Loading...
04/05/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 5, 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, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno' Council Deputy Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Casey Stewart, Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Nick Norris' Planning Manager; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Frank Gray, Director of Community and Economic Development David Salazar, Human Resources Compensation Program Administrator; Dr. Allen Miller, Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee; Shawnie Larrabee, Salt Lake County Animal Shelter Director; Linda Hamilton, and Jim Strong; Salt Lake County Animal Control; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research & Policy Analyst; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 3:06:33 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No announcements given. #2. 3:06:46 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE CITIZEN COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING COMPENSATION ISSUES FOR THE CITY'S ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON A SALARY SURVEY, WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL AS THE FY 2012 BUDGET IS DEVELOPED. View Attachments David Salazar and Dr. Allen Miller briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Dr. Miller highlighted the compensation report. He said the Committee felt that based on current market data the City's actual average salary matched or exceeded the market. He asked that funds be appropriated for some market salary adjustments for employees significantly behind the market. He said the committee 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 recommended a budget for compensation package be set between 1.9% and 2.5%. #3. 3:25:39 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM SALT LAKE COUNTY TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THEIR OPERATING MODEL AND PHILOSOPHY WITH THE INTENT TO ENCOURAGE AND IMPROVE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: • BUILD A MORE EFFECTIVE LICENSING PROGRAM MODELED AFTER CALGARY, CANADA - NO LIMIT ON PETS; INCREASE FEE FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ON LICENSING; IMPLEMENT CAT LICENSING; OFFER SIX MONTH FREE TEMPORARY LICENSE FOR ALL NEW PETS; AND A MICROCHIP AT NO COST WITH ANY LICENSE. • DEVELOP A STRONGER COMMUNITY THROUGH AN EDUCATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM TO ENHANCE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP. • CHANGE THE WAY ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICERS INTERACT WITH THE COMMUNITY EMPHASIZING MEDIATION/IMPROVED COMMUNICATION WHILE MINIMIZING ENFORCEMENT. • REVISE ORDINANCES TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED OPERATING MODEL. • BUILD A NEW PET ADOPTION AND EDUCATION FACILITY TO BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ANIMAL SERVICES. View Attachments Shawnie Larrabee, Linda Hamilton, Jim Strong, GIna Chamness and Jan Aramaki briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Larrabee said Salt Lake County Animal Services had a new approach and revisions to the ordinance would be required. She asked for feedback from the Council and Salt Lake City citizens. Councilmember Turner asked about the number of pets allowed in Calgary. Ms. Larrabee said she would get the information to the Council. Councilmember Simonsen said he was interested in changing Salt Lake City's registration fees. All Council Members were in favor of moving forward with the issue. #4. 4:17:24 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING RELATING TO THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. REZONING A PORTION OF THE LAND GENERALLY BOUNDED BY 400 AND 500 SOUTH AND 300 AND 400 EAST, FROM TRANSIT CORRIDOR TC-75, RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE R-MU AND RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE RO TO TRANSIT CORRIDOR TC-75 AND PUBLIC LANDS PL-2. ALSO AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN THE PUBLIC LANDS ZONING DISTRICTS. (ITEM D-1) View Attachments Frank Gray, David Hart, Helen Langan and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Bruno said the zoning change to public lands would allow the permit. Councilmember Love wanted to know all the options for placement of the towers. Mr. Hart said the building would need to function at 100% after a catastrophic 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 event . He said the building would need to be secure and house radios, microwaves and canopy antennas . He said the signal from these should be as direct as possible . Mr. Hart said there were four options . Option 1) placed the tower behind the garage to the north; option 2) placed the tower in the service yard behind a wall, Option 3) was to place it on the roof; and Option 4) was to look at placing dishes or antennas at various locations on the roof facing different ways . Mr. Hart said the recommendation was for Option 2, place the tower in the service yard behind a wall . Councilmember Garrott asked that the tower be a piece of art. #5. 5 : 06 : 20 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATION TO PROHIBIT NEW ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS AND REGULATE CHANGING EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT. RELATED PROVISION OF TITLE 21A - ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITION PLNPCM2010-000717 - MAYOR RALPH BECKER. (ITEM C5) . View Attachments Doug Dansie and Frank Gray briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Gray said electronic billboards endangered public health, safety and welfare . Councilmember Martin said he did not think research on electronic signs was conclusive. Councilmember Love said if the Council adopted the ordinance they could come back in six months for a review. Councilmember Martin said he was uncomfortable shutting down a business for six months . He said he wanted to delay voting for a week. All Council Members were in favor. #6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE AND PROVIDE CLARITY TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A -ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THEIS PETITION. THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE: • ALLOWING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SIDE YARD BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. • REMOVING THE PROPER NAMES "DELTA CENTER" AND "FRANKLIN QUEST BASEBALL STADIUM" FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS AND ADDING THE TERMS "SPORTS STADIUM", "BALLPARK" AND THE ADDRESS OF THE FACILITIES. • CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF A FRATERNITY AND SORORITY TO READ "A BUILDING WHICH IS OCCUPIED ONLY BY A GROUP OF UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE LODGING AND /OR MEALS ON THE PREMISES IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPENSATION, AND ARE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER IN A FRATERNITY/SORORITY THAT IS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE, AND THAT HAS A NATIONAL AFFILIATION." • PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR A PITCHED ROOF. 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 • REMOVING THE OUTDATED SUMMARY OF YARD AREA AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS. PETITION PLNPCM2010-00064 - MAYOR RALPH BECKER (ZONING CODE MAINTENANCE) . (ITEM C6) This issue was not discussed. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATION WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FOR THE DOWNTOWN STREETCAR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. This issue was not discussed. #8. 6 : 27 : 33 PM INTERVIEW ALFONA PRICE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Ms . Price' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ONE-YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2011-2012 THAT INCLUDED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING, EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDING, AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) FUNDING AND APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) . This issue was not discussed. #10. HOLD A POLICY DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY (COUNCIL MEMBER/MAYOR) TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTOR. (IN KEEPING WITH STATE STATUTE (TITLE 6, CHAPTER 7-402) ALLOWING FOR A MEMBER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY TO SERVE ON THE BOARD. ) This issue was not discussed. #11. 6 : 01 : 20 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 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) (C) ; (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 UNDER 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 SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Martin seconded to go into Closed Session, a roll call vote was taken, which all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 32 p.m. _Vf2(2'L---)Q-je------- . ,...) (72Yn Chair � d � T� +��Xp .�;d� 1I Recorder ORAf .A This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held April 5, 2011 . cm 11 - 5 0 • Nt ,1 AN. A , $ , , it '-',n-r,'13,, , • . REPO, , .,, _ 1 ,_Fil -• ..\T ' .• ' I . ° l - ... 4 . 1 . iroy----;;; A ,.., 1 — -..— • I ...1 , irir'(11118'‘ -: i 1..irs;71 ---;'-ptuo , , 1.411.,:viz 4 _Lit.:_ • 3 ii 11411 _:_li ...,1 - ••••14:7°,:"."'"'"' ---, ___ ...„.„. ,,,,,, k - •111 ."-A 4 'At ...,• •: • I), , I IL scat LcacLitycotvIty 8. -, -, ___......_._ „nu. •ri-,, t n. ..: . . . Scqt-Lc ti c:_,City,,I.Utak- '' ,'"Ififr ,17....,t ),;,,, -.-:-.-:-.4, . 7' - -,.. 4,--. to- .• ; -: . OD __- :, , 46 i A V • February 2011 2011 CCAC Annual Report • Executive Summary The Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC)was formed with the purpose of"...evaluating the compensation levels of the city's elected officials and employees and making recommendations to the mayor and the city council..."(City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060). Each year the Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a written report to the Mayor and City Council containing,among other things,recommendations of the "appropriate competitive position for the city relative to the compensation practices of comparable employers","wages and benefits of the city's elected officials and executive employees"and"general recommendations regarding the mix of compensation for the city's employees"(City Code Title 2,Chapter 2.35.060.7) Based upon a review of current economic trends,market data and other significant considerations,the Committee now recommends that the Mayor and City Council consider the following when deciding appropriate measures to be taken regarding the City's overall compensation plan: 1. Based upon current market data comparisons of actual average salary,the Committee feels confident with the City's overall pay position relative to other • employer salaries.For the majority of salary benchmarks surveyed Salt Lake City Corporation's actual average salary rates generally match or exceed the local market's actual average salary rates.However,data also indicates a total of twelve benchmarks which lag the market either slightly(at 5-10%less than market)or significantly(>10%less than market). As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends that the Mayor and City Council appropriate financial resources necessary for market salary adjustments for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as being most significantly behind market(by ten percent or more).Amounts of individual salary increases may vary by employee depending upon their actual pay position relative to the most recently established market rates. 2. In consideration of the structure and salary budget predictions data available at the time of this report,we suggest a total compensation(or salary)package of between 1.9%and 2.5%.The total package may be comprised of any combination of increases deemed appropriate by the Mayor and City Council(e.g.market salary adjustments,merit increases,etc.).Lump sum payments in the form of cash bonuses may be considered for those at maximum of their respective salary range. • Page 11 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report 3. The Committee repeats its suggestion that the City consider pay alternatives to cost-of-living adjustments(COLA). O 4. Also,as funds permit,the Committee recommends that the Administration consider the salary levels for its Department Directors&other key city leaders whose annual salaries fall between 5-10%less than their counterparts in the comparable U.S.cities surveyed. To be more competitive,the Committee strongly recommends that the Administration adjust the Chief of Staff's salary to an amount equal to between 90%-95%of the average salary calculated for counterparts found among the market cities surveyed,which is$114,000 to$120,351. 5. No salary adjustments are recommended for elected officials or any other appointed department directors&key city leaders,except that these individuals should receive the same general salary adjustment,if any,given to all other employees. 6. Dependent on the amount of increase associated with the cost of benefits provided by the City to its employees,the Committee cautions the Mayor and City Council that the potential net effect on employee pay may result in an actual decrease in take-home pay. We are hopeful that these recommendations and the detailed information that is contained within this report are both helpful and beneficial in the important decision- making process ahead. Respectfully, Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee D.Allen Miller,Chair Lourdes Cooke,Vice Chair John Campbell : : y:h/f Debbie Cragun W'••;.� Kerma Jones Cori Dawn Petersen • Page 12 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report REPORT SUMMARY This report includes the following sections: 1) Current economic outlook 2) City compensation philosophy 3) SLC/Market comparison 4) Elected Officials' & Department Directors' salaries 5) Committee recommendations 6) Appendices Current Economic Outlook Looking ahead to how Utah's economic •/, picture may develop in 2011, the CCAC is 2cii# % firmly convinced that the state of the economy will remain in a continuing period of difficulty. This position is affirmed by Utah's Chief Economist Mark Knold,who predicts Utah's "... recovery will continue � being slow and methodical, with low job `i1 growth and high unemployment kee in gkeeping O the recession's impact fresh on people's minds." In 2011, local economists forecast Utah's employment growth will be 1.4% with unemployment remaining high around 7 percent (Source: "A Look at 2011", TrendLines Magazine,January/February 2011 issue, Utah Dept of Workforce Services). NATIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS - Respondents to a national salary budget survey conducted by WorldatWork are proving that the expectation of a slow economic recovery is resonating with employers nationwide. As a whole, employers are projecting an average 2.9% increase in their overall salary budgets; responses among participating public employers, however, forecast a much more conservative mean rate of 1.6%. In addition to these projections, a few significant facts and findings cited in WorldatWork's 2010-2011 Salary Budget Report give insight to what impact the downturned economy has had on employer's approach to employee compensation: - About half of budget survey participants reported freezing pay structures in 2010 ("Pay structure"refers to a system of salary ranges or pay grades). - Of those who froze pay during the 12-month period between April 2009-April 2010, 90 percent had or were considering resuming normal pay increase practices in 2010 or the next fiscal year ("Paid increase practices"refers to actual employee pay). a Page 13 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report - Among organizations that cut pay,70 percent had already restored or planned to • restore pay to previous rates in full,while 20 percent indicated that those pay cuts will remain permanent. (Source: "WorldatWork 2010-2011 Budget Salary Survey Executive Report&Analysis- Executive Summary") While the ability to keep pace fiscally with private sector employers is typically more limited in the public sector, the Committee believes that the primary mix of indicators upon which the City should rely when making pay decisions should include published pay trends,consumer price indices and market salary comparisons. The following chart provides a summary of these most recent indicators, including the change in cost of living over the past year as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Bureau indicates only a slight increase of 0.91% in the cost of goods over the last 12 months in the western states region. Table A: 2010-11 Projected Salary Adjustments & Cost of Living Index Structure& Salary Budget Increase Predictions CPI-U,West Region, Class B/C Cities* Non- Percent Category Exempt Exempt Executive Base Period: Index Difference • Structure ("COLA") 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% December 2009 133.1 Salary Budget 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% November 2010 133.9 0.6% Prey. 12 Months Avg 132.5 Last 12 Months Avg 133.7 0.91% Source: WorldatWork, 2010-11 Salary Budget Survey *Population of 50,000 to 1,500,000 "Salary structure"refers to a system of pay grades. When the pay structure consists of grades with steps,a salary structure increase is sometimes referred to as a Cost of Living Adjustment(COLA). The"salary budget"increase adds the cost of any expected merit increases to the planned cost of the structure increase. CPI-U represents the Consumer Price index,all urban consumers. City Compensation Philosophy This section is intended to provide a basis for City officials to consider when making important pay decisions, which ultimately drive the City's compensation philosophy. As a public employer, the City is expected to maintain a workforce that is both competent and capable of delivering the quality of services necessary to provide for the public safety and well-being of its residents, visitors and business community at large. Success in fulfilling this part of the City's mission is reliant upon the ability of elected officials and public administrators to make informed and fiscally-responsible decisions with regard to employee compensation. Unlike private employers, City leaders are • Page 14 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee • 2011 CCAC Annual Report under pressure to make pay decisions that support the tenuous balance between the fair and competitive compensation sought by employees and the fiscal accountability demanded by taxpayers. 4•11 Every organization, either public or private, must find ways to effectively attract, motivate and retain the human resources necessary to carry out mission-critical goals and objectives. The degree to which an employer succeeds in this task is tied directly in large part to its decision to match, lead or lag comparatively to the pay levels offered by other employers. This decision forms the basis for an employer's compensation philosophy. Even as a public employer, the Committee acknowledges that there may be specific situations or circumstances when the City wishes to attract top talent by offering higher than average wages, especially when compared to other public employers. Factors such as the scope, volume, magnitude and degree of difficulty associated with delivering public services in Utah's most populous city set Salt Lake City apart from the rest. Other considerations for acting as a market leader may be when a set of highly-specialized skills, training, education and/or experience is scarce and necessary to achieve a particular goal or task. In most other cases, however, when Q qualified resources are both abundant and readily available, the Committee agrees that matching or slightly lagging the market will usually be an adequate approach. As a standard, this Committee feels confident that the best possible outcomes can be achieved if the City continuously strives to maintain an actual average pay position of no less than 95% compared to the pay levels of other employers with whom the City competes. Likewise, pay ranges should be monitored and adjusted as needed to ensure that competitive salary placement for employees is attainable as much as possible. SLC/Market Comparison During 2010, the negative effects of the downturned economy resulted in little (although some) changes in - l employee salaries. With most employers averse to taking on more risk and looking for ways to cut costs, . most employees were required to subject to salary freezes or minimal pay increases. Despite a challenged economy, a comparative analysis of the City's overall compensation levels shows that Salt Lake City, as an employer, is still mostly competitive. On the flip side, however, the data also reveals that the pay levels of certain City jobs lag either slightly or significantly behind market. Page 15 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report Overall,the City appears to be well-poised for maintaining itself as a local"employer of choice,"especially among other public sector employers.From the total of 57 salary • benchmarks surveyed,19 lead the market by 10%or more based upon actual average salary comparisons;another 25 benchmarks either match or slightly lead the market by up to 10%. Comparative data comes primarily from the 2010 Western Management Group's (WMG)Salt Lake Area Survey and the on-line TechNet survey system available from the Wasatch Compensation Group(WCG).The WMG survey group wholly consists of large private and public employers located along the tinii:11 Wasatch Front,including a number of notable national corporations with operations in Utah.The WCG survey is made up exclusively of other public employers,including other local municipalities,counties and special districts. In either case,the Committee relies primarily on these sources due to the fact that they provide comparative salary data which includes actual pay levels offered by employers with whom the City competes for human resources.When no local data is available from these sources,salary information was solicited and obtained from other municipalities and governmental agencies located in the western states region. A complete list of the employers used for comparative purposes • is included as an appendix to this report(see Appendix B). A complete summary of the 2010 SLC/Market survey results are shown in Appendix A of this report,including actual average salary information for each benchmark job.The results indicate a total of seven benchmarks which slightly lag(5-10%)behind the pay levels of competing private and/or other public employers.A total of five benchmarks are categorized as lagging significantly behind the market(>10%).The specific comparative statistics for these benchmarks are shown in Tables B-1&B-2. Table B-1:Benchmarks Significantly below Market(<10%) 111 Actual Actual Average Average Salary Total# Airport Operations Specialist 87.8% Salary Total# Only Employers Total# Only Employers Total# BENCHMARK SLC/WMG Matched Incumbents SLC/WCG Matched Incumbents 32 365 Evidence Technician II 86.4% 9 12 Paralegal 89.0% 12 25 98.2% 10 30 Software Engineer II 88.0% 12 58 - _ - _ - Water Meter Reader 89.6% 10 31 - Page 16 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee CIF 2011 CCAC Annual Report Table B-2:Benchmarks Slightly Lagging Market(<5-10%) Actual Actual Average Average Total# Salary Total# Salary Only Employers Total# Only Employers Total# BENCHMARK SLC/WMG Matched IncumbentsSLC/WCG Matched Incumbents 91.9% 90.7% Appointed Sr City Attorney 93.1% 8 30 120.2% 5 29 Business License Processor 14 17 GIS Specialist 9 15 10 103.7% 6 167 104.1% 10 - - - Lab Chemist 92.8% 4 28 Maintenance Electrician IV 94.6% 13 30 Technical Systems Analyst II 94.0% 5 10 Telecommunications Analyst 94.4% 12 67 97.9% 5 21 II In presenting this compensation survey data,we repeat our usual cautions: Due to many uncontrollable variables,salary survey results should be seen as indicators,even a snapshot in time,not absolutes. We also urge extra caution about drawing hard-fast conclusions when comparing • benefits practices. It is typically very difficult to ensure reporting accuracy and apples- to-apples comparisons in benefits surveys involving a substantial number of employers with varying benefits packages.The Committee recommends that the City survey or at least identify the best means available for making an"apples-to-apples"comparison of employee benefits to those offered by other employers. This comparison should at the very least include the cost of major employer-paid benefits such as health and retirement plans. Elected Officials&Department Directors Salary Survey In 2010,the Committee once again collected salary data comparing actual pay levels for the City's Elected Officials,Department Directors and other key city leaders with their counterparts from other U.S.cities. A total of thirteen cities were used for ' t � comparison based upon population size(i.e. 100,000 to<500,000)and form of government(i.e. • full-time mayor and part-time city council). Cities included in the survey are:Baton Rouge,LA;Boise, ID;Green Bay,WI;Lincoln,NE;Minneapolis,MN;New Orleans,LA;Omaha,NE; • Orlando,FL;Provo,UT;Sioux Falls,SD;Spokane,WA;St.Louis,MO;and,Tulsa,OK. Page 17 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report Survey results indicate that the annual salaries for both the Mayor and City Council are well within range of salaries paid to other elected officials in the cities sampled(see • Appendix C).Likewise,annual salaries for the vast majority of City department directors and other key city leader positions surveyed also appear to be appropriately set. It should also be noted,however,that salary levels for certain director-level positions appear to lag slightly(between five to ten percent)behind their counterparts,including: Chief Information Officer,Fire Chief,Procurement Director,HR Director,Public Services Director and Emergency Services Director. Only one key leadership position seems to lag more significantly—the Mayor's Chief of Staff,whose current pay level is nearly 15%less than those in matching U.S.cities.Due to the vital role associated with this position,including overall management of the City's day-to-day operations,the Committee urges city officials to consider a salary adjustment which would raise the current incumbent's annual salary to at least 92%of the average salary calculated from those cities surveyed. Recommendations for 2010-2011 1. Based upon current market data comparisons of actual average salary,the Committee feels confident with the City's overall pay position relative to other employer salaries.For the majority of salary benchmarks surveyed Salt Lake City • Corporation's actual average salary rates generally match or exceed the local market's actual average salary rates.However,data also indicates a total of twelve benchmarks which lag the market either slightly(at 5-10%less than market)or significantly(>10%less than market). As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends that the Mayor and City Council appropriate financial resources necessary for market salary adjustments for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as being most significantly behind market(by ten percent or more).Amounts of individual salary increases may vary by employee depending upon their actual pay position relative to the most recently established market rates. 2. In consideration of the structure and salary budget predictions data available at the time of this report,we suggest a total compensation(or salary)package of between 1.9%and 2.5%.The total package may be comprised of any combination of increases deemed appropriate by the Mayor and City Council(e.g.market salary adjustments,merit increases,etc.).Lump sum payments in the form of cash bonuses may be considered for those at maximum of their respective salary range. • Page l 8 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee 2011 CCAC Annual Report • al. 3. The Committee repeats its suggestion that the City consider pay alternatives to cost-of-living adjustments(COLA). 4. Also,as funds permit,the Committee recommends that the Administration consider the salary levels for its Department Directors&other key city leaders whose annual salaries fall between 5-10%less than their counterparts in the comparable U.S.cities surveyed. To be more competitive,the Committee strongly recommends that the Administration adjust the Chief of Staff's salary to an amount equal to between 90%-95%of the average salary calculated for counterparts found among the market cities surveyed,which is$114,000 to$120,351. 5. No salary adjustments are recommended for elected officials or any other appointed department directors&key city leaders,except that these individuals should receive the same general salary adjustment,if any,given to all other employees. 6. Dependent on the amount of increase associated with the cost of benefits provided by the City to its employees,the Committee cautions the Mayor and City Council that the potential net effect on employee pay may result in an actual • decrease in take-home pay. Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee D.Allen Miller,Chair Lourdes Cooke,Vice Chair John Campbell Debbie Cragun Kerma Jones Cori-Dawn Petersen Page 9 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee Appendix A-2010 Salt Lake City/Market Comparison R SIC SLC Job Title Incumbents SIC Actual Avg WCG H Incumbents ACCOUNTANT III(000874&001254) 7 $51,501 EJ4( AIRPORT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST(001514&001505) 34 $46,405 APPOINTED SR CITY ATTORNEY(000185) 10 $101,608 ARBORIST(001443) 3 $44,616 $44,887 8 ASPHALT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II(000909) 15 $40,352 $40,604 114 BUILDING INSPECTOR III(000723) 8 $54,454 $56,837 30 BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSOR(001292) 2 $35,963 $39,135 17 CARPENTER II(001349) 6 $44,782 INSUFFICIENT DATA COLLECTIONS OFFICER(001376) 5 $37,440 INSUFFICIENT DATA CUSTODIAN II(006090) 2 $29,515 DEPT PERSONNEL/PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR(000410) 4 $45,260 $42,457 11 ENGINEER IV(000745) 3 $62,234 $57,266 54 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV(000829) 14 $48,922 ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTI1(000720) 1 $60,840 EVENTS COORDINATOR(00357) 1 $59,592 EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN II(001244) 4 $34,028 FIREFIGHTER II(001460) 5 $46,384 FLEET MECHANIC I(000757) 10 $43,326 $40,895 GENERAL MAINTENANCE WORKER IV(C06145) 3 $43,451 GIS SPECIALIST(000781) 6 $50,107 $55,252 15 GOLF PROFESSIONAL(000940) 5 $67,995 $67,350 13 HEARING OFFICER REFEREE COORD II(000421) 8 $45,905 INSUFFICIENT DATA HUMAN RESOURCES CONSULTANT(001069&001120) 7 $54,035 HVAC TECH.II-95(006050) 10 $48,068 INSUFFICIENT DATA JUSTICE COURT JUDGE(000640) 4 $104,478 $104,562 21 LAB CHEMIST(000427) 2 $49,504 $47,746 28 LEGAL SECRETARY II&III(003136&003137) 2 $35,277 $33,738 60 LICENSED ARCHITECT(000752) 2 $66,788 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN IV(000168) 26 $49,628 $47,668 EIrrin_ NETWORK SYSTEMS ENGINEER II(001394) 6 $69,534 OFFICE TECHNICIAN II(001191) 28 $37,232 PAINTER II(001347) 7 $44,782 PARALEGAL(000572) S $47,283 $48,173 30 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(000943) 14 $37,356 INSUFFICIENT DATA PLUMBER II(000854) 7 $46,612 INSUFFICIENT DATA POLICE INFO SPECIALIST(000063) 13 $33,072 $33,285 161 POLICE OFFICER II(001456) 68 $48,797 $47,057 1,049 PRINCIPAL PLANNER(000188) 11 $55,244 555,121 19 PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST I(000533) 2 $48,900 $48,461 32 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER II(000161) 45 $38,667 REAL PROPERTY AGENT(000370) 2 $56,056 RESEARCH ANALYST/GRANT PRGM MGR(001276) 1 $50,669 $49,363 245 SAFETY PROGRAM COORDINATOR(001432,001435&001438: 3 $51,882 $53,603 11 SENIOR SECRETARY-96(003030) 14 $38,896 SOFTWARE ENGINEER II(000373) 9 $75,545 SR PARKS GROUNDSKEEPER(005088) 16 $36,608 $37,415 SR UTILITIES REP II-CUSTOMER SVC(000199) 5 $38,854 TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ANALYST II-UNION(001257) 3 $50,232 $53,457 10 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANALYST II(004201) 2 $53,705 $54,842 21 WAREHOUSE SUPPORT WORKER(002022) 3 $39,436 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR(000968) 8 $41,766 WATER METER READER II(006326) 8 $30,596 WATER METER TECHNICIAN(000997) 4 $40,955 $40,936 13 WATER PLANT OPERATOR I(001454) 1 $33,862 INSUFFICIENT DATA WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OPERATOR II(000975) 14 $43,284 $42,984 I 24 WEB PRODUCER II(006423) 1 $60,299 INSUFFICIENT DATA YOUTH&FAMILY COORDINATOR(000456) 3 $43,014 $39,952 I 71 =Significantly Below Market(>-10%) CI 11111111.11 =Slightly Below Market(-4.9 to-9.9%) =Leads Market(>+10%) 11111.11111111=Insufficient data sources =NEW 2011 BENCHMARK #Respondents SLC/WCG WMG #Incumbents #Respondents SLC/WMG rOMMII 106.8% $48,010 248 29 107.3% $109,162 30 8 93.1% 5 99.4% 15 99.4% 13 95.8% 14 91.9% $43,282 129 11 103.5% z $39,182 28 10 95.6% 9 106.6% 14 108.7% INSUFFICIENT DATA INSUFFICIENT DATA MMINIAIIIMMIMiaikal \ 16 105.9% $42,846 51 5 101.1° $43,448 1 168 18 1 100.0 9 90.7% INSUFFICIENT DATA 6 101.0% $56,735 166 25 95.2% $45,430 57 9 105.8% 16 99.9% 6 103.7% $53,370 10 4 92.8% 15 104.6% $37,041 20 5 95.2% \\\OHO\\\\\\\\\\\\\�O\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aka,, 1 0,\\. 