRATOR" to read as follows: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: The director of the planning division of the department of community and economic development or his/her designee. "011.11%,v SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.052. That section 21A.40.052 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.052: (Omitted) SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.040.A.3. That section 21A.56.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Condominium Approval Procedure: Proposed Project; Application Fees), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3. A printed list on mailing labels of owners of all real property within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed condominium. Where conversion of an existing building is proposed, the mailing list shall include current tenants of the building. SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.18.040.A.1.f. That section 21A.18.040.A.l.f of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Variances: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: f. Mailing labels to meet the notification requirement per Section 21A.10.020.A.1, Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administration Decisions. SECTION 7. Amending,text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.060. That section 21A.46.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Signs Specifically Prohibited in all Zoning Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.060: SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs, in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter. are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A. Animated signs excluding public service signs; B. Any snipe sign; C. Balloons; D. Bench signs; E. Portable signs, except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F. Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G. Signs which are structurally unsafe, hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H. Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as "stop", "look", "danger", "go slow", "caution" or "warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or arc accessory to parking lots; I. Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs; and J. Pennant Flags. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.020.B. That section 21A.46.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Definitions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to add the definition of"FLAG, PENNANT", to be inserted in alphabetical order therein, which definition shall read as follows: FLAG, PENNANT: Any geometric shaped cloth, fabric, or other lightweight material normally fastened to a stringer which is secured or tethered so as to allow movement of the sign caused by movement of the atmosphere. A sign,with or without a logo, made of flexible materials suspended from one or two corners, used in combination with other such signs to create the impression of a line. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. ' CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FOR?1 ,411111111 (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date. /1 �sJ �J ' I Pail C Nielson;`5 nior Crt A(rornei SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending certain land use provisions of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code) An ordinance amending certain sections of Title 21A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00223 to provide additional clarity and efficiency in land use regulation. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ('`Planning Commission") held a public hearing on September 8, 2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00223) to amend the text of certain sections of Title 21 A (Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code to provide further clarity and efficiency in land use regulation; and WHEREAS, at its September 8, 2010 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending_ text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.48.110.B. That section 21A.48.1100.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers: Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Applicability: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be required for all lots abutting an interstate highway that are subdivided after April 12, 1995, for construction of a principal building, or for a twenty five percent (25%) floor area increase of a principal building, or for any new use of a previously undeveloped site or twenty five percent (25%) expansion of an existing use on a developed site, in the L--B _--2:D 3, C MU ail 1, M 2-PJ:$P, PL, PL 2, L UI, EI, A and MH districts. all zones except Single-Family, R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential Districts. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.060. That section 21A.06.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Zoning Administrator), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.06.060 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this title shall be delegated to the director of the division of building services and licensing or its successor division Planning Official. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this title, the director may designate a staff person or staff persons in the division to carry out these responsibilities. The staff person(s) to whom such administrative and enforcement functions are assigned shall be referred to in this title as the "zoning administrator". SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to revise the definition of"ZONING ADMINISTRATOR"to read as follows: '' ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: The director of the division of building services and licensing The director of the planning division of the department of community and economic development or such person as the zoning administrator shall designate his/her designee. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.052. That section 21A.40.052 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.052: (Omitted) ACCESSORY USE,S ON n CCE. SSORY LOTS: Accessory uses may be located on all residential zoned accessory lots subject to the following circumstances: A. The accessory use is located on an accessory lot arc principal residence and shall f unction a,,a be , gulate as-an accessory structure anise: B. The ac-cessory and principal-r -iden-ce lot are u r ommon ownership-: C. The accessory lot must be landscaped and properly maintained as part of the principal lot according to the established zoning requirements. D. Light standards shall be allowed as part of the conditional use pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title in all zones (except for FR zones where b b O fixtures to prevent lighting from being directed toward or impacting neighboring properties. E. Fences for accessory uses on accessory lots, to prevent the loss of recreational equipment, shall not exceed twelve feet (12') when they are located at least ten feet (10') from the closest property line. A maximum fence height of six feet (6')within te„ f of (i n) of side . ar „�,a r and r erty lines sh ll be r w •t, a � exceeding six feet (6') shall be made on a flexible nonopaque material, mesh, or netting. F. When the accessory use is for parking on an-existing accessory lot within the FR 1, conditional use for accessory uses on accessory lots is not applicable for parking. Refer to section 21A.'11.020 of this title regarding parking on adjacent residential lots. SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.56.040.A.3. That section 21A.56.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning,: Condominium Approval Procedure: Proposed Project; Application Fees), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3. A printed list on gummed mailing- labels of owners of all real property within three hundred feet (300'), excluding streets, of the proposed condominium. Where conversion of an existing building is proposed, the mailing list shall include current tenants of the building. SECTION 6. Amending-text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.18.040.A.1.f. That section 21A.18.040.A.l.f of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Variances: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is. amended to read as follows: f. Cu Tom'. nMailing labels for all owners--ef property, as shown on th,. la est-p fished property teR• $f the Salt Lake-County assessor, located within eighty five feet (-8 three ',und•e 300') if the proposal involves construction-of-a-ev principal build-ing, in each direction-of-he subject property (exclusive of intervening streets and alleys)-to meet the notification requirement per Section 21A.10.020.A.1. Public Hearing,Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administration Decisions. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.060. That section 21A.46.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Signs Specifically Prohibited in all Zoning Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.060: SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: The following exterior signs, in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter, are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A. Animated signs excluding public service signs; B. Any snipe sign; C. Balloons; D. Bench signs; AN E. Portable signs, except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F. Signs overhanging,the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G. Signs which are structurally unsafe, hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H. Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as "stop", "look", "danger", "go slow", "caution" or "warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to parking lots; and I. Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs..-: and J. Pennant Flags. SECTION S. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.020.B. That section 21A.46.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Definitions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to add the definition of"FLAG, PENNANT",to be inserted in alphabetical order therein, which definition shall read as follows: FLAG, PENNANT: Any geometric shaped cloth, fabric, or other lightweight material normally fastened to a stringer which is secured or tethered so as to allow movement of the sign caused by movement of the atmosphere. A sign, with or without a logo, made of flexible materials suspended from one or two corners, used in combination with other such signs to create the impression of a line. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2010- 00223, a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to analyze the appropriateness of amending the City Code as listed below. 1. Freeway Landscaping Requirements—Amend the Freeway Landscape Requirements that currently applies to all zones, to exclude Single-Family, R-2 Single - and Two - Family Residential Districts 2. Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance states that the Zoning Administrator is the Planning Director not the Building, Official or the Director of the Building Services and Licensing Director. 3. Eliminate the requirement for newspaper notice for zoning map amendments. 4. Eliminate the verbiage in Chapter 21A.40 relating to accessory uses on accessory lots (in residential zones) 5. Eliminate the words `excluding streets' in Chapter 21A.56.040.A3, relating to noticing, for condominiums. 6. 21A.18.040.A.1.f, relating to Variance application submittal requirements. 7. 21A.46 Signs Specifically Prohibited in the Zoning Districts. These text changes are citywide. As part of its review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers);; Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City. UT 'Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner, at (801) 535-7236 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at ana.valdemorosr&slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the City Council Office at(801) 535-7600, or TDD (801) 535-6021. ,;Laf-r. C•` J .I C' t �'�l',ik"°fl' 'i.;,.�� �:p u'-plc ti!ii.` ! �i�i?1=�5�<i,t' sr3 E, l> �. _ ", •'r. - - - • Terry Thomas Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1848 Stallion Lane 839 S Washington Street 984 Simpson Ave ake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brad Bartholomew Thomas Mutter 871 N. Poinsettia Dr. 228 EAST 500 SOUTH Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Angie Vorher Esther Hunter, 1988 Sir James Dr. East Central & Univ. CC Salt Lake City UT 84116 1049 Norris Place Salt Lake City UT 84152-1809 Gordon Storrs DeWitt Smith 223 North 800 West 328 E. Hollywood Ave. Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84115 Mike Harman 1044 West 300 South Salt Lake City UT 84104 Randy Sorenson George Kelner 1184 S. Redwood Dr. 1000 Military Drive Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Katherine Gardner Mark Brinton 605 De Soto St 1869 Logan Ave Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Jim Jenkin Pete Taylor 212 5th Ave 933 S. 2300 E. Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Gene Fitzgerald Ellen Reddick 1385 Butler Ave 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84108 D. Christian Harrison R. Gene Moffitt Community Council Chairs 336 W. Broadway, #308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 12.1.10 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Vest Pocket Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Business Advisory Board P.O. Box 521908 1635 South Redwood Road P.O. Box 145484 alt Lake City, UT 84152-1908 Salt Lake City, UT 84104-5108 Salt Lake City. UT 84114 Downtown Merchants Assoc Local First 10 West Broadway Ste 430 P.O. Box 576 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Downtown Alliance Westside Alliance 175 East 400 South#600 622 West 500 North Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Salt Lake Chamber Sugarhouse Merchants Association 175 East University Blvd Ste 600 2051 South 1100 East Salt Lake City. UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84106-2399 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA n Room 326 of the City 8T County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,August 25, 2010 at 5:45 pan, The field trip is scheduled to Deane at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m., in Room 126. Wirk Session—The Planning Commission may discuss planning related issues. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Approval of Minutes Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director 1. PLi'1PCM2009-00346: Zoning Map Amendment A request by Mayor Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map for properties south of OC Tanner between 2000 South and 2100 South and between State Street and Main Street. The proposed Map amendment would change the current zoning from Business Park (BP) to Residential Mixed Use RMU-45 and Commercial Corridor (CC) to Residential Mixed Use RMU zone in Council District 5 represented by Council Member Jill Remington Love (Staff Contact Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.milliner©slcc'ov.com). 2. PLNNPCM-00376: Zoning: Text Amendment- A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for a text amendment to grant the Historic Landmark Commission the authority to initiate petitions to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map relating to historic preservation issues. This is a citywide policy issue affecting all City Council Districts. (Staff contact: Janice Lew, 801-535-7625 or ianice.iew c(�slcaov.com) 3. PLNPCM201.0-0022g: Salt Lake Clinic - A request by INC Health Services, Inc. for a zoning map amendment to change the zoning at approximately 333/349/365 South 900 East and 911/933/937 959/963 East 4-00 South from I (Institutional), RMF-45 (Residential Multi-Family) and CC (Commercial Corridor) to UI (Urban Institutional). The applicant wishes to reconstruct the Salt Lake Clinic in a more urban form in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182 or clouo.clansie(DLsicgov.ccm) 4. PU9 'CM201C-0022S: Salt Lake City Code Maintenance; Fine Tuning Text Amendrnents - a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker to analyze the feasibility of amending the City Zoning Ordinance to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of an ongoing process of code maintenance. These text changes are Citywide. (Staff contact: Ana Valclemoros at 535-7236 or ana,valciemnr os(slcOo\'.com) The files for the above Lents ore available in the Planning Division ohhces,room 406 of the City and County£rtilding. P:case contact the staff;plannerfor u.f rn:Ction.T'isit the Plarznirrq websae at ueuwslcgov.coni/CED;p.c7:rir:y.for copies or the Planning Corrunissior,agendas,sta'-reports,and iri nutes.Ste.f Reports uvi11 be pasted the Friday prior to the meetiro cud minutes will be posted nu() Crays after t cn are ra( `cd,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Pion„ing Ccns:nlss.'oa.Planning Commission lice s may be watched live.on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings arc recorded and archived;and moss be viewed at u,aaL.s'atv.cor: 08bS-bTIV8`ln A117 m el Iles ,,414140, SOb wb laaatS elelS 41nos'Sp 08bSbT x08 od uolslnlQ 8utuueld a>lel Ii s soaowapleA euy 9 N I \° N • ") l7 '.._ _ i .. . ;:rj }r 08ts-N-H78 1n 'AJJ5 DAV1 11VS 9017 IAd2J 1882IIS 9 I VIS Hi lOS 697 i 2yF <, 08b9iyb `C08 Od Wiz ? • i1�i�od�o� �li� �i�r�d�d : . , i �.a _ . 3��;..�,; ; nI NOISIAIG o a -- -i.'.^`•' - NO ` >1d11 IVS MEETING GLH E INES 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to two(2)minutes per person,per item.A spokesperson who has already been asked by a_group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to staff and the Hearing Officer in advance of the meeting if they are submitted prior to noon the day before the meeting.Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. ` 6. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 7. Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests,or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757;TDD 535-6220. I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Salt Lake City Code Maintenance City Code Amendment "`� LL' . -' `ri C Petition PLNPCM2010-00223 — City-wide .,, ,,T ,,. September 8, 2010 Planning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant Salt Lake City Mayor REQUEST Staff On April 21, 2010 Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, represented by Ana Valdemoros(801) 535-7236 Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director, initiated a petition to amend the Ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Master Plan Designation City-wide 1. Freeway Landscaping Requirements —Amend the Freeway Landscape Requirements that currently applies to all zones, to Council District exclude Single-Family, R-2 Single - and Two - Family Residential City-wide Districts Review Standards 21A.50.050 Standards for General 2. Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance states that the Zoning Amendments Administrator is the Planning Director not the Building Official or the Director of the Building Services and Licensing Director. Affected Text Sections 21A.48.110B 21A.06.060 3. Eliminate the requirement for newspaper notice for zoning map 21 A.62.040 amendments. 21A.10.020D.l 21A.40.052 4. Eliminate the verbiage in Chapter 21A.40 relating to accessory uses 21A.56.040A.3 on accessory lots (in residential zones) 21 A.18.040A.1.f 21A.46.060 21A.46.020B 5. Eliminate the words `excluding streets' in Chapter 21A.56.040.A3, 21A.10.020C.1 relating to noticing for condominiums. 21A.10.020F 21A. 56.060C.1 6. 21A.18.040.A.l.f, relating to Variance application submittal 21 A.56.050D.1 PP 21A.36.1401.1 requirements. Notification 7. 21A.46 Signs Specifically Prohibited in the Zoning Districts. • Notice mailed on August 26,2010 • Published in newspapers August 8. Clarify in various sections of the Zoning Ordinance that the 27, 2010 notification requirement is 12 calendar days, rather than 12 days prior • Posted on City R. State websites September 3,2010 to the meeting. Attachments 9. Clarify in various sections of the ordinance that the mailing is by first A. Proposed Text Amendments class mail. B. Departmental Comments 1 10. 21A.34.90B remove the phrase "six stories or" relating to building ^I" height. The purpose of the request is to provide further clarity and efficiency in the document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, conduct a public hearing and transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council pursuant to the analysis and findings of fact written in this staff report. Background/ Project Description Once in a while, staff encounters issues or discrepancies with the code that require clarification or modification. These revisions are generally classified as "fine tuning" and are intended to clarify the intent of the ordinance, but not to substantially alter it. Previous ordinance adjustments were processed in 1995, 1999, 2004 and 2008. Amendments to the City Code selected for Fine Tuning processing meet the following objectives: • Improves the clarity and usability of the Zoning Code without changing the intent behind the specific , regulation in question, and clarifies wording that may be open to interpretation; • Addresses ongoing problems with administration of the existing Code language, and may result in a minor policy change of low significance; • Implement the City_ 's Comprehensive Plan: and • Provide ordinance consistency with existing policies, procedures and objectives. Summary of Proposed Code Changes The following is a short synopsis of the changes proposed by Mayor Becker (language and redlines attached as Exhibit A): 1) Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback Requirement—This change would require freeway scenic landscape setback requirements to be applied to all zones except for single-family and duplex districts. The current verbiage enumerates each zoning district where these requirements apply. Once in a while, new zoning districts are created and this verbiage change will ensure that as new zones are created, unless they are for single-family or two family uses, all of the freeway landscaping provisions will apply. Affected Section: Section 21A.48.110 Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback 2) Zoning Administrator—This amendment would clarify that the Planning Director is the Zoning Administrator not the Building Official, nor the Director of Building Services and Licensing Director. Currently, Section 21A.06.060 recognizes the Director of the Division of Building Services and Licensing or its successor division as the Zoning Administrator. Section 21A.62.040A of the City Cod(" 111 defines the term Zoning Administrator as the director of the division of building services and licensing. 7 Both will be changed to specify that the zoning administrator is "director of the planning division" to reflect current practice. Affected Sections: 21A.06.060 Zoning Administrator and 21A.62.040 Definition of Terms 3) Publication of First Public Hearing—Chapter 21A.10.020D1 establishes that for both zoning ordinance text amendments as well as zoning map amendments public hearing notice be given to the public in a newspaper of general circulation at least 12 calendar days in advance. This amendment will eliminate the newspaper noticing requirement for zoning map amendments in accordance to State Law. Newspaper notice for zoning text amendments will still occur since actual notice to all affected property owners is not practical and highly costly. Affected Sections: Chapter 21A.10.020.D.1 Publication (First Public Hearing) 4) Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots—In 2008 all accessory uses in accessory lots were deleted from the use tables except the language in chapter 21A.40.052. The proposed change will remove the entire text from the zoning code and will eliminate confusion between the text and the use tables. Affected Sections: 21A.40.052A-F Accessory Uses on Accessory Lots 5) Noticing for Condominiums—This change will eliminate the words "gummed" and "excluding streets" from the text to ensure consistency with the amendments relating to noticing for condominiums adopted by City Council in December 2009. This change will ensure that the noticing requirement language is consistent from one process to another. Affected Sections: 21A.56.040A.3 Proposed Project; Application Fees 6) Variances Application Submittal Requirements—This amendment will change the text relating to the variance application submittal requirements and will replace it with a reference to Section 21A.10.020.A.1 that describes the Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decisions. Affected Sections: 21 A.18.040A.I.f Variances Procedures 7) Pennant Flags—The Zoning Ordinance is not clear whether pennant flags are prohibited. However, similar types of signs such as balloons and snipe signs are included in the list if prohibited signs. As a practice, pennant flags have not been allowed. Moreover, Section 21A.46.060J does not include pennant flags as a prohibited sign nor does Section 21A.46.020 have a definition for such sign. This amendment will specify the prohibition of pennant flags in all zoning districts as well as add a definition of what constitutes a pennant flag. This amendment will also make it easier for the Enforcement Officers to require the removal of such signs. Affected Sections: 21A.46.060J Signs specifically prohibited in all zones and 21A.46.020 Definitions 8) Twelve (12) Calendar Days requirements — In these sections of the ordinance, the notification requirements specify that the notice requirements should be done within twelve (12) day notification period. The text change will read"twelve (12) calendar days in advance" and "twelve (12) calendar 3 day notice period" so that it ensures that this notification is based on a calendar and a not a weekday or some other timeframe. Affected Sections: 21A.10.020C.1 and 21A.10.020F Public Hearing Notice Requirements 9) First Class Mail and Twelve (12) Calendar Days Requirements. —The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the mailing is not sent by another method that may be slower than first class mail (such as through bulk mailing system which would not necessarily guarantee timely delivery). The changes will also include the "twelve (12) calendar" days in advance insertion as in the previous amendment. Affected Sections: 21A.56.060C.1 Public Hearing Notification of the Condominium Notification Process and 21A.56.050D.1 New Construction Process 10)Fourteen (14) Calendar Days to twelve (12) Calendar Days—As part of the clarification to ensure that the notification requirement is based on a calendar and a not a weekday or some other timeframe, this section will change from fourteen (14) calendar days to twelve (12) calendar days in advance. Affected Sections: 21A.36.140I.1-2 Sexually Oriented Business Mailing Public Participation Community Council Meeting An Open House was held on June 17, 2010. Notice of the Open House was sent to Community Council chairs, business groups and those whose names are on the Planning Divisions List serve. Notice was also posted on the City and State \vebsite. Public Comments At the time of this writing staff has received no public comment. City Department Comments: Staff sent information regarding the proposed text changes to applicable City Departments. Department responses are included in Attachment B. Analysis Standards of Review 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to' the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. *hoe 4 A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The community master plans and their land use policies generally outline neighborhood, community and regional uses of land and their characteristics. The purpose is to guide land use but not specifically address the level of detail as the zoning ordinance. Maintenance and update of the code is often necessary to increase consistency with goals, objectives and policies of Salt Lake City. Finding: The proposed text amendments provide additional refinement of the zoning regulations of the City's code by providing corrections and clarification of existing regulations. The proposed amendments will help insure compatibility and consistency with goals, objectives and policies of the adopted master plans of the City. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Analysis: In Salt Lake City, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance have been the main tools used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. All of the proposed changes to the text, as outlined, are intended to clarify or further advance the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The proposed changes do not alter the various purpose statements included in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with current practices and further the specific purpose statements found throughout the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Analysis: The proposed text amendments are neither site nor overlay zoning district specific. Therefore they will not interfere with the character of specific properties. The proposed amendments reflect minor code maintenance issues and do not specifically relate, nor impact provisions of any adopted overlay zone. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with the provisions of all applicable overlay zoning districts that may impose additional standards and do not modify any intent or purposed of the existing City code. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The proposed text amendments are to correct minor issues with the City code language in order to eliminate minor process inefficiencies and also reflect current practices. Finding: The proposed text amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and implement best current and professional practices of urban planning and design. a 21A.48.110: FREEWAY SCENIC LANDSCAPE SETBACK 21A.48.110.B B. Applicability: Freeway scenic landscape setbacks shall be required for all lots abutting an interstate highway that are subdivided after April 12, 1995, for construction of a principal building, or for a twenty five percent (25%) floor area increase of a principal building, or for any new use of a previously undeveloped site or twenty five percent (25%) expansion of an existing use on a developed site, in the CS, CC, CG,D , ._3, MU M 1 -M-2, RP,, l,, nd gnu dis ets all zones except Single- Family, R-2 Single - and Two - Family Residential Districts. 21A.06.060 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this title shall be delegated to the director of the division of building services a-nd licensing or its successor division Planning Official. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this title, the director may designate a staff person or staff persons in the division to carry out these responsibilities. The staff person(s) to whom such administrative and enforcement functions are assigned shall be referred to in this title as the "zoning administrator". (Ord. 26-95 § 2(3-6), 1995) 21A.62.040 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: The director of the di„•sion of b, ilding servi nd licensing The director of the oianning division of the department of community and economic development or such person the zoning administrator shall elesiggnate his/her designee. 21A.10.020.D.1 PUBLICATION (FIRST PUBLIC HEARING) 1. Publication (First Public Hearing): At least twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing on an application for an amendment to the text of this title or the zoning map, the city shall publish a notice of such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City. 21AAO.O5.2�-ACCCEcnoy USES ON ACCESSORY b circumstances: The accessory use is located on an accessory lot adjoining the principal residence—and shall function end }�n r tee as an arcnrrr .-y structure and u rn 7 B. The accessory and principal residence lot arc under common ownership. C. The accessory lot must be landscaped and properly maintained as part of the principal lot according to the established zoning requirements. D. Light standards shall be allowed as part of the conditional use pursuant to the previsions of chapter 21A.51 of this title in all zones (except for FR zones where lighting is not permitted). Glare shields or baffles shall be attached to all lighting fixtures to prevent lighting from being directed toward or impacting neighboring properties. E. Fences for accessory uses on accessory lots, to prevent the loss of recreational equipment, shall not maximum fence height of six feet (6') within ten feet (10') of side yard and rear yard property lines shall be permitted. Fences eed bing six fe„t (6') shall b„ re- de on a flexible nonopaque material, Amish or in nettn F. When the accessory use is for parking on an existing acre.-leFy let within the FR 1, FR 2, FR 3, R 1/5,000, R 1/7,000, R 1/12,000, R 2, S-R 1 and SR 3 zones, the conditional use fe-r accessory u&es on accessory lots is not applicable for parking. Refer to section 21A.11.02-0 of th+s tit-I•e regarding parking en adjacent residential lots. (Ord. 30 98 § 5, 1998) Auk 21A.56.040: PROPOSED PROJECT; APPLICATION; FEES: 21A.56.040.A.3 3. A printed list on gummed mailing labels of owners of all real property within three hundred feet (3001); excluding streets, of the proposed condominium. Where conversion of an existing building is proposed, the mailing list shall include current tenants of the building. 21A.18.040: PROCEDURES: 21A.18.040A.1.f f. Gummed mMailing labels f,Q-all owners of property shown „n the latest puhlshed propert„tex records of the Salt Lake County assessor, located within eighty five feet (85'), or three hundred feet (300') if the proposal involves constructio-n of a new principal buildieg, in each direction of the subject property (exclusive of inter„ening streets and alleys to meet the notification reuuirement per Section 21A.10.020.A.1, Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administration Decisions.' 8 21A.46.060: SIGNS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS: 21A.46.0601 The following exterior signs, in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter, are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: A. Animated signs excluding public service signs; B. Any snipe sign; C. Balloons; D. Bench signs; E. Portable signs, except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; F. Signs overhanging the property line other than signs that are permitted under the sign regulations applicable to each zoning district; G. Signs which are structurally unsafe, hazardous or violate the uniform building code or the uniform fire code; H. Signs located near streets which imitate or are easily confused with official traffic signs and use words such as "stop", "look", "danger", "go slow", "caution" or "warning", except where such words are part of the name of a business or are accessory to parking lots;and I. Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs. (Ord. 53-00 § 3, 2000: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995); and J. Pennant Flags. 21A.46.020: DEFINITIONS: 21A.46.20B FLAG, PENNANT: Any geometric shaped cloth, fabric, or other lightweight material normally fastened to a stringer which is secured or tethered so as to allow movement of the sign caused by movement of the atmosphere. A sign, with or without a logo, made of flexible materials suspended from one or two corners, used in combination with other such signs to create the impression of a line. 9 21A.10.020 Public Hearing Notice Requirements: 21A.10.020C.1 1. Notification: The city shall provide written notice a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City Geographic Information System records included in the application, as well as to the planning commission and to all owners of land and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City Geographic Information System records adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application. At the end of the twelve (12) calendar day notice period, if there are requests for a public hearing, the planning commission will schedule a public hearing and consider the issue; if there are no requests for a public hearing, the planning commission may authorize the planning director to decide the issue administratively. 21A.10.020F F. Determination Of Noncontributing Status Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing structure, the planning director shall provide written notice of the determination of noncontributing status of the property to all owners of the land and tenants, as shown on the Salt Lake City Geographic Information System records, included in the application for determination of noncontributing .ram,, status, as well as to the historic landmark commission and to all owners of land and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City Geographic Information System records within eighty five feet (85') of the land subject to the application. At the end of the twelve (12) calendar day notice period, the planning director shall either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to the historic landmark commission. 21A.56.060: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROCESS: 21A. 56.060.C.1 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium conversion project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning official shall schedule the time for an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium conversion application. Notice shall be first class mailed to all property owners and current tenants of the building, and to the chair of the appropriate community council, as specified in subsection 21A.56.040A3 of this chapter at least fourteen (11)-twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the scheduled hearing. The notice shall inform the notified party of the date and time of the public hearing. 10 21A.56.050: NEW CONSTRUCTION PROCESS: 21A.56.050D.1 1. Public Hearing Required: No condominium project shall be approved without a public hearing. The planning official shall schedule the time for, and hold an administrative public hearing to consider the condominium application. Notice shall be first class mailed to all property owners, as specified in subsection 21A.56.040A3 of this chapter at least fourteen (11)twelve (12) calendar days in advance. The notice shall inform the notified party of the date and time of the public hearing. 21A.36.140: SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES: 21A.36.1401.1 1. Mailing: Notice by first class mail shall be provided a minimum of fourteen (1'1)twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the planning commission's public hearing to all owners of the land, as shown on the latest published property tax records of the county assessor, included in the application requiring conditional site plan review, as well as to all owners of land, as shown on the latest published property tax records of the county assessor, within one thousand feet (1,000') (exclusive of intervening streets), of the periphery of the land subject to the application requiring conditional site plan review. Notice shall be given to each individual property owner if an affected property is held in condominium ownership. 2. Notification To Recognized And Registered Organizations: The city shall give notification a minimum of fourteen (11}twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the planning commission's meeting by first class mail to any organization which is entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code. 11 Valdemoros, Ana 'om: McCandless, Allen ant: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:48 AM To: Valdemoros, Ana Subject: Petition PLNPCM2010-00223 - Fine Tuning Ana, I reviewed the information you sent regarding Petition PLNPCM2010-00223,fine tuning for various sections of the zoning ordinance. After review, I see no conflicts with the airport or airport operations that would result from the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Thank you for providing this information. —Allen McCandless 1 Er4G-�NE ` 'is, Valdemoros, Ana From: Drummond, Randy oft, Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:43 PM To: Valdemoros, Ana Subject: RE: PLNPCM2010-00223 - Fine Tuning Bundle-April 2010 Ana, we have no concerns regarding this proposal, but I have no idea regarding SLC Transportations response. Randy From: Valdemoros, Ana Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:40 PM To: Drummond, Randy Subject: RE: PLNPCM2010-00223 - Fine Tuning Bundle -April 2010 Hi Randy, for some reason I have been assigned this project but it is not assigned in accela.There is no need to give an approval, it is just comments or concerns with any of the text changes you may have, or the transportation division may have. Let me know if you need more info. Thanks, Ana From: Drummond, Randy Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:11 PM To: Valdemoros, Ana Subject: PLNPCM2010-00223 - Fine Tuning Bundle -April 2010 Ana, I received a request for response, but find nothing in Accela relative to giving an approval. If it is there, please let me know how to get to it. Randy Agook P,IUUC l lTA-1 TIE-C. Valdemoros, Ana -cm: Brown, Jason .ent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:45 PM To: Valdemoros, Ana Cc: Stoker, Justin; Garcia, Peggy Subject: Petition PLNPCM2010-00223 Fine Tuning Bundle-April 2010 Ana, Public Utilities has no comments on the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance referenced above. If you have any questions please let me know. Jason Brown, PE Development Review Engineer Salt Lake City Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84115 (801)483-6729 (801)483-6855 fax 1 Commissioner\Voodhead stated that how the buildable area relates to the setbacks makes a difference. Mr. Norris stated that the setback requirements still need to be met. Mr. Gamvroulas stated that there is a minimum setback for the lot,regardless of the size of the lot. Mr.Norris clarified that you can tie things into the ordinance, and items have been approved in the past that would have specific items such as setbacks. Commissioner McHugh asked if Public Utilities Fire and the Garbage have to approve it. Mr.Norris responded that they do not. Commissioner McHugh stated that they do not have to agree. Mr. Stewart stated the request was for a 43 foot right of way,so the request is for a seven foot reduction in the right of way. Transportation reviewed it, and added stipulations such as no parking on the street. They anticipated this width and have ways to make it work. Commissioner Fife added that the home owners could have four cars in the driveway. 7:44:07 PM Motion Commissioner Wirthlin made the motion in regard to PLNSUB2o10-00182 Crandall Cove Minor Subdivision based on the staff report and the findings and discussions in past meetings and discussion from tonight, He moved that the Planning Commission grant approval subject to conditions listed as 1 and 2 on the staff report. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Fife, Drown,McHugh, Luke,Wirthlin,\Voodhead all voted"aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:52:44 PM Public Hearing PLNPCM2o10-00223,Salt Lake City Code Maintenance- Fine Tuning text amendments -a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker to analyze the feasibility of amending the City Zoning Ordinance to provide for clarity and efficiency of use as part of an ongoing process of code maintenance.These text changes are Citywide Chairperson De Lay recognized Ana Valdemoros as staff representative. Ms.Valdemoros stated that these are routine code maintenance and some had been done in previous years. They are intended to clarify the intent of the ordinance;however,they do not substantially alter it. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 13 Ms.Valdemoros stated that she had not received any comments in regard to the item. ` 7:53:55 PM Public Comments Cindy Cromer spoke regarding two issues,one the zoning administrator,she stated that she would like to see that the lines of authority become very clear. She also stated that the triangular,pennant type banners need clarification on use. 7:57:34 PM Comments from the Commissioners Chairperson De Lay asked about the use of balloons for promotion. Commissioner Woodhead asked if there could be a provision that discusses the use of balloons for less than a day. Mr. Pace clarified that the Zoning Administrator should era. 16,which deals with the section on appeals. That section authorizes appeals to the Board of Adjustment, it states,that any decision of the Zoning Administrator or the Administrative Hearing officer. What that really mean was that if staff makes a decision that someone else does not like,it is unclear where the appeal would go. If the Planning Director makes the decision,they don't like, it goes to the Board of Adjustment. Amlik In the past,the practice has been to take all of the appeals to the Board of Adjustment,what would be needed to insert here would be something akin to a decision made by the Zoning Administrator or designee. So if the staff or the attorney's office has the latitude to make the accompanying changes necessary,in title 21a.16,that would cover us. Chairperson De Lay asked if the item would need to be re-noticed. Close of public hearing 8:03:05 PM Motion: Commissioner Fife made the motion regarding PLNPCM2o10-o0223, Salt Lake City Code Maintenance-Fine Tuning text amendments,he moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to City Council based on the information that we heard tonight and in the staff report and public hearing,in addition, add changes to section 21a-16 to make it clear that decision made by the Planning Director or their designee would approved through the Board of Adjustment, including conditions 1-10 on the staff report. Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Fife, Drown,McHugh, Luke,Wirthlin,Woodhead all voted"aye". The motion passed unanimously. Awilk Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 14 I 4770 S.5600 W. 1 1: I P.O.BOX 704005 I: 1 tr")-4•P al,he rtl-t gaffe aribunr MEDIAge Deseret News WEST VALLE 'CITY. li TA II 84170 FED.TAX 1.1).4- S7-0217663 ii . , PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY f'--C-USTOM ER N AlvIE AND ADDRESS- - --'-: -'-7.'1-'11- ----r--r"--ACCOUNT NUMI3ER::;:,•:='-'f.:':1 3:: .-":, DATE PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 8/30/201G PO BOX 145480 SALT LAIKE C1T\' UT 84114 ACCOUNT NAME:, :-,-;:.::.:-,.-.7„,i1' --.:,---,.'=-..-, ..- PLANNING DIVISION, -TELEPHONE': :."-... ,- ,--. , ---- . -_-,"ADORDER#-;1::- .1NOICE;NU.MBE ,---- .-7-..,. 8015356184 0000611332 / '---- ':-` ---- - '-'' -- --- -'--.- -- - . :-.SCHEDULE--,- 1;-_-, :::'_--:,-,_,-• , l' " .'.'.,,--_----:-„I',:','",.'_:: ';'-••'•- ',. •--..I - -•- -,-- - — .. Start 08/27/2010 End 08/27/2010 , -- '--"_--. '-- ''..-. •-_-:: ..- ••--••-... _ -,.: ,:- : . CUST;REE.NO::: _--,-- -.: -,-----•- -- _ - -',- -,,---:- .-:,.--,_:•: . _ .. Hearing 9/8/10 1 Solt Loki Ci)y Zoning Ordinonce An121d.ncnt , . )On September 8,2010,the Solt lake City Plaiming Corns. . . . . . : , CAPTION ' - • - - . ... . sion will hold a public hearing to consider making reconk - ),sr.r_ _--„•)„,- . s. ,.$)1dolions to the City Council regarding the following petition: PatriNe?rCfc2111p9-4°r°'2716A‘.2A8 lr02T1:20"(„D-1.mil'2iig7t E;;.r)ferarg):rint'r drnent On September 8, 2010, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission v Z_ni g Districr)cf the Solt Lake.Cap Zoning Ordinance to i- clude a provision for increased building height above 65 feel when the building is setback furtner than the minimum setber.. . . r- SIZE . .._ _- .,- e--.. - , 1 from property lines. Anteimas would be excluded fro, „ .. _„.. )-, ..r- ..- ..-. r ') -s.- ..1 building height measurement and in no case could a buildbo) Eoxmc,e,e1.7„,lh ewiguhirdcafFnpilnyettya 0)diesle,ticr;TLetyrirzeor,d Low) 43 Lines 2.00 COLUMN l PLNPCM2010-00229, Salt Lake Clinic - A request by In' Health Sr ricei,Inc.for o zoning mop amendment to chain) TIMES - " . _. '- — RATE...-.-1= ,- ,• ..: I the zoning ot approximately 333/349/365 South 9C0 Ea, • - ' )Iced 911/933/937-).959/963 Bost 400 South from I(lioti tvtionol),RMF-45(Residentiot Multi-Family)cod CC(Comnier riot Corridor)to UI(Urbon Institutional).The applicant WiSb2 3 to rec.:Is:Not the Solt Lats.:,Clinic in o more urbon form PLNPC0.2010.00223,Solt lobe City Code Maintenaoce;Fir ,Tuning text amendments—a request by Solt Lake City M03, . ----•-: . :MISC.CHARGES ---___;,,..-- _ _ _AD CHARGES:.-.-s,;_.',,_, 1Becker to analyze the feasibility of amending the City So _ __ , n, - -.r • r•--- 'I Ordinance to provide for clarity and efficiency of use c port of en ongoing process of code maintenance These to, changes ore Citywide PLNPCM2010-140354-Mojor Street Pion Amendment—°p.st lion initiated by Solt Lake Ciry hloycr „olph Beckon t., is TOTAL COST -1 dote the Major Street Plan of the Solt Lake City Transport: - r , ‘, - •-..- . tio,.Master Plan. 1 I 'Xb"ah° 'ngwkl1. oT1at45 "2' inrc" i25 the Cyu„ Evidi) 4 Sculls Stole street, s1 .. 2 City UT Far me,infonLc,or fa spociol ADA cocemm i 1 dolic,s, which noon include alternote formols, interpreter t and other auxiliary aids en additional information, p)eiri contortiir crey Stecort ot 535-6260 or colt TOO 535.6j?0,1 AITIDA\IL OF PUBLICATION . AS NC:WS:PAPER AGENCY CORPORA"!ION LEGAL BOOKER.I C'ER IIFY THAT THE Al (ACHED AL)VER"I'SEMEN! 0:- S11) 1 titan CI!\ ZotiiiiE!Ordinance Amendment On September S.2010.tile Solt Lake City Plannin Commission will hold a public Ilea ri rm.to consider makina recommend 1-01: PLANNING DIVISION.WAS PLII3LISIIED BY;I HE NEWSPAPER AGENCY(LORPOIZATION.AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TIZIBUNE AND DESERLI NEWS.DAILY NEWSPAPERS PR1N1 ED IN'HIE ENGLISI I LANGUAGE WITH GLNERAL CIRCULAI ION IN lITAIL AND PLIBLISLIEI)IN SALT LAKE_CITY.S SET L Al:IL, COUNTY IN'DIE.STATE OF LITAI I NOI ICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEG ALS C0`,1 ON"HIE S.AN1E DAY AS THE 1 ir:S1 NEWSP.\PER PUBLICATION DAL F AND REM ONE ON liTAI ILEGALS CON1 INDEFINATELY. Stan 0P27/2010 End 0827/2010 .,, : :.i..;:--, (ILL(SIIEDON .. ..1:,:;::, Public, StiAL- r ! LILT!, _ / .. . • r t- '' :- 1 i ••• i / ir (• ' 7 ,:•-..' ; ___I, I ,r.. , .-1 I-. ,_ . ,..myr,, , SIGNA-IIikli i i I \ \\. , \‘; .-------- ,___, ',... ; I/ 8/30'2010 \ \,Aq(k)„ ) , , ; ., , ......., , , . \ , ,!.._ \,_ „-,,„\\„) -,,,,,1S N01;A SIATENIEN1 BUT A"PROOF OF PUBLICA I IC) " \\ Crew' 1-1//l\,1 1)11 1 1‘,1(:: c TA-I 1:-.-A)111.—Nn Remarks: ' Petition No: PLNP'—�K02010-00223 i By: Salt Lake City Planning Division |~----�`^---~~�~�--^~~~--- `^~~~~- ---- ----^-- ^~ -- | Fine Tuning Bundle -2O1O � / Date Filed: April 21. 2O1O Address, Cbvvvid8 t{,,�` Petition Initiation Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: File From: Wiif Sommerkom, Planning Director 1/4/i--- Date: March 26, 2010 CC: Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community& Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Pat Comarell,Assistant Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Planning Manager;file Re: Fine Tuning Bundle-March 2010. In accordance with a letter signed by Mayor Ralph Becker on November 4,2009,which authorizes the initiation of various petitions to implement the ongoing Code Maintenance program for the Fine Tuning elements of the City's Zoning Code,this memo identifies the next bundle of Fine Tuning Amendments to the Zoning Code which the Planning Division will process. The issues to be addressed include the following: 1. Amend Freeway Landscape requirement so that rather than including specific zones, the requirement will apply to all zoning districts except for single-family and duplex districts (21A.48.110) The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that as new zoning districts are created, unless they are for single-family or two family uses,the freeway landscaping provisions will apply. 2. Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance states that the Zoning Administrator is the Planning Director not the Building Official or the Director of the Building Services and Licensing Director. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Planning Director is the Zoning Administrator. This reflects current practice. 0 Page 1 3. Eliminate the requirement for newspaper notice for zoning map amendments. The purpose of the amendment is that State Law does not require zoning map amendments, which the City gives actual notice for(i.e.mails a hearing notice to the owners of subject property and those within 300 feet). This amendment will decrease the cost of noticing. Newspaper notice for zoning text amendments will still occur since actual notice to all affected property owners is not practical. 4. Eliminate the verbiage in Chapter 21A.40 relating to accessory uses on accessory lots(in residential zones)In July 2008,these uses were deleted from the use tables but the language in chapter 21A.40 was not removed. The purpose of the changes is to eliminate the conflicting regulations. 5. Eliminate the words"excluding streets' in chapter 21A.56.040.A 3, relating to noticing for condominiums The purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency with the amendments adopted by the City Council in December of 2009,relating to noticing,and will ensure that the noticing requirement language is consistent from one process to the other. 6. 21A.18.040.A.l.f,relating to Variance application submittal requirements. Replace this section, relating to variance application submittal requirements, with the following Gummed mailing labels to meet the notification requirement per Section 21A.10.020.A.1, Public Hearing Notice Requirements for Special Exception Permits, Variances and Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decisions." The purpose of this amendment is to ensure consistency with the notification requirements adopted by the City Council in December 2009. 7. 21A. 46. Signs Specifically Prohibited in the Zoning Districts. Include Pennant Flags as a prohibited sign type. The zoning ordinance is not clear whether pennant flags are prohibited. However, similar types of items,such as balloons and snipe signs,are included in the list of prohibited signs. As a practice we have not allowed them. This amendment will make it easier for the Enforcement Officers to require them to be removed. . 8. Clarify in various sections of the zoning ordinance that the notification requirement is12 calendar days,rather than 12 days prior to the meeting. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure it is clear that this notification is based on a calendar and not a workweek or some other timeframe. v Page 2 9. Clarify in various sections of the zoning ordinance that the mailing is by first class mail. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the mailing is not sent by another method that may be slower than first class mail(such as through a bulk mailing system which would not necessarily guarantee timely delivery.) ® Page 3 September 22,2011 Council Work Session—follow-up briefing regarding the City's Historic Preservation Program. Discussion is intended to focus on the following questions and will include • information relating to Conservation Districts. • Should the City allow Conservation Districts to incorporate demolition provisions? • Should the City allow new conservation districts to be created within existing national register districts? A fact sheet and proposed zoning regulations for Conservation Districts prepared by Planning staff is provide here for additional background. Planning staff recently held an Open House to receive public comment on the proposed regulations. • • • OPEN HOUSE FAQ ,., ;,'L Department of y and Conservation Districts f , t,;_ £ CoE►onomic + n= Economic ' r.irinR•��' Development: mac' Iw T „oti Planning Division Q: What is a neighborhood conservation district? A neighborhood conservation district helps preserve and protect unique and distinctive neighborhood and commercial centers from future development which may be incompatible with the character of the area. The conservation district plan may also adjust current zoning regulations. The conservation district plan is intended to supplement existing zoning regulations to promote development that preserves and enhances the existing character. Q: Are there special requirements for properties in a conservation district? Yes. A conservation district is a land use planning tool wherein the neighborhood residents identify the qualities and characteristics which should be conserved. The focus of the regulations may vary according to what the neighborhood residents' view as being important. Some conservation districts focus on exterior improvements to the buildings themselves whereas others may focus on demolition and new construction. Q: What are some of the specific standards for the conservation district? Adopted design standards in a district plan may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a. building orientation; b. general site planning (primary, ancillary structures); c. density; d. floor area ratio; e. signage; f. architectural style and details; g• building materials; h. front window, dormer size and location; landscaping; j. fences and walls; k. driveways and sidewalks; satellite dishes, utility boxes; m. street furniture; and n. public art. Q: What is the size of the conservation district? The size of a conservation district varies depending on each area. Each district will receive its own boundary and map which will become part of the Salt Lake City Zoning Map. Q: Will the conservation district require me to change anything about my existing property? No. It can remain exactly as it is. Q: When do the new conservation district regulations affect my property? The new regulations only apply at the time of new development or when new construction occurs. If only part of the building or site is reconstructed, the new regulations apply to only that part. Q: Would becoming a conservation district result in the City telling me what to do and what not to do? All property in the city of Salt Lake City is subject to zoning regulations. As a part of becoming a conservation district, additional regulations come into play, as governed by the ordinance covering the neighborhood. Q: Will the conservation district zoning change the uses allowed on my property? No. All uses allowed in the base zoning still apply. Q. Would any interior renovations or alterations be restricted? No. Only exterior changes are regulated. Q. Can my property be opted out of the conservation district? No. If the City Council adopts the conservation district regulations and boundaries,you cannot opt out. Q: Could becoming a conservation district help my neighborhood? A conservation district can help stabilize a neighborhood by preserving its character defining features. Stability and predictability in a neighborhood often result in increased property values. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Maryann Pickering at (801) 535-6173 or marvann.pickerinq a(�slcgov.com Written comments can be submitted via email or mailed to: Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given, but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. Chapter 21A.XX Conservation Districts 21A.XX.010 Purpose The city recognizes the substantial aesthetic, environmental and economic importance of its neighborhoods and commercial districts. The purpose of this section is to establish policies, regulations and standards to protect neighborhood character and to ensure that development in a conservation district is compatible and enhances the quality and character of Salt Lake City. The intent of this section is to promote the general welfare of the public of the city through the protection, conservation, preservation, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, site and areas that are characteristic to each of the unique neighborhoods and commercial districts of Salt Lake City. WOW 21A.XX.020 Applicability The regulations set forth in this section shall apply to properties_located within the boundaries designated as a conservation district on the Salt Lake City Zoning Map. In the case of conflict between the conservation district standards and other requirements contained in other sections of thezonigordinance, the standards of the conservation district shall prevail. "�'. -101110011101111.10. WOW 21 A.XX.030 G `iI Provisio' A. Each conservation dis`frict must , tablishe` by a separate conservation district ordinances Before adopting an individual conservation district, the City Council shall approve a conceptual plan for the conservation district in accordance with this chapter. Each conservation district ordinance must be consistent with the conceptual plan approved for the district by the City Council. B. If the Planning Director determines that, due to the sensitivity of the area, or due to the nature of the piposed regulations for the area, a special administrative procedure needs to Tie established for the review of proposed work in a conservation district, such a procedure may be incorporated into the conceptual plan for the district. 21A.XX.040 Initiation of a Conservation District A. Qualifying Conditions: A conservation district feasibility study may be initiated by a group of persons who collectively own: 1. More than 50 percent of the land, excluding streets and alleys, within the subject area; and Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12, 2011 Page 1 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given,but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. 2. More than 50 percent of the principal building sites within the area of request. B. An agent of a group that satisfies the qualifying conditions in this section may file an application for a conservation district feasibility study with the Planning Director on an application form furnished by the Planning Division. Each property owner listed on the application as contributing to the satisfaction of the qualifying conditions stated in this section must sign the application. C. An application for a conservation feasibility study must include the following: 1. The application fee. 2. A list of the names and addresses of all property owners and residents in the area of request. 3. A list of all neighborhood associations or other organizatiis representing _2[t the interests of property owners in the area of request. This list should include information as to the number of members and the officers' names, mailing addresses,and phone numbers. 4. A statement of justification. This statement should: a. identify the factors which render the area of request eligible for conservation district classification;and b. explain in detail how and why such a classification would be in the best interest of the city as a whole. 5. A description of the character defining features of the area. Character defining features may include, but are not limited to, architecture or architectural features, mass and scale of buildings, streetscape, building orientation, landscaping or other items that contribute to the overall character of the area. 6. Any additional information that the Planning Director determines to be necessary for the study. 21A.XX.050 Determination of Eligibility A. When a conservation district feasibility study is initiated in accordance with this chapter, the Planning Director shall determine the eligibility of the area for conservation district classification in accordance with this subsection. Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12,2011 Page 2 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given, but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. B. The Planning Director's determination of eligibility must be based on a consideration of the standards in this subsection. An area is not eligible for conservation district classification unless it satisfies all of the following criteria: 1. The area must contain at least one block face. 2. The area must be either "stable" or "stabilizing" as those terms are defined in this title. =— 3. The area must contain significant character-defining features as defined in this title. 4. The area must have a distinctive atmosphere character which can be identified and conserved by. tecting or enhancing-its character defining features. C. If the Planning Director determines that the nOrea is not eligible` or conservation _A. district classification, the appficen1 shall be notified of this fact in writing. Notice shall be mailed to the add"r ilawn on the application. The decision of the Planning Director that an area,no1%Iigible for conservation district classification may be appealed to the Plannir ommission by the applicant. D. An appeal under this chapter is made by filing a written request with the Planning Director. The request must be filed within 10 days of the date written notice of the Planning Director's decision is given to the applicant. In considering the app✓aI,the_sole issue shall be whether or not the Planning Director erred in the _determination of eligibility, and, in this appeal, the commission shall consider the same standards that were required to be considered by the Planning Director in making their determination:- E. The Planning Commson's determination of eligibility on appeal can be further appealed in accordance;with 21A.16. F. If it is determined by the final appeal authority that the area is not eligible for conservation district classification, no further applications for conservation district classification may be considered for the area of request for one year from the date of its decision. G. If the Planning Director determines that the area is eligible for conservation district classification, property owners and tenants within the boundaries of the conservation district shall be notified that the preparation of the conceptual plan can be started in accordance with this chapter. Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12, 2011 Page 3 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given,but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. poi, 21A.XX.060 Conceptual Plan Formulation and Review A. If the area is determined to be eligible for conservation district classification pursuant to this chapter,the Planning Director shall schedule a public meeting for the purpose of informing property owners in the proposed district of the nature of the pending request. The Planning Director shall send mailed notice of the time and place of the meeting a minimum of twelve(12)calendar days in advance of the meeting to all property owners and tenants as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records for all property included in the request. B. The Planning Division shall prepare a conceptual,plan for the proposed district with input from owners and residents of the proposed:conservation district. Once the conceptual plan is developed;. a public hearing__before the Planning Commission will be scheduled to-leceive public comment-regarding the plan. The Planning Director shall send written notice of the public hearing in accordance with Chapter 21A.10. C. After the public hearing,the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation regarding the conceptual plan and forward it to the City Council for further action. D. The City Council shall hold a public hearing before it makes a decision regarding the conceptual plan. The city shall give notice of the public hearing in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 21A.10. E. After the City Council holds the public hearing, it shall make a decision regarding the plan. The Council may make minor changes in the plan without sending it back to the commission; however, if the changes are substantial, the Council shall send the plan back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing. F. No conservation district may be established in the city unless the City Council first approves a conceptual plan for the district in accordance with this chapter. 21A.XX.070 Conservation Ordinance Review A. A staff report evaluating the application for establishment of the conservation district shall be prepared by the Planning Division. B. The Planning Commission shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the application in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10, "General Application And Public Hearing Procedures",of this title. Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12,2011 Page 4 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given,but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. C. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment or the approval of some modification of the amendment and shall then submit its recommendation to the City Council. D. The City Council shall schedule and hold a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10, "General Application And Public Hearing Procedures",of this title. E. Following the hearing, the City Council may adopt the proposed creation of a conservation district, adopt the proposed conservation district with modifications, or deny the proposed conservation district. However, no additional land may be added to the boundaries of the conservation district, without new notice and hearing. 21A.XX.080 Conservation District Standards A decision to create a conservation district is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. A. In making its decision concerning the creation of a conservation district,the City Council should consider the following factors: 1. The proposed conservation district area is an established area with shared distinguishing characteristics, which may include architecture, geography, development,services,and interests. 2. The proposed conservation district is a logical geographic unit with a closely settled development pattern on similar sized parcels. 21A.XX.090 Demolition Standards for demolition within any conservation district area shall be included within the ordinance for that specific conservation district. There shall also be included a process for submittal and review of demolition permits. Definitions to be added to Chapter 21A.62 "BLOCK"means an area or bounded by streets on all sides. "BLOCK FACE"means all of the lots on one side of a block. I Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12,2011 Page 5 Development of Conservation Districts is early in the process. This draft ordinance is open for review and comment. It is based on direction staff has been given,but public input on how it could be developed to fit the needs to the community is welcome. "CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES"may include, but are not limited to, architecture or architectural features, mass and scale of buildings, streetscape, building orientation, landscaping or other items that contribute to the overall character of the area. "CONSERVATION DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY" means a study conducted by the Planning Director to determine whether or not a particular area of the city is eligible for conservation district classification. "STABLE" means that the area is expected to remain substantially the same over the next 20 years with continued maintenance of the property. While some changes in structures, land uses, and densities may occur, all such changes are expected to be compatible with surrounding development. "STABILIZING"means that the area is expected to become stable over the next 20-year period through continued reinvestment,maintenance,or remodeling,, Draft Conversation District Ordinance September 12,2011 Page 6 • FOR ITEM A 6 SEE ITEM 0 A 4 FROM 9/20 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Golf Enterprise Fund • Proposed—Green Fee Increase for Operations—Effective 1/1/2012 • Proposed—Dedicated Capital Improvement Program(CIP)Fee Increase —Effective 1/1/2012 • Proposed Changes: •Jordan River Par 3 Golf Course •Discount Programs STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: All ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND AND CONTACT PERSON: RICK GRAHAM AND DAVID TERRY PUBLIC PROCESS: • Golf Advisory Board • Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force • Open City Hall—Online Discussion • Public Hearing—Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Amendment October 25,2011 1.;. For the past several years,City Administrators and Council Members,including Golf Fund Management,have discussed (, ie need for$20-$22 million of deferred capital maintenance and improvement projects at the City's golf courses. Course projects have been deferred because the Golf Fund has not had the financial resources to invest in course infrastructure and larger capital improvement projects. Debt payments for Wingpointe and Mountain Dell facilities,as well as a new irrigation system at Glendale and the Forest Dale clubhouse renovation,an increase of 95 percent in the supply of public golf holes in the market since 1990,economic conditions over the past couple of years,and inclement weather are factors that affect the Golf Fund. In 2010,Management of the City's Golf Fund,in collaboration with the Golf Advisory Board,presented a proposal and timeline for addressing the needs of the golf courses. This plan,presented to the City Council,identified how projects would be funded,as well as,how and when the funds would be used. Given the many complex issues,including the possible sale of course property,transferring course property to the City's General Fund,and/or determining appropriate land use,zoning,and master plan adjustments,the Council and Administration decided to explore solutions which would help fund and complete the$20-$22 million in golf course improvements. During the fiscal year(FY)2011-12 budget discussions,the Golf Fund suggested the possibility of charging a$0.50 per nine-hole round fee in FY 2014 to help fund deferred improvement projects at all City golf courses. In the same discussion,the Council suggested a possible fee increase of$1.00 to$2.00 to help fund needed maintenance and capital improvements at the City's golf courses. The Council asked the Administration to come back with a proposal for a fee increase to be effective January 1,2012. In addition to the proposed changes to green fees,the Administration is also proposing alterations to the Jordan River par 3 golf course,and making changes to some of the golf passes and discount program offerings. This staff report presents information about these proposed changes. 1 -- Green Fee Changes The Administration transmitted a fee increase proposal (Scenario C)for the Council's consideration in September. Upon review, Council Staff requested the Administration to prepare two additional scenarios for the Council to consider— Scenario A and Scenario B. The Administration prepared these scenarios—A, B, C-which attempt to estimate how much additional revenue could be generated if a Dedicated CIP Fund Fee were established and an Operations Fee increase was approved by the Council. Both fees would be included in the green fee total. The information provided by the Administration is intended to assist the Council in setting the appropriate amount and combination of Operating and Dedicated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund fees. Several factors were considered in determining the fee increases being suggested. According to the Administration, each of the city's golf courses plays a role in the overall golf product offered by the Salt Lake City golf system. Some courses are entry level courses, whereas others serve the intermediate and advanced golfer. Market factors, including supply of public golf and need to be price competitive,were also considered. These factors, along with the cost of a golf cart rental, were considered in suggesting green fee changes at each of the City's golf courses. Operations Fee-The Administration is proposing that a portion of the proposed fee increase to be effective on January 1, 2012, be allocated to course operations. Depending on which proposed fee is implemented, additional revenues for operations could range from $88,905 to $146,374 for FY 2012. (Note: Operations Fees are proposed to be increased again in FY 2014 and FY 2016.) Total additional revenues for FY 2012 thru FY 2016 are estimated to be between $1.9 and $2.4 million. The Administrative has indicated that golf fees are highly sensitive,and the number of rounds of golf could decrease if prices increase. As a result,the number of rounds of golf projected to be played has been adjusted. Scenario details are included below. The Administration's paperwork also indicates the following Golf Operations items: • Actual FY 2011 Golf Fund net loss from operations (excluding$425,000 in revenue from the sale of Rose Park property)was($595,541). This amount, without the$425,000 in one-time revenue from the sale of Rose Park property, reflects the net loss for Golf Fund operations. • Projected FY 2012 budgeted income is$10,099 (excluding$422,782 budgeted for Rose Park Driving Range improvements). • Projected FY 2012 budgeted revenues are $900,000 more than actual FY 2011 revenue, an increase of 12%. Actual revenues for March,April, and May were down approximately$550,000 compared to the previous two springs. Possibly due to cool,wet weather,the current economic climate, or both. After two months—July and August-of FY 2012, rounds of golf have been up 2%and 5%, respectfully. However,total revenue does not show growth. Revenue growth did not occur because discounted rounds were up significantly from the prior year during this same period of time. • Budgeted expenses for FY 2012 do not reflect product and service inflation, so the expense budget may be underestimated. The paperwork indicates that general expenses will be reduced as required to balance the FY 2012 budget. Dedicated CIP Fee—During the May 31, 2011 Council briefing, the idea to have a Dedicated CIP Fund fee was discussed with the Administration. A fee of$0.50 per nine-hole round, originated by the Administration,was proposed to be implemented in FY 2014. Given the large unfunded needs of the Golf Fund,the Council made a decision to explore this idea further. Scenario details are included below. Dedicated CIP Funds could be used as follows: o Option 1- Be managed in a lump sum total with all course fees collected and used for all course improvements, regardless of where the fee was generated. The Administration has indicated its 3 preference for this option. o Option 2 - Be designated for use by the golf course which generated the fees. 2 Either option could be used. Funds could be collected by individual course or in total. Funds could be used for pay as you go projects, or funds could be used for debt service payments if the Council chose to finance capital improvements. .ach option has pros and cons that must be balanced. For example, it may take longer to complete capital projects at each golf course with the pay as you go option, but if improvements are financed,funds would be dedicated for debt payments. Additionally, if funds are keep at the course where generated, projects may not get addressed in order of priority that has been established by the Administration. As the budgeting authority, the Council will determine the final decisions on the timing and funding of projects to be completed. ► Does the Council wish to discuss their preference for these options now, or do they prefer to wait until the Administration, the Golf Advisory Board,and Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force have time to present their recommendations? Following are the suggested fee increases for each scenario and details of how much additional revenue might be realized from each of the scenarios. Additionally, predicting the impact of a fee increase is difficult. In the past when fees were increased, rounds of golf did fall off temporarily. Each of the scenarios presented includes two assumptions: one in which rounds of golf decrease by 3 percent and another one in which rounds decrease by 6 percent in the initial year,with moderate growth projected in years where no fee increase is proposed. • Scenario A-Council Staff Requested • Dedicated CIP Fee- Increase of$1.00 per nine-hole round at each course. • Operations Fee-Varies by course. Depending on the course, an additional fee may be charged to fund operating costs. • Scenario B-Council Staff Requested • Dedicated CIP Fee- Increase of$2.00 per nine-hole round at each course. • Operations Fee-Varies by course. Depending on the course, an additional fee may be charged to fund operating costs. • Scenario C-Proposal Transmitted to the Council • Dedicated CIP Fee -Variable fee per nine-hole round at each course. • Operations Fee-A fixed fee of$0.50 per nine-hole round at each course. Scenario A- Financial Details-Green Fee Changes Salt Lake City Golf Fund _......... Scenario A-$L00CIP Fee Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses/Variable Fee to Operations Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Effective January 1,2012 Scenario A-3%Reduction in Rounds Scenario A-6%Reduction in Rounds FY 1/1/2012 - .....__...._. _.. _... to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 Total Total by Total by Operations Total Course- Total Course- Projected and Operations Operations Operations Operations Rounds of CIP Dedicated and Dedicated and and and Dedicated Course Golf Operations-Fee Inaeases Dedicated CIP Fee Operations Dedicated CIP CIP Dedicated CIP Operations Dedicated Ca'Dedicated CIP CIP 1/1/2012 FY 2014 FY 2016 Bonneville 345,962 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 572,929 $ 269,158 $ 842,087 20.5% $ 555,209 $ 260,834 $ 816,043 20.5% Forest Dale 206,910 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 107,055 $ 160,976 $ 268,031 6.5% $ 103,744, $ 155,997 $ 259,741 6.5% Glendale 340,0611 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 440,514 $ 264,567 $ 705,081 17.1% $ 426,889 $ 256,385 $ 683,274 17.1% Jordan River • $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ • $ - $ 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mountain Dell-Canyon 216,379 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 358,331 $ 168,342 $ 526,673 12.8% $ 347,251 $ 163,136 $ 510,387 12.8% Mountain Dell•Lake 251,270 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 416,116 $ 195,489. $ 611,605 14.9% $ 403,245 $ 189,442 $ 592,687 14.9% Nibley Park 157,885 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 81,689 $ 122,834 $ 204,523 5.0% $ 79,163 $ 119,035 $ 198,198 5.0% Rose Park 292,008 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 151,084 $ 227,182 $ 378,266 9.2% $ 146,412 $ 220,156 $ 366,568 9.2% Wingpolnte 307,426 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.75 $ 339,088 $ 239,178 $ 578,266 14.1% $ 328,601 $ 231,781 $ 560,382 14.1% Total 2,117,901 $ 2,466,806 $ 1,647,726 $ 4,114,532 t 100.0% $2,390,514 $ 1,596,766 $ 3,987,280 100.0% As mentioned the impact to operating revenues if the rounds of golf decrease is difficult to predict. The following is an estimate of the potential impact to total operating revenues, FY 2012 thru FY 2016, assuming rounds of golf decrease by 3 6 percent and 3 percent. (Note: The net impact to revenue is calculated by taking average revenue per round of golf ($17.50 per round) multiplied by the predicted rounds of golf after the decrease in golf rounds has been considered. Additional revenue generated is added back to determine the net impact.) 0 Scenario A(Also Scenario B)-Impact to Net Operating Revenue Considering Rounds of Golf Decrease FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Cumulative ( 6 months) Total 6% ($323,160) ($23,807) ($3,998) $331,800 $344,427 $325,262 3% ($83,717) $225,190 $245,631 $592,146 $605,176 $1,584,426 Scenario B- Financial Details-Green Fee Changes Salt Lake City Golf Fund Scenario B-$L0001P Fee Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses/Variable Fee to Operations Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Effective January 1,2012 Scenario B-3%Reduction in Rounds Scenario B-6%Reduction in Rounds FY1/1/2012 to FY2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 Total A Percent ot Percent ot Operations Total Total by Total Total by Projected and Operations Course- Operations Course- Rounds of CIP Dedicated and Dedicated Operations and Operations Course Golf Operations-Fee Increases Dedicated CIP Fee Operations Dedicated CIP CIP and Operations Dedicated CIP Dedicated CIP and Dedicated 1/1 2012 FY 2014 FY 2016 Bonneville 345,962 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.50 $ 572,929 $ 538,316 $ 1,111,245 19.3% $ 555,209 $ 521,667 $ 1,076,876 16.3% Forest Dale 206,910 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 107,055 $ 321,952 $ 429,007 7.4% $ 103,744 $ 311,995 $ 415,739 9.8% Glendale 340,061 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 440,514 $ 529,134 $ 969,648 16.8% $ 426,889 $ 512,769 $ 939,658 16.1% Jordan River - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ • $ - $ - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mountain Dell-Canyon 216,379 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.50 $ 358,331 $ 336,683 $ 695,014 12.1% $ 347,251 $ 326,272 $ 673,523 10.2% Mountain Dell-Lake 251,270 $ 1,50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.50 $ 416,116 $ 390,977 $ 807,093 14.0% $ 403,245 $ 378,883 $ 782,128 11.9% Nibley Park 157,885 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 81,689 $ 245,668 $ 327,357 5.7% $ 79,163 $ 238,070 $ 317,233 7.5% Rose Park 292,008 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 151,084 $ 454,365 $ 605,449 10.5% $ 146,412 $ 440,312 $ 586,724 1" Wingpolnte 307,426 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.75 $ 339,088 $ 478,356 $ 817,444 14.2% $ 328,601 $ 463,561 $ 792,162 14. Total 2,117,901 $ 2,466,806 $ 3,295,451 $ 5,762,257 r 100.0% $2,390,514 $ 3,193,529 $ 5,584,043 100.0%1 Note: The impact to net operating revenue considering rounds of golf decreasing is the same as provided above with Scenario A. Scenario C- Financial Details-Green Fee Chanes Salt Lake City Golf Fund Scenario C-Variable CIP Fee Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses/$0.50 Variable Fee to Operations Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Effective January 1,2012 Scenario C-3%Reduction in Rounds Scenario C-6%Reduction in Rounds FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 • Total Total by Total by Operations Total Course- Total Course- Projected and Operations Operations Operations Operations Rounds of CIP Dedicated and Dedicated and and and Dedicated Course Golf Operations Dedicated CIP Fee Operations Dedicated CIP CIP Dedicated CIP Operations Dedicated CIP Dedicated OP CIP 1 1 2012 FY 2014 FY 2016 Bonneville 345,962 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 250 $ 314,389 $ 523,363 $ 837,752 20.7% $ 304,665 $ 507,177 $ 811,842 24.6% Forest Dale 206,910 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 188,027 $ 81,354 $ 269,381 6.6% $ 182,213 $ 78,838 $ 261,051 3.8% Glendale 340,061 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.50 $ 2.00 $ 309,026 $ 398,273 $ 707,299 17.5% $ 299,468 $ 385,954 $ 685,422 18.7% Jordan River - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mountain Dell-Canyon 216,379 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 250 $ 196,630 $ 327,331 $ 523,961 12.9% $ 190,549 $ 317,210 $ 507,759 15.4% Mountain Dell-lake 251,270 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 228,339 $ 380,117 $ 608,456 15.0% $ 221,276 $ 368,359 $ 589,635 17.9% Nibley Park 157,885 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 050 $ 1.00 $ 143,476 $ 62,077 $ 205,553 5.1% $ 139,038 $ 60,158 $ 199,196 2.9% Rose Park 292,008 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 050 $ 1.00 $ 265,359 $ 114,813 $ 380,172 9.4% $ 257,152 $ 111,262 $ 368,414 5.4% Wingpointe 307,426 $ 0.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 1.75 $ 279,370 $ 239,178 $ 518,548 12.8% $ 270,729 $ 231,781 $ 502,510 11.2% Total 2,117,901 $ 1,924,616 $ 2,126,506 $ 4,051,122' 100.0% $1,865,090 $ 2,060,739 $ 3,925,829 100.0% As mentioned the impact to operating revenues if the rounds of golf decrease is difficult to predict. The following is an estimate of the potential impact to total operating revenues, FY 2012 thru FY 2016, assuming rounds of golf decrease by 4 11. 