0\\\ 1 O\\\\, \O\ 10 104.1% $52,466 167 13 94.6% ili $69,452 44 15 100.1% 10 98.2% , s. $48,054 100 10 97.0% 15 99.4% 17 103.7% 11 100.2% 14 100.9% $49,939 141 23 97.9% 10 102.6% 5 96.8% Ilk $35,888 445 108.4% 7 97.8% IIII $30,920 5 94.0% INSUFFICIENT DATA 5 97.9% 67 12 94.4% do $32,032 7 100.0% • 8 100.7% 557,913 21 7 104.1% C I 107.7% CCAC- 2011 Annual Report Appendix B-1 2010 Wasatch Compensation Group(WCG)Participant List • All participants are political subdivisions or special districts within the state of Utah(population size >40,000) BOUNTIFUL SALT LAKE COUNTY li CENTRAL DAVIS COUNTY SEWER SANDY CENTRAL UTAH WATER SANDY SUBURBAN SPECIAL DISTRICT CENTRAL VALLEY WATER SOUTH DAVIS SEWER DISTRICT CENTRAL WEBER SEWER SOUTH JORDAN COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS SOUTH VALLEY SEWER DISTRICT COTTONWOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SOUTH VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION DAVIS BEHAVIOR HEALTH STATE OF UTAH DAVIS COUNTY TAYLORSVILLE DRAPER TAYLORSVILLE-BENNION SPECIAL DISTRICT JORDAN VALLEY WATER TIMPANOGOS SPECIAL DISTRICT LAYTON TOOELE COUNTY LEHI UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY METROPOLITAN WATER,SALT LAKE&SANDY UTAH COUNTY MURRAY UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT VALLEY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER(VECC) NORTH DAVIS COUNTY SEWER VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH OGDEN WEBER BASIN WATER OGDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT WEBER COUNTY OREM WEBER FIRE DISTRICT PROVO WEBER HUMAN SERVICES PROVO SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST JORDAN SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST VALLEY SALT LAKE CITY SUBURBAN SANITATION DISTRICT N1 WESTERN STATES • STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF COLORADO STATE OF IDAHO STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF NEVADA STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WYOMING 55 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS • • 2011 CCAC Annual Report Appendix B-2 Q 2010 Western Management Group(WMG)Participant List Greater Salt Lake Area Compensation Survey AEROJET LOCKHEED MARTIN ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS LOCKHEED MARTIN INFORMATION SYSTEMS&GLOBAL SERVICES AMER SPORTS US HQ MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY MOOG AIRCRAFT SALT LAKE OPS ARINIC MOUNTAIN AMERICA CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATED FOOD STORES MWH GLOBAL ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVAYA GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS OTTO BOCK HEALTH CARE BACKCOUNTRY PARKER AEROSPACE BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS PARKER HANNIFAN/CONTROL SYSTEMS BATTELLE PITNEY BOWES BD MEDICAL SYSTEMS QUESTAR BMC SELECT RAYTHEON BOART LONGYEAR ROCKWELL COLLINS BOISE CASCADE SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS BOISE INC SAIC BOOZE ALLEN HAMILTON SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SALT LAKE COUNTY BROWNING SINCLAIR SERVICES CACI INTERNATIONAL SPARTA/COBHAM ANALYTIC SOLUTIONS CH2M HILL SRA INTERNATIONAL O CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS STAMPIN UP COMCAST CABLE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPUTER SCIENCES STATE OF UTAH CONAGRA FOODS TTM TECHNOLOGIES DIONEX UNIVERSITY OF UTAH DSM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS URS/ENERGY&CONSTRUCTION EASTON TECHNICAL PRODUCTS URS/FEDERAL SERVICES EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES US MAGNESIUM EG&G/JT3 USANA HEALTH SCIENCES FLSMIDTH MINERALS USIS FLYING 1 UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS GENERAL DYNAMICS/C4 SYSTEMS UTAH STATE COURTS GENERAL DYNAMICS/INFO TECHNOLOGY UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION/SPACE DYNAMICS LAB H&R BLOCK UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY HEXCEL UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY IHS VANGENT IM FLASH TECHNOLOGIES VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE VERIZON BUSINESS ITT/ADVANCED ENGINEERING&SCIENCES WASTE MANAGEMENT J.R.SIMPLOT WATERS JOHNSON CONTROLS WEIR SPECIALTY PUMPS KEYCORP WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND KPMG XEROX L-3 COMMUNICATIONS ZIONS BANK © 90 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S. Cities (based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000 - 500,000) JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget Mayor City Council Chief of Staff SALT LAKE CITY, UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $114,150 $22,838 $108,285 Baton Rouge, LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $123,953 $12,000 $121,796 Boise, ID 209,000 $345,000,000 $91,229 $19,375 $92,700 Green Bay, WI 103,750 $101,659,650 $82,535 Lincoln, NE 251,624 $140,188,072 $75,000 $24,000 $78,642 Minneapolis, MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $102,993 $150,774 New Orleans, LA 354,850 $466,728,000 $140,000 - 83,507 I %,' Omaha, NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $101,002 $33,210 $125, Orlando, FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $156,205 Jiii $143 Provo, UT 117,000 $148,000,000 $87,072 $12,485 $118,341 Sioux Falls, SD 159,200 $336,961,890 $109,325 $16,399 n/a Spokane, WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $100,015 $30,000 $132,442 St Louis, MO 356,587 $967,219,700 $131,820 $35,000 $156,338 Tulsa, OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $105,000 $18,000 $147,675 MKT AVG $108,165 $22,274 $126,685 SLC/MKT 105.5% 102.5% 85.5% # Matches 13 11 10 = Not included in calculation of MKT AVG • 0 Communications Chief Information Director Officer City Attorney Prosecutor Chief of Police Fire Chief $102,773 $106,600 $136,552 $118,248 $128,752 $118,789 n/a $94,450 $105,212 $86,558 $118,758 $113,824 $67,980 $108,252 $113,868 n/a $116,820 $109,272 n/a $73,896 $102,194 n/a $102,434 vacant $76,194 n/a $122,402 n/a $124,831 $119,205 _ $109,753 $142,867 $142,228 n/a _ $151,303 $129,067 _ - $80,987 $131,468 $150,718 n/a $164,494 $139,442 _ n/a n/a $162,000 $128,700 $130,658 $125,096 _\..s,38,566 $125,008 n/a $80,059 $143,166 $142,812 n/a $100,000 $110,693 n/a $112,133 $92,500 n/a $118,019 $113,318 n/a $122,179 $136,115 _ - $86,067 $109,307 $144,260 $98,888 $165,808 $169,358 n/a $137,670 $142,402 n/a $127,000 $127,000 n/a $133,136 $164,451 $101,809 ' $100,000 $151,158 $84,925 $115,825 $131,146 $99,203 $129,199 $129,571 121.0% 92.0% 104.1% 119.2% 99.7% 91.7% i 6 11 12 5 13 12 0 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S. Cities (based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000 - 500,000) JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget City Recorder Treasurer Courts Director SALT LAKE CITY, UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $81,744 $104,354 $81,994 Baton Rouge, LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $115,997 n/a $95,431 Boise, ID 209,000 $345,000,000 n/a $94,104 n/a Green Bay, WI 103,750 $101,659,650 n/a $94,651 $53,779 Lincoln, NE 251,624 $140,188,072 n/a $104,605 n/a Minneapolis, MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $104,625 $102,915 n/a New Orleans, LA 354,850 $466,728,000 n/a $102,546 n/a Omaha, NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $91,164 n/a n/a Orlando, FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $100,089 $103,001 n/c Provo, UT 117,000 $148,000,000 $57,731 n/a n/a Sioux Falls, SD 159,200 $336,961,890 $72,384 n/a n/a Spokane, WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $82,998 $109,307 $98,888 St Louis, MO 356,587 $967,219,700 n/a $110,838 $75,686 Tulsa, OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $50,418 $76,865 $105,195 MKT AVG $84,426 $99,870 $85,796 SLC/MKT 96.8% 104.5% 95.6% # Matches 8 9 5 = Not included in calculation of MKT AVG 1 0 Procurement Public Services Finance Director Director HR Director Airport Director City Engineer Director $119,018 $84,448 $102,544 $200,574 $112,070 $124,114 $105,212 $84,789 $100,202 _ $105,212 $105,212 $110,473 $110,004 n/a $108,432 $110,316 $111,156 n/a $94,651 n/a $102,073 n/a $86,545 $107,676 $108,141 $120,927 $102,644 n/a $127,668 n/a $135,049 $99,155 $128,212 n/a $116,589 $149,578 $131,468 n/a $107,770 $205,609 n/a $136,460 140,000 n/a $145,000 n/a vacant $148,624 _ 74,886 $115,003 $108,284 n/a $124,924 $138,777 $86,010 n/a $92,891 n/a $93,042 $100,228 $128,544 n/a $110,219 n/a $107,619 $148,574 $123,463 $66,127 $114,986 n/a $114,965 $146,724 $112,190 $76,570 $129,038 $189,046 $121,212 $142,402 $135,672 n/a n/a $135,672 $131,609 n/a $121,945 $93,762 $112,479 $149,171 $112,776 $132,952 97.6% 90.1% 91.2% 134.5% 99.4% 93.4% 13 6 12 5 11 10 0 2011 CCAC Annual Report APPENDIX C - 2010 SLC Elected Officials, Department Head Other Key Leader Salary Survey Comparative Analysis of Similar U.S.Cities(based on Mayor/Council form of government and population from 100,000-500,000) Transportation Emergency Service Public Utilities JOB/CITY Population Operating Budget Engineer Director Director SALT LAKE CITY,UT 181,698 $747,527,596 $104,125 $93,496 $129,958 Baton Rouge,LA 429,073 $701,109,909 $92,651 $86,435 n/a Boise,ID 209,000 $345,000,000 n/a n/a $111,900 Green Bay,WI 103,750 $101,659,650 $59,075 n/a $93,475 Lincoln,NE 251,624 $140,188,072 n/a n/a $115,192 Minneapolis,MN 382,000 $159,100,000 $114,889 $131,972 n/a New Orleans,LA 354,850 $466,728,000 n/a $143,412 n/a Omaha,NE 400,000 $564,062,946 $89,491 n/a n/a,...,,, _ Orlando,FL 228,765 $932,728,191 $100,568 $80,766 n/<„ Provo,UT 117,000 $148,000,000 n/a n/a $124,392 Sioux Falls,SD 159,200 $336,961,890 n/a n/a n/a Spokane,WA 240,000 $600,000,000 $114,965 $114,965 $146,724 St Louis,MO 356,587 $967,219,700 $103,368 $62,946 $102,726 Tulsa,OK 389,625 $518,532,000 $93,518 n/a n/a MKT AVG $96,066 $103,416 $115,735 SLC/MKT 108.4% 90.4% 112.3% B Matches 8 6 6 =Not included in calculation of MKT AVG 0 Community& Housing & Economic Neighborhood Development Development Redevelopment City Council Office, Director Director Director Director $138,466 $103,002 $112,590 $122,096 $72,491 $72,491 n/a n/a $112,704 $79,512 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $69,349 n/a _ n/a $138,809 n/a n/a n/a $120,519 n/a $150,718 c 85,000 n/a n/a $101,444 k J8,888 $37,488 n/a $179,233 $101,087 n/a $81,350 $61,740 $110,011 n/a n/a n/a $98,888 $98,888 n/a n/a $110,838 $111,748 n/a $84,162 $123,062 $96,165 n/a $109,402 $116,572 $88,026 $81,350 $114,450 118.8% 117.0% 138.4% 106.7% 11 6 6 CO 2011 CCAC Annual Report • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION man Management Services Department 451 South State Street, Room 115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5464 (801) 535-7900 Debra Alexander, HR Director David Salazar, Compensation Program Administrator WWW.SICQOV.Com DEBRA ALEXANDER iegt =I R n /79/11/Ab ALPH BECKER ofw-- RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE RECEIVED v- 14 ZUiit MAR 1 1 2011CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL G GOU I OFFICt ,I��Ai Salt Lake City Mayor / Date Received: ;Z.:j David verlt,Chie of Staff Date sent to Council: 02 Ic( ( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: Debra Alexander,Director Human Resource Department SUBJECT: 2011 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC) Annual Report C STAFF CONTACT:Debra Alexander,HR Director (801)535-6604 David Salazar,City Compensation Program Administrator (801)535-7906 Allen Miller,Committee Chair (801)444-9919 DOCUMENT TYPE: Annual Report RECOMMENDATION: This report is for informational purposes and consideration during the City's budget review process,as it relates to employee compensation.The City Council is tentatively scheduled to receive a formal presentation of the annual report by the Committee's Chair,Mr.D.Allen Miller,during the Council work session scheduled on Tuesday,April 5,2011. BUDGET IMPACT: The total annual cost(salary only)estimated to fund the recommended market salary adjustments is$68,572.Additional budget impact will be dependent on other compensation related decisions made during the budget review process. SCANNED TO: t L SCANNED BY: •bu,dzi DATE: o g/ii/Zor 1 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 1 I S,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 54114-5464 MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.SOX I .SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S4114-5464 TELEPHONE:SO1.535.7900 FAX:SO1.535-6614 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This report includes information and recommendations pertaining to the compensation levels of the City's elected officials and employees,as provided by the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC). The following recommendations are highlighted in the report:As funds permit,the Committee strongly recommends appropriations for market salary adjustments for employees in jobs which are determined to be most significantly below market(lagging by 10%or more);if additional pay increases are to be granted,consider total compensation increases between 1.6%and 2.5%;consider other pay alternatives in lieu of cost-of-living adjustments;consideration by the Administration of salary adjustments for it Department Directors&other key city leaders for whom pay levels as compared with their counterparts in similar U.S.cities are lower by 5-10% (or more).No salary adjustments for elected officials are recommended this year. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable. CO O MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jan Aramaki,Council staff member SUBJECT: Presentation proposal from Salt Lake County Animal Services on their new approach to services CC: David Everitt,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Linda Hamilton,Shawni Larrabee,Ed Rutan, Laura Kirwan,City Council Liaisons,Mayor Liaisons At the Council's January retreat,the Council indicated an interest in working with other entities in the valley to urge a County-wide animal control policy,particularly as it relates to the lack of dog off-leash open space,funding of dog off-leash areas,and the impacts for residents around the valley. The Council also discussed the topic of revisions to sections of Salt Lake City Code relating to Chapter 8.04 Animal Control as a potential Council 2011 priority,but there was insufficient support at the time. • However,Salt Lake County Animal Services and the Administration are requesting the opportunity to brief the Council on Animal Services'proposed new approach in providing services to the community which would result in revisions to Chapter 8.04. This new approach involves a change in their operating model and philosophy with the intent to encourage and improve responsible pet ownership. Their goal is to create a safer and more responsible community for pets and people. The five core elements of their proposal include: 1. Build a more effective licensing program modeled after Calgary,Canada that includes: no limit on pets;increase fee for non-compliance on licensing; implement cat licensing;offer six month free temporary license for all new pets; and include a microchip at no cost with any license. 2.Develop a stronger community through an education and safety program by utilizing education to enhance responsible pet ownership,such as providing courses on proper animal care,and how to better train one's pet. 3. Create a friendlier image approach by changing the way Animal Services officers interact with the community.The goal is to identify and achieve solutions to issues which would minimize enforcement through emphasis of education, mediation and improved communication when assisting community members. 4. Revise ordinances to support the proposed operating model. 5. Build a new pet adoption and education facility to better meet the needs of the community and Animal Services. Funding through a Municipal Building Authority(MBA)bond is proposed with an estimated completion date of 2013. Mir. 0. The County anticipates positive outcomes from their proposed new approach: • Increased: pet licensing compliance, rabies compliance, pet spay and neuter, pets reunited with owners, community participation in programs, compliance with less enforcement, improved relations with the community. • Decreased: dog bites, animal shelter intakes, and euthanasia rates. Salt Lake County Animal Services presented their new approach proposal to the Salt Lake County Council last month for their consideration. MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. The Council may wish to inquire if there were policy concerns raised by the Salt Lake County Council. 2. In order for Salt Lake County Animal Services to be successful in their new approach, the County's interest is to have Salt Lake City, in addition to other contracted cities, as a partner. At this time, the County anticipates revenue generated from their new approach should be sufficient to cover costs for • building a new adoption and education facility. The Council may wish to discuss potential future financial obligations that could be expected from the City and Salt Lake City taxpayers for the new facility. 3. The Administration intends to engage the public in this discussion prior to any revisions to ordinances that would be required from this proposal. This proposal would be placed on Open City Hall for public feedback. Is the Council comfortable in having the Administration solicit feedback from the community before proposing any necessary ordinance amendments to Salt Lake City Code? 4. Currently, Salt Lake City Code has a limit of two dogs. The Council may wish to inquire with the County about the success of Calgary's no limit on the number of pets and may wish to discuss whether the implementation of a no limit on pets could potentially increase nuisance complaints which in effect • could increase enforcement. 5. No limit on pets permits more dogs per household. This discussion gives the Council an opportunity to advance their expressed interest in encouraging a County-wide policy on how the significant public interest in off-leash dog area availability and off-leash dog regulations could be addressed. 2 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 Amount Remaining for Council to appropriate (10%cut scenario) $4,309,547 $ - $ 1 $ 623,244 $ 1,065,407 (25%cut scenario) $3,646,303 # (50%cut scenario) $2,540,897 Brainstorming-CC/VT # APPLICANT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREY.GRANTS RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING IN TIERS PROJECT NAME YEAR I AMOUNT CDCIP I MAYOR 10%I MAYOR25% COUNCIL Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 REQUEST (50%.c ) I % ) (1 r%• ) (no cut) HOUSING 1 ASSIST Inc Salaries,operational support and rehab. funds 36th 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 300.000 5 300.000 S 300.000 for a program that provides emergency home 35th 350,000 Emergency Home Repair and repair and accessibility design to eligible low 34th 350,000 Accessibility&Community Design income residents.Repairs include plumbing, 33rd 350,000 heating&electrical,roof repair,accessibility 32nd 350,000 ramps,etc. Others 5,767,500 City-wide Total 7,517,500 - 2 Community Development Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 70,000 130,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 $ 50,000 $ 65,866 $ 65,866 $ 65,86E Corporation that provides affordable housing.Services 35th 70,000 Program support include downpayment assistance grants, 34th 70,000 purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing 33rd 70,000 units and property for new construction. 32nd 70,000 31st 70,000 Others 1,189,147 City-wide Total 1,609,147 - 3 Housing and Neighborhood Funds to be used by SLC as match money for 36th 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 $ $ $ $ Development Division acquisition,new construction,or rehabilitation of 35th transitional and permanent housing projects 34th proposed by housing agencies. 33rd Housing Match Funds Others 1,205,000 Total 1,205,000 4 Housing and Neighborhood Salaries,operational support&rehabilitation 36th 600,000 620,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 $ 313,538 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Development Division activities to bring residential properties up to 35th 600,000 housing code standards,provide first time 34th 600,000 Housing Rehabilitation and First homebuyer acquisition and rehabilitation, 33rd 600,000 Time Homebuyer Programs manage a$48 million mortgage portfolio, 32nd 600,000 provide financial assistance and emergency 31st 600,000 repairs in eligible areas or for income-eligible residents. Others 13,052,995 Income eligible neighborhoods Total 16,652,995 5 NelghborWorks Salt Lake Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 '$ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 that provides affordable housing.Services 35th 100,000 Revolving Loan Fund include:low-interest loans to people who may 34th 100,000 not qualify for a traditional bank mortgage, 33rd 100,000 acquisition,blended mortgages,and 32nd 100,000 rehabilitation projects. 31st 100,000 Others 1,330,000 Westside neighborhoods Total 1,930,000 I Housing Total I I I 1,300,0001 1,22(1,0001 1,220,0001 1,120,000j 0,$ 663,538 $ 890,866_$ 890,866 $ 890,866 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 2 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 STREET DESIGN 1 Glendale Street Reconstruction Design for reconstruction to include street 32.000 0 0 0 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip Glendale Drive from California landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Avenue to Navajo Street _Construction: 360,000 2 Kensington and Roosevelt Avenues Design for reconstruction to include street 50,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Reconstruction Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Kensington from 400 to 500 East Roosevelt from 300 to 400 East Kensington Construction: 300,000 Roosevelt Construction: 300,000 _ Street Design Total 82,000 0 0 0 0 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 1. ., .po° $s . 32,000 TREET CONSTRUCTION ADA Accessibility Ramps Construct access ramps in eligible areas for 36th 270,000 400,000 179,673 96,300 63,825 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 individuals who use wheelchairs,strollers. 35th 32,435 walkers,canes,etc.for ADA compliance. 35th-R 252,000 City-wide in eligible neighborhoods 34th 408,942 33rd 300,000 32nd 345,450 31st 304,558 Construction: 343,100 Others 1,278,720 SLC Engineering Design&Engineering: 56,900 Total 3,192,105 2 Glendale Streets Reconstruction Reconstruction including pavement,curb and 35th 30,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 $ 246,000 Navajo Street from Glendale Drive to gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and 1300 South storm drain improvements. Design funded in 2009-10: 30,000 20.100 SLC Engineering 225,900 Street Construction Total 646,000 425,673 342,300 309,825 0 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 $ 271,000 SIDEWALKS 1 Sidewalk Replacement Program Replace deteriorated and defective sidewalk in 36th 81,000 400,000 200,000 150.000 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150.000 $ 150.000 $ 150,000 CDBG eligible areas to improve pedestrian 36th-R 189,000 access,safety and walkability. 35th 47,719 35th-R 243,281 City-wide in eligible areas 34th 308,941 Design&Administration-56,900 Others 5,237,802 SLC Engineering Construction:343,100 Total 6,107,743 Sidewalks Total 400,000 200,000 150,000 150,000 0 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 3 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 PARKS 1 I' 'tonwood Park Sprinkler Replace obsolete existing system including 36th 88,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 0 $ - _ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 ation System valves,heads,controllers and central control connection and associated landscaping 300 North 1600 West upgrades. Design funded in 2010-11 for$88,000 Materials and construction: 440,000 2 Jordan River Parkway Trallhead at Develop trailhead,to include parking lot,curb, 36th 50,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $1000 North gutter,sidewalk,landscaping,irrigation system, security lighting,tables,benches and drinking fountain. Design funded in 2010-11 for$50,000 3 Rosewood Park Parking Lot Remove and replace parking lot with mom New 243,960 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Replacement sustainable materials,utilizing permeable concrete pavement and underground water retention to minimize the amount of runoff needing to exit the site. Curb,gutter and driveway approach improvements will also be 1200 West 1300 North included. Design: 40,660 Materials and construction:203,300 4 Fifth Avenue and"C"Street Tennis Removal of existing tennis courts,retaining walls New 598,100 0 67,100 67,100 $ - S 67,100 $ 67,100 $ 67,100 Courts and trees in order to rebuild two tennis courts to meet current standards including new retaining walls,new fencing,and associated landscaping improvements. New benches,drinking fountain and equipment to support the new courts will also be provided. • Materials and construction:450,000 Design&Engineering Fees 67,100 Construction Inspection&Admin: 36,000 Contingency 45,000 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 4 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 5 Westpointe Park Playground Remove old playground and sand,improve New 623,750 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $Improvements existing curbs and sidewalks,install new bark mulch and play surfacing,install new ADA accessible play equipment,new water play equipment,relocate existing volley ball court, replace sod and irrigation equipment,and add benches&other furnishings. 1100 North 2000 West Playground improvements: 250,000 Splash pad improvements: 250,000 Engineering and Design: 43,750 Administration: 30,000 Contingency: 50,000 6 Fire Station Tennis Courts Replace two existing courts with two new post New 228,300 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - tension courts,replace fencing and net posts, .3 North 1000 West landscaping and irrigation adjustments,install conduits for future lighting and install benches. Materials and Labor: 190,300 Engineering,Design&Admin: 38,000 7 600 East Island Irrigation System Replace obsolete irrigation system that will New 204,900 204,900 40,000 40,000 $ - $ 20,700 $ 20,700 $ 20,700 Rebuild and Central Control connect to the City's central control system, including new water and power meters and associated landscaping improvements. 600 East between South Temple and b43 South Materials,labor and equipment: 155,000 Engineering and Design fees: 20,700 Construction Inspection/Admin: 13,700 Contingency: 15,500 8 Property acquisition for Jordan Funding to purchase a blighted property New 85,000 0 0 0 $ - $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 River Parkway Trailhead adjacent to the Jordan River Parkway and Cottonwood Park for future development of a trailhead for the Jordan River Parkway as well 356 North Redwood Road Application filed by Fairpark and Jordan Meadows Community 9 ADA Improvements and Riverside Funding for a study to provide river side ADA New 50,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Access Study for Alzheimer access improvements at the Alzheimer's Memorial Park Memorial Park in Poplar Grove and to determine 265 South 1200 West amount of funding necessary to make those improvements. Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 5 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 10 Jordan Park Defined Activity Areas Create fenced,defined activity areas to improve New 12,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - safety and security in the Jordan River Park. flip South 900 West New,defined activity areas will separate different park uses to mitigate and prevent Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa conflicts. 11 Glendale Tennis Complex Construct restrooms for the Glendale Tennis New 350,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Restroom Construction Complex to encourage new and continued use by the community.The closest existing 1700 South 1500 West restrooms are located one block away from this Application filed by Utah Tongan complex. Tennis Club/Glendale Community Council Parks Total 3,116,010 944,900 847,100 407,100 0 S - $ 592,800 $ 592,800 $ 592,80D j 1 n Salaries andoperanon&support for a program New 33,600 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ provides sett sufficiency and employment preparation through English literacy,computer, and life skill training,for refugees and immigrants. Salary for building supervisor for PSBI improvements. U.S.Workplace Communication 2 Bad Dog Rediscovers America Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5,000 15,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ that provides after-school art outreach to 35th 10,000 Art Instruction Outreach students at Backman,Edison,Mountain View, 34th 10,000 Jackson,Whittier,and Glendale Elementary 33rd 5,000 schools. 32nd 5,000 Total 35,000 3 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 that provides a school-based mentonng program 35th 5,000 -ool-based Mentonng Program for low-income SLC youth in a site-based setting 34th 1,000 utilizing resources available at the school. 33rd 5,000 Schools include Bennion,Washington,Whittier, Rose Park and Lincoln elementaries. Total 16,000 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program New 5,000 5.000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ that provides community-based mentonng for Community-based Mentonng low-income SLC youth outside of the elementary Program school system.Activities may include homework support,sports,visits to museums, Total etc. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 6 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 5 Boys&Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries for an after-school program that 36th 20,000 38,865 20,000 20,000 18,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 provides core club activities in guidance oriented 35th 20,000 Capitol West Club character development to low income youth in 34111 20,000 Jackson/Guadalupe area. 33rd 30,000 32nd 30,000 31st 30,000 Others 548,000 567 West 300 North,SLC Total 698,000 6 Boys 8 Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries fora program that teaches life and 36th 15,000 31,169 15,000 15,000 13,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.000 social skills,provides recreational opportunities 35th 15,000 Youth With a Voice and leadership skills for at-risk youth(ages 11- 34th 15,000 17)at the three Salt Lake City centers. 33rd 15,000 Lied-464 South Concord St. 32nd 15,000 Sugar House-968 E Sugarmont Dr 31st 20,000 pitol West-567 West 300 North Others 403,000 Total 498,000 _ ollc Community Services Salaries fora program that provides residential 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 substance abuse treatment for low-income 35th 10,000 St.Mary's Home for Men and/or chronically homeless men,including 34111 5,000 veterans. 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 745 East 300 South,SLC Total 35,000 8 Catholic Community Services Salaries for a program that provides day shelter 36th 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 services five days a week for homeless persons, 35th 15,000 Weigand Day Center including showers,lockers,hygiene items, 34th 15,000 health referrals,outreach services through the 33rd 20,000 Utah Dept.of Workforce Services and a support 32nd 20,000 235 South Rio Grande,SLC group for substance abuse. Others 275,000 Total 400,000 9 Children's Service Society Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 38,136 50,815 25,000 20,000 20,000 $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 that trains and assists parents in helping their Parents as Teachers Program children prepare for kindergarten. 124 South 400 East,SLC 10 Community Action Program Salaries for a program that assists low/moderate 36th 30,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 income residents to obtain safe and affordable 35th 30,000 Housing Outreach Rental Program housing,by listing apartments for rent and 34th 20,000 providing renter training and referrals to other 33rd 30,000 764 South 200 West,SLC agencies for assistance. Others 714,000 Total 824,000 1110 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 7 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 11 Community Action Program Salaries and operating expenses for a program 36th 25,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 23,000 $ 20,000 $ 23.000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 that provides emergency food supply to low- 35th 25,000 west Neighborhood Center income west side residents. 34th 25,000 Pantry 33rd 25,000 Others 546,000 1300 West 300 North,SLC Total 646,000 _ 12 Community Action Program Salaries for a program that provides home 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 maintenance training and money management 35th 10,000 Home Tenant Maintenance Project training,referrals and other assistance to low- 34th 10,000 income households who rent. 33rd 10,000 32nd 10,000 31st 11,000 Others 158,500 764 South 200 West,SLC Total 219,500 13 Community Health Centers Operational support for a program that provides 36th 75,000 75,000 75,000 65,000 63.000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 medical and dental care to uninsured and low- 35th 75,000 Healthcare Program income persons at two community health 34th 75,000 centers in Salt Lake City. 33rd 89,283 31st 90,000 Central City:461 South 400 East Others 460,000 Total 864,283 14 Crossroads Urban Center Salaries for the food pantry program that 36th 16,500 16,500 16.500 16,500 14,500 $ 5,000 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 provides food,referrals and emergency services 35th 16,000 Emergency Food Pantry to low-income and homeless persons. 34th 16,000 33rd 16,000 32nd 16,000 31st 16,000 Others 297,000 347 South 400 East,SLC Total 393,500 Donated Dental Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 30,000 30.000 30,000 30,000 28,000 $ 20,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 15 that provides preventive and restorative dental 35th 30,000 Community Dental Project treatment to homeless and low income families 34th 24,533 and individuals. 33rd 30,000 • 32nd 31st 35,000 30,000 Others 129,597 1383 South 900 West,SLC Total 309,130 16 English Skills Learning Center Salaries for a program that trains volunteers who 36th 7,000 28,000 10.000 7,000 7,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 in tum teach English language skills to non- 35th 7,000 English Language Instruction English speaking refugees and immigrants. 34th 7,000 33rd 10,000 32nd 7,500 Others 74,000 631 W North Temple&other sites Total 112,500 _ _ SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 8 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011.12 17 Family Support Center Salaries for a program that provides free short- 36th 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 term crisis nursery services to families with 35th 10,000 Crisis Nursery children who are at risk for abuse or neglect. 34th 10,000 1 33rd 10,000 2020 S.Lake St,SLC. 32nd 15,000 Others 70,000 Total 125,000 18 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Funding for equipment to establish the Salt Lake New 10,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - City Resource Center to assist clients of the Housing Authority with skills necessary to promote self sufficiency through job searches, Salt Lake City Resource Center computer training,resume preparation.GED 1778 South West Temple completion and ESL classes. Equipment will include 12 computers,2 printers,a fax machine and a copier. illkdian Walk-In Center Salaries and operational support for a program New 29,900 5,000 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Food Pantry that provides emergency food supplies to low 120 West 1300 South income families and individuals. 20 Indian:72tr'-In Center - Salaries and operational support for a program New 67,643 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ that provides mental,social and physical health care services%ieterrals to American Indians, Alaskan Natives,and other low-income individuals and families residing in Salt Lake City. Community Coordination Program 120 West 1300 South _ 21 Kostopulos Dream Foundation Salaries and operational expenses for a year- 36th 0 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ round program that includes a summer camp, 35th 5,000 Therapeutic Recreation Programs outdoor field trips,after-school and weekend 34th 5,000 programs for special needs children and adults. 33rd 5,000 2500 Emigration Canyon 32nd 5,000 Total 20,000 22 Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake Salaries for a program that provides legal 36th 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 S. 5.000 $ 8,000 $ 8.000 $ 8,000 representation to low-income persons who are 35th 10,000 Domestic Violence Victim Assistance victims of domestic violence with protective 34th 10,000 Program orders. 33rd 10,000 32nd 15,000 Others 50,394 205 North 400 West,SLC Total 105,394 _ - SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 9 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 23 Literacy Action Center Salaries for a program that provides literacy 33rd 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - services to functionally-illiterate English- 32nd 2,000 speaking adults to read and write English. 30th 5,000 Adult Literacy Program Total 12,000 24 Peer Court Salaries for a program that Provides an alternate 36th 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 form of juvenile justice where youth are 35th 5,000 mentored by peers to strengthen ties to families, schools,and communities. Total 25 Rape Recovery Center Salaries for a program that provides crisis 36th 35,000 40,000 35,000 35,000 33,000 $ 25,000 $ 39.500 $ 39,500 $ 39,500 counseling and services for victims of sexual 35th 35,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention assault. 34th 35,000 Services 33rd 40,000 32nd 35,000 31st 35,000 Others 242,060 Total 457,060 26 The Road Home Salaries for a program that provides shelter and 36th 112,000 126,000 120,000 112,000 110,000 $ 63,622 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 supportive services to help homeless persons 35th 111,893 Community Shelter Services gain skills to become self-sufficient and move to 34th 110,000 permanent housing. 33rd 125,000 210 South Rio Grande,SLC 32nd 126,000 31st 126,000 Others 2,052,000 _ Total 2,762,893 27 Salt Lake County Community Funding for computer software licenses and New 12,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ Resources and Development leveled readers(based on reading skill level)to provide literacy skill improvements in low- CAT Computer Labs income youth and adults. 2001 South State Street 28 South Valley Sanctuary !Salaries for a program that provides shelter and 36th 0 10,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - supportive services to men,women and children 35th 0 j- jnestic Violence Crisis Shelter- who are residents of Salt Lake City that have 34th 0 �e Management been victimized by domestic violence. Located in West Jordan City 29 Splore Salaries for a program that promotes _ New 5,519 0 0 0. $ - $ - $ - $ empowering experiences in an active,friendly 774 East 3300 South#105 world through affordable,customized and inclusive recreation and education programs for low-income City residents with disabilities or special medical needs. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 10 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 30 University Neighborhood Operational support for a program that develops 36th 5,000 8,320 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Partnerships partnerships and programming for low income 35th 5,000 Hartland Partnership Center immigrant youth in collaboration with University of Utah students and faculty. 1617 Secret Garden Lane,#172 Total 10,000 31 Utah Food Bank Salaries and operational support for a program New 6,500 6,500 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - that provides food boxes to low-income seniors Senior Food Box Program and persons with disabilities. 1025 South 700 West 32 UT Health&Human Rights Project Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 $ 5,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 that provides case management and social 35th 10,000 Case Management&Administrative services to increase self-sufficiency among 34th 10,000 Support vulnerable newcomer populations who are 33rd 10,000 survivors of torture and war-related trauma. 32nd 10,000 25 South 200 East Total 50,000 .,Wasatch Community Gardens Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 25,000 40,800 0 15,000 15,000 $ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 that will create a network of sustainable Developing Sustainable Community community gardens in the City with a focus on Gardens low-income neighborhoods in partnership with schools,service,community and faith-based organizations. 34 Wasatch Community Gardens Salaries for a program that targets low income at 36th 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 risk youth ages 5-18 that teaches responsibility, 35th 5,000 Youth Gardening Program cooperation and ecological awareness through 34th 5,000 hands-on gardening experiences. 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 769 South 600 East,SLC Others 273,000 1037 West 300 North,SLC Total 298,000 35 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Salaries and operational support for a program - 36th 40,000 46,668 40,000 40,000 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 that provides outreach medical services two 35th 38,000 Fourth Street Clinic Outreach days a week to homeless persons in the 34th 29,360 downtown area and to identify the high users of emergency health care to get the care they need in a cost effective manner without resorting to EMS or ambulance services. Downtown area _ Total_ 107,360 36 YMCA Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 $ - $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 that provides after-school and summer programs 35th 10,000 After School and Summer for children at Rose Park Elementary School. 34th 10,000 Enrichment Program 32nd 10,000 Others 88,600 Total 128,600 • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 11 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 37 YWCA Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 47,350 50,000 47,000 40,000 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 that provides crisis shelter and supportive 35th 35,000 *estic Violence Shelter& services to women and children who are victims 34th 35,000 portive Services of domestic violence. 33rd 40,000 32nd 40,000 31st 35,000 ' Others 571,300 322 East 300 South Total 803,650 Public Services Total 957,299 605,000 555,500 523,500 0 331 622 523 500 523,500 523,500 15%Cap on Public Services 663,244 663,244 627,319 523,500 523,500%7;. w.l04; „7, ";; '�; '+.^."'Virifrl. ' ;::' ( Difference •294,055 58.244 71,819 0 523,500 $ (0) $ - $ 103,819 $ 139,744 14.0% 15.8% PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING INIPROVEMOITS • 1 Alliance House Funding for building improvements to nine unit 36th 39.700 19.700 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - apartment building for a program that provides 351h 33,000 Apartment Rehabilitation services and housing for adults with serious and 34th 39,000 persistent mental illness. Improvements will include wall demolition and patching,granite wall caps,electrical wiring, paint,purchase and installation of front screen doors,porch lights and screens for exterior windows,install peephole in existing door,and contingency fees. 1805 South Main Others 95,500 Total 207,200 2 And Justice For All Funding for building improvements for a New 25,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 205 North 400 West program that creates and sustains resources that support several nonprofit legal aid programs including Legal Aid Society,Utah Legal Services,and the Disability Law Center. I Improvements will consist of purchase and installation of new high efficiency HVAC system. SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 12 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 3 Asian Association of Utah Funding for building improvements for a 36th 22,000 93,000 93,000 93.000 93,000 S 93,000 $ 93,000 $ 93,000 $ 93,000 program that provides services to Asians,Pacific 35th 0 Energy Conservation and Service Islanders and other refugee and immigrant 23rd 38,000 Improvements populations with social,education and cultural programs. The applicant applied for a new HVAC system,restroom renovations,carpeting and wall relocations. However,the building has life safety issues that must be addressed prior to the items requested. Therefore,the request is now for addressing the life safety issues. Total 60,000 ("ye and Girls Clubs Funding for building improvements to Lied Club 36th 10,500 53,281 21,741 21,741 21,741 S 21,741 $ 21,741 $ 21,741 $ 21,741 building that provides after-school programs for 35th 3,500 Lied Club Improvements Glendale area youth. Install window coverings: 3,940 Reception area&new front desk: 27,600 464 South Concord Resurface front entry floor. 1,755 Replace bathroom stalls: 8,883 Refinish gym Boor 1,000 Interior paint: 10,103 Total 14,000 5 CAP Head Start Program Funding for the construction of a nature-based 36th 185,000 109,146 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $playground to help meet the developmental 34th 146,008 1240 North American Beauty Drive needs of low income children through 31st 107,400 recreational and educational activities. Landscape architect&Admin: 10,046 Sprinkler system installation: 9,000 Demolition work: 4,500 Boulders,fill dirt,top soil 8 sod: 11,600 Trees and shrubs: 17,500 Concrete sidewalk tricycle path: 12,000 Mount Gazebo/Alphabet Hill: 24,500 Construct.zone play area&labor: 20,000 Total 438,408 6 Catholic Community Services Funding for building improvements for a New 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15.000 program that provides meals to homeless St.Vincent de Paul persons to include the purchase and installation 437 West 200 South of commercial grade water heater for the kitchen. • SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 13 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 7'Community Foundation for the Funding for improvements to a facility that 36th 40,000 89,488 70,000 70,000 0 $ - $ - $ Disabled/Columbus Comm.Center provides employment&training programs to low- income persons with developmental&physical disabilities. Replace roof: 64,000 1850 South 3230 West Upgrade HVAC;install heaters&fans: 18,800 Engineering&administration: 6,688 8 Dual Immersion Academy Funding for building improvements for a charter New 6,350 6,350 6.350 0 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 $ 6,350 1555 South Glendale Drive school program that provides education to youth from Kindergarten to Eighth Grade in the Glendale area. Improvements will include the purchase and installation of acoustical wall panels in the school gymnasium. 9 Emergency Repair Fund Funding for grants to nonprofit organizations 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.000 when they experience unforeseen emergencies 35th 10,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood to then facilities that need repair. 33rd 10,000 Development 31st 10,000 Others 27,000 Total 67,000 10 The Haven Funding for building improvements for a New 39,400 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - program that provides substance abuse treatment and transitional housing for low- income persons. Improvements will include electrical upgrades for two buildings. 653 East 300 South - 11 Kostopolus Dream Foundation Funding for building improvements for a New 5,000 0 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ 2500 Emigration Canyon program that provides summer camp,outdoor field trips,after school&weekend programs for special needs youth&adults. Building improvements will include the installation of an asphalt handicapped accessible parking area at ID their new equestrian facility. 12 Neighborhood House Funding for building improvements for a 36th 13,300 19.400 13,400 13,400 13,400 $ - $ 13,400 S 13.400 5 13,400 program that provides day care to low-income 34th 15,000 Children's Day Care Center children. Improvements will include roof-top 33rd 15,000 timer units for restroom ventilation,a new 32nd 15,000 telephone system and flood insurance required to participation in the CDBG program. Restroom ventilation:9,000 31st 17,300 Telephone system:6,000 Others 140,000 1050 West 500 South,84104 Flood Insurance:4,400 Total 215,600 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 14 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 13 Odyssey House Funding for kitchen improvements fora program New 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 40,000 that provides residential substance abuse Women and Children's Center treatment for women and children. 42 South 500 East Improvements will include: Sink,refrigerator,and range: 14,248 Cabinets: 9,828 Flooring: 4,825 Interior wall renovation: 9,500 Deck addition: 5,500 Permits&Fees: 1,100 14 Salt Lake School District Funding for construction of a community learning 36th 233,732 500.000 0 0 0 -$ - $ - $ - $ - center for students at the Mountain View Community Learning Center- Elementary&Glendale Middle schools. Programs offered will be specific to the needs of 1380 South Navajo Street the community,including language literacy, financial literacy,nutrition workshops,health clinics and career counseling. 15 Salvation Army Funding for construction of a new 4400 square 35th 112,130 200,000 0 0 0 S S $ $ foot building to house the Salt Lake Salvation 34th 0 Adult Rehabilitation Facility Remodel Army and their Salt Lake Family Services 33rd 35,000 Program that will offer emergency food,clothing, 32nd 42,415 438 South 900 West transportation,after-school programs/services, 31st 60,000 and training&case management for low-income individuals with multiple barriers to self- sufficiency. Total 249,545 16 University Neighborhood Partners Funding for building improvements of new New 175,000 175,000 75,000 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 property at 1578 West 1700 South to serve as A New Home for Hartland the new headquarters for the University Partners/Hartland Partnership Center. 1578 West 1700 South Elevator for ADA Access: 100,000 Fire sprinkling system: 45,000 Restroom renovations: 30,000 17 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Funding for landscape improvements to the New 25.500 0 0 0 S - $ - $ - $ parking strip to include purchase and installation of irrigation system,plants,soil and amendments,turf,gravel and project design. 404 South 400 West Irrigation System: 12,000 Plants: 9,800 Soil,turf and gravel: 3,100 Design: 600 Public Services Building Improvement Total 1,425,265 444,491 344,491, 228,141, 0 $ 221,0911$ • 234,491 j 274,491 $ 274,491 1111 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 15 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 1NING 1indale Park Improvements Funding to develop a community-based New 50,000 50,000 0 0 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 design/planning process for improvements to the existing uses and facilities In Glendale Park to determine the best upgrades needed to extend its uses and functions. Results will be used to determine future funding needs. Design/Planning 1200 West 1700 South 2 Centro Civico Mexicano Funding to develop a business plan for use to New 10,000 0 10,000 5,000 $ - $ - $obtain funding to build a new facility at the same location.The plan will include cost estimates, research,marketing plan,member's needs and potential building tenants. 155 South 600 West 3 Census Data Extraction Funding to hire a consultant to extract New 40,000 40,000 30,000 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood information from the 2010 Census Data to help Development the City bridge information from the 2000 Census relative to SLC Council districts. Information will include populations by age,sex, race/ethnicity,household type and size, occupancy status,presence of children in the household and other information specific to Council districts rather than the City as a whole. Planning Total 100,000 90,000 40,000 30,000 0 . $. _:74.DC)• TAPB9.-$• _ t;,t PERCENT FOR ART 1 h'C Percent for Art Funding to provide enhancements to City 36th 25,000 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 $ 30.000 $ 30,000 properties through decorative pavements, 35th 10,000 railings,sculptures,fountains,and other works 34th 25,000 of art. 33rd 5,952 32nd 5,000 31st 6,000 Others 47,450 Total 124,402 Percent for Art Total 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 0 -' ..S•.'., -,__ SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 16 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 CITY ADMINISTRATION 1 City Attorney's Office Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 55,432 23,182 23,182 23,182 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 $ 23,182 contract administration function for federal 35th 55,432 grants. 34th 55,432 33rd 55,432 32nd 55,432 31st 55,432 30th 55,432 Others 903,960 Total 1,291,984 2 Finance Division Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 $ 82,776 financial administration and accounting services 35th 82,776 for federal grants. 34th 82,776 w 33rd 82,776 32nd 82,776 31st 91,967 30th 91,967 Others 945,217 Total 1,543,031 3 Housing&Neighborhood Funding for salaries and operational expenses of 36th 472,804 482,804 482,804 472,804 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 $ 472,804 Development HAND to administer and monitor the federal 35th 472,804 grants and to conduct the community processes. 34th 405,616 In prior Years,the Planning Division was 33rd 405,616 the amount of$67,188 for the Environmental 32nd 405,616 In 35th Year,that position was transferred to 31st 405,616 CDBG admin budget was then discontinued for 30th 437,616 and moved to HAND's CDBG administrative Others 3,460,149 Total 6,465,837 4 Mayor's Office Partial funding for salaries and operational 36th 91,709 91,709 91,709 81,709 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 $ 81,709 expenses of three positions to provide 35th 91,709 community relations support for federal grants. 34th 91,709 33rd 91,709 32nd 91,709 31st 91,709 30th 91,709 Others 1,517,962 Total 2,159,925 City Administration Total 680,471 680,471 660,471 660,471 0;6, KO WA,-' ' 4#`1 $ 6001511 $ 1 CONTINGENCY • Contingency Funding set aside to cover unanticipated cost 36th 60,000 50.000 51,091 $ 50,000 5 50,000 $ 50.000 $ 50,000 overruns on funded projects. 35th 46,776 34th 35,000 Contingency Total 0 0 50,000 51,091 0; .i0.00.$ .M,00p s 50;666 �CDBG-R REALLOCATION 1 Salt Lake City Engineering Funds available for reallocation for. 36th-R 189,000 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136.175 5 136.175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 35th-R 243,281 Ramps 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136175, 6 136,175' $ 1,36.,175 $ 1W175 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 17 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2011-12 Ili Total Requested/Recommended 8,846,220 4,751,710 4,376,037 3,646,303 0 $ 2,540, $ 3, $ 3,686,303 $ 3,686,303 2011-12 Grant Amount 4,421,626 4,421,626 3,979,463 3,316,219 3,316,219 $ 2,210,813697 $ 3,316,220646,303 S 3,979,463 $ 4,421,626 CDBG Reallocated Funds 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 $ 193,909 CDBG-R Reallocated Funds 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 $ 136,175 4,751,710 4,751,710 4,309,547 3,646,303 3,646,303 $ 2,540,897 $ 3,646,304 $ 4,309,547 $ 4,751,710 Difference -4,094,510 0 -66,490 0 3,646,303 CDBG REALLOCATION from FY 2011 Funds 1 Concrete Study !Reallocate funds from Salt Lake City Council 90,000 90,000 Office-Administration line item,to the study of concrete replacement needs in the City. Ramps 0 o Salt County An 2010 Year in Review , . . 0, , . • ........ ,..,.... .... .... _______ ___ _ _ , . . I' 4k • i _ . v, 4 `4;' • _ ... Proudly serving the pets and citizens of Unincorporated Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, 0 Herriman City and Holladay City . i • Salt Lake County Animal Services 2010 Year in Review From the Director's Chair 1 ► ' y This new "Year in Review" report is an attempt to capture some of the achievements, activities and initiatives that occurred during the past year. I say it is an "attempt" be- cause the shear amount of work, activity and community involvement this past year is `N overwhelming and it would be impossible to capture every great thing that happened _ in a few short pages. '►, 2010 was another amazing year for our agency. Record breaking pet saved rates mean that more lost and abandoned pets in our community found new homes and our eutha- Shawn M.Larrabee, nasia rates are now less than half of the rate of the rest of the state. 2352 cats and 3549 Director dogs were saved through lifesaving programs and the dedication of our amazing staff and volunteers. We saw increased involvement from the community, from children raising funds for the Salt Lake County Pit - Crew and for emergency animal response programs to enthusiastic corporate employees donating their time. e The community interest in changing the fate of lost and abandoned pets is truly inspiring. The County Pit Crew had a great year as we focused on the message of responsible ownership and dispelling myths while providing training and education opportunities to the community. The work of staff and volun- teers have successfully changed the saved rates for pit bulls coming into the shelter from 58% to 71%. It's not about a breed or a profile, it's all about responsible ownership folks. The year was one of new grants and awards such as the "2010 Best of State" medal award, 2010 American Dog Rescue National Animal Welfare and Protection Award, establishment of the Boyce Pet Adoption En- dowment Fund and a `final five' placement in the national ASPCA Saving More Lives Challenge. Our dedicated field officers responded to 19,741 calls for service, including 1,124 cruelty and neglect cases. The June 2010 Red Butte Oil Spill brought the realities of the deadliness of oil and animals directly to our door. Emergency response plans were tested as employees became trained in the art of capturing affected wa- terfowl and removing oil. The Machine Gun Fire in Herriman tested another area of emergency response as we rallied to care for 93 evacuated horses and livestock while employees staffed small animal evacuation centers day and night so that citizens could sleep knowing their pets were close by. Utah FACES, our all volunteer, 501c3 affiliate has continued to grow and expand its' reach and fundraising in their mission to serve the lost and abandoned pets at the County shelter. This wonderful organization's mem- bership is open to anyone interested in getting involved with saving lost and abandoned pets locally. As we close the books on 2010 we look forward with great anticipation to 2011. New and exciting initiatives will be rolling out as we continue our endeavors to create a safe community for people and pets in our commu- nity. See you in 2011! C www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 3 • "Salt Lake County Animal Services is dedicated to providing responsive,efficient and high quality animal care and enforcement services that promote a safe and humane community for people and animals." Statistics Field Calls for Service 19,741Ao Dogs and Cats Sheltered 9,578 Livestock and Exotics Sheltered 878 1 Pets Reunited with Owners 2,063 Adopted! Pets Adopted to New Homes 2,930 Pets Sent to Rescue 909 Pet lives saved through SLCoAS programs from Cats Trapped,Neutered and Retumed 165 July 1994 through E-Metric*for Cats 4.0 December 31,2010: • E-Metric*for Dogs 1.3 85,593 E-Metric is the number of pets euthanized per 1.000 population served.For comparison.Utah State averages for 2009 were 3.0 for dogs and 10.3 for cats.IStats provided by NMHPUBest Friends Society.). SLCoAS Answers the ASPCA Saving More Lives Challenge In the spring of 2010, the from August 1st through Octo- Increased the number of animals American Society for the Pre- ber 31st. The shelter that adopted by over 139%! The vention of Cruelty to Animals increased the number of pets Challenge was a tremendous announced the 2010 Saving saved as compared to the same amount of work and reflective of More Lives Challenge. 