6 percent and 3 percent. (Note: The net impact to revenue is calculated by taking average revenue per round of golf ($17.50 per round)multiplied by the predicted rounds of golf after the decrease in golf rounds has been considered. dditional revenue generated is added back to determine the net impact.) Scenario C-Impact to Net Operating Revenue Considering Rounds of Golf Decrease FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Cumulative (6 months) Total 6% ($380,630) ($141,045) ($120,782) $214,609 $227,689 ($200,159) 3% ($143,029) $104,201 $125,111 $471,206 $484,704 $1,042,193 Summary-Affects of Green Fee Changes-All Scenarios Salt Lake City Golf Fund Summary of Scenarios A,B,and C-CIP Fee Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses and Operations Fee Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Effective January 1,2012 3%Reduction In Rounds Scenario A-6%Reduction in Rounds FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 Projected Rounds of Total Operations and Dedicated Total Operations and Dedicated CIP Fund Total Operations and Dedicated CIP Fund Course Golf CIP Fee Revenues Revenues Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C 1/1/2012 1/1/2012 1/1 2012 Bonneville 345,962 $ 2.50 $ 3.50 $ 2.50 $ 842,087 $ 1,111,245 $ 837,752 $ 816,043 $ 1,076,876 $ 811,842 Forest Dale 206,910 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 $ 268,031 $ 429,007 $ 269,381 $ 259,741 $ 415,739 $ 261,051 Glendale 340,061 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $ 705,081 $ 969,648 $ 707,299 $ 683,274 $ 939,658 $ 685,422 Jordan River - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - MountainDell-Canyon 216,379 $ 2.50 $ 3.50 $ 2.50 $ 526,673 $ 695,014 $ 523,961 $ 510,387 $ 673,523 $ 507,759 Mountain Dell-lake 251,270 $ 2.50 $ 3.50 $ 2.50 $ 611,605 $ 807,093 $ 608,456 $ 592,687 $ 782,128 $ 589,635 Nibley Park 157,885 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 $ 204,523 $ 327,357 $ 205,553 $ 198,198 $ 317,233 $ 199,196 Rose Park 292,008 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 $ 378,266 $ 605,449 $ 380,172 $ 366,568 $ 586,724 $ 368,414 Wingpointe 307,426 $ 1.75 $ 2.75 $ 1.75 $ 578,266 $ 817,444 $ 518,548 $ 560,382 $ 792,162 $ 502,510 Total 2,117,901 r5 14.25 F$ 22.25 r5 14.25 $ 4,114,532 $ 5,762,257 $ 4,051,122 $ 3,987,280 $ 5,584,043 $3,925,829 Total Operations Fee $ 2,466,806 $ 2,466,806 $ 1,924,616 $ 2,390,514 $ 2,390,514 $1,865,090 Total Dedicated CIP Fund Fee $ 1,647,726 $ 3,295,451 $ 2,126,506 $ 1,596,766 $ 3,193,529 $2,060,739 Total Rounds Baseline Decrease-(1/1/12 thru 6/30/2016) (50,423) (50,4231 (50,423) (118,015) (118A15) (118,015) Overall Net Impact to Operating Revenues $ 1,584,426 $ 1,584,426 $ 1,042,193 $ 325,262 $ 325,262 $ (200,159) Note:The difference between the overall impact(all scenarios)to total golf operations(concessions,pro shop,etc)from a decrease In golf rounds from 3%to 6%is about$1.3 million In summary,each of the scenarios presents revenue opportunities,but the impact of potential reduced rounds of golf should be considered when increasing green fees because of its impact to operations. Jordan River Par 3 Golf Course Changes Fee increases have not been proposed for the Jordan River par 3 golf course. According to the Administration,the Golf 5 • Fund has/will provide the following subsidies to the Jordan River course: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Projected FY 2012 $76,089 $63,102 $80,703 $59,747 Given the financial challenges of the Jordan River course, the Administration did not want to include this course in the ll fee increase scenarios. The Administration has ideas about the future use of this course they would like to discuss further with the City Council. Ideas include using approximately a third of the course, seven acres,for a free two-hole par 3 route, a short-game practice area, and an expanded driving range. According to Golf Fund Staff, the objective of the course has been to develop neighborhood golfers. The Administration indicates it wants to continue developing golfers with this new approach. Another idea would be to shift fourteen (14) acres to another open/green space use. This idea is being explored with the City's Parks and Open Space Division to determine the best use of this acreage. Additionally, the Administration has suggested that the General Fund could accept the fourteen (14) acres as payment for the Surplus Land Account's purchase of 2.64 acres of property which had been purchased for the Rose Park Golf Course Driving Range expansion. ► During the May Council briefing, the City Council discussed various policy issues with the Administration. The possibility of closing a course was discussed, but decisions were not made. • Is the closing of a City golf course a Legislative policy decision that falls within the Council's purview? If golf course property were transferred to the General Fund there would be impacts that involve committing General Fund resources, including staff time and budget appropriations. It would also reduce the scope of the City's golf program. As such, Council Staff recommends that the future of the Jordan River course be evaluated by the City Council, rather than being considered an Administrative decision. Golf Pass and Discount Program Changes In an effort to stimulate demand, many discount and promotional programs are offered for use at Salt Lake City golf courses. According to the Administration, these programs are currently being evaluated by Golf Management,the Golf Advisory Board, and the Mayor's Golf CIP Task Group to determine if programs are effective in generating "new" rounds of golf and the program discounts are set at the appropriate level. The following table presents details regarding the City's golf program discount and annual passes used for the past five years. Discounts as a percentage of total rounds of golf have increased 14 percent over the past five years. Full price rounds in 2011 are 28 percent less than in 2007. Use of annual passes increased 55 percent from 2007 to 2011. Other discounts have increased by over 300 percent. These programs appear to be popular, but in spite of the promotions and discounts, overall rounds of golf(full price plus all discounted rounds) decreased by 12 percent over the past five years. Fiscal Year Rounds— Rounds— Rounds— Rounds— Total Discounts Full Price Frequent Other Annual Rounds as Player Discounts Passes a % of the Discount Total 2007 376,936 71,723 13,420 9,375 471,454 20% 2008 358,028 73,037 14,723 12,773 458,561 22% 2009 353,129 82,582 22,436 12,778 470,925 25 2010 325,463 82,035 29,707 12,968, 450,173 28% 2011 272,412 72,250 54,503 14,496 413,661 34% % Change from -27.7% 0.7% 306.1% 54.6% -12.3% 2007 to 2011 Several changes to the Frequent Player Discount Card and Annual Passports are being proposed as a result of the Administration's analysis. These changes would be effective on January 1, 2012. 6 • Frequent Player Card(FPC)—Currently a FPC can be purchased for$75 annual fee. This entitles the user to a 30%discount. The Administration proposes that the FPC annual purchase price be$45 for a 20%discount. With the proposed change no customer would receive more than a 19%discount. • Annual Passports—Currently there are four Annual Passport options per age group: Regular,Senior,and Junior. The Administration is proposing to discontinue two of the options per age group. This decision was made based on program participation. Attachment 1 to this report contains additional information about Salt Lake City's Golf promotional and discount programs. It should be noted that,according to Golf Fund records,11,500 free rounds of golf are played annually at City courses. Currently any employee of the City golf program may play free at any City course. According to Golf Management, allowing golf employees complimentary golf privileges is a common practice at public golf courses. The Administration is currently examining the regulations associated with the program and the enforcement of the regulations. The Council may wish to request that the Golf Advisory Board and the City Administration examine establishing a discount program in lieu of providing free golf for all Golf Fund employees. The Golf Fund currently provides an opportunity for the City's employee insurance program to purchase passes at a discount for City employees. If this program exceeds the discount program offered to the general public,it could amount to a small inadvertent subsidy of the general fund by the Golf Fund. City enterprise funds are typically'stand alone'funds in terms of accounting. The Council may wish to request that the Administration double check this program to assure that there is no inadvertent subsidy. Further,the fee ordinance should be modified to reflect the authority for this program if it is determined to be in keeping with the standards required of enterprise funds. Other ( Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force-In addition to exploring fee changes,the Administration has established a Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force which includes community members,both golfers and non-golfers. This group,supported by City staff,has been asked to provide an outside review of the Golf Fund's Deferred and Capital Improvement Plans and offer solutions about how the City can fund and address the City's Golf Fund's needs. The Golf CIP Task Force recently met,and is expected to meet again on September 21'`. P.Does the Council wish to receive regular written progress reports from the Mayor's CIP Task Force and the Golf Advisory Board? If so,what information would the Council find helpful? Open City Hall—During the summer of 2011,golfing and non-golfing residents and non-residents have had the opportunity to comment on the challenges and opportunities of the City's Golf Fund. One hundred comments were received and there have been nearly one thousand readers of this topic. (See Attached Comments) Additional Information According to previously-prepared City documents,in addition to providing accessible,reasonably priced recreation for Salt Lake City residents and visitors,the Golf Fund serves to preserve open space in an urban setting and promote tourism and economic development. Additionally,the Mountain Dell golf course land helps to preserve water quality and the Rose Park golf course serves as a buffer between housing and the oil refineries. During 1990 to 2007,regional communities added 468 public golf holes,an increase of 94.5%. This nearly doubled the options for the golfing community,but made it much more competitive and challenging for the providers of golf courses. These factors,along with aging facilities and economic conditions have impacted the number of rounds of golf played at `he City's golf courses. The following chart shows the number of rounds of golf played at each Salt Lake City course for ,he past eleven years,and round projections for FY 2012 thru FY 2016. The estimated rounds for FY 2012 thru FY 2016 do take into consideration the proposed fee increases. 7 Salt Lake City Golf Courses Rounds of Golf Played(9 hole equivalents) Actual Rounds For Fiscal Years 2001 to 2011 and Projected Rounds for Fiscal Years 2012 to 2016 Mountain Forest Jordan Dell- Mountain Nibley Annual Bonneville Dale Glendale River Canyon Dell-Lake Park Rose Park Wingpointe Total 2001 88,921 54,959 65,905 - 56,985 68,082 36,514 68,328 75,450 515,144 2002 88,955 53,306 69,116 - 55,965 63,787 34,760 70,977 73,638 510,504 2003 86,939 54,394 74,612 12,699 53,155 60,081 31,796 73,695 72,323 519,694 2004 79,012 48,342 65,613 13,209 52,389 58,014 30,528 59,615 62,554 469,276 2005 76,832 46,887 63,694 11,854 41,168 52,209 34,400 58,033 61,284 446,361 2006 77,331 48,791 63,308 13,922 48,777 56,097 34,958 58,265 64,065 465,514 2007 79,145 49,092 65,547 11,925 50,915 57,784 33,417 57,722 65,907 471,454 2008 77,682 47,183 68,800 10,305 48,612 54,652 32,955 56,634 61,738 458,561 2009 75,881 45,768 71,242 13,160 47,145 53,948 33,893 62,313 67,575 470,925 2010 70,215 41,608 72,362 13,572 44,229 52,160 32,780 60,999 62,248 450,173 2011 68,768 38,860 62,904 10,139 32,240 63,199 29,992 50,741 56,818 413,661 2012 66,665 41,067 67,494 - 42,946 49,871 31,336 57,957 61,017 418,353 2013 70,038 41,888 68,844 - 43,805 50,868 31,963 59,116 62,237 428,759 2014 68,638 41,050 67,467 - 42,928 49,851 31,324 57,933 60,992 420,183 2015 70,010 41,871 68,816 - 43,787 50,848 31,950 59,092 62,212 428,586 2016 68,610 41,034 67,440 - 42,912 49,830 31,311 57,910 60,968 420,015 Total-All Years 1,213,642 736,100 1,083,164 100,646 747,958 891,281 523,877 969,330 1,031,026 4,777,606 Attachments Attachment 1-Pass and Discount Programs Offered by Salt Lake City Golf Attachment 2-Scenario A-Details Provided by Administration Attachment 3-Scenario B-Details Provided by Administration Attachment 4-Scenario C-Details Provided by Administration Attachment 5-Comments Received by the Public-Open City Hall and Council Comments 8 Attachment 1 Salt Lake City Golf Fund Schedule of Season Pass Programs(Note: 9%of annual fee allocated to Dedicated CIP ' Fund.) Prepared as of 09/15/2011 Current Proposed (Program Name Participation Courses Days Allowed Price Change Current Effective Date ADULT PASSES FY 2011-12 01/01/2012 0 Adult, Mon-Thurs anytime,Friday before noon, $930(adult) Par Pass(Weekday 5-course) 6 Senior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses Saturday,Sunday,and Holidays after noon $745(senior) Discontinued 17 Adult Mon-Thurs anytime,Friday before noon(Not $1,140(adult) $1,195(adult) Birdie Pass(Weekday 9-course) 30 Senior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses valid Saturday,Sunday,or Holidays) $910(senior) $955(senior) 1 Adult $1,345(adult) Eagle Pass(Unlimited 5-course) 1 Senior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses Any time 7 days a week(including holidays) $1,075(senior) Discontinued 13 Adult $1,765(adult) $1,845(adult) Double-Eagle Pass(Unlimited 9-course) 5 Senior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses Any time 7 days a week(including holidays) $1,410(senior) $1,475(senior) JUNIOR PASSES(under 17 only) May 1-August 31-Mon-Thurs,Friday OP before noon,Saturday and Sunday after Junior Par Pass(May-August 5-course) 4 Junior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses noon(No Holidays) $ 250 $ 275 May 1-August 31-Mon-Thurs,Friday before noon,Saturday and Sunday after Junior Birdie Pass(May-August 9-course) 4 Junior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses noon(No Holidays) $ 375 Discontinued May 1-August 31-Mon-Thurs,Friday before noon,Saturday and Sunday after noon(No Holidays);September 1-April 30• After noon Mon-Thurs,and Saturday and Junior Eagle Pass(Annual 5-course) 1 Junior All Salt Lake City Golf Courses Sunday $ 495 $ 550 May 1-August 31-Mon-Thurs,Friday before noon,Saturday and Sunday after noon(No Holidays);September 1-April 30• After noon Mon-Thurs,and Saturday and Junior Eagle Pass(Annual 9-course) - All Salt lake City Golf Courses Sunday $ 695 Discontinued FREQUENT PLAYER DISCOUNT Regular 1,500 Senior 596 Junior 23 Employee 141 Other discount/promotions programs offered at Salt Lake City golf courses include: PGA Passbook Rounds, UGA Handicap Card, Lifetime Pass Holders, State-Level Tournament Rounds, CityDeals Coupon Offers, Entertainment Book Coupons, and Bounce Back Offers. As noted in the staff report, all discounts and promotions are being analyzed for their effectiveness in attracting and retaining golfers to the City's golf courses. 9 Attachment 4-Scenario C SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND • FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (3% Reduction in Year 1) ***VARIABLE CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH COURSE/.50 CENT FEE TO OPERATIONS**' Rounds-3% Rounds'2% Rounds-2% Rounds•2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: FY12 Dm FY14 EY.14 mg Bonneville Rounds 70,857 72,274 70,828 72,245 70,800 Forest Dale Rounds 42,377 43,225 42,360 43,208 42,343 Glendale Rounds 69,648 71,041 69,620 71,012 69,592 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 44,316 45,203 44,299 45,185 44,281 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 51,463 52,492 51,442 52,471 51,422 Nibley Park Rounds 32,336 32,983 32,323 32,970 32,311 Rose Park Rounds 59,806 61,002 59,782 60,978 59,758 Wingpointe Rounds 62,$$4 64.223 62,939 84,198 62,914 433,768 442,443 433,594 442,266 433,421 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 Ella FY14 FY15 fail Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $57,660 $117,625 S115,273 $117,578 $115,227 $523,363 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $8,963 $18,284 S17,918 $16,277 $17,911 $81,354 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $43,878 $89,512 $87,721 $89,476 $87,686 $398,273 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $36,062 S73,567 S72,096 S73,538 S72,067 8327,331 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee $41,878 S85,431 $83,722 $85,397 S83,689 $380,117 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $6,839 $13,952 S13,673 S13,946 $13,667 $62,077 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee 412,649 $25,804 $25.288 $25,794 $25,278 $114,813 VNngpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 121. 9 53 755 630 M.734 1.51 12.AM1 234 2B0 5 n220 WAIN 77 739 88 184 S2124505 Cumulative Total: $712,210 $1,180,582 51,658,321 52,126,505 '- 47/6 mo .47/12mo .47/12rna,.93/6 mo 1.40/12n,o 1.40/12 mo,.93/6mo FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: fX33 FY73 FY14 FY14 EMI Bonneville Operation Fee S14,986 $30,572 $59,283 S91,028 $118,519 $314,389 Forest Dale Operation Fee $8,963 S/8,284 S35,456 $54,442 $70,883 $188,027 Glendale Operation Fee 514,731 $30,050 $58,272 $89,476 $116,497 $309,026 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee S9,373 $19,121 S37,078 $56,933 S74,126 $196,630 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee 810,8134 S22,204 $43,057 $66,114 $86,080 $228,339 Nibley Perk Operation Fee $6,839 $13,952 S27,055 $41,542 $54,088 S143,476 Rose Park Operation Fee $12649 $25,804 S50,038 S76,832 $100,036 $265,359 Wrngpointe Operation Fee 13 317 27 167 15.230 580 88$ 105 318 MUM 9f 11til 185 7,154 38S 2.919 5557.254 72S 5.547 31.924,617 Cumulative Total: $278,895 5641,814 51,199,070 51,924,617 Rounds-3% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO 3%ROUNDS DECREASE: FY12 ELF FY14 FY15 FY1 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09&10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 433768 442443 433594 442266 433421 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -13415 -4740 -13589 -4917 -13762 Recent Histoncal Total Average Per Round Revenue 1$ 7.50 1L50 $17.50 $17,5Q $17.5Q -$234,771.08 -$82,952.45 -5237,807.45 -$86,049.55 -$240,842.61 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $91,742 $187,154 $362,919 $557,256 $725,547 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$143,029.15 $104,201.09 $125,111.13 $471,206.08 $484,704.22 Cumulative Total' -$38,828.06 586,283.08 $557,489.16 $1,042,193.38 0 Attachment 4-Scenario C SALT LAKE CITY MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES &PROPOSED CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1,2012 i ***VARIABLE CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH COURSE/.50 CENT FEE TO OPERATIONS'' CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED _ PROPOSED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION REGULAR REGULAR SENIOR SENIOR INCREASE PER TO TO DEDICATED GOLF COURSE li9J.E1 TYPE GREEN FEE 9/1e GREEN FEE 9118 GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/1$ 9-HOLES 19/18 aval OPERATION$ CIP FUND CART RENTAL Mick Riley Par 3 9 Para $6 57 55-$8 Se Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow 9 Par 3 $7.50 S7 $5 Fore Lakes-Par 3 a Par 3 $8 $7 $5 Mulligan's Executive-Ridge a_ Executive $9 $8.50 $3 Fore Lakes-Executive 9 Executive $9 $7 $5 Central Val l 9 Executive $10 S7.50 $5 Executive $12 $13.00 $10 . $11.00 $1.00 108% 110% /L31 Lakeside-West Bountiful 18 Regulation $12.50425 $10.50421 $6.53 Bountiful Ridge 18 Regulation $13426 $11422 56.50413 Englewood 18 Regulation _ 513428 $10420 SNS12 Regulation $13 $14.00 $11 $12 $1.00 108% 109% ..........: .. •. Rose Park 18 ,Regulation $13426 $14428 $11422 $12424 $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $7 108%1108% 109%/109% Glendale 18 Regulation $13428 $15436r $11422 $13428 $2.00 $0.50 $1.50 $7/$14 115%/115% 118%/118% . _ River Oaks! 18 _Regulation p13.50426-$15428 S10419 $6.50412 Mick Riley 9 Regulation $14 $10 $6 O Meadowbrook 18 Regulation S14428 S10420 $6412 _ Mountain View. _ 18'!. Regulation $14428 _ S10420 $6412 Murray Parkway 18 Regulation $14428 $11.50423 _ S5.50413 Valley View 18 Regulation S14428 $11422 __ 58.50413 Davis Park 18 Regulation $14428-$16428 S11422 _ $6.50413 Meath Mtn State Park 36 Regulation 514.50429 $12424 $8.50413 Soldier Hollow 36,` Regulation 514.50429 $12424 56.50413 gpolnter ---- 18 -- - -Regulation✓ $15430 $17433 $12424 $14/$27 $1.75 $0.50 $1.$1M $7414 113%/110% 117%/113% A, Stonebridge 27 Regulation $15/$30 $9418 $6412 Riverbend 18 Regulation $14428-$15/$30 $11422 $6412 4 Bonneville 18 Regulation $18430 $18.50435 S13424 $15.50/$29i $2.50 $0.50 $2.00 $7414 116%/117% 119%/121% Mountain Dell 3$ Regulation $16430 $18.50435 $13424 $15.50429 $2.50 $0.50 S2.00 $7414 118%/117%I 119%/121% Old Mill 16 Regulation` S18430 $12424 $7414 *South Mountain 18 _ Regulation 814426 517431 S10.50421 $7/$14 *Park City 18 Regulatlonk6132-421.50443 r n/a Average of$1.00 $7414 Per 9-Hob Round .93 cents after tax Notes:FPD Card discount reduced to 20%and the annual fee will will be reduced to$45($30 Jrs). Allocation to CIP Fund same as above. Discounted//Special/Promotional green fees will be increased to allow same allocation to CIP Fund as listed above. Golf Passport pricing will be increased and 9%of the annual fee revenue will be allocated to the CIP Fund. Junior and High School/College Team green fees will increase from$7 per nine to$8 per nine with.50/.50 allocation to operations and CIP Fund. Employee golf policy and"state tournament"pricing will be amended to include a per nine-hole fee that will be allocated to the CIP Fund. Attachment 2-Scenario A SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND FEE PROPOSAL I ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (6% Reduction in Year 1) **'$1 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**+ Rounds-6% hands+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: all FY13 FY14 EY14 EY.14 Bonneville Rounds 68,665 70,038 68,638 70,010 88,810 Forest Dale Rounds 41,067 41,888 41,050 41,871 41,034 Glendale Rounds 67,494 68,844 67,467 88,816 87,440 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 42,946 43,805 42,929 43,787 42,912 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 49,871 50,868 49,851 50,848 49,831 Nibley Park Rounds 31,336 31,963 31,324 31,950 31,311 Rose Park Rounds 57,957 59,116 57,933 59,092 57,910 Wingpointe Rounds 615 0f7 _ 62,237 60,992 62,212 60,968 420,352 428,760 420,184 428,588 420,016 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY13 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $28,736 $58,622 $57,450 $58,599 $57.427 $260,834 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $17186 $35,060 $34,359 S35,048 $34,345 6155,997 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $28,246 $57,622 $56,470 $57,599 $56,447 6256,385 Mountain Dell-Canyon C/P Dedicated Fee $17,973 $36,665 $35,931 $36,650 $35,917 $163,136 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee $20,871 $42.577 $41,725 $42,560 $41,709 $189,442 Nibley Park C/P Dedicated Fee $13,114 328,753 $26,218 $26,742 $26,208 $119,035 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee $24,255 $49,480 $48,490 $49,460 $48,471 6220,156 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 125,536 5$2,092 51t: L51171 iffill30 131781 LIMA 1.3.11M REAL! naM1 351 554 0596,765 Cumulative Total: $534,789 6886,484 $1,245,212 61,596,765 �," Fee Increase$.93 Fee Increase$.93 FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 E/7} FY14 FY15 EY18 Bonneville Operation Fee $42,057 $85,797 $112806 $144,361 $170,188 6555,209 Forest Dale Operation Fee S0 $0 $17,180 $35,046 $51,518 $103,744 Glendale Operation Fee S28,246 $57,622 684,705 $115,198 $141,118 $428,889 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $26,304 $53,681 $70,554 $90,290 $106,442 $347,251 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee $30,546 $62,314 $81,930 S104,849 6123,606 $403,245 Nibley Park Operation Fee SO $0 $13,109 $26,742 $39,311 679,163 Rose Park Operation Fee $0 S0 $24,245 $49.460 $72,706 $146,412 Wingpointe Operation Fee 19.220 3S 9 209 63 951 91 265 11 955 28 601 146374 29$ 8,604 68479 $657,212 56/9.64$ $2.390,514 Cumulative Total: $444,978 6913,456 61,570,669 62,390,514 Rounds-6% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: FY12 F113 FY14 FY15 Y18 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09 8 10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 420352 428760 420184 428588 420016 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -26831 -18423 -26999 -18595 -27167 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue i 50 $17.50 L_17_,IQ $17.50 $17 50 4469,534.10 4322,410.73 -$472,476.57 -$325,412.05 4475,417.86 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $146,374 $298,604 $468,479 $657,212 $819,845 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$323.159132 -$23,807.20 -3 997.96 $331,800.22 $344,426.98 Cumulative Total: -$346,967.01 -$350,964.97 -619,164.75 6325,262.23 ilk' Attachment 2-Scenario A SALT LAKE CITY MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES /t O &PROPOSED CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1,2012 V ***$1 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**" CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION REGULAR REGULAR SENIOR SENIOR INCREASE PER TO TO DEDICATED GOLF COURSE 11.411.2 TYPE GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/1 @ GREEN FEE 9/18 9-HOLES(9/18 awl) OPERATIONS CIP FUND CART RENTAL Mick Riley Par 3 8 Par 3 $6-$7 $5-48 $8 Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow 9 Par 3 $7.50 $7 _ $5 Fore Lakes-Par 1 8 Par 3 $8 $7 $5 Mulligan's Executive-Ridge 8 Executive $9 58.50 _ $5 Fore Lakes-Executive 8 Executive $9 $7 $5 Central Valley 9 Executive, $10 $7.50 $5 $12 813.00 $10 $11.00 $1.00 108% 110% - Lakeside-West Bountiful 1$ Regulation $12.50425 S10.50421 $6.501513 _ - Bountiful Ridge 18 _ Regulation $13428 $61422 S6.50413 Englewood 18 Regulation $13428 $10420 $8412 $13 $14.00 911 $12 $1.00 $0.00 51.00 $7 108% 109% Rose Park 18 r Regulation $13428 $14428 811422 $12424 $1.00 $0.00 $1.00 87414 108%/108% 109%/109% Glendale 18 ; Regulation $13426 $15430 811422 $13428 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $7414 __ -• _ 115%/115% 118%/118% River Oaks 18 Regulation 113.50428-$15428 $10419 _ _ _ $6.50412 Mick Riley _ 9 Regulation $14 $10 $6 Meadowbrook 18 _Regulation $14428 $10420 _ _ $6412 0 ` Mountain View 18 Regulation $14428 $10420 $8412 _ Murray Parkway 18 Regulation $14428 _ 811.50$23 $6.50413 Valley View 18 Regulation $14428 _ $11422 _ _ _ $6.50$13 Davis Park 18 Regulation 814428-518428 811/$22 $6.50413 Wasatch Mtn State Park 38 Regulation $14.50429 $12424 S6.50413 Soldier Hollow 38 Regulation $14.50429 $12424 $8.50413 Elk WIngpt. 18 Regulation $15430' $171$33T $12/$24 $14/$e $1.75 $0.75 $1.001` $7414 113%/110% 117%/113% Stone 8 27 Regulation $15430 $9418 $6412 18 Regulation 814428-515430 $11422 $6412 18 Regulation $18430 $18.50435 $13424 $18.50429 $2.50 $1.50 $1.00 $7414 118%/117% 119%/121% Mountain Dell 36 Regulation $15430 $18.50/$35 $13424 $16.60/$29 $2.50 $1.50 $1.00 $7414 116%/117% 119%/121% Old Mill 18 Regulation $16r$30 $12/$24 $7414 'South Mountain 18 _ Regulation814426-$17431 $10.50$21 $7414 I/Park City 18 Regulat14/8432-$21.50443 We Average of$1.00 $74/4 Per 9-Hole Round .93 cents after tax Notes:FPD Card discount reduced to 20%and the annual fee will will be reduced to$45($30 Jrs). Allocation to CIP Fund same as above. Discounted//Special/Promotional green fees will be increased to allow same allocation to CIP Fund as listed above. Golf Passport pricing will be increased and 9%of the annual fee revenue will be allocated to the CIP Fund. Junior and High School/College Team green fees will increase from$7 per nine to$8 per nine with.50/.50 allocation to operations and CIP Fund. Employee golf policy and"state tournament"pricing will be amended to include a per nine-hole fee that will be allocated to the CIP Fund. 0 Attachment 2-Scenario A SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND FEE PROPOSAL/ ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (3% Reduction in Year 1) ***$1 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**' Ili Round,.3% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: E112 Ern FY74 ME Dal Bonneville Rounds 70,857 72,274 70,828 72,245 70,800 Forest Dale Rounds 42.377 43,225 42,380 43,208 42,343 Glendale Rounds 69,648 71,041 69,820 71,012 69.592 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 44,316 45,203 44,299 45,185 44,281 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 51,463 52,492 51,442 52,471 51,422 Nibley Park Rounds 32.336 32,983 32,323 32,970 32,311 Rose Park Rounds 59,806 61,002 59,782 60,978 59.758 Wingpointe Rounds 62.954 64.223 62,939 64,198 62,914 433,768 442,443 433,594 442,266 433,421 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: EU? Fm Exiii FAQ mu Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $29,653 $60,493 $59,283 $60,469 $59,260 $209,158 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $17,735 $36,179 $35,458 $36,165 $35,441 $180,976 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $29,146 $59,461 $58,272 $59,437 $58,249 $284,567 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $18,546 $37,835 $37,078 $37,820 $37,063 $188,342 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee 821,537 $43,938 543,057 543,918 $43,040 $195,489 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $13,533 $27,607 $27,055 $27,596 $27,044 $122,834 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee $25,029 $51,059 550,038 $51,039 $50,018 $227,182 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 1263 35 5$3.755 15.21L10. 5$3.734 52659 23917a 181 532 370 325 362 919 Ra.M 36$ 2.773 61.641 726 OCumulative Total: $551,857 $914,776 61,284,953 61,647,726 Fee Increase$.93 Fee Increase$.93 FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 EDI FY14 F Fm Bonneville Operation Fee $43,400 $88,535 $116,406 $148,969 $175,619 $572,929 Forest Dale Operation Fee $0 $0 $17,728 $36,165 $53,162 $107,055 Glendale Operation Fee 829,148 $59,481 287,408 $118,875 3145,622 $440,514 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $27,144 $55,373 $72,805 $93,171 $109,839 $358,331 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee $31,521 $64,303 $84,545 $108,196 $127,552 $416,116 Nibley Park Operation Fee $0 S0 $13,527 $27,596 $40,566 $81,889 Rose Park Operation Fee $0 $0 225,019 $51.039 $75,027 $151,084 Wingpointe Operation Fee /9 34 $40,461 65 99 94 175 11111112.1 .DAM 151046 5308,133 48$ 3,430 6$jj.7 1,24.111j $2.466.807 Cumulative Total: $459,179 $942,609 $1,620,796 S2,466,807 Rounds-3% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO 3%ROUNDS DECREASE: F112 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY76 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg 0109&10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 433768 442443 433594 442266 433421 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -13415 -4740 -13589 -4917 -13762 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 111..51 $17.50 -$234,762.69 -$82,943.90 -$237,799.07 -$86,041.00 -$240,834.23 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $151,046 $308,133 $483,430 $678,187 $846,010 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$83,716.89 $225,189.54 $245,630.99 $592,146.14 $605,175.87 © Cumulative Total: $141,472.65 $387,103.65 $979,249.79 $1,584,425.66 Attachment 2-Scenario A SALT LAKE CITY MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES e &PROPOSED CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1,2012 ***Si CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS*" CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION REGULAR REGULAR SENIOR SENIOR INCREASE PER TO TO DEDICATED GOLF COURSE }TOLE$ WE GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 911$ GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9118 9-HOLES(9/18 avg} OPERATIONS CIP FUND CART RENTAI, Mick Riley Par 3 9 Par 3 $6-87 $5-56 $8 Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow I Par 3 $7.50 $7 - $5 Fore Lakes-Par 3 I Par 3 $8 _ $7 $5 Mulligan's Executive-Ftldge I Executive $9 $8.50 _ $5 Fore Lakes-Executive I Executive $9 $7 $5 Central Val I Executive $10 $7.50 $5 utive $12 $13.00 $10 $11.00 $1.00 $7 108% 110% .. Lakeside-West Bountiful 18 Regulation $12.50425 $10.501821 $6.50313 Bountiful Ridge 18 Regulation $13426 $11422_ F $6.50413 Eaglewood 18 - •ulatlon, $13426 $10320 $6412 $13 $14.00 $1/ S12 $1.00� .:.: ., ,....: 108% 109% Rose Park ;" Regulation $13428 $14428 $11422_ $121824 $1.00 $0.00 $1.00 $7414 _.. 108%/108% 109%/109% Glendale 18 . Regulation $13/$26 $151$30 $11/$22 $131125 $2.00 81.00 81.00 $7414 115%/115% 118%/118% River Oaks 18 Regulation 13.50326-315128 $10419 $6.50312 Mick Riley, 9 Regulation $14 $10 $6 O MeadowbrookI 18 Regulation $14128 $10120 $6412 Mountain View 18 Regulation $14428 $10120 $6412 Murray Parkway _ 18 Regulation $14428 $11.50423 $6.50313 Valley View 18 Regulation $14428 811422 $6.50413 Davis Park 18 Regulation $14$28-$18$28 $11422 $6.50$13 Wasatch Mtn State Park _ 3$ Regulation $14.50129 $124124 _ __ 86.50313 Soldier Hollow 36 Regulation $14.50429 812424 $650113 Wingpolnte IL- Regulation $15430 $17/$33 S12424 $141$27 $1.75 $0.75 $1.0 113%/110% 117%/113% Stonebridgei 27 Regulation $15130 $9418 $8112 RIverbend 18 Regulation $141$28$15430 $11422 $6112 Bonneville 18 Regulation $16330 $18.50/$35 $13424 $15.501129 $2.50 $1.50 81.00 87414 116X/117% 11916 1 121% Mountain Dell 38 Regulation 816/$30 $18.50435 $13624_ $15.50429 $2.50 $1.50 $1.00 87414 116%/117% 119%/121% _ Old Mill 18 Regulation $15430 $12424 $7414 'South Mountain 18 Regulation S14825-517/531 $10.50421 $7414 *Park City 18 Regulation 16132-521.50143 Wa Average 0181.00 _ S7414 Per B-Hote Round .93 cents after tax Notes:FPD Card discount reduced to 20%and the annual fee will will be reduced to$45($30 Jrs). Allocation to CIP Fund same as above. Discounted//Special/Promotional green fees will be increased to allow same allocation to CIP Fund as listed above. Golf Passport pricing will be increased and 9%of the annual fee revenue will be allocated to the CIP Fund. 1 Junior and High School/College Team green fees will increase from$7 per nine to$8 per nine with.50/.50 allocation to operations and CIP Fund. Employee golf policy and"state toumamenr'pricing will be amended to include a per nine-hole fee that will be allocated to the CIP Fund. U Attachment 2-Scenario A SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (3% Reduction in Year 1) ***$1 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**' L Rounds-3% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rands-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: EX1Z F FY14 all ELtg Bonneville Rounds 70,857 72,274 70,828 72,245 70,800 Forest Dale Rounds 42,377 43,225 42,360 43,208 42,343 Glendale Rounds 69,648 71,041 69,820 71,012 69,592 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 44,316 45,203 44,299 45,185 44,281 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 51,463 52,492 51,442 52,471 51,422 Nibley Park Rounds 32,336 32,983 32,323 32,970 32311 Rose Park Rounds 59,806 81,002 59,782 60,978 59,758 Wingpointe Rounds _ 62964 64.223 62,939 64,198 62,914 433,768 442,443 433,594 442,266 433,421 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 FY13 FY74 F Ent Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $29,653 $60,493 $59,283 $60,469 $59,280 $269,158 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $17,735 $36,179 $35,456 $36.165 $35,441 $160,976 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $29,148 $59,461 $58,272 $59,437 $58,249 $264,567 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $18,546 $37,835 $37,078 537,820 337,063 $168,342 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee 821,537 $43,938 $43,057 $43,918 $43,040 $195,489 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $13,533 $27,807 $27,055 527,596 $27,044 $122,834 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee S25,029 $51,059 $50,038 $51,039 $50,018 $227,182 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 26 350 53 7$5 5$2,$1g 53 73/ 52 659 23J $./78 Man 7f3 0,325 3691E 7J3 0,177 36S 2,773 St647726 OCumulative Total: $551,857 $914,776 $1,284,953 $1,647,726 Fee Increase$.93 Fee Increase$.93 FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: Etta ma FNI4 ma mg Bonneville Operation Fee $43,400 $88,535 $116,406 $148,969 $175,619 $572,929 Forest Dale Operation Fee $0 $0 $17,728 $36,165 $53,162 $107,055 Glendale Operation Fee $29,148 $59,461 $87,408 $118,875 $145,622 $440,514 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $27,144 $55,373 S72,805 $93,171 $109,839 $358,331 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee 831,521 $64,303 $84,545 $108,196 J127,552 $416,116 Nibley Park Operation Fee 50 $0 $13,527 $27,596 $40,566 $81,689 Rose Park Operation Fee $0 $0 $25,019 $51,039 $75,027 $151,084 Wingpointe Operation Fee 1$ 4 40 61 6$0,$8 94 178 11$ 6.624 1222,C2j3 nL1,,Eff 5306,133 483 430 MAIM. 16,A3,67 $2.466.807 Cumulative Total: $459,179 $942,609 21,620,796 $2,466,807 Rounds-3% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO 3e/.ROUNDS DECREASE: FY12 Et11 FY14 FY16 FY16 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09&10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 433768 442443 433594 442266 433421 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -13415 -4740 -13589 -4917 -13762 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue $17.50 1LO $17.54 $17.50 1$ 7.50 4234,762.69 -$82,943.90 -$237,799.07 -686,041.00 4240,834.23 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $151.046 $306.133 $483,430 $678,187 5846,010 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$83,716.89 $225,189,54 5245,630.9E $592,146.14 $605,175,87 Cumulative Total. $141,472.65 $387,103.65 $979,249.79 $1,584,425.66 410 . _ I Attachment 3-Scenario B SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND CIO FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (6% Reduction in Year 1) ***$2 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**1 Rounds-8% Rounds 02% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: FY12 EL13 Fes`1 Elm FYis Bonneville Rounds 68,665 70,038 68,638 70,010 68,610 Forest Dale Rounds 41,067 41,888 41,050 41,871 41,034 Glendale Rounds 67,494 68,844 67,467 68,816 67,440 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 42,946 43.805 42,929 43,787 42,912 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 49,871 50,868 49,851 50,848 49,831 Nibley Park Rounds 31,336 31,963 31,324 31.950 31,311 Rose Park Rounds 57,957 59,116 57,933 59,092 57,910 Wingpointe Rounds 61017 62.237 60,992 62,212 60,968 420,352 428,760 420,184 428,588 420,016 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: EYS3 EYE FY14 FY1S FY18 Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $57,473 $117,244 $114,899 $117,197 $114,853 $521,667 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $34,373 $70,121 $68,718 S70,093 $68,691 5311,995 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $56,492 $115,244 $112,940 $115,198 $112,894 $512,769 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $35,946 $73,329 $71,863 $73,300 $71,634 $326,272 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee $41,742 $85,154 $83,451 $85,120 $83,417 $378,883 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $26,228 $53,506 $52,436 S53,485 $52,415 $238,070 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee $48,510 398,960 $96,981 $98,920 $96,942 $440,312 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 51 071 111L,13,5 1.1.92JD 104 143 11.02S5A kt1151 SS3 1.835 717743 70$ 3.389 717456 70$ 3,f07 $3.193,531 l Cumulative Total: $1,069,578 $1,772,967 $2,490,423 $3,193,531 V Fee Increase$.93 Fee Increase$.93 FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: E L E`Ji1 FY14 FY1s EY1@ Bonneville Operation Fee $42,057 585,797 $112,806 $144,361 $170,188 $555,209 Forest Dale Operation Fee $0 $0 $17,180 $35,046 $51,518 $103,744 Glendale Operation Fee $28,246 $57,622 $84,705 $115,198 $141,118 $426,889 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $26,304 $53,661 $70,554 590,290 5106,442 $347,251 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee $30,546 $62,314 $81,930 $104,849 5123,606 $403,245 Nibley Park Operation Fee S0 $0 $13,109 $26,742 $39,311 $79,163 Rose Park Operation Fee $0 S0 524,245 $49,460 $72,706 $146,412 Wingpointe Operation Fee 1$9,220 3S 9.209 63 951 91 265 114 955 2$3 8,601 14S 8.374 23 96.6W 88479 1517,11.3 $619,8435 $2,390,514 Cumulative Total: $444,978 $913,456 $1,570,669 $2,390,514 Rounds E% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% Rounds.2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: Fr12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09 8 10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 420352 428760 420184 428588 420016 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -26831 -18423 -26999 -18595 -27167 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue $17.50 $17.50 $17,50 17.5 1$7.50 4469,534.10 -6322,410.73 -6472,476.57 -6325,412.05 -$475,417.86 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $146,374 $298,604 $468,479 $657,212 $819,845 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -6323,159.82 -$23,807.20 - 3 997.96 6331,800.22 $344,426.98 Cumulative Total -$346,967.01 -6350,964.97 -$19,164.75 $325,262.23 0 Attachment 3-Scenario B SALT LAKE CITY MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES ID PROPOSED CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1,2012 ***$2 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS**' CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION REGULAR REGULAR SENIOR SENIOR INCREASE PER TO TO DEDICATED GOLF COURSE 1191E1 TYPk GREEN FEE 9/16 GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/18 9-HOLES 19/18 awn OPERATIONS CIP FUND CART RENTAL Mick Riker Par 3 9 Par 3 $6-$7 $5-$6 $6 Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow 9 Par 3 $7.50 $7 $5 For*Lakes-Par 3 9 Par 3 $8 $7 $5 Mulligan's Executive-Ridge I Executive $9_ $8.50 $5 For*Lakes-Executive 9 Executive $9 $7 $5 Central V 9 Executive $10 $7.50 85 N. $12 $14 $10 $12 $2.00 .._•,.-•a^....�t 117% 120% Lakeside-West Bountiful 18 Regulation S12.50425 $10.50$21 $6.50413 Bountiful Ridge 18 Regulation 813426 $11422 S6.50413 Eaglewood 18 ulation $13/$26 $10420 _ -- 35312 Forest Dale $13 815 $11 $13 $2.00 $0.00. $7 -.._ - ._ - . 