50 shel- period the previous year would an amazing commitment to the ters nationwide would have the win the grand prize. There was pets in our care. chance to compete for$100,000 also a$25,000 prize for commu- while doing what they do every nity engagement which meas- We finished the competition in 5n' day...saving pets! ured several factors including place for total animals saved and We were very excited when we the number of votes received 7th for community engagement! received word that our applica- from October 15th through This is a noteworthy accomplish- lion had been October 31st. ment particularly given the size and caliber of the shelters .n. ` accepted and Staff, volunteers and the corn- competing. However, more $100K; we would be munity rallied to push our importantly, we saved a record • =corr n,urr; competing numbers as high as possible and A7 number of pets that found new II against 49 the results were astounding. homes and a second chance at a other shelters During the challenge we happy life! www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 4 ` Salt Lake County Pit Crew "It's about responsible ownership." The Salt Lake County Pit Crew and abandoned dogs to find ��AKE CO� was founded on the premise that new, loving, and stable homes. a good dog is reflection of a In order to change perceptions, ,fQ•� Q‘7 CREtL /\ good owner and that promoting increase responsible ownership, VOW responsible dog ownership is and help many more of these - the right path to a safe and wonderful family pets find boy- humane community. ing,permanent homes,this pro- Q gram was developed. vQ .s„ ))1 The mission of the SL County Oo ,•Pit Crew is to promote responsi- There are several key compo- T•ble ownership and provide a nents that make this programFpUfq�• proactive solution for the large unique and successful includ- population of Pit Bull type dogs ing: image of the Pit Bull type dogs in our community.Through hu- • free spay and neuter pro- in our community. Our Fosters mane education and low-cost gram for Pit Bull type dogs and Ambassador dogs will help resources, our program chal- in Salt Lake County Animal promote responsible ownership ® •lenges breed discrimination and Services'jurisdictions, and be a positive presence in the encourages responsible owner- • low-cost American Kennel community. ship for all breeds. Club Canine Good Citizen® (AKC CGC) classes at the The program was made possible HISTORY AND DETAILS shelter (free with adoption through generous donations OF THE PROGRAM or foster), from the community, American • a reliable and experienced Dog Rescue and a grant from In the Spring of 2009,Salt Lake foster parent network, Animal Farm Foundation.Addi- County Animal Services • special adoption and other tional funding was also pro- (SLCoAS)developed a program events, and of course, our vided through SLCoAS 501c3 6 to begin addressing the high dedicated volunteers. affiliate, Utah FACES whose numbers of pit bull type dogs "sponsor a kennel"program and entering and being euthanized in Through outreach programs, other fundraising events have the shelter. breed education, and positive been a significant source of sup- media coverage of sponsored port for all lost and abandoned Pit Bull type dogs are quite events,we hope to transform the pets at the shelter. popular in the community and it is no great surprise that they "Safe and humane This unique program earned the make up a significant number of communities are the attention of the staff of Best shelter residents. However,manymyths, Friends Society and the Saving these dogs face direct result of o America's Dog National Cam- p" misconceptions and stigma, responsible pet Cam- paign team. ownership." p making it harder for those lost P•' p I www.AdoptUtahPets.com Page 5 What followed was a great partnership with Best much work to be done.We expect 2011 to be Friends Society and supporting the program another extremely productive year as we con- through media and additional events and ulti- tinue to work with our partners and the commu- mately increasing the visibility and reach of the nity to ensure Salt Lake County is a safe and program. humane place to live for everyone. The program was officially launched in July of Dog Live Release Rates- Pit/Non Pit Breakdown 2009 and with the support and donations from Pit/Pit %Increase/ the community we have seen remarkable pro- Year Mix Non Pit Decrease Pit LiveDogs Release Rate from gress in a very short time. Dogs 2007 2007 57.5% 88J5£ N/A In the Fall of 2010 Best Friends Society(with a 2008 56.8% 88.9% -1.2% grant from PetSmart Charities)launched similar 2009 59.9 k ss.e, a. s, programs in five other cities across the nation. We are very excited to watch these cities and 2010 70.5% 91.4% 22.6;t hope they see the same success.For individuals working in shelters or cities that were not se- lected as one of the five to receive the program, Iwe are hoping to offer training at SLCoAS.Watch for more information on this in the late -- • ... ._.r _ winter of2011. "'T'-sv. . 'se"'�� While we are proud of our success,there is still ,triti. dl I OF EVERY DOG NEEDS: -- -- - �l'i V' YOU to LOVE them. YOU to TRAIN them. YOU to PROTECT them. Summer 2010 Adoption Event. YOU to SOCIALIZE them. YOU to UNDERSTAND them. The community just can't say no when dogs Be a responsible dog owner. It's all up to I.C1:• are involved—even our firefighters!. Bogart was formerly known as Remington at our s •' - - , shelter,and found his way into a wonderful home `'%0. s. -41''�ii, - ' • with a BOSSton terrier named Harlow,his love in �, '''4 " life.Bogart was either hit by a car or swung by his ` -___ tail as a puppy and came in with serious nerve — I ;.- damage and lower back problems.He is recovering I, well and loves his new home.He came back in late - December to visit Dr.Doub and say hello to every- i. one that had worked so hard to help him.Way to go Bogart! Adopted! ii Page 6 o Pr 0 YIKES! 16,000 Cats Time For Change! Each year in approximately thousands of cats will continue 16,000 cats enter shelters in the ;., �t,�a to die in our local shelters until r a,i �: Salt Lake Valley. 16,000! �' �° we can get the community to Sadly, only 3-4% of those lost focus on sterilizing their cats. cats will find their owners. - k_ ,, WE NEED YOUR HELP! All shelters in the state face the same problem. Many cats corn- shelter. Feral cats (or Every litter has an impact. So ing in, few adoptions, fewer re- `Community Cats' as they are please join us in promoting demptions and unless there was more appropriately called) are responsible cat ownership and a trap, neuter, return program in defined as lost, homeless, un- educating your friends and place, very few options. owned or feral cats living in the neighbors about the challenges SLCoAS takes in approximately community. The TNR program for lost and abandoned cats in is a lifesaving program where our community and the tremen- 4,500 cats each year. Before the g launch of new programs, the these cats are sterilized, vacci- dous burden place on local average live release rate for cats nated, `ear-tipped' and released shelters. in our shelter was very low. back to the area where they LICENSE ONLINE III 0 were found. The SLC TNR pro-New programs like the SL gram (in partnership with No TODAY! More Homeless Pets in Utah) gram which allows people to has resulted in a decrease in cat ,Pet licensing is required in all I adopt a sterilized, vaccinated intake from SLC of 18% in ' and microchipped cat at no cost, areas of the Salt Lake Valley. If 2010 compared to 2008. live in unincorporated SL have helped change the fate of you these deserving pets but there is Unincorporated Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City,, more work to be done. County now has two TNR op- Herriman City or Holladay City' tions. The first is the traditional you can purchase your pet Feral Cat Colony Permit which license online at: "TNR is the only allows any interested citizen to program proven to begin trapping and sterilizing www.AdoptUtahPets.com actually reduce the these cats in their neighborhood. number of cats entering The second is program allows ,Avoid late fees and penalties shelters." cats that come into the shelter to and ensure that your pet finds be sterilized and returned to the !its way home. area where they were found. Trap, Neuter and Release (`TNR') for community cats is These programs have already License today! the second program and our taken the live release rate for most promising long term solu- cats at SLCoAS to record highs tion since TNR is the only pro- that far exceed county and state - El • , gram proven to actually reduce averages. - lir the number of cats entering the g Even with our recent success, I Page 7 Salt Lake County Animal Services • Donations, Grants and Endowments We have several accounts for donations.The accounts are separated to ensure that we use the funds in the manner that the donor wishes.Each account has a different focus but all go to support lifesaving programs. Injured Animal and Clinic Fund.Funds donated to this account are used to provide emergency medical care for lost and abandoned pets that come into the shelter with treatable illnesses and injuries.The fund also supports community spay/neuter events. Animal Adoption and Rescue Fund.This fund is used to support adoptions,rescues and special focus programs like the SL County Pit Crew and Trap-Neuter-Release efforts. Education and Outreach Fund.This fund is used to support humane education and training programs for people and pets.We also provide education presentations to local schools and various community groups. Shelter Fund. Funds donated to the general shelter fund may be used for any program or for the purchasing of sli equipment.e Emergencypeciazed Respons Fund. Donations to the emergency response fund supports emergency response training and equipment. Grants We actively pursue grant funding both directly as well as through Utah F.A.C.E.S.to support our programs.The • following grants were awarded to SLCoAS in 2010: • $8,700 from PetSmart Charities grant to remodel our small cat display/playroom • $5,000 from American Dog Rescue grant to staff the Pit Crew Program(via Utah FACES) • $3,500 from American Humane Association for Kuranda dog beds used in the kennels • $3,640 from Utah F.A.C.E.S adopt a kennel program to be used for adoption and rescue efforts • $2,000 from Animal Farm Foundation for free pit bull sterilizations(via Utah FACES) Coral and Ronald Boyce Pet Adoption Endowment Fund We were thrilled this year to receive$1,575,000 from the Coral and Ronald Boyce Estate to establish a Pet Adop- tion Endowment Fund.This account will be used to save many pets in years to come. 2010 Best in State Medal Winner In the Spring of 2010 our agency was honored to receive a"2010 Utah's Best of State Medal Award"in the Community Development category. �7� According to the organization's website,the Best of State Awards were created to rec-WINNER ognize outstanding individuals, organizations and businesses in Utah. By recognizing BEST OF STATE excellence in our community and sharing examples of success and triumph in so many worthy endeavors,we hope we will all be inspired to reach a little higher,to try a little — '\ harder ad to work a little longer to reach our goals. __ QReceiving this award was welcome recognition of the work and achievements of every- one involved with Salt Lake County Animal Services. UTAH 2010 1 Salt Lake County © ` Animal Services We are all over the I 511 West 3900 South lllterltet! 1 Salt Lake City, Utah 84123 AcloptUtahPets.com t 801-559-1100 111 M -F 10:30 am-6:30 pm On our front page you will find Sat. 9:00 am 5:00 pm links to our Facebook, Flicks YouTube and BlogSpot Pages al www.AdoptUtahPets.com A Huge Thank You To Our Amazing Volunteers and Foster Families! _ . t Our volunteers have been critical to our success in so many ways. From 1 , . _ -- working in administration, cleaning, spending time with shelter pets or , • `.k :` serving as a foster family, volunteers make a significant impact on all of A V., 1 i our programs and our results. Our volunteers save lives! r.': , lh ;'y f ..Coco" "Gallic" v� +. • ;.rs ., r Or. 011 F.!Q Cyndi Tadehara is one of our dedicated �, volunteers. She has fostered several adult dogs and been instrumental in i -i.1 I Foster r ' _ Easter finding them homes. SLCoAS Named Recipient of American Dog Rescue 2010 National Animal Welfare and Protection Award We were thrilled to announce that Salt Lake County Animal Services was named the recipient of the American Dog Rescue 2010 National Animal Welfare and Protection Award. SLCoAS received the award for distinguishing itself amongst the dozens of animal service organizations that ADR works with by increasing adoptions and decreasing deaths by the hundreds;eliminating the practice of euthanizing pets simply because an animal was"out of time"; saving 92% more lives and reducing euthanasia rates to less than half the state average. "Our citizens have been clear that they want unnecessary euthanasia of lost pets to end at government shelters," says Salt Lake Mayor Peter Corroon. "Animal Services re- sponded and changed direction to provide services that reflect our community values. AMERICAN The achievements of Salt Lake County Animal Services are a great example of what an e w agency can accomplish with dedicated staff, volunteers and the support of the commu- i r • nity. " RESCUE NO HEALTHY DOG WITHOUT A HOME Ti SCANNED TO:Y1ro' SCANNED BY:VAcrt— RECEIVED RALPH BECKER s�1TrA 1i1(f��1lyrla� �(�II1 DATE: 31/oli°i/ MAYOR MAR 1Y�fC'71LJ`�,.'V'�l'lii�iSl lU ��`.'V' 1 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR D ., SLC COUNCIL OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MAR 10 Z011 / By Date Received: A 3I I p WI David)2veritt,Clu of Staff Date sent to Council: 0 1,17,6(1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:March 10,2011 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Salt Lake County's Proposed New Approach to Animal Services STAFF CONTACT:Randy Hillier Policy and Budget Analyst 535-6606 Gina Chamness Budget Director 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Council be briefed by the Salt Lake County Animal Services Director and the Administration on changes Salt Lake County is proposing in a number of areas relating to Animal Services, including enforcement,licensing,and number of animals per household. BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration expects no budget impact as a result of changes being proposed by Salt Lake County. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since 1991,Salt Lake City has contracted with Salt Lake County to provide Animal Services. In June of 2004,Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County signed the most recent 5-year contract. Following 2009,Salt Lake City has had the option of extending the contract for five additional 1-year periods. The City has currently extended the contract twice. Salt Lake County has provided Salt Lake City full animal control services through the contract period for a flat fee,negotiated annually. In addition,licensing,and other fees remain with Salt Lake County to offset the cost of our contract. 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.sicgov.com The contract was recently amended to implement a new adoption fee program that eliminated designated animal adoption fees in favor of a fee structure that is based on demand for and adoptability of particular animals. This,along with other changes in the philosophy of Animal Services leadership,has altered the program considerably in the last three years. There has been more of a focus on increased adoption and reduced euthanasia. Salt Lake County Animal Services now wants to adopt a new operating model to improve pet licensing compliance,provide more pet ownership educational opportunities and further reduce euthanasia. This new model is largely based on an existing model currently being used in Calgary,Canada.. Some of the elements of this new model include cat licensing,removing limits on the number of pets and increasing the cost of licensing non-compliance. They are also proposing the construction of a new pet adoption and education facility,since the current facility does not currently meet their needs. The County currently plans to have the above-mentioned pet adoption and education facility completed by 2013. Funding for the construction would come through the issuance of MBA bonds. The County anticipates that revenue from increases in the number of licenses issued,as well as increases in non-compliance fees,will be sufficient to fund the debt service on these bonds. According to the County's current financial estimates,the licensure and penalty changes will provide approximately$223,000 in additional revenues by 2014,for the Salt Lake City area alone. Although it is early in the process,the County is currently projecting that total revenue increases will be sufficient to cover the debt service and increases in operating costs for the new facility,and will not result in increases in Salt Lake City's contract costs. They anticipate debt service to be approximately$500,000 annually,with an increase of approximately$250,000 in ongoing operating costs. If we recommend moving forward with the County to implement this plan through ordinance and contract changes,we may consider contractual assurance to minimize or eliminate any financial risk for the City. Salt Lake County Animal Services lists the core elements of their proposed new program and model as: 1. Building a more effective licensing program; 2. Developing a stronger community education and safety program; 3. Addressing officer interactions:mediation/communication vs. enforcement; 4. Addressing ordinance changes to support the new operating model;and 5. Building a new pet adoption and education facility The Administration is interested in soliciting ideas and receiving feedback from the Council,as well as the public,prior to proposing any ordinance changes such a model would require. PUBLIC PROCESS: Feedback from the public will be sought prior to any proposed .�r. ordinance changes. The information provided by the County will be placed on the Open ... City Hall section of the City's website where the public's input will be gathered. Salt Lake County Animal Services A New Approach rvbt \ \�,�\lV A, v v v w1 ,VA��� i x From the Fall of 2008 through the end of 2010 the programs within the shelter have gone through significant changes in philosophy and daily operations. mprove Community Resources Improved statistics an. ` uppo" Online licensing The number of pets leaving the county Low cost medical resources shelter has increased by 92%. Free spay and neuter events each year Euthanasia rates are now less than half of Free and low cost trainings made the state average available to citizens and their pets Local, regional and national recognition Shelter now open later in the evening for initiatives and programs Special community programs made New partnerships, grants and donations to available: support programs without additional tax SL County Pit Crew dollars. 2010 American Dog Rescue Animal Trap/Neuter/Release (`TNR') for Welfare and Protection Award Winner. community cats WINNER BEST OF STATE e'j.�Jl! .� I \j 1 UTAH 2010 1. Low licensing compliance (22%). • Impedes ability to ensure rabies compliance • A license and a microchip are critical for reuniting pets with owners 2. Few pets reunited with owners (24%). • Returning pets to owners is our first priority and in the best interest of the pet and the community. 3. A need to increase education and improve safety within the community. 4. Current facility does not meet the needs of Animal Services today. • Built as a traditional `pound' where animals come in and are held for a short time and then euthanized. • Average annual hold times have gone from as short as 4.3 days to 14.6 days Challenges: • I -,SE1._ •• Very low licensing compliance (22%). ter, ❖ Few lost pets reunited with owners (24%). ❖ A need to increase community education and improve safety within the community. Solution: Adopt a new operating model and philosophy for our animal control responsibilities that will help us reach our goals. 4'e A, m m .M i A • ,A A a ' f=i t � In addition to a unique philosophy and a compassionate approach to animal control, Calgary has achieved some astounding statistics. Licensing Compliance—Dogs 22% 90% Licensing Compliance—Cats (Not Required) 54%* Dogs Reunited with Owners 44% 87% Cats Reunited with Owners 4% 55% Dog Bites 658/381,000 residents** 58/ 1,100,000 residents *Cat licensing has been in effect in Calgary for only 3 years. Compliance is expected to increase over time. **263/160,000 for Townships,353/180,000 for SLC 4ks, t r.1au, ..1:...yrofr..s 'mh s LW 1 W ,gip` , i I V {+ o a & ,:. m ' Y'' • . 7 i� i •r�w f-7 'f '' m • YJ AN v ,. O ` � � { mma m" III a/ _ <eaGYn1Y ®� 'L + a■■ . 3®G® c ' E i, 1. We do not have a problem with pet overpopulation, stray animals, nuisance or vicious animals—we have a problem with responsible pet ownership. 2. Shift from traditional animal control to a focus on responsible pet ownership and safety. 3. Identify and directly address the issues or problematic behavior. For example: Pet Limits - is the issue the number of animals or is the issue related to noise, smell or care being given to the animals? Imposing limits on the number of pets does not directly address the problem but it does create a barrier to compliance. We have other ordinances to address the actual issues. N 1 . License and provide permanent identification for pets. 2. Unless your pet is part of a structured, ethical breeding program, spay or neuter pets. 3. Provide training, physical care, socialization and medical attention for companion pets. 4. Do not allow pets to become a threat or nuisance in the community. 5. Procure pets only from ethical and responsible sources. ! ! "Remove barriers to licensing and ensure compliance is easy. Zero tolerance for repeat noncompliance. 1. Eliminate animal limits* • Animal limits do not address the actual issues such'as noise, odor or mess Limits create a barrier to compliance 2. Raise noncompliance penalty from $25 to $250* 3. Require cat licensing* Cat licensing is critical for increasing the number of cats reunited with owners. 4. Offer 6 month free temporary licenses for all new pets. 5. Include a microchip at no cost with any license. * Require ordinance changes. "Education is critical in creating safe and humane communities. " Education corrects myths, removes misconceptions, transforms misunderstanding, changes behavior and is key to compliance. Animal Handling and Bite Prevention Responsible Pet Ownership Specialized Courses for Problem Dogs/Owners (similar to traffic school) ) "Educate, mediate and assist citizens in identifying solutions to issues. Enforcement used as a last resort. " Officers trained in mediation and communication to work with offenders to correct the problem. Focus on education and changing animal owner behavior Field Officer Goals: Increase the number of pets driven directly home Reduce the number of interactions that end in enforcement (ie citations or notices of violation) The current facility does not meet the needs of Animal Services today. f ) } The new facility will be a substantial improvement to the quality of our services and the resources provided to the community. Funding would be through the issuance of a bond with an estimated completion date of 2013. I . Ordet.. What we will achieve: • Safer and more humane community • Increased low cost services available to the public • A more humane environment for pets • Improved adoptability of the pets in our care • Increased adoptions and decreased euthanasia 000.0 Improved education and training programs • Meet and maintain no kill goals • fiPr etc 1;\: ,,\\ ti x: 9E ,,,,„,,ir�,., raw In summary, we have identified five components necessary for us to address our current challenges: • 1 1! ' ,:' 1 t ItY p yk• 7� 7t b � II f3 h 1 � A4^T ,i ti' 'OF i _... 11,1111111111110 \ ,,;::„,A t`F ,�1 a O New revenues from increased licensing will allow us to offer improved resources and programs to our citizens. We expect to create a safer; more humane and more responsible community for pets and people. Pet licensing compliance t Positive interactions and improved T Rabies compliance relationship with citizens I Pet spay and neuter Dog bites 't Pets reunited with owners Citizen participation in programs Animal intake "h. Cases ending with compliance Shelter euthanasia rather than enforcement. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: Apri15,2011 SUBJECT: Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424—Zoning Map and ordinan amendment related to the Public Safety building project STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Casey Stewart,Senior Planner COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council held a work session briefing on this issue March 2011,and held a public hearing on March 22,2011. The Council has a follow-up discussion scheduled for April 5t,with an optional action item on their formal meeting to consider adoption. UPDATED INFORMATION: Since the Council's initial work session briefing,some Council Members have expressed concern over the proposed text amendment allowing for the emergency communications tower at this site. The Administration will come to the briefing on Tuesday prepared with a discussion of options and visual images relating to this issue. Council staff has requested the Attomey's Office prepare two separate ordinances in the event the Council would like to consider the request for rezoning separately from the request for a text amendment allowing the communications tower. Motions have also been prepared to reflect different options for Council consideration. It should be noted that the rezoning would be needed prior to any permits for construction being issued. Because of that,the project could be delayed if the Council does not approve the rezoning request on Tuesday,April 5th. If the Council decides to defer action on the emergency communications tower text amendment,that will not necessarily delay the project. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: (MOTION 1 CONSIDERS BOTH THE REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT IN ONE ORDINANCE) I. I"I move that the Council"! Adopt an ordinance rezoning a portion of the property bounded by 400 and 500 South,300 and 400 East,from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed Use), and RO(Residential Office),to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands),and amending the text of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance to allow for communication towers exceeding maximum building height in the PL and PL-2 zoning districts,with certain qualifying provisions. la.Optional additional motion for Council consideration I further move that the Council amend the ordinance to specify that the communication towers exceeding maximum building height would only be permitted in the PL-2 zoning district. (current ordinance allows these towers in both the PL and PL-2 zoning districts) (MOTIONS 2-4 CONSIDER THE REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT IN SEPARATELY) 1 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning a portion of the property bounded by 400 and 500 South, 300 and 400 East, from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed Use), and RO (Residential Office),to TC-75 (Transit Corridor) and PL-2 (Public Lands). 3 AND/OR 3. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance to allow for communication towers exceeding maximum building height in the PL and PL- 2 zoning districts,with certain qualifying provisions. 3a.Optional additional motion for Council consideration I further move that the Council amend the ordinance to specify that the communication towers contrast,would support other City policies,as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. • The proposed text amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the zoning ordinance. • The proposed text amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts. • The proposed text amendment implements common practices in urban planning and design,by introducing language that significantly limits the number of communication towers that would appear in the City. Council staff note:If the PL district were removed, this would bolster this finding further. D. Planning Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011,with approximately 20 people in attendance. No vote was taken for or against the project. Comments from attendees included addressing the diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,concern that the height of the communication tower will affect the views to the east, and the overall design of the building. Detailed comments are included as an attachment in the Administration's transmittal. E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue on February 23,2011. No comment was received at the hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to forward a positive recommendation,with the qualifier that the language be changed to clarify that in addition to the one-per property and government/public safety purposes requirement,only a "monopole" type communication tower be allowed. F. The proposed amendments were routed through City departments for comment. No departments had any objections to the amendments. G. The purpose of the Public Lands (PL-2) public lands district is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands and facilities in an urban context. Permitted uses include office,government offices,accessory retail, community centers,educational facilities, libraries,art galleries, museums,and parks. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. Currently the proposal is to allow these communication towers in both the PL and PL-2 zoning districts. PL zoning districts are found throughout the City and in some areas where view corridors may be especially sensitive (for example, the Capitol) -see attached map of PL and PL-2 zoning districts. If the Council wanted to further restrict the proliferation of these types of communication towers,the Council may wish to suggest changing the ordinance to only allow these types of communication towers in the PL-2 zone. The PL-2 zone is found nowhere in the City except the Downtown Main Library and proposed for the south the building set in between the 450 South axis and 500 South(approximately 475 South). As such,it will not block the axial view corridor east from the City and County Building,but will be south of that view corridor. Despite the fact that the text amendment is not necessarily supported by statements in the master plan,the overall development of the Public Safety Building is supported by statements in the plan,and the building itself has been designed with a profile to support and enhance the view corridor to the East. The Administration indicates that this communication tower is critical to the functioning of the Emergency Operations Center,and that no other options are possible for this type of communication(the tower needs to be able to have a clear"line of sight"to a city-owned communications tower in City Creek). 1. The Council may wish to discuss this issue further. 2. It is staffs understanding that there is no alternative to placing the communication tower on this site. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration and the project team if all other alternatives have been explored. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The block east of the Library along 300 South contains Transit Corridor(TC-75)and Residential Mixed Use(RMU)zoning designations,and Residential Office(RO).The Transit Corridor zoning designation fronts 400 South. a. The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed use development along major transit corridors.The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass transit access is the primary focus of development. b. The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial,and small scale office uses.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a conditional use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. c. The purpose of the RO Residential/Office district is to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use.This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a permitted use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. B. The purpose of the Public Lands(PL)district is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands and facilities. C. The stated intent of the Central Community Master Plan(2005)is to create a future community based on four fundamental goals: 1. Livable communities and neighborhoods 2. Vital and sustainable commerce 3. Unique and active places 4. Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility 5 D. The following are key points mentioned in the Master Plan that may be relevant to the Administration's proposal: • (Page 9,Future Residential land use changes) The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail,offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential,as well as open space enhancements. (Page 12,Government land Use) 'Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration,courts,public safely and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood." (Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use) INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services,improve access for businesses and residents,facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse,the City and County Building,the Library Square block,and possibly further east toward 400 East. E. The Central Community Mast Plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor,which this site is in.The policies affecting the proposed text amendment are stated below: (Page 19,Urban Design policies) "Protect view corridors,vistas,and focal points.Refer to the urban design map on page 87." t F. For further relevant Master Plan and Policy Considerations,see list starting on Page 9. The following information was provided for the Council's formal meeting on November 16,2011. It is provided again for reference. FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION/OPTIONS: During the Council work session briefing,much of the Council's discussion focused on the 450 south axis,and what could be done to ensure that this axis is preserved as properties develop in the future. The Council may wish to consider the following options for addressing this issue: 1. Add a separate policy statement to the text of the Central Community Master Plan that contains stronger language about preserving an easement along 450 South. The following is a draft of potential language:"Any development between the City and County building and Gilgal Gardens should consider preserving the 450 South corridor as a priority." 2. Adopt a legislative intent requesting the Administration research the costs to acquire an easement stretching east from the City and County Building to Gilgal Gardens along the 450 South Corridor,and request a briefing so that these costs can be reviewed in context with other priorities for mid-block accesses around the City. 6 3. Adopt a legislative intent requesting the Administration return to the Council with options(easement,overlay,density credits),for ensuring that future developments between 400 and 500 South from the City and County Building to Gilgal Gardens preserve the 450 South axis. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: I"I move that the Council'] Adopt an ordinance amending the text and future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to encourage future civic uses to concentrate near existing civic uses in the East Downtown Area,and change the designation of the land located within the bloc bounded by 300 East,400 South,400 East,and 500 South to Civic/Mixed Use,pursuant to No.PLNPCM2009-0142. And/Or 5. Consider adding any or all of the options for additional master plan statements or legislative intents listed above. 6. And/Or 7. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the ordinance. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on October 19, 2010. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: H. An ordinance has been prepared at the Mayor's request for Council consideration to amend the Central Community Master Plan(2005)for the block bounded by 400 South,500 South, 300 East and 400 East,in the following general ways(detailed changes are listed in item C): 1. Designate the subject block as"Civic/Mixed Use"in the future land use map(note: this is a new land use designation-see Matters at Issue section). 2. Encourage future civic uses to concentrate near existing civic uses,particularly the City and County building,to encourage efficient services and improve access for businesses and residents,designed in such a way as to provide a transition from the Central Business District to the Central City neighborhood; 3. Create a corridor at approximately 450 South which should be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with a mix of land uses such as government,public safety,medium to high density residential,ground level interactive uses,cultural facilities,and open space enhancements; 4. Encourage incorporation of residential uses as a part of redeveloped land in the East Downtown area,specifically the Public Safety Building project. I. The ordinance was prepared to amend the master plan to reflect the voter-approved Public Safety Facility,as well as provide a context for the future development of the block. J. The following are the specific amendments to the Central Community Master Plan(noted in bold italic underlined text): 1. Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land use Map for the block bordered by 400 South,500 South,300 East and 400 East to reflect"Civic/Mixed Use"designation. 2. (Lower Center Column-page 9)In the 400 South TOD zone,this plan recommends creating a new interior pedestrian corridor along 450 South between 200 and 700 East with a possible extension to Gilgal Garden between 700 and 800 East. �.. The light rail line along 400 South strongly supports this land use change,which will evolve gradually as the possibilities become apparent to residents and developers. The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to 7 the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration, courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses (small retail, offices,public gatherings), cultural facilities, medium to high density residential, as well as open space enhancements. 3. (Lower Center Column -page 12) Government land use: This land use includes facilities operated by Federal, State, County, and City agencies, such as storage yards, recreation centers,jails and courts, fire stations, police stations, professional offices, and libraries. These facilities may be located generally throughout the central business district, with smaller neighborhood oriented service facilities located in neighborhoods. Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration, courts,public safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated, and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood. 4. (Top of Center Column - page 13) Expansion of large-scale medical facilities and services within the Central Community will take place in the Gateway and Downtown areas of the community. Cultural and governmental land uses will also be encouraged to expand within the downtown area, with Salt Lake City administration, courts and cultural facilities concentrated in the vicinity of the City and County Building. 5. (Middle of Right Column - Table-page 13) Policy INSLU-4.0 Provide government facilities accessible to the public that meet the needs of the community. INSLU-1.1 Ensure that transportation and vehicle circulation impacts are mitigated when expansion or intensification of an institutional land use occurs. Encourage incorporation of residential uses as part of or near new or redeveloped Institutional use projects in the East Downtown area, e.g. the Public Safety Building project. INSLU-4.1 Encourage the concentration of federal, state, and local government -. office facilities, and courts, and cultural facilities in or near the Central Business District with convenient access to light rail in order to provide easy availability to the greatest number of people. INSLU-4.2 Encourage neighborhood participation in volunteer crime prevention and emergency response programs. INSLU-4.3 Ensure City and encourage Federal State and County entities that the architecture of new government or public buildings complements and enhances the urban design of the community and the landscaping achieves continuity among neighboring government building sites. INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration, courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services, improve access for businesses and residents, facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction, and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse, the City and County Building, the Library Square block, and possibly further east toward 400 East. 8 K. The Administration's transmittal notes the following: 1. The current designations in the Central Community Master Plan future land use map for the subject block are High Density Transit Oriented Development,High Density Mixed Use,General Commercial,and Residential Mixed Use(see attached maP)• 2. The current zoning designations for the parcels within the subject block are Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South,and Residential Office(RO)in the south east corner of the block,and Residential Mixed Use(RMU)in the remainder of the block. 3. Current uses on the block are limited to office and retail. 4. Originally the Administration proposed designating only the western half of the block as"Civic/Mixed Use." However,after the original proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and feedback was received,the Administration decided to pursue designating the entire block as"Civic/Mixed Use."This would allow for greater flexibility in developing the Public Safety building project as well as allow for a softening of edges between government uses,commercial uses,high density residential uses,and the lower density residential uses to the East. The Planning Commission comments and concerns from the first discussion informed the Administration's revised proposal. 5. Planning notes that the concept of concentrating civic uses has been discussed by past administrations as far back as 1943(see Master Plan and policy considerations item D). 6. Planning also notes that the location of the proposed Public Safety Building would maximize access to transit for those that use the building,as well as provide an opportunity to further delineate and enhance the axis along 450 South. 7. According to the Administration-the"Civic/Mixed Use"designation would allow for all current zoning and uses currently on the block,as well as government facilities,residential,office,retail and cultural uses. 8. Planning Staff notes that"cultural"uses were included in the potential uses for this block in order to allow flexibility in developing the public open space on the block (potential for concerts,markets or other large public gatherings). 9. The petition from the Administration notes that they will not necessarily pursue rezoning of the entire block,but rather will pursue rezoning of the Public Safety Building"quadrant"only,to a Public Lands(PL)designation(staff note:Government facilities are allowed in the RMU zone as a conditional use). L. Currently the City owns property along the western half of the block,generally from 300 East to Blair Street(with the exception of the Salt Lake Roasting Company). The Council will be receiving a detailed briefing from the Administration regarding the latest plans for the Public Safety Facility on November 9th.Generally speaking,the current plan for the City's property is as follows: 1. Develop the south west quadrant of the block into a Public Safety Administration Building. 2. Develop the axis along 450 South and orient the Public Safety Building towards this axis,creating public spaces complimentary to the public open spaces to the west. 3. Because the north west quadrant of the block is not longer required for development of the Public Safety Building,decide on the future use of the Barnes Bank building, and potentially issue an RFP for development of that quadrant. Previous presentations by the Administration have indicated that they intend to issue an RFP that would call for a transit-oriented mixed-use development,with a strong housing 9 component. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the status of the Barnes Bank Building,and any impact that may have on the bond proceeds used to purchase the building. 4. Because the City is the current property owner for the land in the north western "1 quadrant of the block,it can retain a certain amount of control in what is eventually built on the property. M. Public Comments-Planning staff held an open house for this project on January 14,2010. Eight people attended. Most questions related to the design of the Public Safety Building and surrounding site. Other comments came from surrounding businesses wondering how the extension of Blair Street would potentially impact their businesses. The owners of Freshman's Jewelers(353 East 500 South)also expressed concern that the project would move them from their location(staff note:the City has not expressed a desire to expand the Public Safety Building project farther to the east along 500 South,and would therefore the City's project will not require them to relocate). N. The Planning Commission held public hearings on this petition on March 24,2010,and June 23,2010. As stated earlier,the first time the Planning Commission discussed this issue,only half of the block was proposed to be designated as"Civic/Mixed Use."The Administration then revised their proposal to include the full block,and presented it to the Planning Commission again on June 23. 1. The discussion in March revolved around concerns for the development of housing, as well as concerns that the"edge"between the government facilities and development to the east was too harsh. The planning commission voted unanimously(8-0)to forward a positive recommendation for the master plan amendment. 2. The discussion in June also involved concerns for the development of housing on the block and how specific language in a master plan should be regarding use when a mix of uses is desired. •A constituent spoke at the public hearing and asked that language be more specific to include housing,since other uses in the block have failed to produce the amount of housing desired. •The owner of the Freshman property(350 East 500 South)stated that they worried that eventually they would need to be relocated,but that overall they thought the Public Safety Building at that location would make the area safer. •Commissioners stated that they appreciated the Administration's change in allowing for flexibility and a softening of the"edge"between government facilities and development to the north and east. •The planning commission agreed that language should be added to emphasize the importance of housing in the block and further emphasize the importance of the landscaping continuity between the Public Safety and Library blocks. With those additions,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Those additions have been made in the ordinance that is before the Council. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Downtown neighborhood planning area is defined by the Central Community Master Plan as stretching from South Temple to 900 South,300 West to 200 East. Currently the plan recommends government uses locating in the Downtown Planning area. Planning has proposed amending the plan to encourage government uses to locate"in the vicinity of"the City and County Building,which could be interpreted to allow the Public Safety Building to be developed on 300 East,technically outside the Boundary. Because the Downtown Main 10 Library is already outside of the "Downtown Planning Area"the Council may wish to adjust the boundary of the downtown planning area between 400 and 500 South, to include the existing and proposed government uses. B. The land use designation of"Civic/Mixed Use" will be a new land use designation in the C Central Community Master Plan as well as the entire City. The Council may wish to ask the administration if it will be recommending a combination of existing zones to fall within this new future land use designation, or if a new zoning category will be created. C. The current zoning(Transit Corridor,Residential Office,Residential Mixed Use) does not guarantee that housing will be built as a part of any development,although in some cases housing is encouraged. There is no housing currently on the block,although in developing the Central Community Master Plan,the importance of housing in East Downtown was emphasized.The future land use designation also does not guarantee that housing will be built as a part of any future development. Planning Staff responded to this concern(which was raised by a constituent in the planning commission public hearing)by adding the amendment to INSLU-1.1 (item C.5 above),encouraging residential uses as part of redevelopment of the block. The Council may wish to consider a legislative intent specifying that housing should be a component of a development of land owned by the City on the corner of 400 South and 300 East. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The block east of the Library along 300 South contains Transit Corridor(TC-75) and Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning designations,and Residential Office (RO).The Transit Corridor zoning designation fronts 400 South. a. The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed use development along major transit corridors.The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass transit access is the primary focus of development. b. The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high giki • density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial,and small scale office uses.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a conditional use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. c. The purpose of the RO Residential/Office district is to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. This district should encourage the maintenanc and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale. Government uses and facilities are allowed in this zone as a permitted use. Pedestrian pathways and greenways are allowed as a permitted use. B. The stated intent of the Central Community Master Plan(2005)is to create a future community based on four fundamental goals: 5. Livable communities and neighborhoods 6. Vital and sustainable commerce 7. Unique and active places 8. Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility 11 C. The following are key points mentioned in the Master Plan that may be relevant to the Administration's proposal: 1. The Master Plan states the following as a goal-encouraging unique and active places,including new places where people can gather,meet,socialize and recreate are created using design excellence and shared resources. FYisting destination centers and gathering places are enhanced through urban design recommendations. 2. The subject property is in the Central City small neighborhood planning area(a 40- block subsection stretching from 200 to 700 East,South Temple to 900 South). The following are relevant goals and issues identified specific to the Central City neighborhood planning area,that the Council may wish to consider: • Introduce reduced street width and street park elements in residential neighborhoods. • Target at-grade parking lots for mixed-use development projects. • Ensure that land-use policies reflect a respect for the eclectic architectural character so that this area does not remain as just an interim zone between Downtown and more desirable neighborhoods to the East and North; • Place special emphasis on buffers,transition zones,or insulation to minimize negative impacts from incompatible uses. • Create more open space and recreational areas in the East Downtown neighborhood; • Replace commercial strip development with more diverse and pedestrian oriented activities with a mixture of retail,entertainment and restaurants; 3. The Central Community Master Plan indicates that there is a neighborhood park deficiency in the Central City neighborhood planning area(4.5 existing park acres, 0111h Population 9,327,11.65 acres desired based on the neighborhood park standard of 1.25 acres per 1000 persons). 4. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to institutional land uses: • Mitigate the impacts of institutional land uses on surrounding residential neighborhoods; • Promote the use of parks and plazas for cultural events and ensure that the size of the event does not exceed the facility's capacity; • Provide government facilities accessible to the public that meet the needs of the community; • Encourage the concentration of government office facilities and courts in the Central Business District with convenient access to light rail in order to provide easy availability to the greatest number of people; • Ensure City and encourage Federal,State and County entities that the architecture of new government or public buildings complements and enhances the urban design of the community. 5. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to open space: • • Encourage the development of passive neighborhood parks,community gardens,dog parks,and open space areas; • Protect natural open space areas within the Central Community; • Expand open space and recreation areas with development of Library Square; • Pursue changing vacant lots to improved open space areas; 12 • Provide adequate,safe and accessible recreation opportunities by preserving existing parks,ensuring adequate maintenance and repair of parks and open space,promoting multiple use of park and recreation facilities and increasing the amount of parks and usable open space in order to achieve national standards for park space. 6. The following are stated goals of the Central Community Master Plan relating to transit oriented development: • At light rail stations in TOD districts,establish a centralized core of land uses iiii that support transit ridership.Anchor transit centers with land uses that act as destination points(TOD 2.2). • Encourage a variety of commercial uses that share the same clientele and patrons.For example,movie theaters provide a clientele to patronize restaurants,arcades,and retail businesses(TOD-2.3). • Based on the Future Land Use Map,establish transit oriented districts ' a range of land use densities; • Encourage the development of mixed-use projects near light rail stations to create a livable,walkable urban environment; D. Planning staff located a plan for a proposed Civic Campus dated 1943(see attached map), showing the block to the east of the library as a government/cultural facility. E. In January 2003,the Council adopted the following statements on Downtown(note:this is an excerpt from a larger policy document on Downtown. Council Staff can provide this on request): 7. City's Leadership Role i. The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown,encouraging business investment,working to retain as well as attract businesses to downtown,and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. ii. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector.There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City,through the tools available to it,is a catalyst and coordinator,not a wealth-creator in and of itself. iii. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles—including but not limited to infrastructure,business licensing,regulation,zoning and code enforcement and public safety—are done efficiently,effectively,and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. iv. The City should encourage and facilitate communication and cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown,such as the Downtown Alliance,the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce,the Economic Development Corporation of Utah,the Downtown Merchants Association,the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau,and County,State and Federal governments. v. The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing,and not duplicating,the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance,the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce,and 13 the Economic Development Corporation of Utah,in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 8. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness vi. People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't find in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown — things that cannot be experienced anywhere else. vii. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways,for office,cultural,retail,and institutional uses. viii. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown,for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop,eat at a restaurant,or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area.Marketing campaigns should target Salt Lake City residents,the daytime population,particularly office workers,University of Utah employees and students,visitors,and the suburban population,particularly residents of South Davis County. 1. The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint marketing opportunities,such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. 2. The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street,in addition to retail,that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums,a Broadway-style theater,Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws" to downtown. 9. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes ix. While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years,City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five,ten,even twenty years into the future. x. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies.The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past,and the time for implementing a coherent,rational,and achievable program is now. xi. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. xii. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks,the City Council supports having the Administration provide 14 updates to the Council and the public on the programs implementation. Regularly,the Administration should share,on a confidential basis as needed,its efforts with a subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of Council and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 10.Support All facets of Downtown Development xiii. Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown-such as nightlife or retail-while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. xiv. Each element is important in its own right,but,like an ecosystem,the success of each is intertwined and interdependent.These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: 1. Business center,providing the premier location for a variety of businesses,in particular,local,regional,and where possible national headquarters. a. Indicators of success indude: i. Square footage and type of office space in the downtown inventory ii. The vacancy rate iii. The number and size of"headquarters"located in the downtown. iv. New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. v. Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. vi. Existing businesses renewing their leases. 2. Retail,supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. a. Indicators of success include: i. Number of jobs generated ii. Square footage of retail iii. Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. iv. Sales tax revenue generated. 3. Institutional Center a. Indicators of success include: i. Increased presence of county,state and federal offices ii. Presence of educational facilities available to the public 4. Local government and related public facilities a. Indicators of success include: i. Well-maintained public infrastructure ii. Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area 5. Arts,culture,entertainment and nightlife,providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors a. Indicators of success include: i. Sales generated ii. Number of nights of entertainment offerings 15 iii. Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities induding theater for Broadway productions and museums 6. Tourism including convention visitors a. Indicators of success indude: i. Convention bookings ii. Hotel occupancy rate 7. Housing—available at all ranges of income levels—will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown a. Indicators of success include: i. The number of housing units ii. Vacancy rates iii. Population iv. The mix of market rate,middle income,affordable and low income housing units F. Existing Council policy supports using zoning to maintain the residential population base within the City and to encourage population expansion. The Council policy notes that residential uses should have residential zoning classifications. G. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. H. While the proposed project is not located immediately adjacent to the Downtown Zoning districts,the Council may wish to consider the purpose statements outlined for the downtown zoning districts. a) The purpose of the D-1 zoning district is to foster an environment consistent with the area's function as the business,retail and cultural center of the community and the region. Inherent in this purpose is the need for careful review of proposed development in order to achieve established objectives for urban design,pedestrian amenities and land use control,particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. • In the D-1 Zoning district,when an entire block face is under one ownership (as would likely be the case for the Public Safety Building),no yard can exceed 25 feet,except by conditional use. • If the Public Safety Building does not take up an entire block face,no yard can exceed 5 feet except by conditional use,requiring design review by the Planning Commission. b) The purpose of the D-2 zoning district is to accommodate commercial uses and associated activities that relate to and support the Central Business District,but do not require a location within the Central Business District. Development within the D-2 Downtown Support District is also less intensive than that of the Central Business District. • No building may exceed 65 feet in height except by conditional use. With a conditional use,no building may exceed 120 feet in height. • There are no minimum or maximum yard requirements. CHRONOLOGY: 16 Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • November 3,2009 Voters approve Public Safety Facilities bond. N. • December 29,2009 Petition assigned • January 14,2010 Planning Open House • March 24,2010 Planning Commission Hearing • June 23,2010 Planning Commission Hearing of revised proposal • September 2,2010 Ordinance received from City Attorney • September 16,2010 Transmittal received in City Council Office cc: David Everitt,DJ Baxter,Rick Graham,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Neilson,Frank Gray, Mary De La Mare-Schaffer,Wilf Sommerkom,Casey Stewart,Janice Jardine,Nick Tarbet File Location:Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Master Plan Amendment,Public Safety Building 17 • . . , ..... , - ;.•'1 '(1 ':..n.r., k J 'Lle- . . 'F. :.•;71‘titr ;;4.14-..-tt-f- , ..771 -:c . . .' kj::: '1': I. ''Ti.:• •<' I IE . e+-t„...... ------ if .., „2.!4,i '!;': .a.., 4.:,'...-• - < . , , ,.............. , . .. . ,:. ,, • , s ' .f ..",,,-. ,, .7.-.,,• - 1 . , :.,,,,..', -,..:.....,- - .1., -..1,•-.11:.,.:,.„:.:1€74,P,:.4 --.,,T.'- ..... "...""-' . -i<3..r. _ f __•••., _ . ..,1 _ :1 .• i• n - ..• .-_,...ffEr, 0 ..... . . , ., . 9, i.A Z • -; . , ' '._ •• —7-7F . ------- ,, . . L-- -- • -- '.i :1 ,.. • I .. 1. , •r: ..-.7.vi,......•:_ 1 , ' i• :6„21,-. : ;: ! .,,_._!_ip,.---4.,. • 1 , __ _ „ l' "111.. - - --, . . ,..,.. . —,,,-,..,,, . 11 , • ' .r'.1:. t'.., ' -:‘r•-'1 :-.- •:.r• riArff..--,;,....u.7..._ I . . , '-'":•. • . 1 l'-, I. ' •' ;. F ' -- --'',-.r .-• ;a.' ;.",..1:_lzaj,...,4 ! . . ., - -- — 3.eierk 1, • .. .— _ .. . — .--- : , .. ,-;<.-.,,..t, / ,_• K f, ' 't,..::- -----1,. , 1 ,..1..., ; . _ i , . __ r , . : ;_ .•.4 r -=.. , • .. , ,, L II 7 ii [ PL and PL-2 Zoning Districts within Salt Lake City - :IIillit sir L L 1 OF i' ' ���� I E- 4-,,-, . ZONING 11 IC1-, wI`� Ham 11 �■IIIII■.. , t*, N N II�C iumii `�IL►��\�— , .IIIII�■.■■■ A 1 WIN � ■■Ili• - �� imis � ��i■M■ii ERL 4 IIMEMIIMINIIIIINM llowf41% PL2 Ilimil• e� i•l=11 r■■■■i•■■■■ O •••••••••17■■■w■■■.Ii. 0 12,000 4,000 1 8,000 Feet ■iriui.ij . ci � EMI IIMO i am1111.10011.17 w MNi I �� 1 Public Safety Building . 4. LI Iii .... . fig �...„ i :;' 1) —ttiira• --L_ == :�I II iii Et5 -=�97fr ih, grim 11 - I. . goiLii:Jrnmitsiii Writ" �l -� ...., , III - ■...1 �!� � III ..■ r dimm ._,...fau � � F7 io IJ I ATTACHMENT C Example of a similar monopole communication tower Aurora,Illinois Public Safety Building IJ • 1 a II ._ — ` • S 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers) An ordinance amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,2011 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building;and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;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.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is amended to include"Communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PL and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding .. the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 0804, Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: Permitted And Conditional Uses RP BP FP AG AG-2 I AG-5 AG 20 'OS NOS i A PL PL-2 i I UI MH EI MU I Use Miscellaneous: ( I I I I .I-- Communication C i C P i P" P" !C c C towers,exceeding the 1 j maximum building i height i I I z• ,: .., ..:..: _..- .. •. � -- s.,:z.,,rxr<rzs::.�a..:��.,.....t..,-_._,.......,, c,.srcr:�::....., a.<....,....u."s� Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date ....4, 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 . 