115% 118% .. Rose Park 18 "• Regulation $13/$26 $16430 S11422 $13426 $2.00 $0.00 $2.00 $7414 115%/115% 118%/118% Glendale 18 Regulation $/3426 $16432 $11422 $14/$28 $3.00 $1.00 $2.00 $7414 123%/123% 127%/127% -River Oaks 18, Regulation E13.5N426-S15428 $10419 $6.50/$12 Mick Riley 9 Regulation $14 $10 $6 COMeadowbrook 18 Regulation $14428 $10/$20 $6612 Mountain View 18 Regulation S14428 $10$20 _ $6412 Murray Parkway 18 Regulation 514/$28 $11.50423 $6.50413 Valley View _ 18 Regulation $14/$28 _ $11422 S6.50113 Davis Park 18 Regulation $14428$18428_ $11422 1-_ _____ 86.50413 If/Patch Mtn State Park 38 Regulation S14.50429 $12424 ____ 86.50413 Soldier Hollow 38 Regulation 814.50429 $12424 t $8.50513 Wing Regulation 815430 818435 $12424 $16429 $2.75 $0.75 • 14 120%/117% 125%/121% Stonebridge _ 27 Regulation $15/430 $9418 $6412 --- Riverbend 18 Regulation 814428-415830 $11/$22 $6/$12 Bonneville 18 Regulation $15830 $19.500/$37 $13$24 $16.50431 $3.50 81.50 $2.00 $7/$14 122X/123% 127%/129% Mountain Dell 36 Regulation $16430 819.60/$37 $13424 $16.60/$31 $3.50 $1.50 S2.00 $7414 _ 122%/123% 127%/129% Old Mill 18 Regulation, 816430 $12/$24 $7414 *South Mountain 18 Regulation $14426-$17431 $10.50421 $7414 1/Park City - 18 Regulatio 16432-82 1.50$43 ale^ Average of$2.00 S7414 Per 9-Hole Round .93 cents after tax Notes:FPD Card discount reduced to 20%and the annual fee will will be reduced to$45($30 Jrs). Allocation to CIP Fund same as above. Discounted//Special/Promotional green fees will be increased to allow same allocation to CIP Fund as listed above. Golf Passport pricing will be increased and 9%of the annual fee revenue will be allocated to the CIP Fund. Junior and High School/College Team green fees will increase from$7 per nine to$8 per nine with.50/.50 allocation to operations and CIP Fund. Employee golf policy and"state tournament"pricing will be amended to include a per nine-hole fee that will be allocated to the CIP Fund. (� V Attachment 3-Scenario B SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND in FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (3% Reduction in Year 1) ***$2 CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/VARIABLE FEE TO OPERATIONS"' Rounds-3% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: FY12 FY13 FY14 FY76 Bonneville Rounds 70,857 72,274 70,828 72,245 70,800 Forest Dale Rounds 42,377 43,225 42,360 43,208 42,343 Glendale Rounds 69,648 71,041 69,620 71,012 69,592 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 44,316 45,203 44,299 45,185 44,281 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 51,463 52,492 51,442 52.471 51,422 Nibley Park Rounds 32,336 32,983 32,323 32,970 32,311 Rose Park Rounds 59,806 61,002 59,782 60,978 59,758 Wingpointe Rounds 62 964 64 229 62,939 64,198 62,914 433,768 442,443 433,594 442,266 433,421 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 UM FY14 ELM Mk Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $59,307 $120,986 $118,566 $120,938 $118,519 $538,316 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $35,470 572,358 $70,911 $72,330 $70,883 $321,952 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $58,295 $118,922 $116,544 $118,875 $116,497 $529,134 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $37,093 $75,669 $74,156 $75,639 $74,126 $336,683 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee 343,074 $87,e72 $86,114 587.837 $86,080 $390,977 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $27,066 $55,214 $54,109 $55,192 $54,088 $245,668 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee $50,058 $102,118 $100,076 $102,077 $100,038 $454,365 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee 11910 107510 105360 1074$7 105318 47f 8,36 36S 3,084 740 $0 725837 740334 725547 33,295.452 Cumulative Total: $1,103,714 $1,829,551 $2,569,905 63,295,452 Fee Increase$93 Fee Increase$.93 FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 FY'12 FY74 Ent EY16 Bonneville Operation Fee $43,400 $88,535 $118,406 $148,969 $175,819 9572,929 Forest Dale Operation Fee $0 S0 $17,728 $36,165 $53,162 $107,055 Glendale Operation Fee $29,148 559,461 $87,408 8118,875 $145,622 $440,514 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $27,144 $55,373 $72,805 $93,171 $109,839 $358,331 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee $31,521 $64,303 $84,545 $108,196 $127,552 5416,116 Nibley Park Operation Fee $0 $0 $13,527 $27,596 $40,566 $81,689 Rose Park Operation Fee SO $0 325,019 $51,039 $75,027 5151,084 Wingpointe Operation Fee 19 834 1J174. $65,999 94 178 $118,624 33; 9.068 151046 niAM 48S 3,030 678187 046.010 $2,466,807 Cumulative Total: 5459,179 6942,609 61,620,796 62,468,807 Rounds-3% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO 3'/.ROUNDS DECREASE: FY12 FY13 ELM FY1$ FY16 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09 8 10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 433768 442443 433594 442266 433421 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -13415 -4740 -13589 -4917 -13762 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue $17.50 $17.50 1$7.50 $17.50 150 -6234,762.69 -$82,943.90 -5237,799.07 486,041.00 -6240,834.23 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $151,046 $308.133 $483,430 $678,187 $846,010 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$83,716.89 $225,189.54 $245,630.99 $592,146.14 $605,175.87 Cumulative Total: $141,472.65 $387,103.65 $979,249.79 $1,584,425.66 Attachment 4-Scenario C • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (6e/a Reduction in Year 1) ***VARIABLE CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/.50 CENT FEE TO OPERATIONS*** Rounds-6% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% FY12-FY16 ROUNDS TOTAL: Mg FY13 MI FY76 FY16 Bonneville Rounds 68,665 70,038 68.638 70,010 68,610 Forest Dale Rounds 41,067 41,888 41,050 41,871 41,034 Glendale Rounds 67,494 68,844 67,467 68.816 67,440 Mountain Dell-Canyon Rounds 42,946 43,805 42,929 43,787 42,912 Mountain Dell-Lake Rounds 49,871 50,868 49,851 50.848 49,831 Nibley Park Rounds 31,336 31,963 31,324 31,950 31,311 Rose Park Rounds 57.957 59,116 57,933 59.092 57,910 Wingpointe Rounds 61,017 62237 60,992 62,212 60,968 420,352 428,760 420,184 428,588 420,016 FY12-FY16 CIP DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: MI FY13 fY14 FY1$ FY18 Bonneville CIP Dedicated Fee $55,876 $113,988 $111,708 $113,942 3111,663 $507,177 Forest Dale CIP Dedicated Fee $8,686 $17,719 $17,364 $17,712 $17,357 $78,837 Glendale CIP Dedicated Fee $42,521 $86,743 $85,008 $86.708 $84,974 $385,955 Mountain Dell-Canyon CIP Dedicated Fee $34,947 $71,293 $69,867 571,264 $69,839 $317,209 Mountain Dell-Lake CIP Dedicated Fee $40,583 $82,788 $81,133 $82,755 $81,100 $368,359 Nibley Park CIP Dedicated Fee $6,628 $13,520 $13,250 $13,515 $13,245 $60,158 Rose Park CIP Dedicated Fee $12,258 $25,006 $24,506 $24,996 $24,496 $111,262 Wingpointe CIP Dedicated Fee $25 536 $52 092 951 051 $52 072 $51 030 3$1 1.781 $227,034 4$2 149 $453.886 461964 453 704 $2.060,737 Cumulative Total: $690,183 $1,144,069 61,607,033 62,060,737 47/6mo .17/12 mo .17/12 mo,.93/6 mo 1.40/12 mo 110/12mo..93/6 mo FY12-FY16 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: FY12 En; Mil FY15 MI Bonneville Operation Fee $14,523 $29,626 $57,450 $88,213 $114,853 $304,665 Forest Dale Operation Fee $8,686 $17,719 $34,359 $52,758 $68,691 $182,212 Glendale Operation Fee $14,275 $29,121 $56,470 $86.708 $112,894 $299,468 Mountain Dell-Canyon Operation Fee $9,083 $18,529 $35,931 $55,172 $71,834 $190,550 Mountain Dell-Lake Operation Fee 510,548 $21,517 $41,725 $64,069 $83,417 $221,276 Nibley Park Operation Fee $6,628 $13,520 $26,218 $40,257 $52,415 $139,038 Rose Park Operation Fee $12,258 $25,006 $48,490 $74,456 $96,942 $257,151 Wingpointe Operation Fee $12,905 $26.326 $51 051 $78 387 $102 060 270730 188.905 $181.365 $351,694 5540.021 703 f07 $1.665.092 Cumulative Total' $270,270 6621,964 $1,161,985 $1,865,092 Rounds-6% Rounds+2% Rounds-2% Rounds+2% Rounds-2"/ OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: Ma FY13 EL14 FY15 FY18 Baseline Total Rounds(Avg of 09&10) 447183 Projected Total Rounds 420352 428760 420184 428588 420016 Rounds Decrease From Baseline -26831 -18423 -26999 -18595 -27167 Recent Historical Total Average Per Round Revenue $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 -$469,534.10 -$322,410.73 -$472,476.57 4325,412.05 4475,417.86 Less Increase From New Operation Fee Above $88,905 $181,365 $351,694 $540,021 $703,107 NET OPERATING REVENUE REDUCTION DUE TO ROUNDS DECREASE: -$380,629.55 -6141,045.45 -$120,782.28 $214,608.86 $227,689.37 Cumulative Total: -$521,675.00 -$642,457.28 -$427,848.41 -6200,159.04 0 DRAFT 9/22/2011 Attachment 4-Scenario C SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND 0 FEE PROPOSAL/ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (6% Reduction in Year 1) SALT LAKE CITY MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES &PROPOSED CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1,2012 ***VARIABLE CIP FEE PER NINE-HOLE ROUND AT EACH GOLF COURSE/.50 CENT FEE TO OPERATIONS*** CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION REGULAR REGULAR SENIOR SENIOR INCREASE PER TO TO DEDICATED GOLF COURSE HOLES TYPE GREEN FEE 9/18_GREEN FEE 9/18 GREEN FEE 9/18_9-HOLES(9/18 ava OPERATIONS CIP FUND CART RENTA4 Mick - e Par 3 9 Par 3 $ 50 Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow 9 Par 3 $7.50 $5 Fore Lakes-Par 3 9 Par 3 $8 $7 _ $5 Mulligan's Executive-Ridge 9 Executive $9 $8.50 $5 - - Fore Lakes-Executive 9 Executive $9 $7 $5 Central Valley 9 Executive $10 $7.50 $5 Nibty Park 9 Executive $12 $13.00 $10 $11.00 $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $7 108% 110% Lakeside-West Bountiful 18 Regulation $12.50425 $10.50421 $6.50/$13 Bountiful Ridge 18 Regulation $13/$26 $11422 _ $6.504$13 Eaglewood 18 Regulation $13628 $10420 $6/$12 Forest Dale 9 Regulation $13 $14.00 S11 $12 91.00 $0.50 $0.50 $7 108% 109% Rose Park 18 Regulation $13426 $14428 $11422 $12424 $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $7/$14 108%/108% 109%/109% Glendale 18 Regulation $13426 $16430 $11422 $13/$28 $2.00 $0.50 $1.50 $7414 O 115%/115% 118%/118% River Oaks _ 18 Regulation 13.50426--$I5428 $1WS19 36.50412 Mick Riley 9 Regulation $14 $10 _ $6 Meadowbrook 18 Regulation $14428 $10420 $6$12 Mountain View 18 Regulation $14628 _ $10620 $6412 Murray Parkway 18 Regulation $14428 $11.50423 $6.50413 Valley View 18 Regulation $14428 $11422 $6.50413 Davis Park _ 18 Regulation $14428 618.128 $11422 $6.50413 Wasatch Mtn State Park 36 Re�ulatlon 814.50429 $12424 $6.51413 Soldier Hollow 361 Regulation $14.50429 $12424 $6.50/813 Wingpolnta 18 Regulation $15r$30 $17433 $12424 814427 $1.76' 25 113%/110% 117%/113% Stonebridge 27 Regulation $15430 $9418 - $8412 Riverb.nd 18 Regulation $14428-$15430 $11422 $6412 Bonneville 18 Regulation $16$30 818.60436 $13424 815.50429 $260 $0.50 $7/$14 118%/117% 119%/121% Mountain Dell 38 Regulation $16430 818.60436 $13424 S16.50429 $2.50 $0.50 $2.00 $7414 118%/117% 119%/121% Old MITI 18 Regulation $1&$30 $12424 $7/$14 -_ *South Mountain 18 Regulation $14426-$17431 $10.50421 $7/$14 War*City 18 Regulation 16$32-$21.50443 n/a I Average of$1.00 $7/$14 Per 9-Hole Round.93 cents after tax - Notes:FPD Card discount reduced to 20%and the annual fee will will be reduced to$45($30 Jrs). Allocation to CIP Fund same as above. Discounted//Special/Promotional green fees will be increased to allow same allocation to CIP Fund as listed above. Golf Passport pricing will be increased and 9%of the annual fee revenue will be allocated to the CIP Fund. 1 Junior and High School/College Team green fees will increase from$7 per nine to$8 per nine with.50/.50 allocation to operations and CIP Fund. Employee golf policy and"state tournament"pricing will be amended to include a per nine-hole fee that will be allocated to the CIP Fund. VDRAFT 9/22/2011 Af( rvl t 5 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? Public comments as of September 19, 2011 , 8:59 AM All Participants around Salt Lake City 4,4 fs„ . 0„4„:„ SS). - Pilt* fflOtS1, AP 140. tool 'I' it As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? Introduction Updated Sept.15:Council likely to be briefed on topic at 9/27 work session. The City is having increasing difficulty maintaining and improving the eight golf facilities (nine golf courses -Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses) it owns and operates.Council could review funding options and act on those options in mid-June as part of the City Budget considerations for 2011-12. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 1 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? As of September 19, 2011 , 8:59 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 991 ins;cic 51,L �0 Participants around Salt Lake City: 100 014.,sidt_ LC_ L41,D Hours of Public Comment: 5.0 Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 2 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City Collin Guth in District 3 July 21, 2011, 12:05 PM Selling golf course land is a no win situation. Green space is becoming a premium and Salt Lake City should preserve its natural beauty.We need to ignite an interest in golf in the youth of SLC and that alone will be able to bring more revenue to the courses, and by default, the city. Let's get a First Tee program started and put kids on the golf course. Let them learn the physical and mental aspects of the game which will then impact every part of their lives.This can go further then,the selling of what the city looks at as wasted space. It's not just about preservation, It's about using the courses to the full potential and making a positive impact on the community. Keep the golf courses alive. Name not shown in District 7 July 9, 2011, 12:06 PM I have rarely witnessed city courses not being utilized.The parking lots are constantly full.We have had our organization tournament at Mtn. Dell two years in a row.This facility is probably, in my estimation the least updated clubhouse of all.Why should fees increase if there are no improvements, but just maintenance? How are the SL county courses coping with much more elaborate courses and clubhouses? Carole Straughn in District 7 July 6, 2011, 6:06 PM Preserve the open space, and get folks together to do some creative thinking about how to use it. Here are some ideas. Repurpose some of the golf courses for things like neighborhood soccer fields or community gardens. Keep some golf courses, but redesign them to make sense for our semi-arid climate. As we know, golf started on the Scottish coastline. Features like sand traps, tress and ponds existed naturally. Fields of short grass were created by grazing sheep and plenty of rain. Trying to reproduce these conditions in a desert is clearly not sustainable. Growing Blue Grass which arose in rainy Kentucky is just too costly. What would happen if we invented xeriscaped golf courses? Golfers, imagine playing on a course with all the interesting conditions that occur naturally in Utah--sand, gravel, boulders, native grasses, and more. Salt Lake area could become a unique attraction for golfers seeking a new challenge. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City July 4, 2011, 9:45 AM Green space once sold is gone forever. Selling property is a no win situation.The property will be gone and in time so will the monies raised. Fee increases are a bad idea because golf is a competative business and golfers will go elsewhere. Create a donation program. Revenue must be generated. Junior golf is a must. Programs must be expanded to the youth and our future golfers. Name not shown in District 5 July 1, 2011, 3:41 PM Sell wingpoint, leave the others alone most of us elderly can walk most of the flat course's, you could sell boniville and get a realy good price from Ivory Delevoment he likes that area just look he got a wedding building in This Is The Place property. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.corn/714 Page 3 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City It seems the city first needs to have full disclosure of past golf revenue before jumping to discussion of fiscal options (sale of property, increase rates, etc) Based on other comments there is serious questions that golf revenue has been diverted in the past. If this is true then start with a disclosed budget plus P&L statement.After that you will get quality input from the community. Golf courses are part of the total community services just like other parks, bike paths, streets, sidewalks, they need to be considered as part of the total not just services to "golfers".And, once disposed or downgraded there is no recovery. Keep the green space. Thomas spicer in District 4 June 27, 2011, 7:18 AM I would certainly favor increased fees to selling some golf properties. Even if there is excess capacity now (which I doubt), properties large enough to support a course are difficult to come by and it seems short sighted to consider contraction of capacity now. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 25, 2011, 9:40 AM Let's not get shortsighted here, especially by selling off precious and irreplaceable open space for short term gain.We can't control the weather, and the economy will eventually improve. Salt Lake City golf is known around the country for being a great value. I'm sure the local economy benefits overall from golf visitors. I live in Salt Lake County, myself, and regard the City courses as the best area public venues. Paying higher fees is an OK idea, with slight or moderate increases, as long as dscounts are increased also.The Frequent Player Discount needs to be reworked for more incentives. This value reputation must continue with all necessary course upgrades to sustain viability.Whatever it takes, upgrades are a necessary investment in Salt Lake City golfs future. Mountain Dell's courses are spectacular. Bonneville is classic with tiered greens and blind fairways. Classic Forest Dale is convenient for a quick nine. Nibley is also convenient and good for beginners. Wingpointe's links are uniquely different and refresh us with variety. Glendale's driving range is the best I know of in the entire Valley. Practice the short game at Jordan River. I haven't played Rose Park, but a better driving range there can't hurt. It would be a shame to sell off any of the properties and lose the land and it's open spaces forever. Attention should focus on improving course environmental efficiencies, such as cutting water bills. Irrigation systems that favor fairways over roughs will return the landscape to it's natural state and also help cut labor/materials costs of mowing roughs and fertilization. Bonneville upgrades should get the highest priority. Bonneville urgently needs that eco-friendly kind of water system.And improving the driving range will bring me there more frequently.An improved clubhouse and other restrooms will help the Utes Pac-12 image.Why not an entrance off Foothill if the affected holes can be thoughtfully reconfigured? Name not shown in District 6 June 24, 2011, 11:32 AM I would rather see the city reduce the number of golf courses it has to care for than to raise green fees by much.The Rose Park/Jordan River and Nibley/ForestDale pairs are close in proximity, so closing one of each pair would maintain geographic distribution and save a lot of money.What to do with the land would require careful planning but could result in green spaces that would actually be used by more city residents than the golf courses. In addition, the land could further other city goals of Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 4 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the °^ Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City affordable housing or mixed use development, all while still providing excellent facilities for golfers with the remaining courses. paul martin outside Salt Lake City June 24, 2011, 9:59 AM I believe the city golf courses are one of our historic treasures that provide hours of fun a relalxation for young and old. It would be a travesty to sell them off. By all means necessary they need to be kept AND kept UP! If fees need to be raised, so be it. Golf, like skiing in Utah is a BARGAIN! I'm willing to pay more to continue to enjoy the Dale! Esther Stokes in District 7 June 13, 2011, 11:14 AM My initial reaction is that the city probably has way more important things to be concerned about than golf courses. Just sell them off. But after reading some of the statements, I would also hate to see current open space sold off to developers. I'm of the mind that open/green space is a good thing for the city. Maybe we can find some simple solution that doesn't take too much time or city budget? Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 13, 2011, 10:25 AM Raise fees if necessary. By all means, do not sell off any city courses. It's hard enough getting a tee time as it is. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 13, 2011, 8:21 AM Really, go back to the drawing board and determine what the NECESSARY expenses are before you change anything. John Washburn outside Salt Lake City June 12, 2011, 7:31 PM If the prices go too much higher I would opt out for county and other surrounding courses including north and south of the valley and in the mtns.You must be able to compete with other courses to keep what business you already have. Is adding on at Bonneville for the benefit of the U or do you see an opportunity to compete for tournaments, banquets etc. I can think of a couple of courses that you could unload and I would not miss them. It would be interesting to see who is not producing their piece of the action. Maybe that would make a difference and the general golfing public might just tell you to sell, contract out or just close the doors.We are just so spoiled with the options we have when it comes to making tee times, it would be a tough sell to get my group out on a city course if the other courses were considerably less. That has to be a consideration during these tough economic times. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 10, 2011, 4:12 PM Do not sell open space to the developers.We will never get it back. Raise the fees, be more vigilant in collecting all fees from those who like to play into the back nine. Name not shown in District 6 June 10, 2011, 9:24 AM One suggestion for increasing revenue at the golf courses: speed up play to get more rounds in. Bonneville, is notorious for very slow play. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 5 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City It is my understanding that Denver has system to make this happen. I have heard from several people that in Denver on muni course that they time you for the first 9 holes. If you take more than 2 hours you are disqualified for the back nine. If the average round was 4.5 hours rather than the 5.5 hours it often is, you could increase paying customers by a significant amount. Even if this policy was only enacted for a few days a week, it would be very attractive for players who want to assured of quick round of golf. And all of that would enhance revenue. As to selling off a course, I would hate to see it go to real estate development. Any decision to do this ought to be based on long term projections of the player base and how it is expected to change over time. If a decrease is expected, then yes we need to bite the bullet and close one down, but maintaining at least most of it as open space. And the Bonneville clubhouse does not need to be enlarged unless there is solid evidence it will pay for itself. Its about the golf guys, not beer and hot dogs. Name not shown in District 3 June 9, 2011, 5:00 PM I've played many of the city courses in the past and play them regularly every year, and believe that the city does a great job for our local courses likely on a shoestring budget. There is great history to some of the courses that should never be lost. Therefore, I think a decision to sell any golf property would be difficult with several criteria being weighed. Certainly a good first step may be to raise fees. The city courses are greatly affordable, especially with resident discounts. If there may be other opportunities to raise additional capital through holding special events or meetings that are non golf related, this should be explored as it could only benefit the city. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 9, 2011, 4:21 PM Help me understand what is meant by selling golf property?Would this mean selling golf property to developers for residential / commercial interests or selling the golf course to a private /corporate owner to continue operations as a golf course? I just need to understand a bit more of the direction the city would consider. If the city is considering selling the course(s) intact to a private / corporate entity to continue operations as a golf course, then that would be a good alternative in my opinion. However, the city may then contend there would be competition with their courses with the one(s) sold. So then it becomes a catch 22 situation. If the city is having a difficult time maintaining all of it's golf courses, it is my humble opinion that perhaps it would be instrumental in selling golf properties to avoid raising rates. Even though Salt Lake City has some of the best golf rates in the country, I feel it would be worthwhile to keep the' rates IevMostly because there are a lot of golfers on fixed incomes who frequent the golf courses in Salt Lake City and raising rates may create a burden for them to continue playing.To make it feasible for them, at least, to continue playing would insure the city revenue by keeping rates static. With these variations of scenarios, I believe the study group should consider selling properties and Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 6 of 33 • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City keep rates where they are. Justin Farnsworth outside Salt Lake City June 9, 2011, 2:52 PM I would recommend that all land immediately bordering city golf courses is sold for residential development. Increasing fees will put SLC courses at a major disadvantage compared to others that charge less. Memberships could also be a good way to help stabilize revenues. Todd Anderson in District 6 June 8, 2011, 7:49 PM As a father of three young boys 10, 7, and 4 years old, I utilize the municipal golf courses as training grounds for them and play along side. I am very thankful for the variety we have to offer in our relative backyards and dread the thought of losing them, already lost the University of Utah golf course. I have always felt we would play more frequently if the fees were somehow discountable for frequent or local users in some way, like season pass holders at our ski resorts, even if day rates where raised. I think that the Junior rates are very acceptable. My difficulty comes in the regular rates that apply to 01* the rest of us. Traveling around the country has shown me that our rates are very competitive, but I have discovered very few discount options available. I still feel like I favor paying a little less per round but playing more total number of rounds. I can't help but think that with the right focused attention and subtle discounts for certain times of play, like twilight rates after 6pm, that the number of rounds played would increase at all courses. More specifically if applied at least for part of the season at the courses under utilized at present. I also would like to see some online system in place for same day reservations like most other busy golf cities I am in regularly. So for lack of any substantiating data to support my ideas, here are some of my favorites from around the country: 10, 20, 50 round punch pass at 30, 40, & 50 percent discount regular rate; $30 day pass after 10am; 18 holes with single use free driving range coupon for any day following round; driving range punch pass at some discounted rate;free pull cart with 18 holes; $175 disount card for all municipal courses at some reasonable percent off or flat rate(>20). Final thoughts are that the courses here are great, I support and frequent them weekly, hope that we can keep them in place for our posterity and find some way to prevent the loss of these valuable spaces in our communities. Name not shown in District 6 June 8, 2011, 1:41 PM Any solution that is being considered must find a way to resolve the budget shortfall in the operating and maintenance costs for the SLC golf courses for the long term. Short term solutions only push the problem to a future budget year, council and administration. I am not opposed to raising fees. SLC city courses are a remarkable bargain. However, incremental fees and those currently being collected must be kept within the operations and maintenance budgets ".' ' for the courses and not reassigned or repurposed. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 7 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I am not opposed to seeling some golf property. However, with the market currently being down, this does not seem to be the appropriate time to consider this. Benchmarks should be set by which property values or worth the gains to sell. Again short term solutions only push the problem down the road. Best regards. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 7, 2011, 10:03 PM I believe the desired list of improvements is excessive! There are items on the list that are overdue, but half the expenditures are not needed. The priority is GOLF. There is no need to spend $2.5 million for a new clubhouse at Bonneville. There is no need to spend $200k to expand the decks at Mt Dell ( the current deck seating is NEVER used to capacity) The City needs to take a step back and deliver TWO lists: 1)the true deferred and required maintenance items (from what I see this is LESS than 20% of the total) 2) the remaining items that ALL should be supported with supporting income projections. If you want to spend over $1 million to "add a non-culinary water option" to several courses...this should be easily justified with water cost savings. You want to expand the range operations at several courses?? WHERE ARE THE INCOME PROJECTIONS to support the expense?? Finally....PLEASE accept reality...city owned Golf Course Clubhouses.... NEVER become self supporting event centers! IF you believe a Bonneville Clubhouse could be income producing..submit a RFP to private developers. Offer a long term lease for them to develop and run a clubhouse on the property...USE those funds to pay for the other"required" expenditures.Too bad....you won't get any proposals that will work...why? because private capital KNOWS the clubhouse would fail to produce positive cash flow! PLEASE...GO BACK to the drawing board and come back with a workable proposal! Richard Middleton in District 3 June 7, 2011, 9:50 PM I am not a golfer, and so I am missing some vital information: how do the facilities, fees and usage rates at the various city courses compare with competitors in the region? Until this is on the table, together with reliable estimates for bringing the courses up to some agreed standard (or a range of standards), I doubt that we can reach any valid conclusions. One of the other contributors has suggested terms of reference for a study, which seems a good starting point. Having said that Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 8 of 33 • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City - I am very much opposed to selling off any open space. Population projections make it clear that we need to retain every bit we can, especially if we succeed in limiting urban sprawl and increasing city center densities. - I like "the Baltimore model", with the city retaining ownership of the land but having a concession contract for operating the facilities. This should help to ensure better maintenance as well as competitive fees. - Whether justified or not, golf tends to have an elitist image. But we don't have enough open space in the city to reserve part of it solely for a perceived minority. Means should be found to enable the general public to use peripheral areas, clubhouses, etc., under carefully specified conditions (and the concessionaire needs to be reimbursed for this use, either through affordable day use fees or from other city revenues). - If a golf course cannot be made viable, then it should be retained as community open space, with the proposed development plan and mechanisms for operation and maintenance financing being elaborated with community input. Name not shown in District 6 June 7, 2011, 6:01 PM It needs to be pointed out that the $22 million the Golf Course folks claim to be the amount needed to cover the cost of deferred maintenance is really a smoke screen for a redevleopment scheme of dubious potential. (Golf Course Enterprise Fund's plans to sell land at Bonneville Golf Course.)The , $22milliion is NOT the amount of deferred maintenance at Salt Lake City's courses. (The actual cost .. ,. of deferred maintenance is less than $4 million for Bonneville.) And it should be made clear that the money that might be generated from selling off the land will not be used directly for the purpose of paying for deferred maintenance (or establishinig a fund to be used for maintenance as would be wise, if it really were the only option).The real reason for the $22 million is that it represents the costs of a development scheme that is based on the shakey premise that Bonneville can increase its cash flow by selling land in order to build a new driving range that will require building three new holes (in the undeveloped Emigrations Creek) and a new entrance. This improved driving range at Bonneville and some other equally questionable projects proposed for other courses are suppose to increase revenues and thereby avoid a fee increase. If the Fund managers just took care of Bonneville's real needs for improving its watering system, upgrading its bathrooms and some greens improvements and didn't try to redesign and rebuild the course, the costs could be handled with current bonding capacity and a small fee increase and we would not need to sell or develop the golf course property. The land at Bonneville was acquired in 1930's before there was a Golf Enterprise Fund and it is rightfullly owned by all of the city's residents. The land at Bonneville represents an investiment by all of the residents in many values in addition to golf including riparian protection and open space. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 7, 2011, 12:03 PM I happen to think the idea of selling one of the courses currently in existence to fund necessary projects on the other courses is a good one. Hopefully those funds would also buy enough time to come-up with a long term solution. Name not shown in District 7 June 7, 2011, 11:55 AM I live along the western fence for Forest Dale golf course and I love having this place right next to us. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 9 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City We get such an amazing number of birds and other creatures that I am continually amazed will show up in the middle of a City.There is even a hawk/falcon in the area and that is an amazing treat to view. During the winter both Forest Dale and Nibley have entire herds (flocks is just to small a description of the numbers)that spend a great portion of the winter at these places. I would hate to see either of these areas reduced to anything less than an open space park (no swing sets or soccer fields). During the winter I see people sneaking thru the fences to use the place as an off-leash dog park so why not convert one of the two facilities (which are really close to each other 9th East and 5th East on separate sides of 27th South) to an open space area with off-leash dogs allowed. Both are extremely beautiful as is and have benches for golfer to sit on so not a lot of physical work would need to go into the conversion. I'd really hate to loose either of these green areas to any type of development since they seem to be a vital part of so many animals habitats and wintering grounds.To me they are beautiful, peaceful places so eliminating the golf course feature would make them more accessible for general use. Hugh Johnson in District 7 June 7, 2011, 10:37 AM I am willing to pay more in fees to play, say raising the $11 for 9 at Forest Dale to $15; IF ALL of the increase is GUARANTEED to be used for golf course improvements, and not used to build another dog park or PLANT TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. Why does the city council insist in sinking more and more money into endeavors which are NOT and NEVER WILL BE self sustaining - like dog parks, urban trail systems, bike lanes, open space, amphitheaters, etc? All of the users of these non revenue generating, city owned tax drains get to have their recreational activities for free, subsidized by the large majority of taxpayers who never use them, meanwhile, golfers have to pay for their recreation at city owned golf facilities. If you must sell a course, sell Wingpointe, flat, incredibly noisy, mosquito infested hell hole. Name not shown in District 6 June 7, 2011, 10:27 AM Bonneville is the jewel of SLC Golf Courses. It is also ONE of TWO golf courses that make money (The other is Mountain Dell). ALL other courses lose substantial sums. Clearly, if the golf program needs revenues, a fee increase is appropriate. Selling precious open space to subsidize rennovations at MONEY-LOSING courses makes no sense. WORSE, their detailed plan is based on PIE IN THE SKY assumptions and optimistic costs. Also, Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 10 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City It calls for ADDING TRAFFIC LIGHT DELAYS to Foothill to accomodate golf traffic at the most crowded section of FOOTHILL DRIVE. It assumes they will build an extravagent golf house facility in the hope of they will be able to host more events --which is not a highly profitable activity, as any caterer in this city knows. (also note, increased events will FURTHER reduce access to the general public). It assumes the U of Utah will make a multi-million dollar investment in the facilty in order to support their PAC-12 golf program in the form of a private driving range AND private indoor golf facility (This from a University that has lost 23% of its state support over the last five years). It will redesign FOUR holes (Two of our BEST HOLES) AND will require that they build-bury or at least redirect the Creek -- HANDS OFF our waterways. This is open space -- in one of the most congested traffic zones in the city. It buffers and protects SLC.Yet they plan to develop 14 ACRES and include NO plans to replace open space or account for the loss of benefits - green space, pollution abatement, wildlife, and so on, that their development will destroy. Amok It assumes they get maximum dollars for their property -- in today's market? It assumes they will make substantial money from increased driving range revenue, this from a golf course one cannot reach due to U-related traffic between 7 and 9 am and 5 to 6:30 pm. (Also, driving ranges are NOT a highly profitable activity, as local DR operators know). Bonneville needs improvements -- as do all our courses. Let's fund that with good management, a modest increase in fees, and PRUDENT financial plans.This is pie in the sky scheme that will not generate the revenues it projects, and burden Bonneville with enough debt to make it too unprofitable. Name not shown in District 5 June 7, 2011, 10:25 AM Nearly all of the courses are in or along sensitive water sources to the Salt Lake Valley (the Jordan River, Parleys Creek, and Emigration Creeks in particular). Why not try to get some grants to convert these courses to "greener"facilities, ie less pesticides, improved watering techniques, and water fowl conservation projects? Municipal city courses are an important part of our community, as is any green space. We should not , give up on them and sell them off during a rough patch. Ride it out. We get relatively cheap golf, and Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 11 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City that is certainly part of the allure. A small increase might be necessary and would be reasonable, but we should reward our loyal locals as mentioned in previous posts. Also mentioned in previous posts, encouraging walking would help matters considerably. Name not shown in District 6 June 7, 2011, 9:33 AM Without additional information regarding what specific real estate is being proposed for sale it is difficult to offer an opinion regarding the wisdom of that approach. Given the lack of information, I would have to say no, do not sell any property at this time. I thoroughly enjoy playing at Bonneville, Wingpointe, and Glendale...each has it's particular strengths & weaknesses. If a rate increase would be necessary to upgrade then go that route. Also whatever you do, I agree 100% with the earlier poster-- you need to fix that &^%$#*(@! green on #5 at Bonneville! :-) Name not shown in District 1 June 7, 2011, 6:38 AM I am not orginally from Utah and I am absolutely amazed by everything controlled by the local government!This coming from a so called "red" state you would think it would be for smaller government having less control. Just a few examples... Liquor stores, golf courses, schools, transit, and the list goes on an on, its a wonder this state isn't a mirror image of Detroit, although I wouldn't be surprised to see that within the next decade. Honestly Utah should take a good look at its current heading and sell off some of these "assets" before they become liabilities, becuase as we can already see they become a burden upon the state and the residence within them. Not only does privitization breed comepetition, leading to higher standards and lower prices, but it also reduces stress on tax payers. Keep in mind that all government employees will eventually have pensions for the remainder of their lives that are paid for by the hard working tax payers of the state. Look to privatize and use some of that extra income to reduce taxes and balance the budget, heck maybe the federal government should take a few pages from that playbook! Jon Pistey in District 2 June 6, 2011, 7:48 PM I would suggest looking at ways to reduce irrigation and water usage as part of course improvements. Look at the recent renovation of Pinehurst#2. Granted, that project was a restoration of the original design, but it is a very environmentally friendly approach to course architecture.They removed miles of irrigation and used native grasses and lots of sand of the fairway, and they don't water anything but the fairways now. Upfront costs of redesigning some city courses to be more wild and appropriate for a desert climate may be high, but the reduced water and maintenance costs could fund improvements at other courses.As it is, some of the city courses are flat, wide open and not very challenging (glendale) so an overhaul that places a premium on course management, hitting targets and scoring strategy would be a refreshing change that would attract many players. The restoration of Pinehurst should be a model for environmentally friendly course design that creates a fundamental challenge-- keep it in the fairway because everywhere else is a hazard. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http.//www peakdemocracycom/714 Page 12 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City What the city needs to do is look at how the Ski Areas in and around SLC operate and adopt some of their techniques.The ski areas keep the daily rate very high, but cut the cost significantly to those who buy season passes.This technique also provides a pile of money interest free on which to operate.And the ski areas know how to promote both locally and beyond with periods of free ski like at Alta and the Ninos program at Park City Mountain resort for city kids. Specifically, the city should: 1- Sell or lease the courses to for profit organizations that are more efficient and progressive than municipal operators, know how to promote and can bring the capital that is needed to make the courses better.This eliminates city employees, benefits, attitudes, etc, etc., and brings tax revenue into the city instead of draining tax revenue. 2- Implement a workable system to hasten the pace of play. Five hour rounds or more are not uncommon.This is a time problem for people with families and annoying situation for others.The pace of play needs to be monitored every three holes and and if a group falls behind they need to pick up and go to the next tee box.We aren't PGA pros.We need local rules for lost balls and maintaining play.Actually, some low handicap players are much slower than some high handicappers so monitoring of pace is essential. 3- Fix the tee time system so you can book same day. Look at how Click4teetimes.com works in California. A** There are plenty of customers for golf.The operator just needs to be as good as Apple Computing. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 6, 2011, 6:23 PM 1. I think raising rates in a down economy is anti-productive. I would recommend encouragement instead of discouragement.Think about promoting golf: discount coupons, use a company like Groupon to promote specials for certain courses that may have a low participation rates. Eaglewood and River Oaks promotion brought in dollars up front. Discount on lessones for beginners to encourage play. First Tee may be an option at a few of the westside courses to encourage youth to take up the game. Maybe a discount for First Tee graduates for the first few months to encourage them to play. Reduce the age from 65 tp 60 to entice retirees to play more often, or at Salt Lake City courses. 2. Inclement weather, such as we are experiencing this year is hopefully cyclic. I would not use this as a reason to sell or close golf properties. 3. Selling golf property in a down economy is not a good idea.There are numerous properties for sale, or that have sold nowhere near the real value. Besides, if a course is losing money, the only interested party may be a real estate developer wanting to turn the land into condos, a subdivison. or big box store. I think we lose enough green/open space as is. 4. Discount to encourage walking instead of riding. Besides the health benefit, it may reduce the maintenance on golf carts.Think about a round of golf reduced by a dollar or two, or free push cart. 0,.., Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 13 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I think that selling the property would be a much better option. If the prices were raise, there would be a lot of people, myself included that would find other places to go, or just stop playing. Ok, it might not be that extreme but I think there would be a drastic dercrease in the ammount of people that would come out to play. One idea I have that is totally out there but if I am taking the time to post this and you are taking the time to read it, I might as well say it.What if there were tournaments held at some of the courses that need repairs, or some of the ones that don't, and have a banquet or raffle drawings.You would buy tickets and the club house or maybe some golf retailers would have the prizes that they have donated and use the money from the people playing, buying tickes and for the banquet to help with the costs. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brady Grimm Name not shown in District 4 June 6, 2011, 10:31 AM Many of the comments here suggest lowering fees. Golf courses are not a civic right, they are a luxury. Nor is golf a cheap sport. Somehow, i think these same people would gladly drop $300 for a new driver if it would improve their game. Balls, clubs, shoes...all cost a fair amount of money and those costs increase, yet people continue to play the game. Fee increases are the standard response to increased costs in out economy, and is likely the best solution. Selling one of the courses could cause crowding on the other courses, and our city needs the green spaces these courses offer. It seems highly unlikely that raising the fees by a dollar or two per person is NOT going to have a detrimental effect the city's golfers, whereas the alternative could.Additionally, marketing/teaching the game to younger audiences would ensure the continued support of the courses. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 6, 2011, 8:22 AM Have you considered lowering the rates? You say the courses are suffering because of a poor economy then your solution is higher rates? If your slow now, how do you think you'll do when you are even less affordable? Last year, I got back into golf after not playing at all for about 10 years. By the end of last season, I was playing 3 times a week average. Less than 10% of those games were played on Salt Lake City courses. This year, wanting to play more, I searched for the least expensive way to golf a lot more. I purchased a push cart and a Salt Lake City frequent players pass. I have only played two courses this year that are not SLC courses. Even with me walking and paying 30% less to play, SLC has already made 5 times more money from me this year over last year. Because I am looking to play more games rather than try many different courses, SLC made the most sense for me this year. West Valley offers a pass that was a close second. For $199/year I can play 9 or 18 for $7 walking or $14 Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 14 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City riding. If Salt Lake City raises fees, they will lose hundreds of dollars next year from me alone. I think offering better deals to the frequent golfers would bring in more frequent players and more money. Charge $50 for your players pass instead of$75. Anyone who has a pass is much more likely to consider SLC courses before any others. I would also consider buying the unlimited pass if it were less money.As it stands, it's only a good deal if I can play every day of the week or get 18 in several times in a week. If you do need to raise rates, consider changing rates to meet the demand of the course. Lower your rates during slow times and raise them during peek times. One last thing you might consider is a better tee time scheduling system. Most of my golf games are planned for later the same day. This new scheduling system is a major hassle to get a same day tee time. I've only called it once this year and I have no intention of calling it ever again. If my plans are less than 24 hours away, I will either try to walk on or play elsewhere. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 6, 2011, 8:11 AM One of the stated reasons for golfing revenue being down is that the recent recession has made it 401* mor difficult for people to be able to afford to play. How is it that raising the golfing fees will make the game more affordable? I would propose that the golfing fees be reduced by some amount. The problem would seem to be that the courses all have room for more players, but that the players are not coming out. A small reduction in per golfer fees might easily result in a significant increase in total revenues! Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 5, 2011, 12:55 PM SYSTEMATIC COURSE IMPROVEMENT TEAM Systematic improvement team that designs and implements improvements on the courses, one hole at a time, one improvement at a time. This would allow the normal maintenance to do their job and all the courses to get the improvements they need over time. What are Examples of some improvements that would make SLC Golf better? All the simple things that need to be done, such as general updating of tee boxes, both repairs (leveling) and additions (more forward tees!) There are guidelines that can be followed so higher handicap or weaker players have the proper tees to play from that allow prompt and fun play. Getting "with it"on this issue could easily be accomplished by a strike team that only does this kind of extra course work. Another example is the improvement of greens complexes where needed, like fixing number 5 at Bonneville. Tell me how to get to a lower tier pin without first landing on the top tier with a perfect shot. That's not proper golf, so at a minimum there needs to be a collection basin below that green. A specialized team would help identify all of these kinds of problems and make our great courses Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.coml714 Page 15 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City even better, why not the BEST! RAISE FEES IF YOU MUST, OF COURSE! COUNTER ACTIONS FOR RAISED FEES Give rebates to the golfers that golf a lot at the city courses...not in dollars, but in services, like round of golf, free cart, free range token, etc. This would require a computer system that would log in all golfers that are registered city course golfers. The system would automatically log and track a registered players rounds and purchases and reward them for their continued support. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 5, 2011, 12:49 PM I am a frequent player. Golfers should pay their fair share. I am OK with a fee increase to keep Mountain Dell and Forest Dale in good shape. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 5, 2011, 11:31 AM I would support a very modest, that is MODEST, say a 10% fee, but agree with other posts that if cost goes up, broader usage will go down. If you have property that is not well used, then possibly sell of golf property, but I am not a fan of that at all. I regularly play SLC courses in a work league or with friends. My son as a new golfer loves your Nibley Youth Golf Camp program and will be back this summer if you have it. I think you need to hold the line on admin costs, do more with less. Charge a bit more for carts, except for seniors. How about some winter usage. Mt Dell does a good job of this- can this be expanded w/o hurting greens in dormant state. While I am not a Salt Lake City resident, I work in the city and support your golf programs. Please keep the courses open unless the business case is just so dismal it cannot be made. The city has to provide some support to good recreation programs for the greater good even if it loses a small amount of money. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 5, 2011, 9:12 AM Raising the fee is a typical response from someone in government. It assumes we will continue to play at the same rate we did when the fee was lower, WRONG, we will play less. Many of us who support the golf are on fixed incomes, or retired. (I play two 18 holes rounds every week, weather permitting, I am retired and I seek the best, least busy times, on a course the honors the PGA discount book which I buy every year.) If the fee goes up, say 25% or some other number, I will not cut back that amount, rather I will drop one of the two outtings I have played every week for the last 7 years. A 50% reduction. Placing a higher fee on fewer and fewer golfers is putting golf in a death spiral. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 16 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the . Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I suggest you consider developing pocket golf subdivisions, tucked in and around the current golf courses. Develop the homes with senior golfers in mind, that is one level homes with no more than 3 bedrooms, a large guest open area and a hobby area. Put a gate on it for security, let them pay typical property taxes, but earmark that tax to support that golf course or all the government owned courses. Another suggestion, get the youth more involved. Have grandparent, grandchild specials times, and parent and child events have more "First Tee" events and lessons. Have tournaments for the youth. Another, if you raise fees, have off-sets in the PGA type books. Forget the computer booking sevice??? Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 5, 2011, 8:49 AM I'm a 68 year old, used to be an Assistant Pro for the County, and I would much rather see a fee increase that is enough to offset increased costs, than to have you modify or sell any golf course property. I think the fees should go up a bit less for seniors than for regular golfers and you could also increase tournament fees a bit more than both senior and regular rates.We have some what I consider to be classic golf courses because of their age and history and I would hate to see you make ,,,,ok changes on any of the existing courses. Be a little patient, the economy will improve and at some point you may be able to reduce rates in the future(though I know that never happens when government is involved) but I can dream. JP Sorensen in District 7 June 4, 2011, 8:02 PM Still dragging hoses at Bonneville after all these years hard to believe ! I will only comment on the Bonneville improvements.The others are equally important too I would ask whoever put this list together if the golf courses have the rights to drill wells for water both in the ground and from a running stream that dries up come late July ? The design changes behind the little league diamonds have me wondering. Did you know that area has been used as a dump for tree trimming and city waste for many years.The area is very unstable. their is also a overflow pipe from the covered water storage above Wasatch Drive that empty's out their from time to time ? Do you know their is a 42 inch natural gas line and water lines that run along the fairways on hole 14 I do not think the people in charge have any idea as to what they must have or would be nice to have. You need an irrigation system to more efficiently water your grass and cut you wasted water and labor costs.That should be number one because the old system is way past its life span and doomed to fail at any time. These courses always made money until a layer of middle management got their hands into the pot. Christopher Funk outside Salt Lake City June 4, 2011, 3:26 PM Most of us are concerned about money and an increase in golf fees in this difficult economic time. But Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com1714 Page 17 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I know that my friends and I would much rather pay a little more for a round of golf than to have the number of golf courses reduced, or just as important, the condition of the golf courses suffer. I think SLC does an excellent job of maintaining their courses and this is so very important for us that love the game of golf. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 4, 2011, 2:30 PM It seems we only see a discussion of increasing fees. Increased fees will only decrease the number of rounds played as would be players opt to play other/ better courses.Why do I want to play Wingpoint when I can play a new/ better course for the same money? I'd like to see you look at increased fees coupled with a local resident discount. Give the local player a reason to play your courses weekly and because they are the best value for the money.This way you increase the number of rounds played by locals.With increased rounds you will see an increase in your cart rentals and the sales of range balls, proshop items and foods. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 8:43 PM 22 million to fix up golf cources. Come on Mr. Graham, let's start putting money into fixing up one of the real gems of Salt Lake City, The SLC Cemetery. It has been forgotten about for way too long. People come from all over the world to visit the cemetery, finding their relatives graves, finding the resting places of LDS notables. Pioneer Park, Liberty Park are always being improved, but not the cemetery. Curb and gutter, plumbing system, sprinkling system, eroading streets handicapped equipped restrooms. This is where money should be spent, and maybe selling some of those golf courses could help pay for the cemetery fixes. Wayne Andersen in District 3 June 3, 2011, 5:38 PM I play golf at all of the city courses as well as neighboring courses in Salt Lake and Davis County. Salt Lake City Green Fees are around mid-point for neighboring areas. Ironically, Salt Lake County subsidizes their golf courses and have higher green fees (Salt lake City does not). However, their age for Senior golfers is lower than Salt Lake City. If green fees are to be raised, about $1 per 9 holes would be a target that might not lower rounds played. Salt Lake can attract more Senior golfers if the Senior age were lowered to either 55 or 60 years of age. It is felt by the golf administration of the city that rounds will go down if green fees are raised, but no one really can predict that outcome. The bad news is that like many of us, the maintenance of the golf courses has been band aided with minimum strategies for over 20 years. It's like having a leaky roof that you patch year after year when a new leak appears and then you are suddenly saddled with a roof replacement because the roof can't be repaired anymore.All we need to do is raise green fees a dollar and attract 10 million people to play 18 holes, and the problem will be solved. But that isn't going to happen. The Capital Improvement issue has been before the City Council for 3 1/2 years now and is finally gaining some attention. Due to the current economic situation, it's a monumental task to approach, but the 'Roof Still Leaks and Needs to be replaced'. There are parcels of land that exist in the Bonneville, Glendale and Jordan River/Rose Park facilities Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 18 of 33 • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the . Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City that can be sold. The problem is that the City has 'First Dibs' on the land, but doesn't have the funds to buy it from the Enterprise Golf Fund to preserve the open space. Another possible source of funds would be to close a golf course permanently and sell the land.--Still the same problem. If you go to the SLC Golf web page and peruse the CIP projects, you'll find a lot of background material as well as one approach to funding sources. Action in now overdue on this issue. It won't go away regardless what happens to green fees. Name not shown in District 6 June 3, 2011, 4:21 PM First, I applaud all those who have already commented; it's so important to be involved. I am a young golfer compared to most who have commented. Even though I am a 26-year-old UofU grad, I've been playing golf for almost 20 years, including on Jr. High and High School teams. I've played each city course multiple times, though admittedly it's been a lot less in the decade since I stopped qualifying for the Junior Rate (which I'm not certain still exists?!?) I am adamantly opposed to raising rates. That may work for others, especially those who are empty- nesters with fewer built-in expenditures, but not for students and families who will become the course regulars in another 20 years - providing you don't drive them from the game now by raising greens fees! Amook Most of my peers don't golf-when I play, I play with my Dad. I feel that the city will need to address m , the demographics of the situation in order to find a sustainable solution. We absolutely must do something to encourage youth to experience the game. I would suggest offering driving range opportunities as field trips or extra-curricular activities. I know that as a 6th or 7th grader we were given option, through the public school, of going up to Park City/the Cottonwoods to ski for a very nominal fee. If public school children are given that opportunity to become exposed to skiing and snowboarding, why can't they do it for golfing? It should be easier and less expensive to pull something like that off because the facility and schools are part of the same umbrella, whereas ski resorts are private corporations. Get kids educated, developing skills, and on the course, and you'll fill a lot more tee times filled in the coming years. If we made the simpler, shorter courses like Nibley Park or Forest Dale less expensive to play then we could use those facilities as a venue for new players to acquire skills.Then they'll be ready and willing to play a nicer, longer course and to pay a little more for it.The city already does this a little bit with the Jordan River par-3 (which is NOT well- advertized!)Why not extend that philosophy to the more centrally-located Nibley and/or Forest Dale? Moreover, look for advances in technology to decrease maintenance costs. I am aware that the city maintains a large fleet of carts for these 9 golfing facilities which run on problematic lead-acid batteries. Using a better battery technology - like Lithium Ion, for example - would provide a handful of benefits for city courses, including substantially cutting costs associated with golf carts and maintenance! I own a cart which runs on lithium and the benefits are so obvious, I don't know why the city hasn't done this already! Be progressive and proactive! Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 4:17 PM Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 19 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I was told at some time in the past that the Salt Lake City golf courses were profitable and profits were used to subsidize other parts of the city budget. I do not mind paying higher green fees to support the golf courses but I am certainly opposed to paying higher green fees in order to subsidize other parts of the city budget if that is in fact what's being done. I am not knowledgeable about golf course management or know what all the issues are but it certainly seems that selling the property is short sighted. gary ewers in District 7 June 3, 2011, 11:11 AM Past history says raising green fees doens't work - and as far as long term, selling courses in a down economy or bad weather season is bad for Golf as well. Long term- salt lake golf used to be profitable, in fact the city used surplus elsewhere in the budget. So knowing that golf can and is a profitable business, the key is getting younger players started( beginners) as well as more ladies. Offer better deals for this group.A permanent soution - selling courses -for a temporary probablem isn't a good solution. I started gold here in Salt Lake at age 3 golfed all the junior leagues and loved it. I am 41 and have found a love of this game that matches no other hobbie.A commitee to find a solution may be a good option? things like social media, groupon, living social etc are all options. Lets not shrink to typical solutions keep working towards something more permanent . good luck Scott Morham in District 5 June 3, 2011, 11:08 AM I can see perhaps 1 or 2 municipal golf coures in SLC although I am not sure why the city is in a business that should rightfully be a private "for profit" enterprise. I do not see why taxpayers should subsidize golf. Let golfers subsidize golf. Sell all but one or two of the courses. Joe DeLuca jr outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 10:48 AM Increasing the fees are sometimes necessary. My wife and I play a variety of the courses and find most to be in good to fair condition base on the weather so far this year. I would suggest that maybe information on how to treat a course as a player would bring back value. I see many players abuse the greens, not replace divots, drive carts too close or on the greens. Maybe a course that given would be helpful and then give players a discount for two rounds base on compleitng the course. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 10:40 AM My suggestion would be to drop 1 or 2 golf courses. Use ALL of the profits to maintain the other ones. Also - raise golf fees by $5.00 - everyone should be able to do that. Rose Park, Wing point would be my vote to sell the land. deb mcnees Ishtiaq Ferdous in District 5 June 3, 2011, 10:38 AM I love the fact that Salt Lake City has such resonable to low green fees. I play two 9 holes during weekdays and 18 holes on Saterday. I would not be oppose to increasing the green fees a little bit. But before we do that we should make sure we have persued all other options first. In my humble opinion Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http:f/www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 20 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the • Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City follwoing thing should be considered before increasing the green fees 1. If the entry level courses like Nibley and forest Dale are not profitable and not self sustainable lets sell those and use the money to upgrade other courses. 2.Yearly passes should be more affordable and couse specific. I would gladly pay $300/$400 green fee only pass for either Bonneville, Glendale or Mountain Dale courses. But I would not pay $1000 yearly fees. 3. Revenues from thses courses should be spent on sustaining these courses and not devarted to other city projects. 4. Streamline operation and staffs. Only increasing green fees will not fix the problem. Scott Winterowd outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 10:28 AM I would play the city courses more if the Senior Rate was lowered to 60 years old and believe other seniors would follow. Seniors help take care of the course protecting it's resource. Protecting the resource equates to lower operating costs. I currently play River Oaks 2-3 times a week due to the Senior Rate. Scott Winterowd Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 10:26 AM I'm bothered by statements that revenues genetrated by golf are being diverted to other recreational activities in the city. While I support a broad range of outdoor activities for residents and visitors, I don't think it's right to increase green fees to "sustain" city golf courses if, in fact, the monies collected are sufficient. Nor do I think it's in the city's best interest to sell golf course land to developers to raise money for capital improvements. I agree with those who've commented that once the green spaces are lost, they're lost for good. I suspect there are many ways to increase play at the city's courses, thus increasing revenues for improvements, whether better restrooms at Mountain Dell or sprinklers at Bonneville. In short, I'm opposed to increased fees until it's evident that all revenues have been (years, decades) poured back into the courses' maintenance and operating budgets. Russ Fairless outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 10:13 AM I have been playing Salt Lake City golf courses 1-2 times per week for the last 24 years. I do so for several reasons. 1)They are an excellent value, great courses and affordable, especially when using the Frequent Player Discount. 2)They are well maintained. 3)They are close to home. As a retired person, raising the greens fees slightly (no more than 10%) would probably not alter the number of times I frequent SLC courses. However, raising them too much would cause me to Oa** consider looking for a cheeper venue. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 21 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City Also, I see in the overview where the city "subsidized" Rose Park with money to purchase the property on Redwood Road just south of the current driving range in order to facilitate the re- alignment and expansion of said driving range. However, what happened to the income from the sale of the property on hole #17 to the the school? As a non-resident of the city, I realize my opinion doesn't carry much weight. However, I have to wonder why all these questions about$20 millon in capital improvments are coming up at a time of economic downturn which is a major cause in the revenue shortfall? This decreased revenue has recently been exacerbated the last two years by exceptionally cold and wet spring weather. I think under the circumstances, Salt Lake City should hold off on the capital improvments until the economic conditions improve. Some of the proposed projects have been on the books for many years. Why are they suddenly so critical at the worst of all possible times? Why wern't they critical when the economy was better and revenues were better? The city and state continue to grow and attract new people and businesses. I think the value of the local golf will play an important part in this process. I think the city should continue it's plans to sell excess property when and where it can and use this money only for the most urgent projects until the economic conditions improve. However, but be careful in defining what is urgent. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 9:05 AM With out a question sell some of the golf courses.There is no need to have and operate this many golf courses. Golf is not on the up swing its going down, also you should Only keep the golf funds in golf.Your competetion has lowered there prices the city has not we don't play city courses any more because of what you demand for play plus the courses are not in good condition.Why play and pay more for less.. There are many options charege a price for visitors, locals a price and seniors 60 and older another different price. who is your bread and butter customer? treat them well if your smart. This is a business not a need. TC Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 3, 2011, 9:01 AM I'm not sure if the available land freed up to sell in individual building lot's would be enough to save money but the zoo might find donors to help as well. Holes 3,4,5,6,7,8,11,and 12 at Bonneville are pretty boring. Hogle Zoo is land locked and hilly very difficult for the Grandparents to go with us. Perhaps a land swap with Hogle Zoo putting nine holes on the zoo location along emigration creek moving across the road from 2 green then back across near the old 3 tee turning 8 into a longer par three (hole 12) and over to 13 tee to pick up the back nine. This would be a win for the zoo as well as a big improvement over the current front 9 a Bonneville. Name not shown in District 5 June 3, 2011, 8:32 AM Bonneville could start by redesigning areas such as the parking lot and driving range and correcting a couple of hole designs and selling those uninteresting golf parcels to developers who are wishing to Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 22 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City relocate Hogle Zoo, Move the clubhouse to an area where it could share parking with the zoo and sell that parcel in addition Kent Miles in District 3 June 3, 2011, 4:37 AM I have been playing Salt Lake City courses for nearly 50 years. During summer months I often play 9 holes 3-4 times a week and 18 holes on Saturday afternoons.The price of SLC golf makes this possible. My preferred courses are Wingpointe and Mt. Dell, though I also play at other SLC courses from time to time. Before making any decisions on financing capital improvements, I would like to see a report on how SLC has used golf revenues over the past 10 to 15 years, and to see how much, if any, of greenfees generated revenue has been diverted into other programs. If there is a pattern of using SLC golf course revenues to underwrite other programs, I would like to see proposals for making SLC golf courses self-sustaining and for reserving all revenues generated by greenfees for golf only related expenditures. If this is done, then I would support modest increases in greenfees AS NEEDED to maintain a sustainable golf course management and improvement plan. SLC's golf courses are a valuable resource for the entire community, not just for those of us who golf. Many courses benefit from greenfees paid by county residents and visitors to the area.The courses certainly have an impact upon quality of life for city residents, as well as being a year round attraction for visitors. Selling golf course property for residential and commercial development is something I would discourage as being short-sighted. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 10:58 PM Golf in SLC is cheap relative to other parts of the country and I hope it stays that way.That said, I am open to modest increases to green fees in order to ensure a healthy future of golf in the city. I view the second option of selling a course as short sighted. I look at the sell of Golf City in Ogden as an example.Although the course was privately owned, the course was a city landmark. The course was sold and divided for residential development and the city lost a great recreation space and ensured the removal of golf from south Ogden City. In the place of Golf City now sits a few homes and a bunch of undeveloped lots. The point is, I am opposed to the sell of SLC courses and parks for that matter. Once our city stops protecting open green space it is gone forever. I do think other options need to be considered. SLC faces a lot of competition from other courses and recreational activities. There are things SLC needs to do to ensure golfers and other citizens want to play their rounds of golf at its courses. Promotions, clinics, advertising, course improvements, etc can be very effective. Especially when trying to overcome challenges brought about by inclement weather. Jeff Cole outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 10:01 PM Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 23 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City From the perspective of someone who plays golf regularly, I would prefer to see the city sell some of the golf property and keep fees the same. One of the things that makes golfing in Salt Lake a different experience than many other cities is the quality of courses combined with the relatively inexpensive greens fees. Because they are entry level courses, selling Rose Park and Nibley Park would be ideal. The quality of the course does not matter as much so selling these and using the excess operating funds to maintain courses such as Bonneville would be the best for the regular Salt Lake golfer. If a study group is formed, the group should focus its attention on those that actually play the courses. The study group could be advertised in the pro shops throughout the area and the courses could even offer small greens fees discounts for those that participate in the study group. Heber Jacobsen in District 6 June 2, 2011, 9:36 PM The City has persistently low-balled the maintenance on its courses. As a result the golf experience for users continues to degrade. Rather than put money back into the courses, the City has used golf revenues in other areas of the City parks Dept. budget. I have golfed City courses for over 50 years. It is terrible to see the condition of Bonneville, for example, now compared to what it used to be. Sadly I cannot endorse any plan that puts more revenue from golf in City coffers when that money will be diverted to other than golf-related areas. I would rather see the courses managed by an outside manager who would be committed to enhancing the golf course conditions. It would also be necessary to allow the manager to have a long-term contract to allow a long-range commitment to be made to improving the maintenance and general conditions of play on the courses. The City should focus its resources on what it does best. Running a golf operation is apparently not one of those areas. Name not shown in District 2 June 2, 2011, 9:25 PM Since I don't play golf I cannot really make an informed comment other than to say golf cources are green spaces and, they take a lot of water to keep them that way and this is a DESERT. i also know that many of the best golf courses are in Palm Springs, another desert. I would love to see some eco golf courses.They do exist. Again, not sure where.They are better than shopping malls and highways.Many people recreate on them. Kenneth Atkin in District 7 June 2, 2011, 9:22 PM As an avid golfer who spends most of my rounds at city courses, I recognize both what we have in city golf and what is missing. However, after sitting through a presentation with Dave Terry about what he invisions for Bonneville, I feel that the City Council is not getting appropriate information about how to handle the problems. I also believe the agenda that Mr.Terry has with a few courses is inflating the cost of what truly needs to be done. For the record, I was fine with the land sale and changes at Rose Park. However, we have hidden gems in our golf courses that are not getting what they deserve. If some money were spent on those gems (specifically Wingpointe and Bonneville) the experience would be better and in my opinion even justify a raise in fees at those specific courses. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 24 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City However, at this time Bonneville is in dire need of some maintenance and yet until the city pays to put in an irrigation system the maintenance crew at Bonneville spends 70% of their maintenance budget on simply getting water to the course. With the weather this year, that may not be an issue. However, if in a normal year they didnt waste their time moving sprinklers, maybe the tee boxes could be fixed, the bunkers could get sand and trees could be taken care of before they fall and break or have to be cut down. They could also water at night and stop wasting precious resources in the heat of the summer. The bottom line is I urge and beg the City to recognize what a jewel has been built over the years and take a good hard look at what the real problems are and how to fix them without limiting the golf experience available to future generations. I dont think anyone would complain if some time were spent to create different tiers of city courses that cost appropriate amounts. But if courses are not maintained properly the City is likely to lose the avid golfer who actually spends more money at these courses than any other group of citizen. None of us want to see our favorite course charge more without a little thought of how to make the experience better. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 4:59 PM Running a golf course is like a business. One needs to get the most from the available resources. I 0.44,, play the city courses 3 or 4 times a week and never make a reservation. Been doing that for years. .. There are so many unused tee times during the day, that if the city could fill them, it would solve their budget problems. The city killed the reasonable pass program many years ago and put into place one that is expensive and has little benefit. My suggestions would be to offer the annual pass at a price around $300 to $500 dollars. The lower end would be for youths for summer play during the week and 2 or 3 PM on weekends. Market and sell the passes and give passholder priority tee time bookings, say 2 or 3 days ahead of non pass holders and discounts on the range and pro-shop. Maybe even 10 or 15 percent discount at the grill. If you don't get the golfer on your property, you have no opportunity to get any of his money. You need to have the right incentive for people to buy the pass besides just play. The objective of selling more passes at lower rates is to create competition for tee times. Sell as many passes as possible so the pass holders are now competing for times. For the peak times this may create a random drawing to award the tee time, but more of the other times will be utilized. The golfer that goes out once or twice a month is not the big money for the golf course. The pass holder has made a committment to play the city courses over other valley courses. When he has a visitor, the pass holder will probably go to a city course. The pass holder is hoping to play enough golf on the pass so he breaks even or reduces his cost per round less than the going fee. On the other side, the city gets the upfront money and hopes he will not break even. Do a break even analysis on each course and compare total possible tee times and ones actually used. Look at the costs to run, maintain, and improve the course a see where the break even would be. This is the marketing challenge. When you can show that you have filled the unused tee times , 1, and you are still running a deficit, then look to raise fees. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 25 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I have been told that senior pass holder in the past have taken all of the morning times during the week and have left none available for anyone else. No cash in the till and they spend little money at the course. My answer to that is to sell so many of the passes that the seniors are fighting for the times. If they want to play, they will get latter times. The one that comes out on this is the city. You have all that upfront money and the competition for times rest with the golfers. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 4:31 PM Public golf in Utah is probably the best value in the country, and so you would think that there is room to raise fees. However, the Salt Lake City owned courses face a lot of local competition, so it is very easy for golfers to shift where they play if SLC raises its fees, and the fees are already a bit above average. Since the amount of golf played is down, it is even easier for golfers to play other courses because tee times are plentiful. Thus, I suspect it makes the most sense for SLC to shut down and sell one of its golf operations. Joseph Rook outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 3:55 PM I sincerely doubt an increase in fees would offset the loss of revenue from those who choose to play elsewhere. I would agree with the statements of others that golf courses be accorded parity with other parks and recreation operations in terms of funding, particularly since the golf courses do provide a revenue source whereas other parks and recreation activities are pure cost centers. If it should become necessary to sell a course, the course being sold should be one which a proposed developer will pay a premium for the underlying real estate. If a study group is formed, it should focus on an analysis of golf revenues and expenses compared to other parks and recreation funding and making sure that golf courses are not singled out for exceptional treatment. I would add that if a study group is formed, it should include some members of the players of these courses to insure the "common man's" opinions are heard and considered. Kevin Higgins in District 3 June 2, 2011, 3:52 PM Salt Lake City golf courses are a wonderful resource that add a lot of value to the quality of life here. Play is affordable, the facilities are reasonably well maintained, and the staff is welcoming and helpful. If there is pressure on the maintenance budget, then I would suggest a modest and gradual increase in fees, rather than selling off course property. Once the property is sold, it is gone for good, and when the proceeds of the sale are used up, the pressure on the maintenance budget will return. Moreover, there is no assurance that the proceeds from a sale would stay in the golf budget and not be diverted for another purpose. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 26 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the , , Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City If a course is closed, that will result in more crowding and slower play at the remaining courses. if that happens, the solution to deal with increased crowds would be to raise fees anyway. It is better to address maintenance budget issues head on and raise the fees if that is what is needed to keep the courses in good repair. Also, for those residents who think the golf courses are something they would never use, I would suggest that one never knows. I lived in Salt Lake City 25 years before getting on a city course. Now I play on one every weekend that I can. Jim Adamson in District 4 June 2, 2011, 3:51 PM Salt Lake City courses are near and dear to my heart I've been playing them for 48 years. I agree with one of the comments I read I think the income flow from each course should be compared to the cost to maintain that course. I don't think it's a good idea to raise fees everywhere and then use the income on one of the courses that did not generate it. I would raise fees where the demand is the highest. For example, a $10-15 increase at Mountain Dell would probably affect play less than doing the same increase at Rose Park. I would also support increases that maintain or increase the course's condition. 