0+w Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: NB_ATTY-#I 7319-v2-Ordinance amendingtext_re_monopoles_PSB.DOC APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attomey's Office ,, Date: 7 By:P I C.i ._A 4C-- „rn Nielson, e or City Attorney RECEIVED n 1 2011 SCANNED TO .W- SANWPONCO.f I fir, I 0 I SCANNED BY:BY: • NICE DATE: % DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL U [ ( d [ MAR 1 2011 Date Recei • Davi Everitt,C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: O3 O/ Zp// TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 1,2011 Jill Remington Love . r FROM: Frank Gray,CED Di -ctor SUBJECT: Zoning Map and Ordinance a ;•1 t el - ated to the Public Safety Building project. STAFF CONTACT: Casey Stewart,Planning Division COMMISSION MOTION&FINDINGS: [Planning Commission] Commissioner Luke motioned as to PLNPCM2oo9-01424 the Public Safety Building Zoning Amendments:based on the findings in the staff report and the discussion at the hearing,that the Planning Commission find the proposed amendments adequately meet the standards for general zoning text and map amendments,and therefore transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendments as proposed. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Commissioner Woodhead inquired as to whether the motion was intended to include language for restricting the communication tower type to a monopole,as previously discussed by Commissioner Drown. Commissioner Luke amended the motion to include language limiting the communication tower type to a single monopole in the PL and PL-2 districts. Commissioner Gallegos also accepted Commissioners Luke,Gallegos,Drown,and Woodhead voted"Aye";Commissioner Dean voted "Nay". Chairman Fife did not vote. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council holds a briefing and schedules a public hearing. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 1454E6,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 94114.5496 TELEPHONE:BO1-535-'1105 FAX:B01-535-6005 Re PI-NPCM2009-01423 Master Plan Amendment for Publi,,,$Ak5 gbQ,5gproject BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Zoning Map Amendment Mayor Becker initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Building project. Last year,2010,the Central Community Master Plan was amended to designate the block east of the City Library as Civic/Mixed Use. This zoning amendment request is a follow-up to that process and the next step in the project. The subject properties, acquired by the City,are currently zoned: Transit Corridor(TC-75) Residential-Mixed Use(R-MU) Residential Office(RO) The proposal is to change the zoning of the properties involved in the project to: Transit Corridor(TC-75 Public Lands(PL-2) The proposed PL-2 zoning district allows for government offices along with other community type uses such as theater,retail,schools,amphitheater,offices,and art galleries. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2,thereby allowing similar uses and continuity between the blocks. Zoning Text Amendment The second part of this amendment relates to the communication tower needed to service the proposed building. The designed tower would consist of a single monopole structure,mounted on the ground,and be between 100 feet and 140 feet tall. Currently,the PL districts(PL and PL-2)do not allow communication towers that exceed allowed building height,which is 75 feet. This part of the amendment includes a request to modify the PL districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. Proposal: Modify Table 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted Uses For Special Purpose Districts to include "communication towers,exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use(P)for the Public Lands zoning districts(PL,PL-2)with the qualifying provision of: "Maximum of one monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes." Analysis: The purpose of the PL-2 district is"to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,land and facilities in an urban context." The subject property is an urban site on the edge of the downtown area. This zoning district allows for the types of uses—government offices,public plaza,and community events-and development anticipated to occur with the Public Safety Building project. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2,allowing for better coordination of uses,site design,and property use among the informal civic campus consisting of the City Administration building,the City Library,and the future Public Safety Building. 2 Re:PLNPCM2009-01423 Master Plan Amendment for Public Safety Building project The portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. Furthermore,the PL zones are categorized as"special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worries about the proliferation of communication towers in these districts would be unfounded. Retaining the TC-75 zone along 400 South will continue the City's intent for transit oriented development for the 400 South corridor. The Planning Division is currently working on a project to shift the zoning in this corridor to a form-based zoning similar to what was recently implemented for the North Temple Boulevard corridor. Master Plan Considerations The Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan objectives and policies related to this site arc re-iterated below and demonstrate that the proposed map amendment is consistent with those objectives and policies. {Page 9,Future Residential land use changes} The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail,offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential, as well as open space enhancements. {Page 12,Government Land Use} "Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration, courts,public.safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses trill also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood" {Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use} INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,cowls and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services, improve access fire businesses and residents,facilitate improved work and communication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities nities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse, the City and County Building, the Library Square block,and possibly fit tier east toward 400 East. The Central Community Mast Plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor,which this site is in. The policies affecting the proposed text amendment arc stated below: Re.Pi AI'CA13009-0I'33 Maser Plat..Amendment for Public Safety rlulldin_pmjca {Page 19,Urban Design policies} "Protect view corridors,vistas,and focal points. Refer to the urban design map on page 87." The proposed text amendment related to communication towers would allow them in the PL zones,which currently do not allow communication towers to exceed building height. This conflicts in part with the policy to protect the view corridor;however,with the strict qualifying provisions proposed,this would be the only communications tower that would exceed allowed building height on a PL property. The actual Public Safety Building has been designed to be lower in height and arranged to retain the established view corridor. In this case,the planning commission(and city council)must weigh the benefits of the project and potential impact on the view corridor of this single tower,with the policies of the master plan. The proposed text change conflicts with the urban design policies of the Central Community Master Plan,but in contrast,would support the other City policies as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed amendments were presented to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011. Comments from attendees of the meeting addressed diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,the communication tower height,and building design. The comments are included with the staff report for the Planning Commission as Attachment B. ^►. Staff sought comments from numerous City departments. No departments had any objections and one department raised a concern related to building encroachment into front and side yard setbacks. The actual site and building design will be reviewed through the planned development process by the Planning Commission at a future date. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23,2011. No citizens attended the hearing to offer comment. The Planning Commission held a brief discussion and then recommended approval of the zoning map amendment as proposed,and approval of the text amendments with an additional design qualifier that the communication tower be a monopole. The Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. The vote was four in favor;one opposed. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Standards for General Amendments 21,4.50.050 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. Sc.PI_NPCtit2009-0 1 4 3 3 Master Plan r;ntenAn•,ent for Public Saute Building project Zoning Text,21A.50.050.A In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment,the City Council should consider the following: I. 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; 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Zoning Map,21A.50.050.B In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives; and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay rolling districts which may impose. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including,but not limited to,roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems;water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. (\'2'.l'Li'PC5l2PO5•O1423 Master Plan.amnclmcnf for Public Safely BtnItllc^_ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICES AND POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT Attachment A:Map of proposed zoning Attachment B:Public Comments C) MINUTES February 23,2011—Planning Commission 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2009-01424 December 29,2009 Petition initiated and assigned to Casey Stewart,principal planner for staff analysis and processing. Amendment is to be processed subsequent to the master plan amendment. February 2,2011 Applicant and Planning staff attended Central City Community Council to present project and gather public input. February 11,2011 Newspaper(Salt Lake Tribune)publication of Planning Commission public hearing notice for February 23,2011 hearing. February 23,2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. February 24,2011 Ordinance requested and received from City Attorney's office. March 9,2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes of February 23,2011 meeting. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands) An ordinance amending the text of section 21 A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75 (Transit Corridor)and PI-2(Public bands)pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424,in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,201 1 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO (Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands);and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WI IEREAS,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 the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map,as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts,shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets(Tax ID.Nos. 16-06-331-006, 16-06-331-007,16-06- 331-013, 16-06-404-001, 16-06-404-010,16-06-405-008,and 16-06-405-020),and which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,shall be and hereby is re-zoned from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC- 75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)as depicted on Exhibit"A". SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is amended to include"Communication towers, "► exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PL and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: Permitted And Conditional Uses RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH • El MU • Use Miscellaneous: Communication C •C P CP" P❑ C C C towers,exceeding the maximum building height Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 3. 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) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB\TIT--1679I-vI-Ordin,m..e_Re>onine_PSBj.roperI,es.DOC 3 Exhibit A Public Safety Building Zoning Map Amendment y - j ,,: ,,,,..:}." � s . i z j ,,ii,j7,-.--,::.- 77., > is b r a a rs 1 I � 4sr Yr9 , 1 s '..y ,t� 5 . rik€1 , a N _ ° •�� t , r� has ? :N. / /}1-i - - �•�.'*�, u ..ram . Scale 660-feet _ y , SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2011 (Amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands) An ordinance amending the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and amending the zoning map to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets from TC-75 (Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC-75 (Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424,in furtherance of the proposed Public Safety Building. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23,2011 on an application submitted by Mayor Ralph Becker ("Applicant")to amend the text of section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to communication towers and to amend the City's zoning map(Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01424) to re-zone a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 Fast Streets from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO (Residential/Office)to TC-75(Transit Corridor)and PI,-2(Public Lands);and WHEREAS,at its February 23,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WIII:REAS,alter 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 the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map,as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts,shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that a portion of the land bounded by 400 South and 500 South Streets and 300 East and 400 East Streets(Tax ID.Nos. 16-06-331-006,16-06-331-007, 16-06- 331-013,16-06-404-001,16-06-404-010, 16-06-405-008,and 16-06-405-020),and which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,shall be and hereby is re-zoned from TC-75(Transit Corridor),R-MU(Residential Mixed-Use),and RO(Residential/Office)to TC- 75(Transit Corridor)and PL-2(Public Lands)as depicted on Exhibit"A". SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.32.140. That section 21A.32.140 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for '* Special Purpose Districts),shall be,and hereby is,amended to include"Communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use for the PE and PL-2(Public Lands) zoning districts with an accompanying qualifying provision regarding the number,ownership and purpose of such communication towers exceeding the maximum allowed building height. Accordingly,the codifier is instructed to amend only the"Communications towers,exceeding the maximum building height"use category of the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts and only add qualifying provision no. 13(leaving qualifying provisions 1-12 undisturbed)that such text affected by this amendment shall read as follows: 2 Permitted And Conditional Uses RP UP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH LI MU Use Miscellaneous: Communication C C P Pr' P° C C C towers,exceeding the maximum building height Qualifying provisions: 13.Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. SECTION 3. 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 FOR\I Salt I ake City Bill No. of2011. Published: A.CiSty �l I IIIS Al�1=�1(�-9 <)-I.�.��,�.i R,. i:i��PSIS I�o,�'ie,.IJnC �:�.... 3 Exhibit A Public Safety Building Zoning Map Amendment 1 {::f"' i _ LDS ., x 67 A. .� . . �''- . ' ' `.S :i". IMF. - . _ ! I N go Scale-660 keg g{- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2009- 01424,a request by Mayor Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Building project. Zoning of the properties would be changed.from nm TC-75,R-MU.and RO to TC-75 and PL-2,in conjunction with an amendment to the text of the PL and PL-2 districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. As part of its study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition.During this hearing,anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak.The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315(City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S.State Street Salt Lake City.UT "Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file,please contact Casey Stewart,Senior Planner,at 535-6260 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday or via e-mail at casey.stewartdi slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 4S 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 535-7600,or TDD 535-6021. SLC Planning-Casey Stewart Cent Comm Council Chair-T.Mutter 16-06-405-010-0000 p.o.box 145480 228 E 500 5 unit#100 376 EAST 400 SOUTH HOLDINGS LLC Lake City,UT 84114-5480 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 500 LA GONDA WAY #STE 210 DANVILLE,CA 94526-1747 16-06-329-006-0000 16-06-451-013-0000 16-06-451-014-0000 ROTHMAN,NOEL FPA SLC ASSOCIATES,LLC FRODSHAM REAL ESTATE I,LC 311 S WACKER DR #STE 4190 433 LAS COLINAS E BLVD 8098 COTTAGE PINES CV CHICAGO,IL 60606-6621 IRVING,TX 75039-5581 COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS,UT 84121- 5984 16-06-451-002-0000 16-06-451-006-0000 16-06-328-026-0000 DKL PROPERTIES LLC FAIRBANKS,MICHAEL L CENTRAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH 5985 HOLLADAY BLVD 83 S 900 E 370 S 300 E HOLLADAY,UT 84121-1504 LINDON,UT 84042-2145 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2504 16-06-401-021-0000 16-06-406-018-0000 16-06-405-011-0000 CHILDREN'S CENTER WHITNEY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AMERICAN INSURANCE&INVESTMENT 350 5 400E LLC CORP SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2908 435 S 400 E 448 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3353 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3357 16-06-405-012-0000 16-06-331-002-0000 16-06-405-004-0000 MAHONEY/AMENT PROPERTIES,LLC BOLTON,JOHN BOLTON,JOHN 4605400E #UPPR 320E400S 320E4005 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3319 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 16-06-401-012-0000 16-06-401-013-0000 16-06-405-008-0000 RB&K LLC RB&K LLC CELTIC BANK CORPORATION 333E 400 5 333E 400 5 340E 400 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2937 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-379-010-0000 16-06-405-019-0000 BEEHIVE BAIL BONDS CASHMORE,JAY W&SUSAN P;TRS BLDG CAT,LLC 268E 500 5 312E 500 S 343E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3309 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 16-06-405-016-0000 16-06-405-014-0000 16-06-406-017-0000 FRESHMAN ENTERPRISES MANN,WILLARD C. WAGSTAFF,DAVID B 353 E 500 S 353 E 500 S 1061 CRESTVIEW CIR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-2077 16-06-379-009-0000 16-06-378-003-0000 16-06-401-016-0000 MUTUAL VENTURES CORPORATION EIGHTH CORP OF CH OF JC OF LDS CARMON BLACK MANAGEMENT CO;ET 2157 LINCOLN ST 50 E NORTHTEMPLE EFL 22 AL SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106-2306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84150-0001 1010 PEAKS CIR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-7227 '"06-451-009-0000 16-06-451-008-0000 16-06-451-007-0000 -MAN,DEE ANDERSEN,DARVEL J;TR ANDERSON,DARVEL I;TR(WA TRUST) 1763 PO BOX 333 STANTON AVE 333 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84110-1763 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 SALT LAKE CITY,U7 84111-3519 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-451-006-0000 COMMUNICATIONS CREATIONS,INC SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY FAIRBANKS MANAGEMENTSERVICE.i.k 435 5 300E 210E 400 S LLC SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 321 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-379-009-0000 METROPOLIS INTEGRATED MEDIA LL JDB PICTURES INC STOWELL LAW PLLC 445 S 300 E 445 S 300 E 307 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 16-06-329-006-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 AKASHA SPA AND SALON THE ENGLISH GARDEN NIGHT FLIGHT 331E4005 210E4005 210E4005 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-405-012-0000 SALT LAKE ROASTING CO. GREAT SALT LAKE BOOK FESTIVAL WINKEL GENERAL REMODELING 210E4005 210E4005 4605400E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3319 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-329-006-0000 RP AUDIO,INC ROBIN KENT UUNGBERG ATTORNEY AT 7-ELEVEN STORE#29514A 445 5 300E LAW 309E 400 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 266 E 500 5 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 Jon., 16-06-379-009-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-451-009-0000 MK FUNDING,LLC LIVE GREEN STANTON 307 STANTON AVE 210 E 400 S 341 STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3519 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3577 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-331-007-0000 16-06-330-019-0000 MIDNIGHT MUGGLE MADNESS TYLER MEASOM ART AT THE MAIN 210E400S 4455300E 210E400S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 16-06-401-016-0000 16-06-378-002-0000 16-06-405-019-0000 SIZZLER#321 BEEHIVE LEGAL NA?UTAH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 371 E 400 S 266E 500 S CORPORATE SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3204 375 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 16-06-330-019-0000 16-06-405-002-0000 16-06-401-013-0000 HEMINGWAY CAFE @ ATLANTIC WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Residents 210E 400 S 376E 400 S 341E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2804 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2912 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2901 16-06-404-001-0000 16-06-406-018-0000 16-06-406-019-0000 ....... Residents Residents Residents 330E 400 5 437 S 400E 461 5 400 E SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3344 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3302 ,47:5 Salt Lake Planning Division 451 S Stale Street,Room 400.n0 Sox 145430,Sall take City,Utah 04114 5400 Planning Commission Wednesday,February 23,2011 Time:6:00 pm or immediately following the work session Place:Room 326 PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake CityCorporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Buildingproject. The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-7S)along 400South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property. Also,an amendment to the text of the Public Lands districts(PL,PL-2)would allow far a communication tower to exceedbuilding height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety pur- poses. Th'i srcquest applies to various properties within the block bounded by 400 South and 500 south,300East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 00!-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.) Salt lake City Corporation complies with all ADA a iidelin .People path disabilities m make regnest for teas noble accommodations no Into than 48r hours I advance inorder to Mend Ibis meeting,. Accommodationscma include:alternative formats,interpreters.and other auxiliary aids. This is on shle facility.For questions requests, additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-t5?:TlE0 535-6220. For additional meeting guidelines please see smesv.sl52at_om or call 801-535-7757 f ;. Sa Sike C ly Planning Division I 4515.State Street Rogm 40G _ eZ -- — `—=saIctafii;�,+kv =tB§iYhsnB3 , ro 6 .:,."28 Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street,Room 406; PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5480 titan legal Notices' http:/hcww.utahlegals.comtseaech.php?paper=all&&quen=TransitLCorrid..- l•-•,..1 ..:._ . , ,..,,,. . y-v-,x -: ,t:::. "Tr-, , -:jr.-.*iil,,7-i.Y4'30 -.-!--fe Home Browse Alerts Events Contact Search: All N_,:spapern for Transr Corridor Need help with your search? Click here to view our step by step guide. Show/Hide Newspaper View Results 1-s of 2 for'Transit Corridor' 02/;2/2utt-02 11 _o11 ir, y,. Salt Lake CityZoninc Map And Ordinance Amendmen(02111'2011-02,11/2011) - —�- Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-01424 Pubic Safety Building Zoning Amendment,a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for tire southern portion of the property....READ MORE coo,Fe.,,,]1.e0";r:»dr. .tali Lake,City Zoning Map And Ordinance Amendman(021112011-02'1112011) T Solt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Rune op Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-0142 4 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the one,:Pubic Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property....READ MORE From: I/AC Leo To: Nis=n brre Anoei=;5towar'Cow Subject: RE:SLC Planning-Legal Notice for 2/11/11 Date: Tuesday,February 08,2011 1:54:08 PM Ad #662883 is scheduled to run February llth in Salt Lake Tribune and Online utahlepals.com . Total charge is $75.00. Please check the ad in the paper. Thank you, Lynn Valdez N.ed'_aOne of Utah, a Newspaper Agency Cos.pany 4770 South 5600 West West Valley City, Utah. 84118 Ph.: 801-204-6245 Snail: nacieaal m.ediacneutah.com. From:Stewart,Casey[mailto:Casey.Stewart@slcgov.com] Sent:Tuesday,February 08,2011 10:01 AM To:'nacleaal@mediaoneutah.com' Cc:Hasenberg,Angela Subject:SLC Plannina-Legal Notice for 2/11/11 /milt Attached is a Legal Notice,with billing info,for publishing on Friday 2/11/11. Thank you. —Casey Stewart 14ah Legal Notices! http:/sysaw.utahlegals.com'notice.php?id=89107 r 1 % Home Browse Alerts Events Contact Search: kill fl=crspapers for Show/Hide Newspaper View Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the... Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On February 23,2011,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions:PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project.The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-75)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property.Also,an amendment to the text of the PI_and PL-2 districts to allow for e communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes.This request applies primarily to the western half of the block bounded by 400 South and 500 South,300 East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott(Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.corn)The public hearing will begin at 5:45 p.m.in room 326 of the City County Building,451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,UT.For more information or for special ADA accommodations,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids or additional information, please contact Casey Stewart at 535-6260 or call TDD 535-6220.662883 UPAXLP Ne:;s=cer A.j:�i„sealion Planning Commission Staff Report „ rigo,.. PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ZONING AMENDMENT 'r PLNPCM2009-01424 =•,� T. .. Hearing date: February 23,2011 Planning Division Department of Community &Economic Development Applicant Request SLC Corporation(Mayor Ralph Mayor Ralph Becker has initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Becker) Zoning Map and Ordinance for properties associated with the Public Safety Staff Building project. Zoning of the properties would be changed from TC-75,R- Casey Stewart 535-6260 MU,and RO to TC-75 and PL-2,in conjunction with an amendment to the casey.stewart@slcgov.com text of the PL and PL-2 districts to allow for a communication tower to Current zone exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for N/A public safety purposes. Current master plan designation Recommendation Civic-Mixed Use PLNPCM2009-01424-Public Safety Building Zoning Amendments Council District Based on the findings in the staff report,Planning Staff finds the proposed District 4-Luke Garrott amendments adequately meet the standards for general zoning text and map amendments and therefore recommends the Planning Commission transmits a O Community Council positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendments as Central City proposed. Chair:Thomas Mutter Affected Ordinance Sections • 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments • 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts(PL and PL-2) Notification • Notice mailed Feb 11,2011 • Published in newspaper Feb 11, 2011 • Posted to Planning Dept and Utah State Public Meeting websites Feb 11,2011. Attachments A.Map of Proposed Zoning B. Public Comments 0 PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/172011 -1- Vicinity Map • IworasT t za � ;r �M. 1t. • G t • 111*111 Project Description Zoning Map Amendment The request is to amend the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance in preparation for the City Administration's Public Safety Building project. Last year,2010,the Central Community Master Plan was amended to designate the block east of the City Library as Civic/Mixed Use. This zoning amendment request is a follow-up to that process and the next step in the project. The subject properties,acquired by the City,are currently zoned: Transit Corridor(TC-75) Residential-Mixed Use(R-MU) Residential Office(RO) The proposal is to change the zoning of the properties involved in the project to: Transit Corridor(7'C-75 Public Lands(PL-2) The proposed PL-2 zoning district allows for government offices along with other community type uses such as theater,retail,schools,amphitheater,offices,and art galleries. The City Library block is also zoned PL-2, • thereby allowing similar uses and continuity between the blocks. PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/I7/2011 -2- Zoning Text Amendment The second part of this amendment relates to the communication tower needed to service the proposed building. The designed tower would consist of a single monopole structure,mounted on the ground,and be between 120 feet and 140 feet tall. Currently,the PL districts(PL and PL-2)do not allow communication towers that exceed allowed building height,which is 75 feet. This part of the amendment includes a request to modify the PL districts to allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. Proposal: Modify Table 21A.32.140 Table of Permitted Uses For Special Purpose Districts to include"communication towers,exceeding the maximum building height"as a permitted use(P)for the Public Lands zoning districts (PL,PL-2)with the qualifying provision of: "Maximum of one per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety put poses. Public Participation The proposed amendments were presented to the Central City Community Council on February 2,2011. Comments from attendees of the meeting addressed diminishing residential development around these civic blocks,the communication tower height,and building design. The comments are included in as Attoclmrent B. Staff sought comments from numerous City departments. No departments had any objections and one department raised a concern related to building encroachment into front and side yard setbacks. The actual site and building design will be reviewed through the planned development process by the Planning Commission at a future date. Analysis The purpose of the PL-2 district is"to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,land and facilities in an urban context." The subject property is an urban site on the edge of the downtown area. This zoning district allows for the types of uses—government offices,public plaza,and community events-and development anticipated to occur with the Public Safety Building project. The City Library block is also zoned PL 2,allowing for better coordination of uses,site design,and property use among the informal civic campus consisting of the City Administration building,the Cite Library,and the future Public Safety Building. The portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. Futhenmore,the PL zones are categorized as"special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worics about the proliferation of communication towers in these districts would be unfounded. Retaining the TC-75 zone along 400 South will continue the City's intent for transit oriented development for the 400 South corridor. The planning division is currently working on a project to shift the zoning in this corridor to a form-based zoning similar to what was recently implemented for the North Temple Boulevard corridor. I'1 5'PCd12009•01424 Pul lie Safety Building toning Amendment Published Date_2,17 2011 _ Options The Planning Commission can: - deny the proposed amendment,which would keep the current zoning districts,thereby not allowing government offices. - recommend the amendments be approved as proposed,which would allow for the Public Safety Building project to proceed and facilitate the redevelopment of the site for public uses and facilities in accordance with the Central Community Master Plan,and purpose of the PL-2 district. - recommend modifications to the proposed amendments. Standards for General Amendments 21A.50.050 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. Zoning Map,21A.50.050.B In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan objectives and policies related to this site are re-iterated below and demonstrate that the proposed map amendment is consistent with those objectives and policies. {Page 9,Future Residential land use changes) The 450 South Corridor can be supported and enhanced in the area immediately to the east of the City and County Building with mixed land uses such as Salt Lake City government administration,courts,public safety administration,ground level interactive uses(small retail, offices,public gatherings),cultural facilities,medium to high density residential,as well as open space enhancements. {Page 12,Government Land Use} "Concentration of local government administration and office facilities,particularly Salt Lake City administration,courts,public safety and cultural facilities near the City and County Building will help create efficiencies in services which are often interrelated,and help improve access to services for local residents and businesses.Applying sound urban design principles and appropriate architectural character to these uses will also provide a positive transition from the Central Business District to the Central City Neighborhood.