4. Jeff Barnard in District 6 June 2, 2011, 3:47 PM ` Salt Lake City has great public golf courses. I would seel a couple of courses and up grade the remaining locations.As a matter of fact I think Bonniville should be redesigned by Jack Nichlaus(or other amazing architect) and really upgrade to world class. Fewer courses, but better courses is my point. Dave Myers outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 3:36 PM First, I would question the assumption that golf courses should not be subsidized. SLC recently paid nearly $1 million for a consultant's study about whether to build a broadway style theater downtown. Where did that money come from and why can't similar amounts be spent on activities that affect more people? Also, why should tennis courts and parks and gardens be subsidized and not golf courses? That said, I don't object to a small increase in fees if and when necessary to keep courses open. Second, if, as some suggest, the City turns a course into open space or a park, it should only be on the basis that the park doesn't require a subsidy (if that's the basis for closing the course). Third, SLC should get together with SL County and Murray and whoever else runs public golf courses in the.valley and turn the management of all the courses over to a single entity (probably a private company) that can eliminate duplication and run all the courses more efficiently (such as a single place to schedule a tee time or consolidated course and equipment maintenance). Most golfers don't choose a course based on whether it is located in the City or the County, but rather if it's close or if they can get a tee time or if they like the course or if it's cheap. The new management company can Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 27 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City raise fees on the courses with the highest demand and give discounts on the courses with the lowest demand. Profits from the best courses can be used to subsidize the low-use courses (instead of money going to or coming from general government revenue) and they can be improved to create demand. Eventually, if a low-use course is a drain on the others, shut it down. Blake Christensen in District 6 June 2, 2011, 3:34 PM I would be in favor of a slight fee increase, but I struggle to see why the city would consider selling off any golf course property. Although the economy and weather have had a negative effect on golf course income, at least golf courses come close to breaking even. I would venture to guess that golf courses are one of the few pieces of the SLC parks and rec department that generate revenue and come close to breaking even. If selling land is necessary to raise cash, why not sell a city park (that doesn't generate a dime of revenue?) Why should the city invest millions of dollars on a soccer , complex that will never generate revenue? Obviously all parks and rec facilities will not cover their own costs (that is why we are willing to cover these facilities' costs with tax dollars.) I just don't understand why the attitude is different with golf courses than other parks and rec facilities. Golf courses at least cover most of their costs in a down economy, and these courses actually generate positive revenue in a better economy! Name not shown in District 6 June 2, 2011, 3:12 PM Don't increase fees more than the customary number per year. Sell properties or seek alternative funding. Alex lorg outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 3:10 PM I would encourage the city to think outside of the box on this issue, and perhaps consider how to sell individual passes per golf or driving range per course. The pass choices now are too expensive, but if I could pay $300.00 for an individual green fee's only pass to one course that is affordable and worth my money, or an odd hours pass I would be much more willing to consider getting or giving a pass - the $1,000+ passes just don't do it. I don't know what the price is that would make it worth it, but would hope that the city would be able to come up with other pass options and promote these passes. Make it easier to go golfing more, less expensive over all.The courses should not be run as a single corporation, but more like conglomerated companies, they need to keep their individuality and have the ability to promote and run their course to compete with all other courses in the area. Also what are you doing with local businesses that are in the area -food courts - advertisements - sponsorships of tournements. As far as I am concerned the courses and city does a pathetic job at incorporating the local community. I imagine that you will just raise fees because that is the easiest thing to do, if that is the case sell the damn courses at least we will have someone in there who is trying to make them profitable. Did the council ask the clerks and grounds keepers and pros their ideas? they are closest to the action they Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 28 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City probably have some good ideas. One of the biggest problems is advertisement- a golf course is not an advertisement in itself! Joseph Doubek in District 7 June 2, 2011, 1:55 PM Each golf course should be evaluated by comparing the income from golf fees to the cost of maintaining the facility. If subsidys are needed for one or more golf courses pick the one that needs the largest subsidy and raise its fees. If the higher fees reduce the number of golfers and the needed subsidy is larger, sell the property and see if the other courses get enough increased business to make them viable. If not, repeat the process until the remaining golf courses require little or no subsidys. Name not shown in District 4 June 2, 2011, 11:39 AM If golf courses are sold the fees will go up anyway- my position, raise fees. Tim Roberts in District 4 June 2, 2011, 11:26 AM I love our city courses. Please keep them open and affordable. Kelly Stevens in District 3 June 2, 2011, 11:03 AM I am not much of a golfer but my kids LOVE golf.They use the golf courses all the time and have *ow taken many classes and clinics. This would not be possible in most cities. What a great way to spend a day as a youth. Salt Lake City is nationally recognized as one of the best cities for golfers because of the number of public city golf courses and because it is so affordable. Raise the fees first before selling off property. Once the property is sold there is no recourse but there may be a change in the economy. Name not shown in District 3 June 2, 2011, 10:52 AM The amount of land maintained for golf should match the demand. The city should retain ownership of the land, but use it for less expensive and more popular uses. I am not a golfer, but I am a year round gardener. I have never understood the appeal of living next to a golf course, but I would love to live near a large community garden space with a greenhouses and perhaps other facilities that promote community self-reliance, such as space for livestock animals or a tool library. That seems to be what people need right now, that is re-skilling, reconnecting, and productive work. Ben Mates in District 7 June 2, 2011, 9:49 AM I am not a golfer. Even if I were, I would have to question the sense of maintaining such a water- intensive sport in the middle of a desert. Since the cost of water is increasing, it only makes sense to shift the cost of that water to the ones who are using it. Name not shown in District 4 June 2, 2011, 9:33 AM I am in strong support of maintaining the City owned Golf Courses as open space by increasing fees to cover the costs to maintain these areas.The fee should be reviewed and adjusted to potentially lower or increase the costs to allow for changes in the economic climate. Further, every possible Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 29 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City efficiency should be implemented so that the cost to maintain the course is completed in the most cost effective manner. Having said that, it would be nice to have one course or a program that is primarily"free" so that those among us who have a lower income are not cut out of this City ammenity and so that our young people can learn to play this sport at a low cost. Possibly, the City could consider expanding the retail side of each property by allowing private shops to lease space, etc. to help underwrite the cost of the sport or a relationship with the Universties (Athletic/MBA programs could be utilized where the students run/teach/etc.for credit/internships thereby cutting the cost to the City yet giving practical experience to students. Are there ways for the City to harness grannts or donations to maintain this open space? If this land were to be used for other things, it should be turned into park/open space versus sold for development and housing density.This City is already too low on our open and green space within the City. Name not shown in District 7 June 2, 2011, 9:17 AM Golf is a declining pastime,the courses are losing money and are a tremendous waste of water. I don't know about the SLC courses, but most use a tremendous amount of chemicals and fertilizers to keep the grass green.These chemicals end up in the ground water.Why not convert at least one course to open space or a xeroscape park that the public at large can benefit from? Definitely agree with other posters that they should not be sold.This land should not leave the public domain. Alex Gonzales outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 9:15 AM Raising fees is the most logical answer. But it could be modeled after how some other cities do it.The highest fees during the peak of the season and at peak hours. Reduced fees during off hours and off season would encourage players to get out there and keep our courses used. Name not shown in District 7 June 2, 2011, 8:49 AM I am very impressed with the quality and diversity of the SLC golf courses. Bonneville, Mountain Dell and Wing Pointe are superb and challenging public courses. The several other courses all have their unique personality and market niche. All are easily accessible. To sell off any of them due to a short term financial shortfall would be a shame. I am in favor of increased fees to offset the shortfall. Our local golf fees are already quite low when compared to those outside of Utah, and maybe low compared to the surrounding area. I don't know, because my golfing needs are satisfied by City courses and an occasional round at Wasatch Mountain State Park. Concession prices could be bumped up a bit, but I am guessing that additional revenue would be relatively small. By the way, the employees of the City golf courses, in every department, are always very helpful and friendly. They also appear to be very diligent in their work. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com1714 Page 30 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the ,• . Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City The Salt Lake Valley already has too many publicly owned golf courses. Several years ago, in the height of the economic bubble, there was a news story about how we have oversaturated the area with golf courses; some courses could go an entire weekend and only see a handful of tee times. This level of use is not enough to sustain the facilities. If a golf course is not bringing in enough money to break even for the year, the city should consider closing it and allowing it to return to "open space." Mayor Becker is proposing a hike in fees for water use and storm water at a time when many families are behind on the mortgage and trying to put food on the table. Instead of increasing fees for open space while trying to maintain costly and largely un- used golf courses the city should reduce their expenses by closing under performing courses and cancel plans to raise taxes on water. This plan would save the city money by reducing water consumption, reducing fuel and maintenance costs for maintenance vehicles and golf carts, and provide the public open space the city desires. The public would have new open-space to enjoy where once there was a paid-use golf course and there are still enough golf courses in the valley for golfers to enjoy. Carol Kramer outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 8:27 AM I agree with many of the other posts on this question stating that the open space of the city golf courses should not be sold. In some of the areas where the city courses are located, it is the only ,,,w,i,A open space remaining. In addition, the city courses offer an affordable way for people to begin golfing , ,, which I did on these courses as a young person. Without the public course option, the private courses are just too expensive for many families to afford. Maybe a few ideas the study group could look at would be to explore if there were other revenue-producing uses that the property could support during the off-seasons. Maybe other municipal courses around the country have done something like this as I'm sure they are in much the same boat. A small increase in the green fees seem reasonable too for Adults and Seniors. I would keep the under 17 fees the same. Do you offer a season pass? I see a 3-round punch pass offered for Jordan River but maybe offering a season pass would bring in some additional funds for people who want to pay once and play all season. And I think it might end up working like a gym membership where people buy it but don't use it as much as they think they will (know this from personal experience!). Or in a worst case scenario, maybe you suspend operations at one or more of the courses for a year or two until the economy gets a little better. You would still have maintenance costs but you would not have personnel costs for that time. Another wild idea is that golf courses are really huge lawns and gardens that are expertly maintained. Maybe there could be some kind of gardening classes that teach people how you do it— that could be a revenue producer. Or bird/wildlife watching? Or exercise classes held in the beautiful surroundings of the golf course? Or star-gazing at night? Since no one can golf at night maybe there are other night-time activities that could produce revenue. Good Luck! Thanks for all your efforts to keep these recreational opportunities available to everyone. Name not shown in District 6 June 2, 2011, 8:17 AM Our City's golf courses are a great asset and costs absolutely need to be figured into green fees. Surrounding courses are facing the same issues so migration of customers shouldn't be a long-term factor. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/714 Page 31 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City I'm fine with paying higher green fees for a course in good shape and not over-crowded. It would be interesting, however, to see if the City would be capable of lowering the fees later on when costs dropped. Name not shown in District 7 June 2, 2011, 8:14 AM I completely agree with the comment from the person from Baltimore (I too used to live in the Washington area). Go with professional management for both maintenance and long term planning. In forming whatever"study group" you envision, please be sure there are representatives other than just city employees and consultants dependent upon city contracts. Name not shown in District 3 June 2, 2011, 7:37 AM I rarely play golf because it is already too expensive. If you want to lose my business altogether, go ahead and raise the fees. I think Salt Lake City residents should be given some specials to encourage them to play more. When I do play golf it's usually at Stonebridge or Eaglewood...not in SLC...because they do offer coupon deals and special rates for early/late play. If you want to increase revenue, increase the number of paid rounds, even discounted rounds. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 2, 2011, 7:15 AM The golf courses are valuable as open space and should be maintained.The increase in fees will not stop usage. Name not shown in District 7 June 2, 2011, 6:44 AM While spring weather has not been conducive for golfing, thus causing decreased revenues for City- owned courses, it would be an absolute shame to even consider selling any existing courses for development to raise revenues. Golfing is still one of the few affordable means of recreation available in Salt Lake City, and the 9 hole courses are especially popular with both old and young golfers alike. Other funding options need to be explored, such as the possibility of raising of fees, and I would also suggest that the revenue shortfalls are in great part due to the long, wet, cold spring that we have been experiencing. Bottom line, the open space and recreation offered by our City owned golf courses needs to be maintained at all costs—it also seems contrary to consider selling the existing courses to developers, especially with our current administration and its "pro-green" initiatives. Sugarhouse Resident Bob Brister in District 5 June 2, 2011, 6:28 AM Convert golf courses into parks. Glen Elkins in District 5 June 1, 2011, 10:28 PM Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/714 Page 32 of 33 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses? If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? All Participants around Salt Lake City It would be a shame to lose any of the city golf courses. If fee increases are required to keep them, then do it. Having said that, fee hikes could be counter productive. Some city amenities are worthy of support from general tax revenues; golf courses, in my opinion, fall in that category.To me, they are like parks ... open green spaces offering outdoor recreation to everyone.They enhance our community. Name not shown in District 6 June 1, 2011, 7:57 PM OFF LEASH DOG AREAS ARE NON-EXISTENT IN SLC AFTER THE MAYOR'S RECENT RESTRICTION IN PARLEYS. PLEASE CONSIDER USING GOLF PROPERTY FOR OFF LEASH DOG AREAS. Calvin Bond in District 5 June 1, 2011, 5:51 PM I think anything should be done to preserve the city-owned golf courses. I feel they are as important to a city as it's parks. No one would consider selling Liberty Park, would they? My hometown, Baltimore, MD, had the same problem about 20-25 years ago.The solution was for the City to retain ownership and a non-profit corporation, the Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation, was L^ created to run the courses, raise funds for maintainence, etc. I believe it was the first such formed in the country. It's still going strong.They've done a wonderful job of maintaining those courses in a very urban environment (4 of the 5 are within city limits). If anyone's interested, here's a link to their ,, ,,, webpage, www.classic5golf.com/. Or just websearch, Baltimore Municipal Golf Corp. .> Brian Peterson outside Salt Lake City June 1, 2011, 4:29 PM I am a golfer and agree with the excerpt in the article that talks about golfers patronizing other local courses. I have to admit that I don't even play half of the SLC courses, but the few I do play I really like.Also, I do not live in SLC, rather a neighboring city in the Salt Lake valley.With that said, if I know the fee is more to golf on a SLC course, I'm definitely not going to travel the extra distance while wasting time and money just to play that course. Especially if I can play a county or private course for the same price it has been. So rather than get the revenue you would normally get from me, now you're pulling in nothing. But still paying out more in the cost to keep a course up and running. If the city elects to sell property or raise taxes, I have no control over that. But I do have control over which of your courses I choose to play. If your prices can't compete, your customers will go elsewhere. Sometimes you have to cut your losses, not always push that back on the customer. Suzanne Stensaas in District 7 June 1, 2011, 2:23 PM I am not a golfer. I am a proponent of open space. Buying more open land is very expensive, witness the cost of the additional 2.5 acres for a driving range (approx $600,000). The space adjacent to golf courses could be used in the future for parks, soccer, pools, clubhouses, community center, etc. as our population increases. Thus, selling off property is NOT an option I would support. I don't know where you are going to get 22 million, certainly not by raising fees. Seniors could pay more as there are more of us and the boomers may not be as economically challenged right now as the regular adults. We want to encourage the youth and keep their fees low. Jokingly, I would raise the cart fees, and maybe people would walk more! However, that would not generate income. Perhaps we should 'I". raise taxes. We can't have more services and maintain our infrastructure without somebody paying. Public comments as of September 19,2011, 8:59 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com1714 Page 33 of 33 Golf Comments Pulled 9.19 2011 "Submitted 'kin Iname !surname 'address 'alp 'email Jcommenrs 9.19.11 Hi Jill: I lust read a story In the Trib about golf and the current shortfall. CI play alas and would like to add my suuestions. Don't raise fees.18 holes with a cart Is round S44.If It goes up past$50 people will stop playing.In addition,most people need arts due to the hill nature of these courses. I had a friend of mine out from Richmond,Va last year to play golf.The reasonable fees and great scenery made him think he'd"died and gone to heaven.-What we need to do Is to promote golf In Utah.Put together packages of courses.I know people in SIC that fly to Oregon to play and those courses aren't better than ours. 6/6/20118:50 Budget 2011-2012 Paul Murphy 1353 South Glenmark 84105 paul.murphyslc@gmail.com Promote golf like you do skiing. itie springweacommoveer nag not seen commove Tor gomng,mug causing seu u easeu revenues tor ryoe0 wn courses, snaroomerwoom se an aosmute snac To even roomer selling any existing coaffn. for development to raise revenues.Golfing Is still one of the few affordable means of recreation available In Salt Lake Oty,and the 9 hole courses are especially popular with both old and young golfers alike. Other funding options need to be explored,such as the possibility of raising of fees,and I would also suggest that the revenue shortfalls are In great part due to the long,wet,cold spring that we have been esperiendng. Bottom line,the open space and recreation offered by our City owned golf courses needs to be maintained at all costs-It would be an absolute shame to sell of any of the existing properties to developers,especially with our current administration Its'pro-green.Initiatives. Ludy Reese Communications Director 6/2/20118:50 Budget 2011-2012 Judy Reese 2514 Elizabeth Si.Ai 84106 judy@GINC.com I was In attendance at your discussion for the boll Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Project Issues. it's good that you're united in the tact Immediate Issues need to be addressed.http://www.slcgov.com/coundi/agendas/2010agendas/May4/050410M.pdf Your May 4th 2010 agenda(link provided)shows many of the details you were unclear about In your discussion. It is now time for action upon your part.Some dimensions of the golf course situation will be a'No Win'situation.The recent rains have bought Bonneville a few more days grace from inevitable irrigation problems.I whole heartedly encourage you to take action and approve the start of the master CIP plan.You can place review points that will still give You control,yet get the process started(The Issue has been In front of you since November 2002). The plan deals with the'Enterprise Fund'and It's narrow minded to focus scope of one course benefiting another-that is the nature of Enterprise.II'll be an embarrassment to the dry,if a course looses its playability due to lack of irrigation.Lan year Bonneville came dose,but the rains Intervened savings the greens(which are the most sensitive part of a course relative to irrigation). We are fortunate to have a director of golf the Caliber of David Terry.He desperately needs your support and has given you a viable plan to re-elevate Salt Lake City golf courses to a high stature.Please get things started and deal with your concerns as things progress.You are the present of golf in Salt lake ON-youare the preservation of the future of golf In Salt Lake City. Sincerely, 6/1/20117:55 Budget 2011-2012 Wayne Andersen 134GSt 84103 bobsoesr@gmail.rem Wayne Andersen(ClOxen,avld golfer,member of the Mayors Golf Advisory Board) To whom n may concern,i moved t0 Salt Lake City about two and a half years ago from Atlanta,GA.Prior to that I was born end raised in Southern California.One of my FAVORrTE things about living here are the reasonable golf rates(I literally brag about this to EVERYONE I tell about our great city).I think the SIC golf rates allow ALL people to golf,not just the financially fortunate.It also O allows parents to take their kids and spend that quality time with them.lf rates are increased,I think you will greatly risk the number of people who will be willing to pay,the frequency in which they play,and their overall future of them playing consistently.I would be more for selling off one or two of the courses compared to raising fees.If the courses are sold,the private holder would have to keep rates about where they are In order to compete with city owned courses and everyone would be happy.(Do not sell W ingpuinte,Mountain Dell,Bonneville)I am probably on the side of financially fortunate,b.I know in previous places 1 have lived I have been unwilling to pay high golf rates on such a consistent basis.If they are going to raise fees a couple bucks that is one 4155 Ml,Olympus bhughes@medtechassocutes.thing,but l am definitely not for anything drastic.Thanks for your time.Brian Hughes 4155 Mt.Olympus Way Salt take City,UT,84124 Brian Hughes Cell 8404-625-3449 6/7/20118:23 Budget 2011-2012 Brain Hughes Way 84124 cola bhughes@medtechassocates.com If you raise the green fees,I will reduce the number of times I golf at city courses.I frequent courses that offer discounts.Lower prices for afternoon play or prior to 8 am in the mornings.Raise the 6/21/2011 11:53 Budget 2011.2012 Philip Meidell 268351800E 84306 pmeidell@q.com prices and you will loose numbers. Dear City Council:N has recently come to my attention that there appears to be inadequate safety precautions and a lack of disclosure information regarding property damage to residents caused by golfers on public golf courses under the jurisdiction of Salt lake County Parks and Rec.An example of this problem is evident at MCRIiey public Golf Course located at 421E Vine St in Murray Utah.This course is nestled into a residential area where neighbors to the course repeatedly Incur damages caused by errant shots.Patrons of the course are not informed about their responsibilities for damages caused to residents,there are no disclosures or information regarding damages present on site,the staff and residents are completely unaware of any policies or procedures of the county should damage occur,and areas of the course where errant shots commonly occur lack any kind of protection,safety netting,or warning.As a resident and avid golfer of Salt Lake county I would like to see the county:1-clarify it's polity for damages caused by errant golf shots on public courses,2-disclose that policy at the course and to neighboring residents and 3. take steps toward ensuring safety for residents Irving nearby and patrons utilizing the course.Please contact me regarding the steps the county is taking to adequately disclose these inherent 7/11/2011 11:51 Budget 2011-2012 Uc Galeria 2315 Stringham Ave 84109 lixgaleria@hotmail.com dangers and efforts to ensure responsibility and safety. 9/19/2011 RICHARD GRAHAMMUM WI(flifoiLONI RALPH DECKER MAYOR PURLIC WERVICE•DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTORS OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council. Doi it TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 13,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Rick Graham,Director Public Services Department SUBJECT: Golf Fee Proposal -Dedicated CIP Fee STAFF CONTACT: David Terry, Golf Enterprise Fund Manager 485-7831 r..i . o DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing on Proposed Changes to Golf Fee Ordinance " 4.' U RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is an across the board green fee increa a. N at all Salt Lake City golf courses between$1 and $2.50 per nine holes depending on the cW ea golf course. This increase would be implemented January 1,2012. This green fee increase represents a$.50 cents per nine-hole round at each golf course allocated to the a Y,4 Golf Fund's operational budget,with the balance of between$.50 cents and$2.00, t c/D depending on the course, allocated to develop a Dedicated Golf CIP Fund(see attached spreadsheets for details). The average allocation to this CI?Fund is$1 per 9-hole round per course. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As has been discussed with City Council,the Golf oP Fund has over$20M in deferred capital improvement projects. A funding proposal and li project priorities have been submitted previously. While the development of a Dedicated Golf CIP Fund will not completely resolve the current problem,it will allow for the completion of(1) lower priority projects on the list after a three to five year collection <U period, and if the Dedicated Golf CIP Fund is utilized on a cash basis only. Or, (2)it O. would facilitate the completion of a select few major projects through bonding while A e. committing Dedicated Golf CIP Fund monies for the next twenty years. �4 ` ii\ 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 1 3B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1•31 04 0 4 LOCATION: ♦/_� MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14.5469 �0 �� TELEPHONE: B01.535-7775 FAX:801-535-7963 WwW.RLCCOV.COM O ®•LCVCLco P*PEE Regarding the $.50 cent allocation to the operational budget, the following are a few key Golf Fund numbers explaining the need for this increase: • The Golf Fund ended FY11 with a loss of($170,541). This included $425,000 in revenue from the property sale at Rose Park. • The Golf Fund's cash balance at the end of FY11 was just over$800,000 • The Golf Fund's FY12 Budget includes a loss of($412,683). This includes $422,782 budgeted for the improvement of the Rose Park Driving Range. Funding this project was the purpose of selling the land in FY11. This would reduce the Golf Fund's cash balance to approximately$400,000. • The Golf Fund's FY12 Budget includes a revenue increase of approximately $900,000 or 12%compared to total actual FY11 revenue (without the $425,000 from the Rose Park property sale). • While FY11 revenues for March,April, and May were down approximately $550,000 compared to the previous two springs, given the past three years we can't assume that 2012 spring weather will be normal or average as we may be dealing with a"new normal". • July rounds were up 2% and August rounds were up 5% compared to the same months last year. But,total revenue shows no growth for the first two months of FY12. • Along with this $.50 cent increase, except for the Rose Park Range expense, general expenses will be reduced as required to balance the FY12 budget. • The FY12 budget does not account for product/service inflation rates. The project revenue generated by the Dedicated CIP fee will be $227,033 in FY12 and grow to a total of$2,060,734 by FY16. The average yearly growth is approximately $457,500. The per-golf-course revenue growth will range between $13,500 at Nibley Park, to$154,080 at Mountain Dell(FY13 total). The dedicated CIP fee fund could be managed in a lump sum total, (all courses)or by individual golf course. The Department recommends that all fees be collected and managed as one fund, and not dedicated to the individual course where it was generated. This would allow greater opportunity to bond for high priority projects. The $.50 cent per 9-hole green fee increase will be used to support ongoing operation expense. The increase is projected to generate $88,904 in new revenue in FY12 and $181,365 in the 12 month period of FY13. The Golf Fund also recommends a 10%, or $1.00 per 9-hole green fee increase in FY14 and again in FY16. It is projected that the Dedicated CIP fee and additional $.50 cent green fee increase will create a small level of customer discontent and sticker shock. A 6%reduction in rounds played is projected to occur in FY12, followed by a 2% growth the following year. BUDGET IMPACT: Attached is a summary of projected revenues generated from the $.50 cent operations budget fee increase and the Dedicated Golf CIP Fund fee increase extended over the next five years. This summary assumes a 6%rounds decrease in FY12,then a 2%rounds increase in FY13, a 2%decrease in FY14 (due to another fee "' increase for operations), a 2% increase in FY15, and a 2% decrease in FY16 (due to another fee increase for operations). PUBLIC PROCESS: A recommendation from the Golf Advisory Board and the Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force should be considered along with a public hearing on changes to the Golf Fee Ordinance. This proposal will also be featured on the Open City Hall on-line public forum. ♦♦♦♦♦ ckx., -Iiiii14-iii.m.111:11 iii4i z- iiiiilou iiitlial „ili IIIIIIm ii iiiim 1 4 till , i b um li 1 i . . 1 ilit-,2 jIIIii;1I.,:, 0 1 i:::",„: .14' 1 ; -- i 4 ",-il i � il iii;ift il Hi I 1• i"ii ' Ii 1111111111 i !I, I rE ` � SALT LAKE CITY GOLF POSAL PASSPORT OPTIONS &ANNUAL FEE PRO - ''� P% et the .L, • • aaawi .will beaMaeaa0 be a.Dar�allart C BE DHAHEM Currant •►. ::.,t ftJ Current At:, :�:_ LA7 Currant r�.'.`c.,. 1't' AR $130 $745 $250 $27 Valid at al SLC Golf Courses Valid all day Monday-T wsdey Valid Friday watt 12:00 Noon Valid Sat Sun,and Holidays after 12.00 Noon Valid May 1 through August 31 $375 disc" a -.x«'N',N . ,r .9 n.,r ,H•N •. >'.. .. c $1.345 $1,075 y+ . ` -' 'alt 6 , ' # ,.. 4 � � r-1 ° �I rods,<^ s'. }„ 'a ." a -ti � .c " t�sZ i y vr•w +""$ ? cdr' , : 4 -4hili 1111 ' IIIIIId I -l'ilii iiii ii 111111 1111 UUUIII .0400, ZIIII i Xu it a fL P47 'th'!' l'i,..-,,-;‘,,i1 I .:'1, 4.,,,i,4-'1:iii-ititiiiltt,k-i,i! o'? I 1 14 aih1r: 7 .1"..., - ;x b�se.-.. ,c„.: t ,jii '".1 14 I1IE :1IIII1IIIiI1iIIiI$i1kikII1l1l RN* ' ''''''u ""`" ,.. 4,14 ' % .t.... . ririmr i i II M: i'llil * Illiliiiiii illii iiiiiiiii Iiii iii1111 r r~r = vr-wsigxgrit o¢s r it d i SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND FEE PROPOSAL / ROUNDS AND REVENUE PROJECTION (6% Reduction in Year 1) Rounds 4% Rounds+2% Reminds-2% Rwanda+2% Rounds-2% FY12-FYI$ROUNDS TOTAL: ma fill fii4 all EYl! Bonneville Rounds 81,665 70,036 61,538 70,010 61,610 Forest Dale Rounds 41,017 41,811 41,050 41,671 41,034 Glendale Rounds 67,494 61,144 67,467 61,116 67,440 Mountain Del Rounds 92,817 94,673 92,779 94,635 92,742 NibMy Park Rounds 31,336 31,963 31,324 31,950 31,311 Rose Park Rounds 57,957 59,116 57,933 59,092 57,910 Wlnppointe Rounds 61.017 62237 60,992 62,212 00,966 420,352 426,759 420,164 426,666 420,016 FY12-FY111 Cir DEDICATED FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: fall Ell MI fill E711 Bonneville CIP Dedicated FIN 555,876 $113,916 $111,706 $113,942 $111,063 :117177 Forest Dale ClP Dedicated F . $8,186 $17,719 $17,314 $17,712 $17,337 571,137 Glendale CPP Dedicated Fe* $42,521 280,743 $15,009 $16,708 $84,974 $361911 Mountain Dell C/P Dedicated Fee $75,529 $154,090 $150,999 $154,018 2190,936 2685,985 NibleyPerk CIP Dedicated Fee 36,629 $13,520 $13,250 213,515 $13,245 MAIN Rose PIA CP Dedicated Fee $12,251 $25,006 $24,501 $24,991 524,466 $111,262 WNnypointe C1P Dedicated Fe* 121,4121 112.212 151.011 152072 WM MLill MEM MUM >4I MAj MAZE $2,010,73/ Cumulative Total: 3N1,182 $1,144,117 $1,667,931 $2,666,734 .47/6two .47/12cm .47/12nmo..93/1ne 1.40/12me 1.40/12n»,.93/ens FY12-FY15 OPERATION FEE CUMULATIVE TOTAL: EY12 cal EY]4 fill EYll Bonneville Operation Fee $14,523 $29,626 $57,450 $89,213 2114,153 $361 111 Forest Dale Operation Fee 51,6/6 $17,719 $34,359 $52,756 SIANM $112,212 Glendale Operation Fee $14,275 $29,121 $56,470 $86,708 $112,894 1<296,481 Mountain Del Operation Fee $19,631 $40,047 $77,656 $119,240 $155,251 $411,624 Nlbley Park Operation Fee $6,628 $13,520 226,218 $40,257 $52,415 $130,636 Rose Park Operation Fee $12,258 $25,006 $48,490 $74,450 $91,942 $257,152 Wkepointe Operation Fee SI2l08 Mai 351.Q51 3723s7 112211e > RUE LUMEN MLitt AWN 37611M $1,uRS,090 Cumulative Total: $270,270 $121,963 $1,161,914 $1,166,666 Salt Lake City, Utah Golf Course Improvements Project Funding Scenarios Security Type Par Amount Final Maturity Sales Tax Revenue Bond $1,495,000 2031 (20 Yrs.) Sales Tax Revenue Bond $1,230,000 2026 (15 Yrs.) Sales Tax Revenue Bond $900,000 2021 (10 Yrs.) MBA Lease Revenue Bond $1,465,000 2031 (20 Yrs.) MBA Lease Revenue Bond $1,215,000 2026 (15 Yrs.) MBA Lease Revenue Bond $890,000 2021 (10 Yrs.) Assumptions Interest Rate Scale Sales Tax Rev.Bond: MMD"AA"-Scale as of 9/23/11 MBA Lease Rev.Bond: MMD"AA"-Scale as of 9/23/11 plus.23-.35 Available Cash Flow for Debt Service: $100,000 per year Bond Insurance: None assumed Bond Payment Dates: Semi-annual on 4/1&10/1 Salt Lake City, Utah Golf Course improvements Project-Estimated Funding Scenarios Prepared On: September 26,2011 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Semi-Annual Payments April and October) Amount Available for Annual Debt Service Payment $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 TERM Final Maturity 10 Year 2021 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 5,400,000 15 Year 2026 $ 1,230,000 $ 2,460,000 $ 3,690,000 $ 4,920,000 $ 6,150,000 $ 7,380,000 20 Year 2031 $ 1,495,000 $ 2,990,000 $ 4,485,000 .$ 5,980,000 $ 7,475,000 $ 8,970,000 Note: Bond proceeds would be reduced by estimated bond issuance costs of$75,000 to$100,000. LBA Lease Revenue Bond (semi-Annual Payments April and October) Amount Available for Annual Debt Service Payment $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 TERM Final Maturity 10 Year 2021 $ 890,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 2,670,000 $ 3,560,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 5,340,000 15 Year 2026 $ 1,215,000 $ 2,430,000 $ 3,645,000 $ 4,860,000 $ 6,075,000 $ 7,290,000 20 Year 2031 _ $ 1,465,000 $ 2,930,000 $ 4,395,000 $ 5,860,000 $ 7,325,000 $ 8,790,000 Note: Bond proceeds would be reduced by estimated bond issuance costs of$75,000 to$100,000. Security Type Par Amount Final Maturity Sales Tax Revenue Bond $1,495,000 2031 (20 Yrs.) Sales Tax Revenue Bond $1,230,000 2026 (15 Yrs.) Sales Tax Revenue Bond $900,000 2021 (10 Yrs.) LBA Lease Revenue Bond $1,465,000 2031 (20 Yrs.) LBA Lease Revenue Bond $1,215,000 2026 (15 Yrs.) LBA Lease Revenue Bond $890,000 2021 (10 Yrs.) Assumptions Interest Rate Scale Sales Tax Rev.Bond: MMD"AA"-Scale as of 9/23/11 LBA Lease Rev.Bond: MMD"AA"-Scale as of 9/23/11 plus.23-.35 Available Cash Flow for Debt Service: $100,000 per year Bond Insurance: None assumed Bond Payment Dates: Semi-annual on 4/1&10/1 ADDITIONAL City Council Announcements September 27, 2011 A. Information Needed by Council Staff 1. Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Education: Creating Collaborative Solutions, Innovations in Governance (Attachment 1) There is an opportunity to attend a conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sunday, Octber23 thru Friday, October 28, 2011. The conference is titled Creating Collaborative Solutions: Innovations in Governance,an Executive Education program at Harvard Kennedy School,the description of the program indicates it will help you explore new modes of working across traditional jurisdictions and sectors to identify, comprehend, and address emerging social problems. The cost to attend is $6,600 and includes tuition,housing, curricular materials and most meals. Are any Council Members interested in attending? 2. FYI: Panelists discussion on Performing Arts Venues Salt Lake City will be hosting arts administers from Denver, Durham and Dayton - communities that recently constructed performing arts venues - for a panel discussion at the downtown Salt Lake City Library Wednesday, September 28,at 7:00pm.As the Utah Performing Arts Center progresses,hearing how similar projects have been received in other parts of the country may be beneficial to the community. Panelists include: Ken Neufeld, President and CEO of Victoria Theater Association, Operator of the SchusterCenter in Dayton, Ohio Reginald James Johnson, Interim Director of the Durham, North Carolina Department of Community Development Randy Weeks, President of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts 1 1. . ,-y RECEIVED RAtPH BECKER 1 1 N: MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SLC COUNCIL OFFICE September 1, 2011 Salt Lake City Council Jill Remington-Love, Chair 451 South State Street, Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5476 Dear Councilmember Love, Listed below are my recommendations for the Salt Lake City Redistricting Work Group. These recommendations represent one member from each council district while balancing political affiliation and promoting diversity of the group. District 1 —Mike Christensen District 2—Nan Weber District 3 —Margith Maughan District 4—Maria Torres District 5 —Eliot Sykes District 6—James Guilkey District 7— Stephen L. Nelson I appreciate your support and consideration of these recommendations. With warmest regard, Ralph Becker, Mayor cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, City Council Executive Director David Everitt, Chief of Staff 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com C. RECYCLE/2 PAP[R This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns,ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?No If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering"yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions,please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name:Mike Christensen Application Date:8/2/2011 3:31:50 PM Home Address:475 N Redwood Rd Unit 50 City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City,UT84116-3767 How long have you resided at your current address?More than 4 years. Email address:mrc@cascadepeak.com Primary Phone 8:801-361-2305 Secondary Phone it:801-792-1521 Occupation:Grad student In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?1 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcaov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Republican Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I am curently working on a Masters in Geographic Information Science,so I have the skills and software needed to help analyze Salt Lake City's demographics.I am not currently employed and my coursework is all done online,so my schedule is very flexible. Note:You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): I am actively Involved in the LDS Church and attend the Rose Park YSA(Young Single Adult)Ward. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): My last three jobs were working for NAI Utah Commercial Real Estate as a Cartographer/Graphic Designer(2007-2005),working for Environmental Planning Group as a GIS Analyst(2008-2007),and working for the State of Utah's Automated Geographic Resource Center as GIS Staff(2008-2009). Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): Since 2009,I've been serving as a member of the HOA board for the condos where I live(Wingate Village Townhomes). Other Pertinent Information: Graduated in 1999 from Ricks College with a AAS in Geography,in 2002 from Brigham Young University with a BS in Geography,and will graduate in 2012 from Northwest Missouri State University with a MS in Geographic Information Science. Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Steve Owens 801-910-3332 2) Fred Barth 801-556-8340 3) Wayne Mills 801-535-7282 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE /Ak. MIKE CHRISTENSEN 475 N Redwood Rd Unit 50•Salt Lake City,Utah 84116•(801)792-1521•(801)361-2305•mrc@cascadepeak.com EDUCATION NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY,MARYVILLE,MISSOURI Fall 2004-Spring 2012 • Currently pursuing an MS in Geographic Information Science through Northwest's eLeaming program. • Graduation planned for April 2012. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY,PROVO,UTAH Spring 1999-Summer 2002 • Degree(August 2002): BS Geography • Cumulative GPA:3.43. • Participated in the Snowriders Club and the Geography Club/Gamma Theta Upsilon and served as Secretary/Treasurer of the Geography Club/Gamma Theta Upsilon. RICKS COLLEGE,REXBURG,IDAHO Fall 1995-Winter 1996,Fall 1998-Winter 1999 • Degrees(April 1999): AAS Geography AAS German AAS International Studies • Cumulative GPA:3.73. • Participated in the German Club,Snowriders Club,Students for Standards,and served on the Standards Committee. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE AUTOMATED GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CENTER,STATE OF UTAH,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GIS Staff,May 2008-March 2009 • Temporary position performing a variety of GIS work for the State of Utah. • Performed quality control of locations of archaeological sites for the Antiquities Office at Utah State History. • Documented roads in Rich and Duchesne Counties for the Public Lands Policy Coordination Office. • Updated E-911 streets data for Garfield County. • Digitized ambulance district boundaries for the Utah Department of Health. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUP,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GIS Analyst,April 2007-March 2008 • Created thematic maps for utility routing studies. • Maintained a geographic database of utility corridors. • Performed geographic analysis including linear referencing on potential utility routes. • Provided technical and IT support as needed. NAI UTAH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE,LAYTON,UTAH Cartographer/Graphic Designer/Database Coordinator,September 2005-April 2007 • Created maps for real estate agents. • Maintained a geographic database of real estate properties. • Performed geographic analysis on real estate properties. • Designed flyers,packages,and other advertising materials. • Took photos of real estate properties. • Provided technical and IT support as needed. CASEDATA CORPORATION,BOUNTIFUL,UTAH Electronic Discovery Technician,November 2004-September 2005 • Processed digital evidence for use in litigation. KANAB FIELD OFFICE,BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,KANAB,UTAH GIS Technician,August 2005 • Temporary position hired to help with road inventory. • Imported and processed GPS data. • Filled in for GIS Specialist while he was on vacation. IKANO,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Level 1 Technical Service Agent,September 2004-October 2004 • Provided technical support for dial-up customers of several hundred intemet service providers. TELEPERFORMANCE USA,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH MSN Level 1 Technical Service Agent,August 2003-September 2004 • Provided technical support for MSN dial-up customers. LASUSA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES,INC.,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Customer Service Representative,July 2003-August 2003 • Handled customer complaints and gave customers estimates. • Coordinated sales,production,and installation. • Answered a multi-line telephone system and completed typical office tasks. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,PLEASANT GROVE CITY,PLEASANT GROVE,UTAH GIS Specialist/Cartographer/Planning Intern,May 2002-January 2003 • Managed the city's GIS database and drew maps. • Compiled photos and data for nuisance complaints and business licenses. • Composed staff reports for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE WINGATE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Treasurer,November 2009-current Vice-President,March 2009-November 2009 • Assisted in the management of the homeowners association. • Enforced parking and nuisance violations. • Oversaw financial matters. SALT LAKE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH National Olympic Committee Assistant,German National Olympic Committee,January 2002-February 2002 • Volunteered full-time for 30 consecutive days. • Ran errands and provided technical support for the German National Olympic Committee. • Provided translation support. MISSIONARY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS May 1996-May 1998 • Served in the Germany Dusseldorf Mission and the West Virginia Charleston Mission. rw • Experienced the culture and customs of Germany and West Virginia,while teaching people Christian ideals. • Acquired fluency communicating in German and developed translation skills. COMPUTER EXPERIENCE • Windows 95,98,NT,ME,2000,XP,Vista,7 • Macromedia FreeHand • DOS and Linux • ESRI Arclnfo/ArcEditor/ArcView • Wired and Wireless IP Networking • Avenza MAPublisher • Management of File Servers • Trimble Pathfinder • Adobe Acrobat Professional • Web development HTML,PHP,and MySQL • Adobe GoLive • Microsoft Word • Adobe InDesign • Microsoft Excel • Adobe Illustrator • Microsoft PowerPoint • Adobe Photoshop • Microsoft Access • Adobe Premiere • WordPerfect LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE • English (Native language) • German (Fluent—six years of conversational experience) • Spanish (Intermediate—one year of conversational experience) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • Eagle Scout Award,1995 • Exchange student in Germany,1994. • Winner 2nd Annual Avenza MAPublisher Map Competition Award,Academic Individual Category,2002. REFERENCES References,wage history,and college transcripts available upon request. This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?No If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name: Nan Weber Application Date:8/2/2011 1:56:44 PM Home Address:467 Post Street City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, Ut84104 How long have you resided at your current address?Since 1985 Email address:nanner333@aol.com Primary Phone#:801-596-1884 Secondary Phone#:8013828369 Occupation:researcher,writer,performer In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?2 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcgov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Other independent Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: As a researcher I have used and studied various kinds of maps including Sanborn Maps,Railroad Maps,and Census Maps.I analyze data from all sorts of civil records for research clients.I have been a Census taker,myself. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): I have been involved with The People's Market in the volunteer capacity of planning the Market's Book Day by finding and scheduling and local authors.I take special care of the Post Street Tot Lot by daily litter cleaning. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): I am a historical researcher.I am a published author with two biographies currently in print.I am a performer who specialized in writing and performing first person pieces.I have worked in Wisconsin,Minnesota,Montana,Arizona and Utah.I work for American Research Bureau on their special research projects. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): I am an Associate member of Registry of Interpreters for the Dear,Inc.I am a member of the Utah Historical Society. Other Pertinent Information: I was an instructor for Elderhostel Inc.--Continuing Education for Seniors for 12 years. Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Wilma Adkins 801-641-1080 2) Carolyn Green 801-541-6590 3) Richard Scharine 801-485-2497 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE Nan Weber 467 Post Street Objective Salt Lake City UT 84104 801-596-1884 I am Interested in joining the Salt Lake City Redistricting nanner333lS aol.com Work Group Profile Historical Researcher • For American Research Bureau 1980s to present • Mapping Projects • Civil Records Projects • United States Research—Civil Records,Government Records • For Elderhostel Historical Programs • Lewis and Clark Traveling Programs 2002-2006 • Yellowstone National Park Traveling Program—From Stagecoach to Motor Coach 2000-2004 • OTO Ranch Historic Restoration Project 1998-2002 • History of the Gallatin Canyon 1996-1998 • Famed and III-famed Women of the West 1994-1996 • Published Books • Singing in the Saddle,The Life and Times of Yellowstone Chip 2011 • Mettle,A Woman's Journey West 1997/Reprint 2002 Education 1972-1976 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,Milwaukee,Wisconsin • BFA Theatre • Senior Honors 1995-1997 Salt Lake Community College,Salt Lake City,Utah • AS Interpreting for the Deaf • Senior Honors References References are available on request. This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?No If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name: Margith Maughan Application Date:8/5/2011 11:21:03 AM Home Address:8 Hillside Avenue City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, UT84103 How long have you resided at your current address?17 years Email address:margithm@comcast.net Primary Phone#:801-364-5452 Secondary Phone#: Occupation: retired In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?3 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcgov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Democrate Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I am currently working with the Utah Citizens'Council in drawing up new Utah State House and Senate districts pursuant to the spirit as well as the letter of the state and federal legal standards.The process should:*Open and transparent*Identify districts of common interest*Respect existing city natural and transportational boundaries to the extent possible*Promote meaningful competition between parties rather than single party districts which effectively silence the voice of the minority voter whether political or non-political. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): Volunteer mentor for refugees through the International Rescue Committee Red Cross volunteer Peace Corps teacher Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): member International Association of Insurance Receivers Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): Salt Lake City Kiwanis Club Salt Lake City Board of Directors for Questioning Minds Other Pertinent Information: A conviction that participation is necessary for a healthy democracy. Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Julius Fussek 801-320-9636 2) Mary Butters 801-295-5151 3) Lawrence Buhler 801-699-2126 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE MARGITH C. MAUGHAN 8 East Hillside Avenue Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 801-364-5452 margithm(&comcast.net PROFIT ENHANCEMENT SUCCESSES Have saved or recovered for past employers: • Saved$4,000,000 on $7,000,000 demand on worldwide losses.Negotiated with corporate counsel. • Policyholder demanded$4,888,500 for asbestos/environmental losses. Settled for$1,000,000. • Increased revenue by$1,350,000 in one year recovering dollars from negligent third parties. • Exposed$4,000,000 fraudulent demand. Paid$0.00. QUALIFICATIONS • Experience handling multi-line property casualty claims in 50 states,the Caribbean and Canada with emphasis on claims management,negotiation skills. • Self-motivated claims professional effective in bringing claims to conclusion; organized. • Excellent communication skills; careful listener,team worker. • Strong in troubleshooting,problem-solving,displays mature judgment in stressful situations. • Customer service oriented,skilled in bringing the highest level of customer satisfaction. • Diversified: primary,excess surplus,commercial,personal,liability,home,auto,workers comp. ACCOMPLISHMENTS & PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE International Rescue Committee, Salt Lake City, UT Volunteer Mentor 2009 to present Provide support and teach English to refugee family from Burma American Family Insurance, Salt Lake City, UT Adjuster 2008-2009 Investigated, valued and resolved auto claims Southern American Insurance Company in Liquidation, Salt Lake City,UT Liquidation Claims Manager 1995-2008 Investigated complex property casualty claims for railroads,pharmaceuticals,utilities in the U.S. Evaluated allocation and trigger methods for these claims pursuant to case law in 50 states. Managed multiple Fortune 500 commercial claims concurrently involving thousands of plaintiffs and millions of dollars. Analyzed policy manuscript language for coverage. Provided customer service to policyholders. Negotiated and settled lawsuits with corporate counsel and risk managers. Prepared claims for adjudication in the Third District Court per liquidation regulations. Assisted in collection from reinsurers pursuant to treaty and facultative certificate terms. Margith Maughan Page Two Workers' Compensation Fund of Utah, Salt Lake City,UT Senior Adjuster 1993-1996 Investigated and resolved complex workers' compensation claims. Conferred with physicians,reviewed medical records,implemented return to work options. Reserve authority$1,000,000. Mutual Fire,Marine&Inland Insurance Company in Rehabilitation,Philadelphia,PA Senior Settlement Specialist 1991-1993 Worked excess/surplus casualty claims in accordance with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. CIGNA Property& Casualty Insurance Company 1981-1991 CIGNA Senior Settlement Specialist-Home Office Philadelphia,PA Provided claim recovery direction to workers' compensation field personnel in 50 states. Assistant Superintendent,CIGNA Long Term Exposure Claims-Home Office ,Philadelphia, PA Determined coverage and managed litigation in toxic torts throughout the United States. Claims Manager,CIGNA Worldwide, St.Thomas,U.S.Virgin Islands Settled multi-line and complex lawsuits. Managed office during catastrophe conditions after Hurricane Hugo. Provided excellent customer service.Commercial processing of policies/claims. Recovery Specialist,CIGNA Workers' Compensation Center,Portland,Oregon "" ' Recovered monies on compensation files from negligent third parties or state funds in 10 western states and 11 jurisdictions- 10%over goal, $1,600,000 in one year. Senior Representative,CIGNA Worldwide,Toronto,Ontario,Canada Sent to negotiate and settle liability lawsuits. Resolved 100 lawsuits in 1 month applying Canadian law and claim values. CIGNA Claims Representative, Salt Lake City,Utah Handled workers' comp, liability, auto,property claims. Active in Industrial Commission hearings. Peace Corps Taught Spanish to High School students Bridgetown,Barbados EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Utah State University,B.A.with Teaching Certificate,English and Spanish Training on the job throughout employment International Association of Insurance Receivers("I.A.I.R."), Salt Lake City Kiwanis Club, International Rescue Committee,Mentor refugees,Red Cross volunteer This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns,ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?Yes If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? I'm interested in participating in my cities committees but would need a list to see which I'd make the best contribution to. 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name: Maria Torres Application Date:8/16/2011 2:43:44 PM Home Address: 639 S 500 E City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, UT84102 How long have you resided at your current address?3 years Email address: mariaktorres@gmail.com Primary Phone#:801-897-4724 Secondary Phone#: Occupation:Administrator/Manager In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?4 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcqov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Democrate Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I'm a college educated Mexican American with a low to moderate income who owns her own home in an partially owned/rented neighborhood in Central City.I have N experience in negotiation,writing and have networks with the many communities including Historians,Universities/Professors,Ethnic Communities,and Neighbors. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): American Heart Association,Wasatch Gardens,Utah Cultural Alliance,Utah History Fair. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): I'm employed by a cultural,state-wide,non-profit organization and conduct business with with all ethnicities,income levels,and organizations who have desires to meet various community needs across the state.I have experience reviewing,discussing,and making recommendations to complicated,multi-faceted community based proposals. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): Utah Cultural Alliance,Utah History Fair,Utah State History Other Pertinent Information: Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Cynthia Buckingham 801-359-9670 2) Jack Newell (801)556-1008 3) Beth Jones 801-359-9670 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE Maria K. Torres 639 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 • 801.897.4724 • mariaktorres@gmail.com PROFILE Extremely organized administrative professional with extensive experience in grant management, grant writing, project management, budget analysis, problem solving, and customer service. Extensive experience collaborating with and advising University faculty and staff on grant applications and program development. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Grants and Program Manager 2004-Present Utah Humanities Council . Works with universities, state agencies, organizations, and businesses to develop competitive grant applications by reviewing and editing proposals, analyzing budgets, and recommending potential collaborating partners - Provides grant management training to staff • Administers all awarded grants and contracts to ensure compliance with organization guidelines and federal standards as well as solve problems related to the administration of the awards Generates and analyzes statistical reports to ensure programs meet organization and program objectives, and stay within budget . Instrumental in the development of the organization's database using Microsoft Access; currently provides oversight with the development of an online grants program using Microsoft SQL - Prepares reports for National Endowment for the Humanities ($635,000), the State of Utah ($65,000), and Zoo, Arts, and Parks Fund ($91,000) . Manages Book Buzz from program development and design to implementation • Leads a team in the development of internal protocols, and the revision of policies and procedures in grant management • Researches, writes, and designs monthly e-newsletter using Dreamweaver and HTML Meets strict deadlines and responds to grant inquiries quickly Marketing Assistant 2003-2004 Centex Homes • Assisted with the editing, writing, and designing of marketing materials for media kits, newspapers, press releases, magazines, and website • Researched and prepared proposals for the marketing department ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE 2010-Current,Substitute Library Assistant,Salt Lake City Library,Salt Lake City,UT 1996-2002,Supervisor/Specialist,Home Depot,West Valley,UT 2002-2005,Part-time Sales Associate,Ann Taylor Loft,Sugarhouse,UT 1998-1999,Production Intern/Air Controller,PBS/KUED,Salt Lake City,UT 1998-1999, Student Vice-Chair, University of Utah University Union, Salt Lake City, UT RELATED EXPERIENCE Maria K. Torres, 801.897.4724 Page 1 Expert in Word,Excel,and Access;average experience with Power Point,HTML and Dreamweaver Member of the planning committee for Association of State and Local History (ASLH) EDUCATION 2010, Fieldstone Foundation Professional Development Program Completed 6-month professional education certification program in project management and leadership 2007-2011, University of Utah Continuing Education, Technology Education Completed trainings in Excel,Access, Html, and Dreamweaver 2007, University of Utah Continuing Education, Professional Education Certification in Development Fund 1998, University of Utah Completed four-week intensive Spanish language course in Oviedo, Spain 1999, B.A., English University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Amok Amok Maria K. Torres, 801.897.4724 Page 2 This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns,ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?Yes If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? I will be joining the council to look into a better use of street lighting. 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name: Eliot Sykes Application Date:8/15/2011 5:34:01 PM Home Address: 1808 South 500 East City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, UT84105 How long have you resided at your current address?1 yr Email address:sykes.eliot@gmail.com Primary Phone#:8018241939 Secondary Phone#: Occupation:Social Worker In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?5 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcgov.com/website/Council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Other Independent Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: My perspective as a Social Worker is that of the"person in the environment."That allows me to understand issues on a micro(person-to-person),mezzo(groups)and"'" tl macro(communities)level.This past school year I worked with University Neighborhood Partners(UNP)on the west side of Salt Lake to help solve issues regarding access to education and worked at Lincoln Elementary as an America Reads Tutor.I am on the Leadership Committee at the Mountain View/Glendale Community Learning Center.I have also consulted on the development of a Community Learning Center at Lincoln Elementary. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): 2010-Present:Community Action Group:School District Re-Districting,Salt Lake City,UT 2010-2011:University of Utah Bennion Center:America Reads Tutor,Salt Lake City,UT 2010:Legacy of Lowell Bend in the River,Salt Lake City,UT 2007:Phillips Academy Summer Session:Director,Open Climbing Wall,Andover,MA 2005- Present:Salt Lake City Bike Collective:Mechanic,Salt Lake City,UT 2004:Aga Khan Academy:Assistant Teacher,Aga,Mombasa,Kenya 2003-2007:Andover Youth Services:Holiday Gift Drive,Community Clean-up,Homegrown Film Festival,Fashion Show,Andover,MA 1998:Rhode Island Food Bank,Providence,RI 1997:Phillips Academy Community Service,Andover and Lawrence,MA Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): 8/11-Present University of Utah,College of Social Work Salt Lake City,UT Adjunct Faculty a€CDeveloping a syllabus for Applied Social Justice class that utilizes an interactive and flexible teaching style to meet the needs of my students 7/11-Present Utah Youth Village Salt Lake City,UT Research Assistant a€CConducting Risk Factor Research for 4 DSM-IV diagnoses a€CHelping to write an IRB for a research project with a community partner 6/11-Present Salt Lake City School District Salt Lake City,UT Research Assistant a€CConducting and documenting stakeholder interviews and focus groups a€CDeveloping recommendations for partnerships and the Leadership Committee Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): National Organization of Forensic Social Workers Other Pertinent Information: Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Jennifer Oxborrow 801.664.2205 2) Kimberly Schmit 801.972.3596 3) Erich Diener 801.243.1695 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE Eliot B. Sykes Email: sykes.eliot@ginail.com P.O.Box 522015 Salt Lake City,UT 84152 801.824.1939(c) Career Objective To obtain a position in which I can apply my knowledge, skills and experience in social work and marketing to improve the lives of young people,their families and communities. Highlights and Qualifications • Creative,quick learner,strong time-management and organizational skills • Self-motivated,dedicated and reliable • Adaptable to change;task-oriented • Networking,motivating and bringing out the best in others Education University of Utah Salt Lake City,UT M.S.W. Social Work 5/11 Johnson and Wales University Providence,RI B.S. Marketing Magna Cum Laude 5/01 A.A.S. Baking and Pastry Cum Laude 5/99 Relevant Work Experience 8/11-Present University of Utah,College of Social Work Salt Lake City,UT Adjunct Faculty • Developing a syllabus for Applied Social Justice class that utilizes an interactive and flexible teaching style to meet the needs of my students 7/11-Present Utah Youth Village Salt Lake City,UT Research Assistant • Conducting Risk Factor Research for 4 DSM-IV diagnoses • Helping to write an IRB for a research project with a community partner 6/11-Present Salt Lake City School District Salt Lake City,UT Research Assistant • Conducting and documenting stakeholder interviews and focus groups • Developing recommendations for partnerships and the Leadership Committee 8/10-4/11 University Neighborhood Partners(UNP) Salt Lake City,UT Social Work Intern • Coordinated partnership meetings for reciprocal and sustainable learning, action and benefit • Planned and facilitated community action group meetings • Prepared partnership data for input into the database to track progress 8/10-4/11 University of Utah Bennion Center Salt Lake City,UT America Reads Tutor • Helped instruct 27 31"a graders during Math period • Supported 5-7 3`'and 4th graders during the Early Morning Reading Program References Available Upon Request Vita Eliot Sykes sykes.eliotAgmail.com. P.O.Box 522015 Salt Lake City,Utah 84152. 801-824-1939(c) Purpose Statement The purpose of this Vita is to demonstrate my education and life experiences. Education 2011 University of Utah: M.S.W. Master of Social Work 2001 Johnson and Wales University: B.S., Marketing Magna cum Laude 1999 Johnson and Wales University: A.A.S., Baking and Pastry Cum Laude Professional Organizations 2011 National Organization of Forensic Social Workers (NOFSW): Member Certifications 2009 Family Teaching Model: Utah Youth Village, Salt Lake City, UT 2009 Saving-a-Heart: Adult, Child, Infant and 2-Person CPR and AED and Basic First Aid Training, Salt Lake City, UT 2007 American Avalanche Institute: Level I Avalanche Class,Alta, UT 2005 Wilderness Mountain Institute: First Responder, Bend, OR 2004 Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure, MA Amok 2004 S.O.L.O.: Wilderness First Aid certification, MA 2003 A.M.C.: Advanced Backpacking,White Mountains,NH 2003 A.M.C.: Youth Opportunities Program, White Mountains,NH 2003 Y.M.C.A.: Canoe Paddling, Merrimac River,NH Professional Trainings 2010 Westside Leadership Institute: Leadership Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT 2008 Neuro-Developmental and Other Non-Verbal Language Disorders: Salt Lake City,UT 2008 Cross Country Education Play Therapy and Beyond: Salt Lake City, UT Presentations 2011 Working with Involuntary Clients: Utah Youth Village, Salt Lake City, UT 2011 Families United: EIP, Salt Lake City,UT 2011 Future of Forensic Social Work: NOFSW,New Orleans, LA 2011 Families First Assessment Form: Utah Youth Village, Salt Lake City, UT Work Experience 2011 University of Utah, College of Social Work: Adjunct Faculty, Salt Lake City, UT 2011 Salt Lake City School District: Contract Research Assistant, Salt Lake City, UT 2011 Utah Youth Village: Research Assistant, Salt Lake City, UT 2010-2011 University Neighborhood Partners (UNP): Social Work Practicum Student, Salt Lake City, UT 2010-2011 University of Utah: America Reads Tutor(Lincoln Elementary), Salt Lake City, UT 2008-2011 Utah Youth Village: Families First Coordinator& Specialist, Salt Lake City, UT 2010 University of Utah: Student Athlete Mentor, Salt Lake City, UT 2010 Umthombo: Social Work Intern, Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, RSA 2006-2008 Solitude Ski Resort: Snowboard Instructor, Brighton, UT 2004-2007 Second Nature Wilderness Program: Level 3 Field Instructor, Duchesne, UT 2007 Andover Youth Services: Canoe Trip Co-Leader, Sacco River,NH 2007 Phillips Academy Summer Session: Lead House Counselor,Andover, MA 2007 Phillips Academy Summer Session: Emergency Driver, Andover, MA 2004-2006 Phillips Academy Summer Session: Assistant House Counselor, Andover, MA 2004 Lawrence Public Schools: Night School Teacher, Lawrence, MA 2004 Andover Youth Services: Hiking Trip Co-Leader, White Mountains,NH 2003-2004 Harbor Schools, Inc.: Adolescent Counselor, Amesbury, MA 2001-2002 Aramark: Production Manager, Lowell, MA Volunteering 2010-Present Community Action Group: School District Re-Districting, Salt Lake City, UT 2010-2011 University of Utah Bennion Center: America Reads Tutor, Salt Lake City, UT 2010 Legacy of Lowell Bend in the River, Salt Lake City, UT 2007 Phillips Academy Summer Session: Director, Open Climbing Wall, Andover, MA 2005-Present Salt Lake City Bike Collective: Mechanic, Salt Lake City, UT 2004 Aga Khan Academy: Assistant Teacher,Aga, Mombasa, Kenya 2003-2007 Andover Youth Services: Holiday Gift Drive, Community Clean-up, Homegrown Film Festival, Fashion Show, Andover, MA 1998 Rhode Island Food Bank, Providence, RI 1997 Phillips Academy Community Service, Andover and Lawrence, MA Teaching Experience 2010-2011 Lincoln Elementary: America Reads Tutor, Salt Lake City, UT 2007-2008 Solitude Ski Resort: Snowboard Instructor, Brighton, UT 2006-2007 Solitude Ski Resort: Snowboard Instructor, Brighton, UT 2005-2007 Phillips Academy Summer Session: Teacher Outdoor Education, Andover, MA Academic Honors and Achievements 2001 Graduated Magna Cum Laude 2000-2001 Fall, Winter, Spring-Dean's List 2000 All-Conference Second Team (Soccer) 1999 Graduated Cum Laude 1999-2000 Winter, Spring-Dean's List 1998-1999 Fall, Winter-Dean's List 1997-1998 Winter, Spring-Dean's List International Travel Experience 2011 Mexico: Rosarito 2010 Republic of South Africa: Durban, Cape Town,Johannesburg 2010 Mozambique: Ponta d'Ouro 2010 Swaziland: Big Bend, Manzini 2009 British Columbia, Canada: Victoria Island 2006 India: Delhi,Agra, Jaipur, Mumbai, Kochi, Manali, Vashisht, Amritsar 2004 Kenya: Nairobi, Mombasa 2004 Tanzania: Arusha, Mount Kilimanjaro 1991 Mexico: Mexico, D.F., Guanajuato, Zihuatenejo, San Miguel de Allende 1980 France: Rennes Outdoor Achievements 2011 Summit and Ski of East Twin Peak: Salt Lake City, Utah 2009 Summit and Ski of Mount Superior: Salt Lake City, Utah 2004 Summit Mount Kilimanjaro: Tanzania Film 2010 FIFA: Actor, Street Children Television Production, Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, RSA 2010 Music: Actor, Mhligo Hip-hop video, Umlazi, Kwa-Zulu Natal, RSA 2010 MADD: Actor, Strengthening Families DVD, Salt Lake City, UT References Available Upon Request This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?Yes If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? Housing Advisory and Appeals Board 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name:James Guilkey Application Date:8/12/2011 12:26:55 PM Home Address: 1611 Laird Avenue City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, UT84105 How long have you resided at your current address?12 years Email address:james.guilkey@utah.edu Primary Phone#:801-635-7351 Secondary Phone#:801-582-1159 Occupation: Research Engineer for Schlumberger Technology Corporation In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?6 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcgov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Republican Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I worked for a large interdiscplinary,collaborative project for 12 years at the University of Utah,so I have experience representing particular interests,but also understanding and accommodating the realities of the interests of my collaborators.I have also served for about 6 years on the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, including 2 years as chair.I think any of my fellow board members,or city staff,will credit me with thoughtful consideration of the cases and issues that appeared before HAAB,as well as with running efficient meetings during my time as chair.Again,I believe this experience with serving on a committee comprised of people from different parts of the City,from different backgrounds,will continue to serve me well on the Redistricting Working Group. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): Salt Lake Housing Advisory and Appeals Board(6 years)Salt Lake City Library"Books on Delivery(now"MOV'N")volunteer(10 years+)Family Promise Volunteer through St.Catherines Catholic Church(<1 year)Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department Citizen Service Award(2006) Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): Founder and two time host of the Annual"Material Point Method"Workshop.This is a small conference,attended by 30-40 researchers with a common interest in a particular numerical method for computational mechanics. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): Member,Society of Petroleum Engineers(2 years) Other Pertinent Information: Note that my third reference is a Salt Lake City employee.LuAnn has served as one of the City Staff members who works with the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board,and as such,can speak to my qualifications from that perspective.Should you feel it inappropriate Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Pat McMurtry, Professor, U of U, Former boss. (801)231-5624 2) Jerry Stanger, Past Chair, Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (801)583-2563 3) Chuck Wight, Dean of the Graduate School,University of Utah (801)581-8796 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE VITA JAMES E.GUILKEY Research Engineer Perforating Research Schlumberger Technology Corporation 1935 S.Fremont Drive Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 james.xuilkev(autah.edu jeuilkev(/s1b.com Education: Ph.D.Mechanical Engineering,University of Utah,Salt Lake City,Utah,March 1997. B.A.Physics and Mathematics,Hastings College,Hastings,Nebraska,May 1991. Professional Experience: 2008-Present: Research Engineer,Perforating Research,Schlumberger 2008-Present: Research Associate Professor,University of Utah,Salt Lake City,Utah. 1997-2008: Research Assistant Professor,University of Utah,Salt Lake City,Utah. 1993-1997: Graduate Research Assistant,Physical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,Department of Mechanical Engineering,University of Utah,Salt Lake City,Utah. 1993: Summer Internship,Amoco,Ahead of the bit overpressure detection,Houston,TX. Research Interests: Computational Continuum Mechanics,Fluid Structure Interaction,Particle Methods, Parallel Computational Mechanics,Biomechanics,Mixing Processes in Turbulent Flows, Funded Research: Co-Investigator(with Jeff Weiss)$440,000 subcontract from University of Louisville,James Hoying,PI,NIH,Fabricated Microvascular Networks,7/2007—6/2012. IOW Peer Reviewed Journal Publications and Book Chapters: Imroz Choudhury,A.N.M.,Steffen,M.D.,Guilkey,J.E.,Parker,S.G.,"Enhanced Understanding of Particle Simulations Through Deformation-Based Visualization",Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences",63,2010. H.Yuan,Lee,J.H.,Guilkey,J.E.,"Stochastic reconstruction of the microstructure of equilibrium form snow and computation of effective elastic properties",Journal of Glaciology,56,2010. Thomas,S.,Ameel,T.,Guilkey,J.,"Mixing Kinematics of Moderate Reynolds Number Flows in a T-Channel",Physics of Fluids,22,1,2010. Wallstedt,P.C.,Guilkey,J.E.,"A weighted least squares particle-in-cell method for solid mechanics",Int.J Num.Meth.Eng.,doi:10.1002/nme.3041,2010. Luitjens,J.,Guilkey,J.,Harman,T.,Worthen,Parker,S.,"Adaptive Computations in the Uintah Framework",Advanced Computational Infrastructures for Parallel/Distributed Adaptive Applications,(eds M.Parashar and X.Li),John Wiley&Sons,Inc.,Hoboken,NJ,USA. doi:10.1002/9780470558027.ch10,2009. Wallstedt,P.C.,Guilkey,J.E.,"An evaluation of explicit time integration schemes for use with the generalized interpolation material point method",J.Comp.Phys.,227,9628-9642,2008. M.Steffen,P.C.Wallstedt,J.E.Guilkey,R.M.Kirby,and M.Berzins,"Examination and Analysis of Implementation Choices within the Material Point Method(MPM)",Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences,31,107-127,2008. Wallstedt,P.C.,Guilkey,J.E.,"Improved Velocity Projection for the Material Point Method", Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences,19,223-232,2007. Guilkey,J.E., Harman,T.B.,Baneijee,B.,"An Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach for Simulating Explosions of Energetic Devices",Computers and Structures,85,660-674,2007. Bigler,J.,Guilkey,J.,Gribble,G.,Hansen,C.,Parker,S.,"A Case Study:Visualizing Material Point Method Data",Proceedings of Eurographics/IEEE-VGTC Symposium on Visualization, 209-376,377 May 2006. Ionescu,I.,Guilkey,J.E.,Berzins,M.,Kirby,R.M.,Weiss,J.A.,"Simulation of Soft Tissue Failure using the Material Point Method",Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,128,917-924, 2006. Parker, S.G., Guilkey, J., Harman, T., "A component-based parallel infrastructure for the simulation of fluid-structure interaction",Engineering with Computers,22,277-292,2006. Guilkey,J.E.,Hoying,J.A.,Weiss,J.A.,"Computational Modeling of Multicellular Constructs with the Material Point Method",Journal ofBiomechanics,39,2074-2086,2006. Bardenhagen,S.G.,Brydon,A.D.,Guilkey,J.E.,"Insight into the Physics of Foam Densification via Numerical Solution",Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,53,597-617,2005. Campbell,J.E.,Coppom,R.W.,Guilkey,J.E.,Klewicki,J.C.,McMurtry,P.A., "Time Resolved Concentration Measurements in an Axial Flow Mixer",Journal of Fluids Engineering,126,981- 989,2005. Guilkey, J.E., and Weiss, J.A., "Implicit time integration for the Material Point Method: Quantitative and algorithmic comparisons with the Finite Element Method", International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,57,1323-1338,2003. Bardenhagen, S.G., Guilkey,J.E., Roessig,K.M.,Brackbill,J.U.,Witzel,W.M.,Foster,J.C., "An Improved Contact Algorithm for the Material Point Method and Application to Stress Propagation in Granular Material", Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences, 2,509- 522,2001. Hansen,L.,Guilkey,J.E.,McMurtry,P.A.,Klewicki,J.C."The use of photoactivatable fluorophores in the study of turbulent pipe mixing:effects of inlet geometry",Meas.Sci. Technol.,11,1235-1250,2000. Guilkey,J.E.,Kerstein,A.R.,McMurtry,P.A.,Klewicki,J.C."Mixing Mechanisms in Turbulent Pipe Flow",Physics of Fluids,9,717-723,1997. Guilkey,J.E.,Kerstein,A.R.,McMurtry,P.A.,Klewicki,J.C."Long-Tailed Probability Distributions in Turbulent-Pipe-Flow Mixing",Physical Review E,56,1753-1758,1997. Guilkey,J.E.,Gee,K.R.,McMurtry,P.A.,Klewicki,J.C."Use of caged fluorescent dyes for the study of turbulent passive scalar mixing",Experiments in Fluids,21,237-242,1996. Guilkey,J.E.,McMurtry,P.A.,Klewicki,J.C."Effect of Initial Conditions on Scalar Statistics in Turbulent Pipe Flow",AIChE Journal,43,1947-1962,1997. Conference Papers,Proceedings and Abstracts: Burghardt,J, Leavy,B.,Guilkey,J.,Xue,Z.,Brannon,R.,Application of Uintah-MPM to shaped charge jet penetration of aluminum.Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Computational Mechanics,Sydney,Australia,2010. Burghardt,J.,Guilkey,J.,Brannon,R.,Use of MPM for simulating penetration of geologic materials with particulatcd metal jets.Presentation at the 5th MPM Workshop,Corvallis, Oregon,April 2009. Guilkey,J.,An Overview of the Generalized Interpolate Material Point Method with an Emphasis on Unresolved Issues,Presentation at the 5th MPM Workshop,Corvallis,Oregon, April 2009. Edgar,LT.,Guilkey,J.,Underwood,C.,Bagget,B.,Utzinger,U.,and J.Weiss.2010.Three- dimensional simulation of in vitro angiogenesis:Effects of extracellular matrix structure and density.ASME SBC 2010. Edgar,LT.,Sibole,S.,Underwood,C.,Guilkey,J.,and J.Weiss.2010.Simulating the influence of the extracellular matrix on 3D in vitro angiogenesis.Proc CMBBE 2010.1s'Place for Best Student Presentation. Sibole,S.,Underwood,C.,Guilkey,J.,and J.Weiss.2009.A continuous-discrete mathematical model simulates in vitro angiogenesis.Proc ASME SBC,2009. Burghardt,J.,Guilkey,J.,Brannon,R.,Use of MPM for simulating penetration of geologic materials with particulated metal jets,5th MPM Workshop,Corvallis,Oregon,April 2009. Sibole,S.,Underwood,C.,Guilkey,J.,and J.Weiss.2008.A discrete computational model to predict in vitro angiogenesis.Proc ASME SBC,2008. Duncan,C.,Harman,T.,Guilkey,J.,"Aerodynamics of Vocal Fold Measurement: A Novel Fluid Structure Interaction Model",Bull.Amer.Physical Society,52,November,2007. Dwyer,T.,Guilkey,J.,Oldroyd,H.,Barber,T.,Pardyjak,E.,"Reynolds Number Effects on Au. Near-Source Turbulent Mixing in Pipe Flow",Bull.Amer.Physical Society,52,November, 2007. Guilkey,J.E.,Harman, T.B.,Banerjee,B.,"An Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach for Simulating Explosions of Energetic Devices", Fourth MIT Conference on Computational Mechanics, Cambridge,MA,June,2007. Gribble,C.,Stephens,A.,Guilkey,J.,and Parker,S. "Visualizing Particle-Based Simulation Datasets on the Desktop." In British HCI 2006 Workshop on Combining Visualization and Interaction to Facilitate Scientific Exploration and Discovery,September 2006,pp.1-8 Ionescu I,Guilkey JE,Berzins M,Kirby RM,Weiss JA: "A Failure Model for Soft Tissues using Material Point Method",Proceeding of the7th International Conference on Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering,March 2006. Ionescu I,Weiss JA,Guilkey J,Cole M,Kirby RM,Berzins M: Ballistic injury simulation using the material point method. Proceedings,Medicine Meets Virtual Reality,eds.James D Westwood et al.,IOS Press,(published in Stud Health Technol Inform.2005;119:228-33. Guilkey,J.,Hoying,J.,Weiss,J.A.,"Large-Scale Modeling of the Mechanical Behavior of Multicellular Constructs",2005 Summer Bioengineering Conference,June 22-26,Vail Cascade Resort,Vail,Colorado. Ionescu,I.,Guilkey,J.,Berzins,M.,Kirby R.M.,Weiss,J.A.,"Simulation of soft tissue failure with the Material Point Method",2005 Summer Bioengineering Conference,June 22-26,Vail Cascade Resort,Vail,Colorado. Banerjee B.,Guilkey,J.E.,Harman,T.B.,Schmidt,J.A.,McMurtry,P.A., "Simulation of Impact and Fragmentation With the Material Point Method",JJ"'International Conference on Fracture, Turin,Italy,March 20-25,2005. Ionescu,I.,Guilkey,J.,Berzins,M.,Kirby R.M.,Weiss,J.A.,"Computational Simulation of Penetrating Trauma in Biological Soft Tissues using the Material Point Method",Proceedings, Medicine Meets Virtual Reality,Stud.Health Technol.Inform.,2005;111:213-218. Guilkey,J.E.,Zhang,Y.,Haying,J.B.,Weiss,J.A.,"Mechanical simulation of multicellular structures with the material point method",6th International Symposium on Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering,Madrid,Spain,February 25-28,2004. Guilkey,J.E.,Harman,T.,Xia,A.,Kashiwa,B.,McMurtry,P.,"An Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach for Large Deformation Fluid Structure Interaction Problems,Part 1: Algorithm Development",Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fluid Structure Interaction,Cadiz,Spain,June 2003. Harman,T.,Guilkey,J.E.,Schmidt,J.,Kashiwa,B.,McMurtry,P.,"An Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach for Large Deformation Fluid Structure Interaction Problems,Part 2: Multi-Physics Simulations within a Modem Computational Framework",Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fluid Structure Interaction,Cadiz,Spain,June 2003. Bardenhagen,S.G.,Roessig,K.M.,Byutner,O.,Guilkey,J.E.,Bedrov,D.,Smith,G.D.,"Direct numerical simulation of weak shocks in granular material",12th International Detonation Symposium,San Diego,California,August 11-16,2002. Parker,S.G.,Guilkey,J.E.,Harman,T.B.,"An Infrastructure for Parallel Multi-Physics Mechanics Simulations",7`h U.S.National Congress on Computational Mechanics,Albuquerque, New Mexico,July 2003. Guilkey,J.E.,Weiss J.A."An implicit time integration strategy for use with the material point method",Proceedings of the First M.I.T.Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics,June,2001. McMurtry,P.A.,Guilkey,J.E.,Harman,T.B."Modeling Fluid-Structure Interactions in Fires and Explosions",Proceedings of the 3OhAIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference,June,1999. Guilkey,J.,Gee,K.,Klewicki,J.C.,and McMurtry,P. "Caged Fluorescent Dye Based Studies of Turbulent Scalar Mixing,"International Symposium on Optics,Imaging,and Instrumentation, The International Society for Optical Engineering,San Diego,CA,July 1995. Guilkey,J.,McMurtry,P.,Kerstein,A.,and Klewicki,J.C."Low Wavenumber Statistics in Turbulent Pipe Flow,"Bull.Amer.Physical Society,41(9),pg.1690,November,1996. Guilkey,J.,Gee,K.,McMurtry,P.,and Klewicki,J.C."A New Initialization Technique for Studies of Turbulent Scalar Mixing,"Bull.Amer.Physical Society,40(12),pg.1966,November, 1995. McMurtry,P.,Guilkey,J.,Klewicki,J.C.,and Kerstein,A.R."Scalar Variance Decay in Turbulent Pipe Flow: Theory,Model and Experimental Results," Bull.Amer.Physical Society, 40(12),pg.2043,November,1995. Awards: "Fastest Male Faculty or Staff',University of Utah Alumni Association 5K,2008 Citizen Service Award,Salt Lake County Sheriffs Department,2006. Coauthor-Taylor and Francis prize for the"Outstanding Innovation in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering",800 Euro cash award,February 28,2004,Madrid, Spain. ACERC Graduate Fellowship,1993. University of Utah Graduate Fellowship,1996. Professional Activities: Member,Society of Petroleum Engineers oak Member,Organizing Committee,2007 American Physical Division of Fluid Dynamics Annual Meeting Host and Lead Organizer of the First Annual Material Point Method Workshop,2005. Host and Lead Organizer of the Fourth Annual Material Point Method Workshop,2008. Reviewer,American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal,Europhysics Letters, Composites:Part A,Applied Science and Manufacturing,Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Bioengineering,Computers in Fluids,Propellants,Explosives,Pyrotechnics,Engineering with Computers,Computers and Structures,International Journal of Solids and Structures, Applied Numerical Mathematics,Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures Graduated 1 Ph.D.student and 2 Masters students. Currently advising one Ph.D.student. Committee member for several students in Mech.Eng.,Bioengineering and Computer Science Teaching Interests and Experience: Teaching interests include: Dynamics,Numerical Methods,Fluid Mechanics,and Heat Transfer Taught Numerical Analysis Univ.of Utah,Dept.of Mechanical Engineering,2005,2007,2008 Taught Dynamics University of Utah,Dept.of Mechanical Engineering,Summer 1995, Invited Lectures: "An Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach for Simulating Explosions of Energetic Devices", Schlumberger Reservoir Completions,Rosharon,TX,July 16,2008 "The Material Point Method and its Uses in SCI Institute Related Research Projects",SCI Institute Seminar,March 24,2006. "Modeling Explosions and Detonations at the Utah ASC-ASAP Center",Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,High Energy Applications Facility,June 9,2004. "Fluid Structure Interaction Simulation in the Center for the Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosions",University of Utah,Department of Mechanical Engineering,October 17,2003. "Fluid Structure Interaction Simulation in the Center for the Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosions",Utah State University,Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, November 3,2003. "An Introduction to the Material Point Method",Sandia National Laboratories,April 21,1999. This form can be filled out online at:www.slcgov.com/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?No If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name:Stephen L. Nelson Application Date:8/5/20118:35:51 AM Home Address: 2548 Pasadena Street City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City, Ut84109 How long have you resided at your current address?16 Months Email address:snelson@slco.org Primary Phone#:8019182304 Secondary Phone#:8015314178 Occupation: Prosecutor and Adjunct Professor In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?7 To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcgov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Other Unaffiliated Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I am an attorney,and I hold a Ph.D.in Political Science from the University of Utah.I bring a perspective,in short,that is both practical and theoretical.As the author, lead-author,and co-author of several scholarly journal articles,I am very comfortable with professional writing.I have also chaired over 60 felony jury trials,and am, thus,very comfortable speaking in public. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): I was the student body president at Westminster College in 199&1999.I am the Chair of the Data Collection Working Group of the National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,located in Denver,Colorado. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): I am a career prosecutor.As a Deputy District Attorney,with the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office,and a Special Assistant United States Attorney,with the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Utah,I proseucte felony gang and drug cases,as well as homicide cases.I also teach both undergraduate and graduate students as an adjunct professor at the University of Utah. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): I am a member in good standing of the Utah State Bar Association. Other Pertinent Information: I am essentially a lifelong Salt Lake City resident(I have lived in the Capitol Hill-area,the Avenues,Sugarhouse,and now the East Bench/Country Club-area),a graduate of Salt Lake City public schools(Ensign Elementary,Bryant Jr.High,West High,Westminster College,and the University of Utah),and I am,therefore,deeply interested in and committed to the well-being of Salt Lake City.I would welcome the opportunity to serve on this Working Group. Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Neil Abercrombie 8017126555 2) Robert Forbis 8016387839 3) Richard Green 8015816223 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE STEPHEN L.NELSON 2548 Pasadena Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 (801)918-2304 slnlaw@yahoo.com Education: University of Utah,Department of Political Science,SLC,UT Ph.D.,2010 Fields:American Government and Public Administration Dissertation:"The King's Wrongs and the Federal District Courts: Understanding the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act" Chair:Dr.Richard Green University of Utah,S.J.Quinney College of Law,SLC,UT Juris Doctor,2002 Staff Member,Utah Law Review Westminster College,SLC,UT Bachelor of Arts(Economics),1999 Student Body President,1998-1999 Supplemental Instructor,Introduction to Macroeconomics,1998-1999 Employment: Deputy District Attorney,Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office,SLC,UT Homicide Team,2008-Present Special Assistant United States Attorney,District of Utah,2008-Present Organized Gang Prosecution Team,2007-Present Narcotics Enforcement Team,2005-2007 General Felonies Team,2005 Misdemeanor Team,2005 Assistant Attorney General,Utah Attorney General's Office,SLC,UT Children's Justice Division,2002-2005 University of Utah,Center for Public Policy and Administration,SLC,UT Graduate Research Assistant,2001-2002 Law Clerk,Utah Attorney General's Office,SLC,UT Public Affairs/State Agency Counsel Division,2000-2002 Publications: "The King's Wrongs and the Federal District Courts:Understanding the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act,"Nelson, Stephen L.,South Texas Law Review Vol.51,pp.101-147(Fall 2010). "Families in Crisis,Challenges for Policymakers:Examining the Troubled Lives "' of Drug Endangered Children,"Nelson,Stephen L.,K.Prince,&M.Seamy, Ohio Northern Law Review Vol.36,No.1,pp.81-114(2009). "Snapshots of Suspects and Defendants:A Discussion of Arrest and Prosecution Outcomes in Drug Endangered Children Cases,"Nelson, Stephen L.,K.Prince&M.Searcy,Ouinnipiac Law Review Vol.27,No.4,pp. 837-880(2009). "The Attraction to At-Will Employment in Utah Governments" Green,Richard,Forbis,J.Robinson,S.Nelson,J.Seelig,&A.Stefaniak International Journal of Public Administration.April 2008,Vol.31,Issue 5,pgs. 535-551. "On the Ethics of At-Will Employment Relations in the Public Sector" Green,Richard,R.Forbis,A.Golden,S.Nelson,&J.Robinson Public Integrity.Fall 2006,Vol.8,No.4,pgs.305-327. "The Attraction to At-Will Employment in Utah Governments" Green,Richard,R.Forbis,J.Robinson,S.Nelson,J.Seelig,&A.Stefaniak In American Public Service:Radical Reform and the Merit System(2006). James Bowman&Jonathon West eds.,pgs.175-191.New York:CRC Press. University/College Courses Taught: University of Utah,Salt Lake City,UT: Aa! Fall 2011:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Fall 2011:Environmental Politics(Poli-Sci 3390) Summer 2011:State and Local Government(Poli-Sci 3030) Summer 2011:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2011:Advanced American Government(Poli-Sci 5100) Spring 2011:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Fa1120I0:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Sumner 2010:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2010:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Spring 2010:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Fall 2009:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Fall 2009:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Summer 2009:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2009:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Fall 2008:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Summer 2008:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2008:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Fall 2007:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2007:Introduction to Public Administration(Poli-Sci 3300) Fall 2006:Introduction to Public Administration(Poli-Sci 3300) Spring 2006:Introduction to Public Administration(Poli-Sci 3300) Fall 2004:Introduction to Public Administration(Poli-Sci 3300) Oft* 2 Salt Lake Community College,Taylorsville,UT: Fall 2011:Economic History of the United States(Econ 1740) Fall 2011:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Spring 2010:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Spring 2009:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Fall 2008:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Summer 2008:Economics as a Social Science(Econ 1010) Spring 2008:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Fall 2007: Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Summer 2007:Economics as a Social Science(Econ 1010) Spring 2007:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Fall 2006:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Westminster College,SLC,UT: Fall 2002:Introduction to Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties(Poli-Sci 355) Conference Presentations: 36th National Organization for Victim Assistance Conference,"Families in Crisis, • Challenges for Policymakers:Examining the Troubled Lives of Drug-Endangered Children,"August 22,2010,Salt Lake City,UT. 59th Annual Session of the University of Utah School on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies,"A Retrospective Study of Drug Endangered Children and Caregivers," June 22,2010, Salt Lake City,UT. 2009 Utah Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Salt Lake County Drug Endangered Children Cases Research Project,"August 5,2009,Salt Lake City,UT. 58th Annual Session of the University of Utah School on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies,"A Retrospective Study of Drug Endangered Children and Caregivers," June 23,2009,Salt Lake City,UT. 2008 National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Evaluated Programs: the Comprehensive Approach to Drug Endangered Children,"October 7,2008, Salt Lake City,UT. 2008 International Family Violence and Child Victimization Conference,"Working Together to Protect Child Victims:Identifying Gaps in Services to Those Who Endanger Children in Utah,"July 28,2008,Portsmouth,NH. 2007 National Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Child Endangerment Prosecutions:What Happens to These Cases and Why?,"October 11,2007,Kansas City, MO. 2007 Utah Drug Endangered Children Conference,"From Charges to Convictions:A Collaborative Approach,"August 9,2007, SLC,UT. 2006 Utah Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Collecting Evidence for a Prosecutable Child Endangerment Case,"August 18,2006, SLC,UT. 3 Service: A Chair,Needs Assessment and Data Collection Work Group,National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,2011-Present Member,Needs Assessment and Data Collection Work Group,National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,2007-2011 Law Enforcement Subcommittee Chair,Salt Lake City Police Department COPS Methamphetamine Initiative,2006-Present Community Involvement: Boy Scouts of America,Troop 234:Merit Badge Counselor for Citizenship in the World,Citizenship in the Nation,and Citizenship in the Community Merit Badges Awards: 2008 Gang Prosecutor of the Year,Utah Gang Investigator's Association 2007 Outstanding Achievement Award,18th Annual Utah Gang Conference 2003 Robert H.Hinckley Graduate Scholarship,University of Utah,SLC,UT Auk 2002-2003 Scott M.Matheson Fellowship in Public Policy,University of Utah,SLC,UT 1999 Communicator of the Year,Westminster College 4 Police Civilian Review Board Appointment: Dale Helen Frost Evans INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Dale Helen Frost Evans,a resident of District 4,to 11 be appointed to the Police Civilian Review Board.If appointed,Ms.Evans will fill a vacancy on the board and serve a term extending through September 1,2014. APPLICANT INFORMATION: As a retired nursing administrator,Ms.Evans feels that she now has the time and energy to become more involved with local community activities.She is interested in serving on the Police Civilian Review Board because she has followed the development of the board and believes in its goals. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objections to this appointment,please let Amber know by Thursday,August 18,2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF BOARD: Current members include:Robb Terrell Benns,District 1;Calvin John Noyce, District 1;Joanne Lovejoy,District 2;Anne Albaugh,District 3;Kim Thronson,District 3; Ginger Lee Fletcher,District 4,Allison Wright,District 5;Daniel C.Cannon,District 6; Ronald(Ron)Bartee,District 7;and Ralph Petty,District 7. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Police Civilian Review Board is to provide civilian oversight of certain complaints and internal police investigations regarding conduct of the police.Audit and review cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force and other cases the board may request.There must be two members from each Council District on the board.Terms expire the 1st Monday in September after a three(3)year term. APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD Office of the Mayor 451 South State Street,Room 345 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 PLEASE ATTACH A RESUME bA Lc H C-LE: F4457 £V,t j Full Name 515 .361101 1066 E 1:43-T aid SI'S Street Address /a t i Lam_ 0, 1 $LJ t J 2- City Zip Council District C, y- 3331- cLit ev4ms 2, /armnw.• Home Phone Office Cell E-mail Address r / itzen 1V c. 4drn sva-rcn. Occupation Reason for your interest in serving on the Police Civilian Review Board: Now 1uG The - i ci ,AND S'NataGy ;b h YY mnAt2C 1NUdive.O Lei►-01 )0c 1 L.-rernfit )1+ �y , c-'►ve-r,• s. Ave �v i1ous e6 1-1e_, 0avcIop �f TNC. (l.eVi ca. 1)ot:oil) 4.40 b.e.h cue n..1 I -r S 6.6/>4- • Are you currently serving on any other City committees? Yes No ✓ . If so,which committee,board,commission or authority? Have you had previous contact with the Police Civilian Review Board? Yes No / if so, when and under what circumstances? 1 Are you at least 2I years of age? Yes i/ No Ethnic Group (to assure fair and equal representation-answer optional): Community Service Activities (past and present): eoageN r 164 Ynein 19e2 ofi iar.ff )-� Q�rt y L� k. 4 n®vc.(o o m r-.sz t'_ernmi-1741:: Foa. 1213.ey 4v 3ae= gent eae- P 7 Re:1104110S Professional Activities: Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: i5�v�rtu C lu b isiortk Wm')EN'S 3 -T- eS1t IA-i Liz Ntc l I* . Please list three references and their phone numbers: 1 . No5• G' FaA,Ne II G,1I m.,>.. Ro 1 -24 3- 1"73 2 Ma. k411.1) M• CNGS $b! - 582- Z‘-101 I have(1)no felony convictions,pending indictments or informations, or(2)misdemeanor convictions,pending indictments or informations in cases involving violence or moral turpitude. I hereby consent to Salt Lake City conducting a criminal background check on me. a4Ad 2T) .2a11 Signature Date 2 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT This statement is to be filed by all applicants for positions on regular or special committees,boards,authorities,and commissions of Salt Lake City. CLC nl f2651 *NIA Ns ,being first sworn,certify that I am applying to (Name) serve on the Po I ce (2 wi c.iiN eicv w Bo.an.p and that the following statements of my financial (List Board or Commission) interests are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. A. EMPLOYMENT Section 2.44.050,Salt Lake City Code,requires that every person holding any position with Salt Lake City Corporation who is also an officer,director,or employee of any other(non-city) business entity disclose such position and the nature of such position r or employment. A"business entity"means a sole proprietorship,partnership,association, joint venture, corporation,firm,trust,foundation,or other organization or entity used in carrying on a business. The following questions refer to your primary non-city job: 1. Are you presently employed? Yes ✓ No If you answered "yes"to the above question,please list each of your employment interests: a. The name of the business entity: b. The address of the business entity: c. The principal activity engaged in by the business entity: d. Your job title in the business entity: e. The Iength of time employed by the business entity: If you answered"no"to the above question,please state if you are retired, unemployed,etc: I)e.?12.e11 (Attach additional sheets if necessary) (Over) B. BUSINESS INTERESTS Section 2.44.050,Salt Lake City Code,requires that all substantial interests you may have in any(non-city) business entity be disclosed. Please fill out only if separate from the above employment information,unless self-employed. 1. Do you engage in a business in which you are the sole proprietor(owner)? Yes ✓ No 2. Do you,your spouse or your children own stock in any corporation which,when considered in any combination,comprises ten percent(10%)ownership of the outstanding shares of said corporation? Yes ✓ No 3. Do you,your spouse,or your children have any interests in any limited partnerships or other business entity which,when considered in any combination,exceeds a ten percent(10%)interest in such business? Yes ✓ No 4. Do you own any interest in any business for which Salt Lake City issues a business license,i.e., a restaurant,an apartment building with three or more units,tavern,etc.? ✓ Yes No 5. If you answered"yes"to question 4,does the business entity have a Salt Lake City Business License? ✓ Yes No If you have answered"yes"to any of the above questions,please state for each business interest a. Name of the business: A Parr?tiewi N9 a 3aS rip-5/ 4ycn uc , ,!/���e. Ckvy b. Address of the business: 305 nts/ Aucmie-, Ctira, (no lL gH).93 c. The principal activity engaged in by the business: Re-n-1a L 7.4.-n rr s (c. d. The nature of your interest in the business: p i LufR e. The length of time associated with the business: 2Gye $ f. If you answered"yes"to question 4 above,state whether the value of your interest is: Under$25,000 t/ Over$25,000 (attach additional sheets if necessary) I certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all conflicts have been disclosed in writing on this statement. f Dated this ''nn r�l day of t�Pr1 I ,2o I 1 Amok / ALA . ,-.WL--„ (Signature of Applicant or Board Member) STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) Subscribed and sworn to(or affirmed)before me by Tb e-.• c E VAv► S on this C fX (Applicant or Board Member) day of her; I ,20 i I . /1--- -(- 47"7 1 4; ,/..;/- 4--r'"'"'--- Notary Public,residing in Salt Lake County,Utah ;. .. , > oWilliamson i m Uttah 0.v <iConunis�an 6arfiront ., My &opts/nbsr 1,2014 .'.-�' Comm.Numbers 600687 (This is a conflict of interest disclosure statement only. Additional disclosures or restrictions may Allow I apply if your financial,business,or professional activities conflict with your city responsibilities.) or BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION NAME: Dale F. Evans, R.N., Ph.D. Title Retired V.P.Philanthropy,Exec. Dir. CNS Found. EDUCATION INSTITUTION DEGREE YEAR FIELD OF (Indicate location) CONFERRED STUDY University of Utah B.S. 1963 Nursing University of Utah M.S. 1965 • Nursing University of Utah Ph.D. 1985 Nursing PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Employment: LDS Hospital, Staff Nurse(part-time) 1963-1965 University of Utah Hospital and College of Nursing, Salt Lake City, UT 1965-1967—Instructor in Psychiatric Nursing 1967— 1971 —Clinical Specialist& Instructor,Psychiatric Nursing 1971-1975 —Associate Director of Nursing and Assistant Professor University of Massachusetts Hospital, Worcester, Mass. 1975-1977—Associate Director of Nursing Service Cape Cod Hospital,Hyannis, Mass. 1977-1981 —Associate Director of Nursing and Assistant Vice President,Hospital Administration University of Colorado, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1982—Acting Associate Director of Nursing/Nursing Consultant MESA Services International,Inc. 1984-1993 —Vice President Indian Affiliates,Inc. 1990-1993—Vice President Community Nursing Services 1993-1996—Hospice Director 1996-1997—Vice President, Clinical Services and Hospice 1997-2001 —Vice President, Hospice and Community Services 2001-2005—Vice President Philanthropy,Executive Director CNS Foundation Experience: Professional Memberships National Council of IIospice Professional,NHPCO Children's Hospice International Hospice and Palliative Care Nurses Association International Hospice Institute&College Utah Hospice Association Work Related Activities: International/National: Administrative&Policy Work Group Children's International Project for Pailiative/Hospice Services State: Utah Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan Work Group. Advisory Council,Utah Medicaid Demonstration Project: "Promoting Hospice& Optimal Palliative Efforts for Utah Children". Utah Arthritis Advisory Committee Women's State Legislative Council Local: Women in Leadership Committee, United Way, Salt Lake Salt Lake Rotary Club Honors: United Way of Greater Salt Lake 1999 Architect of Change Presentations and Articles: Presentations: March 2001 2nd Joint Clinical Conference and Exposition on Hospice and Palliative Care, Orlando,FL 1999—National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization Annual Conference, Long Beach, CA l 998—Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,Annual Meeting,New Orleans,LA 1997—National Home care Association, Boston,Mass. Article: "Children and Hospice Care,"Home Health Care Consultant, 2000 Post Retirement Activities: Board Member: Rotary Club of Salt Lake City Ronald McDonald House Charities Women's State Legislative Council(Treasurer 2005-2007) Committee Member: American Cancer Society-Utah,Gala Committee Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure-Committee Member Aztec Condominium Management Membership: Ladies Literary Club Flora Culture Garden Club Planned Parenthood U of U Alumni Association Active Supporter: U of U Children's Dance Theatre Tracy Aviary Utah Symphony and Opera MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2011 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Housing Policy discussion A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. Council staff has included the current Housing Policy Statements adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Housing Plan in 2000 for background purposes. (Please see Attachment A—Adopted Housing Policy Statements) The Administration has provided for Council review proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Housing Plan. A resolution will be prepared to adopt the proposed changes based on direction from the Council. Changes include an introduction,purpose and updated housing policies and action items. The Administration notes: A. The proposal was developed by a Housing Coordination Committee consisting of city staff from the Mayor's office,Housing and Neighborhood Development, Planning, Redevelopment Agency,Building Services and Sustainability and Environment. B. Consultants reviewed the proposal relative to historic preservation and sustainability issues. Recommended changes were included in the draft policies. C. Action steps outlining strategies to implement the updated polices will be established after adoption of the proposed policies. (The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration options or steps taken to receive public comment on the proposal. The City's housing policy has typically been of significant interest to the public.) Issues the Council has previously discussed in relation to housing policy include: A. Avoiding significant commercial and institutional expansion in to residential areas, such as with the expansion of health care facilities in the Avenues, East Central and the 500 East 2000 South area. B. Import of retaining a strong full-time population base. C. Import of the fabric of the neighborhood and discouraging demolitions, or discouraging demolitions without authorized re-use plans. D. Boarding issues --having adequate regulations in place to discourage boarding,or to assure that negative impacts on abutting property owners are minimized. Limiting cost to other taxpayers by moving toward assuring that the disproportionate cost of enforcement and public safety response is covered by the property owners. E. Identify the balance the Council wishes to establish/maintain/refine in terms of commercial development in areas zoned for residential. (This may be particularly timely given that the Council will soon be provided with the commercial node project the Administration has in progress.) F. Given the Council's emphasis on Walkability and the long-term goal of reduced reliance on automobile use,the Council may wish to add a statement relating to allowing for viable commercial nodes that are sensitive to neighboring residential properties. 9/22/11 ATTACHMENT A ADOPTED HOUSING POLICY STATEMENTS The Council adopted the following Housing Policy Statements on December 14,1999. The statements were included in the City's Community Housing Plan,adopted in April 2000. A. Affordable and Transitional Housing The City Council supports: 1. Salt Lake City residents having access to housing that does not consume more than 30 percent of their gross income. 2. The analysis of the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. 3. The type of business growth that is compatible with affordable housing needs in the City. 4. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and working or living within Salt Lake City. 5. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable rental housing. 6. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. In particular,the Council supports the establishment of smaller transitional housing programs,with a minimum of one four-plex per Council District. 7. The citywide development of single room occupancy housing(SROs). 8. The City providing examples of how affordable housing can be built,offering incentives for innovative projects that developers may not initially be willing to undertake and serving as a facilitator/partner to maximize housing opportunities. B. Citywide Cross Section of Housing The City Council supports: 1. A citywide variety of residential housing units,including affordable housing. 2. Accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. C. Design The City Council encourages: 1. Architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods that: a. make good use of and incorporate open space,even minimal amounts; b. interface well with public spaces; c. address parking needs in the least obtrusive manner possible; d. are creative,aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces,such as designated"commons"areas,community centers,child care,resident gathering places,resident gardens,etc. D. Transit Development and Design The City Council supports: 1. Coordinated,comprehensive land use and transportation master planning. Specifically,the Council supports transit-oriented development as well as adequate, reliable public transportation in order to allow residents to easily access their employment and residences. 2. A pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment throughout the City. 1 9/22/11 3. Housing densities and mixed uses that support use of alternative and public transportation, depending on the characteristics of each area. 4. Appropriate housing densities in areas where public transit and local services are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot. 5. Reinvestment in existing urban and inner suburban areas. 6. A rebirth of compact, transit and pedestrian oriented developments that conserve water and energy resources, enhance air quality and help restore community vitality. 7. Transit-oriented development with an affordable housing component. E. Mixed Uses The City Council supports: 1. Mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated,walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established transportation, utilities and related public services that: a. include neighborhood interaction in the design process; b. incorporate affordable housing whenever possible; c. incorporate an assortment of residential, commercial, and professional office uses; d. include a variety of housing types, mixed-income levels, live-work developments, etc. F. Housing Stock Preservation, Rehabilitation and Replacement The City Council advocates: 1. Policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including, the requirement of, at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. 2. The City promoting housing safety and quality through adequately funding by fees the City's apartment inspection program and programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. G. Zoning On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses: 1. Policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities within the City to ensure the continued existence of a population base and business base. While the Council supports mixed use development, it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. As such, the Council will discourage any housing development in industrial-type zones. 2. Co-housing developments. 3. A zoning designation to permit transitional housing on a small-scale basis. 4. Higher densities in affordable and mixed income housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize intrusion such as buffer landscaping, usable open space, on-site amenities, support services, underground vehicle parking, etc. 2 9/22/11 5. Accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. 6. Small scale, low density, scattered site location, 100% low-income residential developments based on quality design, good management, and an established neighborhood social support structure. 7. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity. H. Expedited Permit Process The City Council endorses: 1. Reducing the negative affects of building codes and regulations on affordable housing. 2. Streamlining the review and permit processes for developments that offer innovative design options and has a positive impact on neighborhoods. I. Funding Mechanisms The City Council supports: 1. Increasing the housing stock via public-nonprofit and/or for profit partnerships. 2. Establishing a public document that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. 3. Maximizing public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies. 3 yr- SLCCOIJhCILCFFICE ;r ;s- fvey RALPH BECKER ► 1 ( D : . � : 19�'Si ,0„ MAYOR CH WROMINI OFFICE OF THE MAYOR [j) g UU OCT 2 2 2010 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL / Date Received: I D( 411 tO David veritt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: t 0 /22-/2o/p TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 22, 2010 JT Martin, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff RE: Salt Lake City's Community Housing Plan STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark, Housing&Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the Council schedule a briefing on this issue DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan was adopted in 2000 and needs to be updated in order to provide a current framework of housing policies and implementation strategies. Updated policies and implementation strategies will guide the City's efforts in the development of new housing opportunities while preserving the City's existing housing stock. They will also address issues relating to the types of housing the City desires to develop and preserve, as well as establish specific action steps necessary to implement the new policies. Issue Origin: The State of Utah's House Bill 295 requires all municipalities throughout the state to prepare and adopt a moderate-income housing plan. Salt Lake City's adopted housing plan includes policies for moderate-income housing but should be updated to reflect current housing and economic conditions. Analysis: At the request of Mayor Becker, a Housing Coordination Committee was established to develop updated housing policies for Salt Lake City. The Housing Coordination Committee consisted of representatives from the Mayor's Office,Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com Planning and Zoning, the Redevelopment Agency.of Salt Lake City, Building Services, and the Am Sustainability and Environment Division. A series of meetings was held by the Committee to address the City's housing issues and ensure a comprehensive approach in covering the broad spectrum of housing issues. The Housing Coordination Committee used the policies adopted in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, adopted in April 2000, as a starting point,making changes and including new policies as deemed necessary to create the draft housing policies, a copy of which is attached. During the Committee's review process, consultants reviewed the proposed updates relative to historic preservation and sustainability issues and recommended changes that were incorporated into the draft policies. Upon completion of the adoption of housing policies for the City, the Administration will establish action steps outlining strategies to be taken to implement the updated policies. Mayor's Recommendation: Mayor Becker reviewed the proposed housing policy updates in October 2010 and recommended approval of them. RE: Petition PLNPCM2009-00171: SLC Historic Preservation Plan Page 2 of 2 Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Housing Policy Introduction As the largest city in Utah and the economic hub of the state, Salt Lake City faces significant housing and population issues. Precipitous increases in land values over the last decade, volatile financial and lending conditions, and escalating construction costs are some of the factors that create barriers to the development of affordable housing. At the same time, a renewed interest in walk-able neighborhood commercial centers, increased residential development downtown, and an emphasis on dense, transit- oriented residential projects throughout Salt Lake City offer opportunities for policymakers to capitalize upon as they seek to provide a range of housing choices to meet the desires and needs of residents. Demographics in the United States are rapidly changing, and Salt Lake City is no exception. Populations are aging, minority communities are growing, and there are more single-parent households and households without children. These seismic shifts require changes in Salt Lake City's housing policies to effectively address today's realities. Purpose By establishing the Salt Lake City Housing Policy, the Mayor and City Council seek to: • Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; • Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; • Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exists for all income levels, age groups, and types of households; • Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; • Ensure that affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City; • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility and proximity to services; • Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods; • Create an appropriate balance of rental and ownership opportunities in neighborhoods without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable housing; and • Strongly incentivize or require the use of green building techniques and sustainability practices in public and private housing developments. The Mayor and City Council expect this Housing Policy to be considered whenever the City Administration engages in the following activities: • City and Redevelopment Agency funding assistance • Zoning and land use planning • Master planning of neighborhoods • The creation of economic development incentives The Housing Policy is a combination of 13 Policy Statements that are detailed below. 1 Policy Statements- _ 1. New Development New housing development in Salt Lake City should meet the following criteria: • Be consistent with requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the International Building Code. • Encourage for sale and rental mixed-use and mixed-income projects in areas with established transportation, public infrastructure, and related public services. Encourage mixed-use projects to include some affordable housing units. • Encourage single-family infill housing, in single-family neighborhoods, to attract middle-income families where appropriate; • Require architectural designs that are contextually compatible with the surrounding structures and overall fabric of the neighborhood. These designs should: a. Preserve and incorporate open space, even minimal amounts. b. Interface well with public spaces. c. Incorporate energy efficient technologies and design. • Provide for realistic parking needs in the least intrusive manner possible in single family neighborhoods; and • Provide aesthetically pleasing and attractive public spaces, such as designated common areas, community centers, community parks, trail networks, bikeways, resident gathering places, and resident/community gardens. Action items: a. Ensure better compatibility with existing neighborhoods for new infill development. b. keview the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. c. Revise the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development and to limit or prohibit uses that are incompatible with the neighborhood. d. Consider developing design standards for buildings in residential and mixed-use zones. 2. Affordable Housing Provide affordable homeowners housing opportunities for residents who make 80% or less of the area median income in Salt Lake City. The City should strive to ensure that affordable housing is available for purchase in Salt Lake City. Provide affordable rental housing in Salt Lake City for residents who make 80% or less of the area median income. The City should strive to ensure that affordable rental housing is available in Salt Lake City. A primary purpose of Salt Lake City's Housing Policy is to foster a diverse and balanced community with housing that offers a wide range of choices for all income levels. Accordingly, affordable housing should be available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City. Encouraging a variety of low, medium and high density housing developments for all income levels will help to enhance, maintain and sustain livable, viable neighborhoods. The Council and Mayor recognize that there is a segment of the City's population whose income level """ and other circumstances may make it difficult to qualify for established housing programs. The City should address housing for this population. 2 The City, through the RDA, Housing and Neighborhood Development, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and successful housing development nonprofit organizations should provide examples of how affordable housing can be built or rehabilitated. Action items: a. Analyze the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. b. Develop an incentive program for housing developers to provide a percentage of affordable housing as part of their overall development. c. Preserve and expand, as appropriate, the amount of subsidized and Section 8 housing in the City. d. Continue to provide funding for homeownership and rental affordable housing projects with federal funds and housing trust funds. 3. Housing Stock Preservation and Rehabilitation The City should support the preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of existing housing stock to the most practical degree possible. Action items: a. Adequately fund the City's apartment inspection program to promote housing safety and quality. b. Adequately funding programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. c. Support the reinvestment of existing urban and inner suburban areas. 4. Transit-Oriented Development The City should support transit-oriented development as well as adequate, reliable public transportation so that residents may easily access employment, good and services, and housing. The City should support housing densities, mixed-use projects, parking policies, and pedestrian- oriented urban designs that encourage walking and the use of alternative and public transportation. Action Items: a. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. b. Continue to review the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development on an on-going basis. 5. Zoning The City should evolve its zoning ordinance to effectively address the City's changing housing needs. While the City supports mixed-use development, it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. Action items: 3 a. Allow for higher densities and building height, in the form of density bonuses, in affordable multi- family, mixed-income and mixed-use housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize potential negative impacts such as buffer landscaping, usable open space, 4°14' on-site amenities, support services, preservation of existing structures, and underground vehicle parking. b. Allow accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. c. Allow neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that enhance the function of residential neighborhoods and/or are compatible with residential activity. d. Allow the flexible application of zoning standards to encourage innovation and creative problem solving in new developments. e. Research and adopt an ordinance to allow the Director of Community and Economic Development or the Planning Director the authority to administratively modify zoning requirements up to 10% when specific criteria have been met. 6. Permitting The City should review the permitting process to evaluate the impacts of the building permitting process on proposed residential development. Action items: a. Provide expedited plan review for projects designed as sustainable, high performance buildings, including design that impacts neighborhoods in a positive manner that meets the Mayor's Executive Order, Expedited Plan Review for New Construction and Major Renovation Projects that Meet Certain Sustainable Building Criteria, dated August 22, 2008. b. Complete One Stop Shop initiative, which will streamline the permitting process for development and provide seamless customer service at the City and County Building for development related , customers. The goal remains co-location of staff responsible for core plan review, thus creating a true One-Stop-Shop for development-related customers. To accomplish this level of customer service, a representative from'each of the six groups conducting plan review must be represented in Room 215 at the City and County Building. Space issues and staffing levels must be resolved to realize this goal. Electronic plan review and digitized submittals/records will aid us toward this accomplishment. 7. Downtown Housing Permanent residences in downtown Salt Lake City are a critical part of creating a vibrant, safe, and sustainable Capital City. The urban core should be considered a neighborhood for purposes of housing planning, and the City should expect housing to be available to all income levels downtown. Action Items: a. Conduct an inventory and zoning review of land within the Downtown that could be used for housing sites, studying the feasibility of developing the sites for housing uses b. Explore options for protecting multi-family housing units east of 200 East between South Temple and 400 South and encourage infill development housing east of 200 East. c. Permit and encourage retail support services that promote increased residential population and support downtown workers. 4 8. Homeless, Transitional and Special Needs The provision of temporary and permanent housing options for those who have no other option is a fundamental responsibility of government in modern day society. The City will work with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah, and its community partners to assist in providing temporary and permanent housing options to its residents. Action Items: a. Collaborate with the providers of homeless services, neighborhood residents and business owners to create an environment to ensure that a mix of income populations can live, work, flourish together while still providing services to those in need. b. Utilize the efforts of the "Long Range Planning for Sheltering Needs of Homeless Persons Committee" in implementing the County-wide ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. c. Continue to support the development of scattered site affordable housing projects with appropriate case management as needed. 9. Historic Preservation The City should preserve valued historic structures designated as significant to the cultural or architectural heritage of the City based on an up-to-date historic resource survey. Action Items: a. Complete a city-wide historic resource survey. b. Develop a preservation plan. c. Reevaluate the infill ordinances and revise them accordingly. 10. Funding Mechanisms Housing development is funded through a combination of private and public funds. The City should continue to use best practices to efficiently fund the development of a variety of housing. Action items: a. Increase the housing stock through non-profit and/or for profit partnerships. b. Maintain the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. c. Maintain public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies through the City's Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board, Redevelopment Advisory Committee and the Redevelopment Agency Board. d. Establish a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. 11. Marketing and Education on Housing in Salt Lake City Residents, developers, government, and social service providers all play a role in educating the public (and each other) about the availability of housing types and the gaps in the housing spectrum. The City can take the lead to ensure that accurate information is conveyed to all stakeholders. Action Items: a. Develop educational programs for developers, community councils, and the public to dispel myths and stereotypes about high density and affordable housing. Topics to be covered in these 5 programs include: density, accessibility and visit-ability design concepts; affordable housing; and home buyer issues for developers. b. Develop public/private partnerships to market housing and educate the public on housing Au* issues. c. Invest in marketing programs to highlight Salt Lake City's housing strengths and opportunities. d. Utilize market research for the development of aggressive public marketing campaigns to entice area residents to live in Salt Lake City; and to provide guidance for the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the development community in their efforts to develop housing within the city. e. Prepare educational information to distribute to the public regarding when a building permit is required. f. Continue the development advisory forum to bring together all stakeholders in the development process, including applicants, Housing, Planning, Building, Fire, Engineering, Public Utilities and Transportation Divisions. 1) Review new/proposed programs and processes. a) Offer presentations from specific divisions that may affect the industry and stakeholders. 2) Provide training in current practices. 3) Review changes and additions to the processes that regulate and control the development of the built environment. 4) Include question and answer dialogues. 12. Growth Targets Salt Lake City's goals for growth are predicated upon the orderly development of additional housing. Accordingly, the City's housing policies must be consistent with overall growth goals. Action items: a. Develop and maintain a citywide plan for attracting population growth in Salt Lake City. b. Set`and achieve 5-, 10-, and 20-year growth targets that will help maintain the City's status as Utah's largest city. The City should use all available tools to achieve these growth targets including zoning, permitting, marketing, fees and incentives. c. Recognize the significance of the Northwest quadrant of the City and the need to encourage and accommodate future residential growth in this area; move forward with careful planning and programming for this area. 13. City Funded Projects The preservation and creation of affordable housing are high priorities. The City will continue to provide financial assistance to projects that meet the goals of the Housing Policy. Requests for City funding will be evaluated based on their consistency with this Housing Policy. 6