- (Page 13,Policies for Institutional Land Use} INSLU-4.4 Concentrate the development of Salt Lake City administration,courts and cultural facilities near the City and County Building to encourage efficient services,improve access for businesses and residents',facilitate improved work and conmunication among interrelated departments and divisions,provide opportunities for public gatherings and interaction,and support and enhance the development of a pedestrian corridor along 450 South established by the axis between the Matheson Courthouse,the Cite and County Building,the Lib'a_y Square block,and possibly further east toward 400 East. Finding: The proposed zoning map change is consistent with adopted policy documents. PLNPCi12009-01424 Pubic Sn@ny auila,ne Zoning Amendment Published Date:2:17.'2011 -a- 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this title is to promote the health,safety,morals,convenience,order,prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City,to implement the adopted plans of the city,and to early out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act,title 10,chapter 9,of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor,and other relevant statutes.This title is,in addition,intended to: a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; e. Protect the tax base; f Secure ecana»t,in governmental expenditues; g. Foster the city's industrial,business and residential development;and h. Protect the environment.(Ord.26-95§2(1-3). 1995)" The proposed map amendment is considered consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by encouraging and promoting the intent of items"b,d,f,and g"above. The PL-2 zone would facilitate the Public Safety Building project and promote the efficient and functional development of the site as a public space,as the central command for police,fire,and emergency operations; allowing for efficient use of government and taxpayer expenditures;and,foster the city s residential development in the surrounding neighborhoods by revitalizing this site with enhanced public space and architecture. Finding:Staff finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to implement adopted plans,as stated in Chapter 21 A.02.030. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Analysis: The proposed map amendment primarily relates to converting_the southwest portion of the block to Public Lands zoning district. This change would allow for a more public-focused and limited set of uses on the subject properties. It is anticipated that the uses allowed in the PL-2 district,identical to those on the Library block,will revitalize the immediate area with increased public participation and pedestrian access. This will provide more efficient public service and encourage adjacent development. Finding: The proposed map amendment will have a positive effect on adjacent properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: The Public Safety Building site and adjacent properties are not subject to any overlay zoning districts,and thus not contrary to ally overlay district provisions. Finding: The proposed map amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts PLN"pd'y: si.sIS 4 Pu'olic Suisdy tiuil,tn'Zmune/uncol,,n,, Published Dore 2.17'_'OI I -- 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Analysis: During the Public Safety Building site selection process and after, during the site design, the site has been analyzed and researched by all necessary services and city departments. The site was found to have adequate facilities and services for the anticipated project. Finding: The proposed map amendment applies to a property that has adequate public facilities and services. Zoning Text, 21A.50.050.A In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment. the City Council should consider the following: 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 Public Safety Building site is within the Central Community Master Plan area. The master plan outlines design policies for protecting the East Downtown View corridor, which this site is in. The policies are stated below: {Page 19, Urban Design policies} "Protect view corrrdors, vistas, and focal points. Refer to the urban design map on page 87. " The proposed text amendment related to communication towers would allow them in the PL zones, which currently do not allow communication towers to exceed building height. This conflicts in part with the policy to protect the view corridor; however, with the strict qualifying provisions proposed, this would be the only communications tower that would exceed allowed building height on a PL property. The actual Public Safety Building has been designed to be lower in height and arranged to retain the established view corridor. In this case, the planning commission (and city council) must weigh the benefits of the project and potential impact on the view corridor of this single tower, with the policies of the master plan. Finding: The proposed text change conflicts with the urban design policies of the Central Community Master Plan, but in contrast, would support the other City policies as noted previously in the zoning map amendment analysis. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning • ordinance. Analysis: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "PURPOSE AND INTENT: The propose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to cony out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, . , in addition, intended to: PLNPCM2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment Published Date:2/17/2011 -6- a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilisation; e. Protect the tax base; f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; g. Foster the city's industrial,business and residential development;and h. Protect the environment.(Ord.26-95§2(1-3), 1995)" The proposed text amendment to the ordinance is considered consistent with the intent of the local the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would further the intent of items"b and f'above by improving safety from fire and other dangers with improved and more reliable communications among public safety providers. It would also provide efficiency in public safety communications,thereby reducing costs and other expenditures associated with that function. Finding:Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Chapter 21A.02.030. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: The Public Safety Building site and adjacent properties are not subject to any overlay zoning districts,and thus not contrary to any overlay district provisions. Finding: The proposed text amendment does not conflict with any overlay districts. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The text portion of the amendment related to communication towers,while opening the door for communication towers in the PL zones,is worded to mitigate the number of towers by establishing strict and specific qualifying provisions for such towers. With this approach,the wording attempts to achieve best current practices of urban planning by limiting adverse impacts. Furthermore,the PL zones are categorized as`special purpose districts"and are not found in large numbers throughout the city,or the East Downtown View area. Their purpose is limited in scope and therefore worries about the proliferation of communication towers in the view area Would be unfounded. Finding:The proposed text amendment implements the common practices in urban planning and design. PI NPcn120o9-01424 Puhrc safely Buiich0g Zoniue A01011,11,01 Puh:Is,ed D.c 2'I7:201! r • i. t I _...J- - ' - - I ::-. '.! s ... - - - s _ _- __ 774= —_ _ ..... . ,, ! . . , ....., ,.. _ _ _ . .. . ... .. . - --_,, .,_. ,. . ,10-, -. ' . .:....,__ ./.:.; _ . . , .. it a , :. i . . . . - - i , _.. _ ____.__ __. . MO 4 . jt t II ✓ 4 a 1 ` ,fir ! _� ' +3 Y • loirg._!:•4 -- , .__. -2. . . .. --..- • . rt., 1 . tt 0 - ... . 4 . I.. , LI) s ( l _. - mil._ _`.- L: ' > ,-)9 S:trio . . ter,,,'*—\. ...1.., • _ :a _. - -- -t !. r,r .. . ,,.:i.. . e� s ' I t. .,. _ ____ _ _ ,...r: .. ... _ ; ".,. , ._.1... _ • .e...:._ am . ...„,• ., . .. ,_. , ., t �} t� , • CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL DATE: February 05,2011 TO:Casey Stewart-SLC Planning Department FROM:Central City Neighborhood Council REGARDING:Zoning map amendment for PSB block Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC)heard this request at our February 2"d meeting.There were approx 20 people in attendance.There was not a yes or no vote taken and there was no overall support for or against the proposed zoning amendment. Comments were made on several aspects of the rezone and several more made on the proposed PSB design. It was understood that comment was to be on the proposed zoning map amendment but it was obvious that the design was pushing the Zoning Map Amendment so I have included the comments on the bldg design.Comments are below. 1.) Regarding the push for a new transit station classification along 400 S.: It is nice to see the Planning Dept acknowledge the short comings of the TC zoning along 400 S. 2.) There were enough comments on the applicability of the RO zone that it became a discussion item:The RO zone does not seem to be effective.A change to RMU may work better. 3.) Concern that housing opportunities in and around the Civic Campus are diminishing.A housing component is less of a priority in new developments along the civic campus. 4.) The tower proposed for the east side of the PSB was a big concern.More comments on the tower are to follow but one concern to repeat here has to do with the Administrations move to handle communication tower and cabinet requests through Administrative Hearings and not be presented to Community Councils.CCNC felt the move to handle these administratively was in reaction to the large number of requests for these potentially unsightly objects. This being the case then the City will not allow anything unsightly and will look out for the best interests of the residents in the area. 5.) A resident brought up the fact that a tower on this block,at either of the proposed heights.would have the potential of blocking view corridors set forth in the master plan and asked if the staff looked into this. 6.) Will this proposed tower become the precedent for some other project that suddenly needs to communicate with whatever towers this project is needing to communicate with? 7.) A hope that two way traffic would be possible through the mid block crossing. „, 8.) What is the size of the tower (diameter)? Is this a typical power pole size or10 to 12 feet? Comments directed more towards the PSB bldq 9.) The move towards the PL-2 is to accommodate the design of the bldg. We have a design team made up of professionals who competed for this project and now they cannot keep it in the envelope? 10.) An earlier comment at a workshop suggesting the bldg set as close to the street as possible since it is an urban environment. The design team was looking to push the bldg away from the street to protect from vehicle bombs. Is that not an issue any longer? 11 .) A frustration that this new bldg cannot respect the existing setbacks. 12.) This b►dg is in the city center, part of the civic campus and next to trax. If the amendment goes through perhaps a more aesthetic approach could be taken along the south and west keeping in mind the pedestrian nature of the site, for example, exterior decorative wall panels of old library along 500 S. 13.) This may have been the first time for many to see the monstrous shading device/solar panel array dwarfing the new bldg, soaring two or more stories. Will it even provide shading when needed? Why is it so big? Is this the real design? 14.) Tower should have been integrated into the design. A main element of the EOC is not something that is an afterthought. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to have this presented to our Council. Tom Mutter CCNC Chairperson Nick Rupp CCNC Vice Chairperson Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2009-01424 Also see PLNPCM2009-01423—Master j Plan Amendment By: Mayor Ralph Becker Zoning Amendment � III Date Filed: December 29,2009 Address: Block bound by 300 East,400 South,400 East and 500 South j ,,. .,{ Petition Initiation �. Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Files—PLNPCM2009-01423 and PLNPCM2009-01424 From: Casey Stewart,Senior Planner Date: December 29,2009 Re: Initiate petition to amend City master plans and zoning ordinance/map affected by the voter-approved Public Safety Building project An email(copy attached)from the Mayor's office,dated December 4,2009 outlines the steps for the Public Safety Buildings project. Two of the specific steps are:master plan amendments and zoning amendments. The email is considered to be the Mayor's request to initiate two petitions,one for the master plan amendments and one for the zoning amendments. o Page 1 Stewart,Casey rm: Harrison-Smith,Lisa .,znt: Friday,December 04,2009 3:54 PM Cc: Everitt,David;Hale,Karen;Langan,Helen Subject: Mayor Becker Details Next Steps in Public Safety Buildings Project Categories: Other p ;'''v.l\ q �� e rub,FE7 _ r7''': tr ntFw= c'jliliih;A — December 4,2009 Contact:Lisa Harrison Smith 801-913-9748 Mayor Becker Details Next Steps in Public Safety Buildings Project Community Involvement Will Continue Throughout Project SALT LAKE CITY—Mayor Ralph Becker announced today a preliminary schedule for how Salt Lake City's new Public Safety Building project will unfold in the months to come.This announcement follows the highly successful Public Safety bond campaign in which over 65%of Salt Lake City residents endorsed funding constriction of a new Public Safety Building and Emergency Operations Center in Salt Lake City. "While there are numerous details yet to be determined about the exact timing of the project,we want to give the public a sense of what we know so far.This will be the first of many communications about the project over the coming years as the conceptualization,design and construction of these buildings unfold,"said Mayor Becker. Becker continued,"For the past eight months,my office has been tracking public input and comments and feeding that information hack into the planning process.We will continue to incorporate public input as the project moves forward," Immediately following the election on November 3,the City issued a Request for Qualifications for a project manager to oversee the public safety building process.The City received eight responses;a selection committee is currently evaluating those responses before making a recommendation to the Mayor.Once the project manager is in place,that individual will help the City further detail the next steps in the planning process including the selection of the designer/architect,timing of the project and exact budget for the project. r During the past spring and summer the City hosted 11 open houses regarding the location of the proposed public safety complex. At those meetings 10 potential sites were presented to the public for review. Based on the information gathered and evaluated over the spring and summer, the preferred site was determined to be the Barnes Bank Bloch, (the block on the east side of 300 East between 400 and 500 South). Since that time,the City has continued to evaluate new site ideas as they've come forward from the public. There will be a Public Safety Buildings workshop this Monday, Dec. 7, 2009 from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Library in Conference Rooms A, B, and C. The public is encouraged to attend. The workshop will include a presentation on site evaluations and analysis, as well as a discussion on how to make the civic campus one of the'great places in Salt Lake City. The workshop will be facilitated by the Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The City expects the Public Safety Buildings project to follow the preliminary schedule listed below: December 7 Public Safety Buildings Workshop December 8 Results of the workshop sent to the Mayor December 8-18 Additional input,public comment on the workshop and all aspects of the project is gathered by the Mayor's Office via e-mail, phone calls and the website www.slcgov.corn/psb December 18 Mayor makes final PSB/EOC site determination December 18 PSB/EOC Project Manager RFP Selection Committee makes recommendation to the Mayor January 5 Mayor announces PSB/EOC project manager January 10 RFP process for selection of designer/architect is posted on City website and advertised Note: Designer/Architect Selection Committee will include representatives from the Salt Lake City residential, business and architectural communities appointed by the Mayor January/February TBD City exercises options on PSB/EOC site properties Mid-March PSB/EOC Designer/Architect RFP Selection Committee makes recommendation to the Mayor Late March Mayor Announces PSB/EOC designer/architect Late Spring TBD RFP for selection of building contractor is posted on City website and advertised Date TBD Opportunities for public input throughout the process and will include public comment on: - Building Design - Public Spaces - Public Art 2 Note:The City will seek innovative ways to keep the public informed throughout the planning and development of the project. For instance,there will be webccans to watch the construction and an interactive project website to keep the community informed about progress and to help coordinate construction activity. Date TBD Mayor's Neighborhood Discussion Group to be established and will include: - Library Representative - Leonardo Representative - The Roasting Company Representative - Central City Neighborhood Representative - UDOT Representative - Library Board Representative - Area Merchants and Residents Note:The purpose of this group will be to gather input and feedback from those immediately affected by the project and share developments on the project as it unfolds. March TBD City closes on PSB/EOC site properties 1"Quarter 2010 Necessary Master Plan change - This will go through the normal public process and will include Planning Commission and City Council (2"�Quarter 2010 Zoning Amendments - Rezone property to public land Resolve use of Barnes Bank Building Note:Zoning amendments will go through the formal Planning Commission and City Council public process. 2010 TBD First round of bonds issued by City Council 2010 TBD City Council confirms the sale of the bonds k#z, 3 , • SLC PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 5th, 2011 ® MsOa GSBS a a CIVITAS PROGRAi�AATIC REQUIREMENTS • Programmatic Requirements • The building must have 100% functionality following a Major Seismic Event to serve: — Voice — Radio — Dispatch — Telecom/data • Must be secure from the public. • Must house the following line of sight equipment: — (2) Radio Frequency (RF) — (3) Microwave Systems — (1) Small Canopy Antenna • Must Have direct access to Valley Communication Systems — City Creek Peak — Farnsworth Peak ®M,0 15 GSBS•j J CIVITAS I • ANTANNt-REQUIREMENTS Antennae Requirements Component Qnty Description Function Requirements 800MHz RX antenna 1 9'stick trunked voice radio receive Mounted on top of tower 800MHz TX antenna 2 12'stick trunked voice radio transmit Mounted approx.17-20'below top RX antenna GPS antenana 1 Jar shaped 18" timing for voice radio Must have clear view to north Microwave connection for SLC voice Microwave dish 1 4'drum radio system Line of site to City Creek Peak Microwave dish(Possible Microwave connection for SLC voice future) 1 6'drum radio system Line of site to Farnsworth Peak Microwave dish 1 4'drum Telecom/data Line of site to SLCo EOC Microwave dish 1 6'drum Telecom/data Line of site to UCAN VECC Satellite Dish 1 4'dish Back up City Phone&911 Systems Line of site to SW sky Satellite Dish 2 4'dish WAVE/Halo Line of site to SW sky G2 Satelite antenna 4 6'x4"discs Satelite phones for Fire/Police/EM Line of site to sky Line of site to City Creek Peak/line of site to Canopy Data radio antenna 2 3'drum IMS Data system Plaza 349 roof HAM radio antenna 1 8'stick ARES(citizen)radio VHF antenna 1 8'stick Conventional voice radio UHF antenna 1 8'stick Conventional voice radio Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single Control station radio antenna 20 Can be a bank of(20)12"or 2 combined dispatch radios. device antenna Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single Audio recorder antenna 20 Can be a bank of(20)12"or 2 combined dispatch radios. device antenna Requires(1)VHF,(1)UHF,(2)800 MHz Individual user antenna for Back-up Can be located many places. Serve as single WAVE Platform antennae (6-20) and(20)12"or(2)combiner 800mz dispatch radios. device antenna ®M, s GSBS r; Z CIVITAS HEIGHT I„,UES Height Issues • Antenna requiring line of sight must be spaced out on the tower depending on required clearances for each to avoid interference • Lowest antenna requiring line of sight is estimated to be 25' from top TOD (Transit Oriented Development) ih 444 4 Current zoning allows 75' I. - Proposed zoning allows 120' ti tI I is. _ T Project Site 7. - - Proposed tower at 110' • IWO - Designed for future expansion to 160' . 1 aniyisosA GSBS, CIVITAS MONOPC.9c -PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS • Physical Constraints of a communications pole • 5'-0" at the base tapered to 2'-6" at the top • Communication cables have a 5'-0" turning radius • Cables must enter data room on east side of level 2 • Access required for repairs and maintenance • Large foundation requirements for seismic support • Line loss occurs with distance of travel 1 A GSBS'j kJ CIVITAS • LOCATIOk'JPTIONS Possible Options EAST 400SOUTH 725 TG ....- / .._---7-777 i F.. \\\\\\ i/( 1 WING t I 111 I, 1 J VV�� qy, PROPOSED Option 1 Tower Behind Ul!�' I ( EXISTING BUILDING ' PARKING SURFACE ea ea� Garage s a --.. ._._ . w ..i m - UNDERGROUND I . .. .Lk / GARAGE TI ELEVATION. .550 I alL- I ilf lig 71 -1 -.... .- --1.1111 11 ------ I°OI7" PLAZA .° AREA° j 20.500 SF '!' ,' • 4r. �' �'� 1$ ' Option 2 — Towiller in rvi«- 1 -41111 444 d Yard /j/, CY ` I pt i o n 3 IN owe r •of < PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING — --, kid FFE 700 SERVICE YARD I 0 6. '" — L VEL 2 GARAGE LEVEL 1 ._._ _ ._____—. + /./ I _ _* E 43 00 FFE 5500 FSa ol W I".-- '111 Optioef woof mounted' - �� — EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY wr antenna with bounced - - 1 - 12 EXISTING PARKING SPACES 9 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES 5 2 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES signal EAST 500 SOUTH 1 1 ''N I. I �I — Options M!crix Option 1—Tower Option 2—Tow t Option 3—Tower on roof Option 4—Roof .ounted Adjacent to Exterior in Service Yard antenna with bounced Vehicle Garage signal SECURITY Requires additional Secure Secure Unknown security on other fence or block wall buildings MAINTENANCE Easy Access Easy Access -Requires escort to roof -Requires escort to roof -Damage concerns to PV -Damage concerns to PV during repairs during repairs -Unknown access LINE LOSS Additional amplifier None None Unknown deflector& required repeater requirements COST $150,686 $130,810 $168,384 Cannot be determined VARIANCE PD variance required None required None required Permission required to place for proximity to equipment on other property line buildings CABLE SHAFTS -Trenching requires None required None required Requires vertical shaft minimum of(3)90 through levels 3&4. turns for 5' radius Unknown requirements on -Shaft required other buildings. through P1&level 1 Vertical Pole still required. DESIGN Directly adjacent to Bridge directly Requires 5' dia.Structural -Requires secondary CONSIDERATIONS mid-block axis into floor of level shaft extending through (possible tertiary) locations 2 could replace the entire building and -High risk of any shafts.The the parking garage to the communications loss after bridge would be mat foundation under an earthquake hidden by the the parking structure. Re- -Reduction of PV on roof service yard walls design would be required -Discouraged by Police& to accommodate Fire due to lack of reliability VIEWS LL ,KING EAST FROM LIBRARY ROOF Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage t -� - AIM.AiIrUr....++rlommmr --- ®M,.y ,A GSBSIII `J CIVITAS I . (44 *' ... 5 U 0 kw 1 0 Si, cn (.9 aftd aw () c:• 4 it 2. * u 13 liot: 4W r I , 1111 is : r I III li t .4 I O f - • ;4, )._;t7.2. < • I 1 ''' : I c. i • li .. 4. #• " it c-• ,„ E , i We 0 "0 Ce , P'.. , Ai..,. • LL. F-- 0 c0 - #41, ct .— W > O I- Z CU it, , 11 "2 v) I , ilp/ ) N . i 4 •" —I C (I) ...47, Or' 1 .• 1.1-1 0. 0 • VIEWS LL.JKING EAST FROM LIBRARY ROOF Option 3 - Roof 1 - .... I - - - . '411.- ...::A fl -01 „ : . - :.--„ d-----Z .-1-!-3..-.isirs.wino ,-----r , ` - - = • r • .440 if.0.01111*..AN .• — OtAt.,-- -...- ' .41,..Vall• -- •t . .. . _ ...44.1""" • ----, --,.. -----air-----, Gar,,,orail GsBs, m CIVITAS VIEW LO ...ING EAST FROM 4"FLOOR OF LIBRARY Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage • Ivo�+R i y �, - --. - _ .44: - ' ' -..:ems. {: .. ,,fir . • „I .�,s i , .'i • _ — I � �` E - s_ r_...1 • I i": S go, .., i• • e t -'''‘ I\\1 \ 1 V A 1 . .,,' ' ' . i 11 . .. . lc_ ; fib w ! A , '�* RI,• w 400. V < . ,,.,....... -...-__ il --_ UL CC O L J LL t- 0 I- "46111111111111W 4 ii*,;( -1.41 . I - -4-- - ,_-_,.. \- !t t F- • ..,.. f lbw.' _ 0 a) , ._.... ..... _........., . .........,! ........ ._ illi:211114.- , N ' au i * - lift i 4•' e tr ' 1 ''''S 4 'i 4111 W Q ' > 0 i - --,' •Pi t ' 1 , 'i \ - '' III 0 \Hi it" iiii il— _ a, tee. i . : • -- . NMI r El . v J t S L' cc r• O u_ x . . cc -,,,, . 4 idt, , ...._ „ N 4- , 111F i •• I minr - r. i . Q 1 alp M rFaj - Aif } i 0 • • 5 y a r"T' '•t fi7i #"RV VIEW LOL...ING NORTH FROM BLAIR STREET Option 1 —Adjacent to Garage iippr...., .. Nk K Aye. ,. II 4 u ,, AMIE s . r�I� m .j I `Mr`,Ai alit-Lamm ,,,Ads _ -� r► •Uil� - IIII ,, it 4 0 _ sii i • 1 W ix Zoi'I cc LiJ 0 m { n 4111117 4111.1 x v _ R co w N 0 C J 0 0 04 . i _ . t 411 * s • ilk ob.%i 4 _4, 1 / ilr dVi • fy. F W cc i• { • ar re 11,, , r . R. _I0 ,j Noma IIr_ cc ;4 a ; •�"� 1 Ai cc 0 �1 ::,'0, r• N 0 1.., a •t t • die— I AND i O ......i.F ..dimi . ekit IP ,i 0 < p— ., st > 7) I4 • , ...... . ..... 0 \\ T, 03 . .. V) , (9 . <0 , 0 0 .. . 411••• \ ••••• g )10- \ •k • . ' :1i 1 • • • 1 •••4'4 4 4 41 i, 0• . I : 1. E ,,.• . , :.• •,,.. \ C • -.,11' t 1 ,' i' f ii I! • 'Jn't II g I If ' 1. F— (i) It ' -• . • 4 W 0 13 o s- m (13 i 2 ›- • 'lir. - 0 W 4 Ct. U t U.. F-- > L U) CU '4 ii) ' I's'41 . 011010 W I C ..s -.., •— D -C / / --1. -- 0 4-0 11 ' - Cl) I , - -- ,446.- • (.9 -, ...... , z E ..., -; o 1.1 ••••.. d ,4 -.I C / u i 0 3/31/11 C.5—Public Hearing—Electronic Billboards Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717-Ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations to prohibit new electronic billboards and regulate conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • The Council received a briefing on March 22,2011. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: The Council may wish to take action at the end of the public hearing. This item has been processed under the pending ordinance rules that allow 6 months for new zoning regulations to be adopted. The time limit will expire on April 19. The next available meeting for Council action would be April 26,2011. 1. ["I move that the Council") Refer this item to a future Council meeting. 2. ["I move that the Council") Adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations to prohibit new electronic billboards and regulate conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. 3. ["I move that the Council") Not adopt an ordinance rezoning properties located at approximately 1370 and 1380 South West Temple Street from Residential Business RB to Residential Mixed Use R-MU. 7-1rO P'ED FRANK B.GRAY lUe ONAV I�NP J(J4dAINWEIS WO• DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNEV7 ct. DcvuTr DR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ,t DATE: 3/14 7 Y DE LA MARE-ARE-9CHAEFER ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 11MTHITT-Th / MAR 15 2011 Date Received: D J David E ritt,Chie of Staff By Date Sent to City Council: 03/IS/7-0 I( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10,2010 Jill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community&Ec omic Development Department Directo RE: PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. STAFF CONTACTS: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner,at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin:Mayor Ralph Becker has initiated a request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to include regulations for electronic billboards. The petition requests that existing City ordinances are updated to reflect industry changes and to define and regulate the conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S4114-5486 TELEPHONE:801.535-6230 FAX:B01.535.6005 www.9LCGay.cOM/CED ��nccrcico Analysis: In October 2010,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to address the conversion of traditional billboards to an electronic format. There are two associated petitions: Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. The Planning Commission has not yet taken action on either of these petitions. The petition regarding electronic billboards has been forward ahead of action regarding the other associated petitions because the issuance of building permits for electronic billboards have been withheld since October 21,2011,under the Pending Ordinance Doctrine. This doctrine allows the City to withhold the issuance of building permits for a period of 180 days as the City reviews and potentially adopts proposed regulations. At the end of 180 days(April 19,2011),the City can no longer withhold permits under this doctrine and if no new legislation has been passed, permits must be issued based on current Zoning Ordinance standards. Regulation of electronic billboards is the most pressing of the billboard issues being reviewed. For this reason,a recommendation to prohibit electronic billboards is being transmitted to the City Council by the Planning Commission,at this time,to provide specific regulation of electronic billboards prior to the end of the 180 Pending Ordinance Doctrine deadline. The proposed text amendment defines and prohibits electronic billboards,which are considered to be an intensification of existing billboards. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance which prohibits electronic billboards in Salt Lake City at least until such time that the broader issues surrounding billboards in general are reviewed and potential amendments to the City's billboard regulations are forwarded to the Council for consideration. The Planning Commission has already scheduled further discussion on the broader issues of billboards. Because of the approaching deadline imposed by the Pending Ordinance Doctrine,this transmittal is being forwarded to the City Council without ratified minutes of the March 9,2011 Planning Commission meeting. The minutes will be forwarded to the City Council upon adoption(tentatively scheduled for March 23,2011). Master Plan Considerations:The following master plans have been reviewed: • Urban Design Element: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on gateway streets. Gateway streets are the major entrances into the City and include interstate highways I-15,1-80,I-215;300 West,Main Street,State Street,5600 West,Foothill Drive,600 North,North Temple,400 South,500 South and 600 South. • RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00717-Electronic Billboards Page2of3 • North Temple Boulevard Plan: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on North Temple. • Downtown Master: This plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on entry streets to downtown and cleaning up their general appearance. PUBLIC PROCESS: • An Open House introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. • There was an initial briefing with the Planning Commission at the December 9,2010 meeting. • The Business Advisory Board was briefed on January 5.2011. • Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5,2011 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. • The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session on January 12. 2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. • The Planning Commission held an"issues only"hearing on January 26,2011. • The Planning Commission held a hearing on February 23,2011 and voted to continue the item as other business. • The Planning Commission made a decision on March 9,2011 and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the text change to the billboard ordinance that would define electronic billboards,prohibit electronic billboards and provide criteria for any existing electronic billboards. The Planning Commission vote was four in favor;two opposed;one abstention. The discussion included statements that the prohibition was to prevent the mass construction of electronic billboard at the end of the pending legislation"period.No building permits have been issued within 180 days of initiating the petition.The Planning Commission also set a date for ongoing discussion of billboards.with the understanding that the discussion may include proposing new regulations fbr electronic billboards. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps arc authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,as detailed in Section 21 A.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 21 A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail in the Planning Commission Staff Report. RE: Petition P1.NPCM2010-00717-Electronic Billboards Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK January 15,2011 newspaper February 12,2011 newspaper 13) STAFF REPORT 1) February 23,2011 STAFF REPORT(Primary staff report) 2) December 2,2010 Briefing memo for December 9 meeting 3) January 12,2011 Briefing memo 4) January 20,2011 Briefing memo for January 26 hearing 5) Report of information provided to the subcommittee 6) Continuation of February 23,2011 public hearing to March 9,2011 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES January 26,2011 February 23,2011 March 9,2011 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition No.PLNPCM2009-01048 October 21,2010 Petition submitted to City for consideration and processing. October 21,2010 Petition assigned to Doug Dansie,Senior Planner,for staff analysis and processing. November 18,2010 Open House. November 24,2011 Routed petition for review to applicable Departments and Divisions of Salt Lake City. December 9,2010 Initial Briefing with the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. January 5,2011 The Business Advisory Board was briefed January 5,2011 Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards January 12,'2011 The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. January 13,2011 Mailed public hearing notice for the January 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting. January 15,2011 Published public hearing notice for the January 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting in the Salt Lake Tribune. January 26.2011 The Planning Commission held an'`issues only"hearing January 31,and February 7,2011 A Planning Commission subcommittee met with industry February 10,2011 Mailed public hearing notice for the February 23,2011 Planning Commission meeting. February 12,2011 Published public hearing notice for the February 23.2011 Planning Commission meeting in the Salt Lake Tribune. February 18,2011 Published Planning Commission Staff Report. February 23,2011 Planning Commission conducted public hearing and voted postpone action. March 9,2011 Planning voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the text change to the Billboard ordinance that would define electronic billboards,prohibit electronic billboards and provide criteria for ally electronic billboard that may be constructed for any external reason. March--.2010 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for March 9.2011. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to billboards) An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717 regarding the regulation of billboards. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearings on January 26,2011 and February 23,2011 to consider a request made by Mayor Ralph Becker("Applicant")(Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717)to amend the text of section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards)regarding the regulation of electronic billboards;and WHEREAS,at its March 9,2011 public meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")that the City Council amend section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code as specified 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 21 A.46.160. That section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards),shall be,and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's rs master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME: The length of time that elapses between text,images,or graphics on an electronic sign. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display.projected image, or similar device with text,images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays.fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80: 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; ANlik 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensity of light falling on a subsurface at a defined distance from the source. MOTION: The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images,or graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting that resembles zooming,twinkling.or sparkling,changes in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting ^^� shapes,and similar actions. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic sign to change to a different text,images,or graphics on a subsequent sign face. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1.D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last:and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G. Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36) months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H. Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building ..� code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. ,.,,, N. New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet (600')of the right of way of any gateway. O. Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q. Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R. Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection, apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line. This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T. Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) ..� linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street U. Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed or reconstructed for any reason after the date of adoption of this ordinance are limited to the following: a. Motion Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic billboards shall have only static text,images,and graphics. b. Dwell time The text,image,or display on an electronic sign may not change more than once every twenty four (24) hours. Twirl time between subsequent text,images,or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. c. Brightness The illumination of any Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the electronic Billboard face at: �+a i. 150 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface are of not more than 242 square feet ii. 200 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet iii. 250 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet iv. 350 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. d. Display period Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight. and 6 a.m if they are located in,or within 600 Feet of,a residential, mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Business District. gateway, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business. or Community Shopping Center zoning district e. Controls i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time.brightness,and other requirements herein. DV.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VW.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection US of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. WX.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. XI.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. YZ.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake Cite tree stewardship ordinance. ZAA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. AABB.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection VW of this section,or its successor subsection. RBCC.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein, existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to billboards) An ordinance amending section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717 regarding the regulation of billboards. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearings on January 26,2011 and February 23,2011 to consider a request made by Mayor Ralph Becker("Applicant")(Petition No.PLNPCM2010-00717)to amend the text of section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards)regarding the regulation of electronic billboards;and WHEREAS,at its March 9,2011 public meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")that the City Council amend section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake City Code as specified 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.46.160. That section 21A.46.160 of the Salt Lake C dt'Code(Zoning:Signs:Billboards),shall be,and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME: The length of time that elapses between text,images,or graphics on an electronic sign. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use ommik or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display,projected image, or similar device with text,images,or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; Amok 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensity of light falling on a subsurface at a defined distance from the source. MOTION: The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images,or graphics. Motion shall include,but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting.that resembles zooming,twinkling,or sparkling,changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic sign to change to a different text,images,or graphics on a subsequent sign face. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection DI of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: I.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall he removed last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G. Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36) months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H. Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. ANN. N. New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet (600')of the right of way of any gateway. O. Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. ""► P. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q. Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R. Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection, apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or comer side lot line. This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T. Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2. Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street U. Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed or reconstructed for any reason after the date of adoption of this ordinance are limited to the following: a. Motion Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic billboards shall have only static text,images,and graphics. h. Dwell time The text,image,or display on an electronic sign may not change more than once every twenty four (24) hours. Twirl time between subsequent text,images,or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. c. Brightness The illumination of any Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the electronic Billboard fact at: i. 150 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface are of not more than 242 square feet ii. 200 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet iii. 250 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet iv. 350 feet for an electronic billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. d. Display period Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight. and 6 a.m if they are located in,or within 600 Feet of,a residential, mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Business District, gateway, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business, or Community Shopping Center zoning district, e. Controls i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time,brightness,and other requirements herein. V. Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21 A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. W.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. X. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Y. Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. Z. Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. AA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve.make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. BB.Special Provisions: -� 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection W of this section,or its successor subsection. CC.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein, existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Amok Utah state law. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Sall Lake City Attorney's Office Date: ?A// Bill No. of2011. Hy: Published: r i c Niels , et„at ra Altanec HH A1TY-=17129-s2-Ordinance-Billboard amendments-electronic billboards.DO(' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. As part of its study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition.During this hearing,anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak.The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315(City Council Chambers)* Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S.State Street Salt Lake City.UT *Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file,please call Doug Dansie. Senior Planner,at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m..Monday through Friday or via e-mail at doug.dansieraislcgov.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 ADA Coordinator at(801)535-7971;TDD 535-6021. Saunders Outdoor Advertising High Impact Billboards Alex Waller "33 Lincoln Avenue 808 N.Hwy 89 545 S 700E len,Utah 84401-3837 Ogden,Utah 84404 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Reagan Outdoor Advertising Fusion Imaging Inc. Jared Johnson 1775 Warm Springs Road 601 Boro St. 1065 S Gramercy Rd Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 6-2 3 5 3 Kaysville,Utah 84037-3122 Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Simmons Media Group Young Electric Sign Company Ryan Young 515 S.7th E.41C 2401 S.Foothill Drive 2401 Foothill Drive Salt Lake City,Utah 84102-2802 Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 845109 Card Sign Inc. COAMAX Sign Company Inc. Mike Helm 960 W.2100 S. 2180 N. 1089 W. 1505 S Gramercy Rd Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 9-153 0 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 64104 Utah Logos Inc. Millennium Sign Company Daniel(Dewey)Reagan 5278 Pinemont Dr.4A150 2150 S. 1300 E.Suite 500 1775 North Warm Springs S•'1t Lake City,Utah 84123-2711 Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Lamar Transit Advertising John Evans Co.Digital Imaging Randy Horiuchi 754 S.200 W. 3815 Parkway Boulevard 1785 Michigan Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84120 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 CBS Outdoor Republic Outdoor Advertising Collin Simonson PO BOX 2455 1675 Beck Street 50 West 300 South#1200 Salt Lake City,Utah 84 1 1 0-24 55 Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1(i-1214 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 JLC Signs Vision International Kim Spring 6605 Sunflower Dr. 3030 Directors Row 1011 S West Temple APT 305 Highland,Utah 84003-9483 Salt Lake City,Utah 84104-4551 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Lockridge Outdoor Advertising Mike Zulu 4460 Wallace Lane 1063 Douglas Street i-Iighland,Utah 84124 Salt Lake City,Utah84105 Outdoor Promotions Guy Larson 9500 S.500 W.#106 1775 North Warm Springs Sandy,Utah 84070-6654 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Terry Thomas Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1848 Stallion Lane 839 S Washington Street 984 Simpson Ave Salt Lake 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 SirJames 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 pooke, DttAJ5 f(' 1044 West 300 South 527 N 41A/N Salt Lake City UT 84104 3 ANN 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 606 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 ie D.Christian Harrison R.Gene Moffitt Community Council Chat 336 W.Broadway,#308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 12.1.1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Tb-bT-t:TLOSO VT-TVC: S3 .. •...;,..... O WMN03 013180ND 03SS3a00n a*t!t}(Tt3ad OA m iutiNti WIWEITIVISOd Sn 318OOtAI130 IONG C=_3`:u7I_•Gahr Eves 2 ica >r\T"i's) 1.0H s 5M.^'n SS300otl1N3101ft000I❑ Ev ctN U OS NL+,ft.Lih! H38WHN HMS ON 133tl1S NnS ON❑ r T r r.� ram., T ..: isbCi _�%r.wra 035r133NO-ISHnsON❑ NMONN ION-031da331Cn❑ SS3tl00n ON 1131'MON 0 • 91 r tug �l og •j.1 ONIaVAl dO DOliON (Illl r to i 1`II)(, O 9-b6lteIn'A110A)IV111VS �14f 7°� Y 90b Ind 1d3�Jls d VIS HInOS 6Sb Lit f?_y'i� � OebSvH XOa Od 911b83C1,1Vr00 PJ-065ZhIv.9 `F G..'dti /3 L2j� NOISIAIOONINNVId oz burr sfoz5zb000 a f`• NOIIV2�Od2�O0 A113 d)IVI IIVS T n 4+_ _ __ _ _ L4SOdr�ti6 • GUIDELINES 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 five(2)minutes per person,per item.A - spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns v✓ill 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 he sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Reese 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers aid 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. S eakers should focus their comments on the agenda item.Extra •repetitive comments should be avoided. - - e -lies may make requests for reasonable accoihimbdatinm no titer pan - a . this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This ...1 accessi- lily. For questions,requests,en additional information,please contact the Planning Ofbce at 535-7757,TDD 535:6220, t SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street • Wednesday,January 26,2011 at 7:00 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session • The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. • Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects, discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. PLNPCM2011-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission, pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map, in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance, and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South,from 1300 East to 1900 East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(801)535-7758 or carl.leith@slcgov.com.) PLNPCM2010-00665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(VCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment—A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21A.34.120 and 21A.34.020 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.malovPslcgov.com). o Approval of Minutes o Report of the Chair and Vice Chair o Report of the Director o Public Hearings 7:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing(Administrative Petition) 1. PLNPCM2010-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for zn expansion of the office building located at 147 North 200 West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts and in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold.(Staff contact:Katie Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Issues Only(Legislative Petitions) 2. Petition 400-05-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planting Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and maybe viewed at wiviv.sletv.com 4770 S.5600 W. P.O.Box 704005 e�utt�iz�ke�ribune MEDIAE vte Deseret News WEST-VALLEY CI IA'.UTAH 84170 FIIU.TAX LDI 87-0217663 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY 5 r: S0 USTOIvtERTIA'CvIE'AND's4DDRESS `` `-' !?`ACCOUNP:IJIJMBER '-'f PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 2/14/2011 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PLANNING DIVISION, 8015356184 0000662998 / '{' r� `_ " SORE LE " r� °,+- -" Ma a•'`. Start 02/12/2011 End 02/]2/2011 "; CUST;.RLF HO 5�%k ~ .` fi s:t: z:J Zoning Ordinance Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Amendment On Wednesday February 23,2011 at 7:00 pm iI °,,;eq o a'i° `M"retlmrm On Wednesday February 2I• 7:00 FT.'," mw a Ro°m J2E °r a S City/City/CoastCity/Coasts,mewleinq sl Soren Sf°fe,ne Salf late 31 Lines 1.00 COLUMN nelOP1poEl¢Aevni�ia-III �itlrr zcn:nq fe.t emcntlmcrnn TTMLS �.+�, - .RAIL - reaam,q v nr miner ae cntlti°bacrtl regblll- boards.Seal!Comonr Deog 3 Daiuia(801 15]5-E 1 E2 doug nsle cOJslcgov.com T p c ne°ring r II br n `..--MISC.C11Al2GHS : •,' ;.• CHARGES - am re Ste CIO eeonh • - - 'B dnq. e51 Sfc'e Sheet,Son take Clh.Uy.Fcr Imo inl°rmbtion or for spr- myi log ImM (TOTAL COST, 1 m°o'"piZe 0022 or call 1DD 535-6220. 6E2SSB I1PAx LP 43.75 AI l 1115571 OF PURI.ICAIION 1S ItIFWSPAPIIR AGENCY COAIPANS',I IC dbu LI.DIAONG OF IJTAII LEG11,13o0KEI:,I CERIIIY T1-IAT1I Ie AFTACIICD:ADA'11R1ISI-AILNI OF Salt Lake Citc Zoning Ordinance.-Amendment On N ednesda,Feb.earn 23.2011 at 7:00 pin in Room 326(tithe Salt Lake Cin:'Cnuaty ISuildin0.451 South State. the FOR PLANNING DIVISION.WAS PURLISIISD 13Y THI'NESVSPAPF.R AGENCY COLIPANY.LLC dba A9EDIAONL(1F II FAIL AGENT FOR THE SAI:r LAKE T 12113UNE AND DESERET NI55S,D:A1!_l'NIOS SP.APEIS P12IN I LD IN THE FOCI IS!!LANGUAGE 55T111 GENERAL L IRCUi.OilON IN U I AhI,AND P(13LISIICI)INS.ALI LANE Cffl'_SALT IAGII C0171JTY IN T 116 STATE OF UTAH NOIICF IS ALSO POSTED ON U'i.-V-II.FG91_S.COA1 ONTI IF.,SA\il D:SY 1S TIIB FINS I NEIFSPAPCI2I'11CLICATION DAlF AND LFAI:1NS ON UTAIILCGAI S.COA1 INDGI:INATELA. F(IGI_'SUED oN Stall 0 12i2011 End 0202/20]1 - ,IC,NAI UKI �A 1 ;,,( �l_I-fit. 1)11 E • 2/1412011 TIIlS 18 NOT,\STATEMENT BUT A"PROO5 OF PUBLICATION" ._ PI FAST'PAY 1.110\1 All I INI(7 SiATP\4FNT Remit lei P.O.Box 704005 7,1)e*nttgahc'c ribune MEDIAE ste Deseret News Vilest Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad#0000655815-01 Client PLANNING DIViSI ON Payor Customer PLANNING DIVISION Ad Content Proof Actual Size Client Phone 601-535-7930 Pa Phone 801-535-7930 On 0 7.00d oy JciRoom Payor Ines oat In nuory 326 of the Sift Loh, SI/Soul Sro leie 51r Account-if 1001472101 Payor Account 1001472101 Lake Gry Nanning Corn- mission..ill bold a public Tr sedeon- Address P.O.Box 145480,451 South State Street,Km SCE Payor Address P.O.Box 145480 451 South State Stree Irng t-nr c�meonnclmenrrsz SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 elve arding a shelters t se blllbo nid c�itcni an I elztt c is lsiilSocrds.SraN Con. Ordered By Acct.Exec a-r'DouLr11 Dmrre Fax rise 5c35 r:e(nlsiglo<c,a d EMail everett joyce@slcgov.com Angela jval Sez Total Amount $109.00 Payment Amt $0.00 Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits Amount Due $109.00 0 0 0 Payment Method PO Number Confirmation Notes: Text: Ad Type Ad Size Color CLS Liner 1.0 X 16 Li <NONE> duct Placement Position it Lake Tribune:: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position Deseret News:: General Classified 010Spocia!Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position sltrib corn:: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 Product Placement Position deseretnews.com.: General Classified 010-Special Notices 0010 Scheduled Date(s): 01/15/2011 011112011 2,45 42PfM 1 5.B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS/MEMOS 1) February 23,2011 STAFF REPORT(Primary staff report) 2) December 2,2010 Briefing memo for December 9 meeting 3) January 12,2011 Briefing memo 4) January 20,2011 Briefing memo for January 26 hearing 5) Report of information provided to the subcommittee 6) February 18 memo 7) Continuation of February 23,2011 public hearing to March 9,2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Off-premise advertising v 54 `7 ;17 Petitions: 400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM2010-00717 Zoning Text Amendment °� I,,, Citywide Planning and Zoning Division February 23, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Mayor Ralph Becker Request Staff There are three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise Doug Dansie,535-6152 Doug.Dansie a nlcgoo.com advertising in Salt Lake City. Tax in: Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising- City,idc A request fora zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Current zone The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Cin,ridc master clan Designation: PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by NA Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for Council District: cn ,,;r e outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law.'Ihe text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Community Council: Cin„id`- PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards- Lot size, request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to cit>,,;de address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not Current use: address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning NA districts. :\y,licable Land Use Regulations: Staff Recommendation 21 A-50.Oda Standards for genera! amendments Based on the findings listed in the staff report.it is the Planning Staffs opinion 2In 46.160:Billboards that overall the proposal generally meets the applicable standards and therefore, Notification(hearino) recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to • Notice:Jnaary22, the City Council to approve the requested zoning text amendments associated deb 12.2011 with petitions PI.NPCM2010-00032 and P1,NPCM2010-00717 as outlined in • AVol): January 2' Feb 11,2011 the summary and not take action on petition 400-06-51 and hold it for further review. Attachments: A. Dcpvnneat Comments ! B. Proposed ordinance C. A1ap of-affected neairapi iL i II I'eG,loi°s.1n0.5.51 PLNPc.17010-00H2 PI NPCr,12 0 1 0-00 7 1' rublIshcit D.:s rebi,ar IS.201I 17 Background The current billboard ordinance was adopted in 1993. It was based upon the premise of capping the overall number of billboards and allowing the remaining billboards to move to more acceptable locations away from residential and historical areas. Since then, State legislation has changed allowing billboard companies to relocate billboards to non-residential zoning districts adjacent to existing billboard locations. In many cases, billboard companies have purchased the land or easement on sites to insure the permanence of their board, therefore eliminating the incentive for movement. The industry has also expressed a desire to maintain its present coverage; therefore the billboard bank contained in the original ordinance has been rendered mute. The industry is now considering converting many billboards to billboards with electronic faces, which have a differing set of impacts (such as changing images) and effectively increase the non-conformity of many billboards. The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards: Meaning there is no prohibition or rules regarding conversion. Project Description There are three separate petitions, all involving off-premise advertising. Off-premise advertising differs from on-premise advertising in that on-premise is generally necessary for an individual business to exist or survive, Off—premise advertising generally promotes activity not associated with the location of the sign, therefore th'" nexus between the business and the sign is not as critical. Court cases have generally allowed local communities to regulate off-premise advertising more stringently than on-premise advertising. The Supreme Court has ruled that billboards may be banned as long as other forms of advertising exist in the community. The petitions and issues are as follows: Petition 400-06-51: Zoning Text Amendment, Transit Shelter Advertising- A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Request: The present ordinance has banned bus bench advertising and most other advertising in the public right-of- way since the 1970's. This proposal is to allow limited advertising on bus shelters or other public furniture (as is done in numerous suburban communities)to allow advertising to pay for those public amenities. Issues: • Off-premise signage in the public right-of-way, including bus benches, was prohibited in the 1970's. • Previous use of signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of clutter. • Previous signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of businesses putting signage directly in front of competitors, etc. • Salt Lake City has liberalized some signage regulations since the 1970's: Specifically banners and A-frame directional signs • UTA (and Lamar Advertising) approached the City regarding the potential for advertising to pay for transit shelters. • Using advertising to pay for other potential public furniture and services has also been considered (restrooms, bike rental, etc.) PLNPCM201 0-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards -A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a Alliok zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards. The proposed amendment would update current regulations outdoor billboards to make them consistent with State law. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPC\920I0-00032,PLNPCiM2010-00717 Published Date: February IS,2011 18 Request:The existing law regarding billboards was adopted in 1993. State law has changed considerably since that time leaving portions of current City law to be inneffective. The purpose of this petition is to update City law to be consistent with State law and to simplify City processes. Issues: • The current ordinance was adopted in 1993 and was intended to be a cap and reduce program,allowing billboards to relocate to more appropriate locations while prohibiting an increase in the overall number of billboards in the City and allowing for a decrease. • A billboard bank was set up to accommodate movement and to prioritize areas of acceptable relocation. • State law has changed considerably since 1993. • State law allows billboards to move to any non-residential property within a variable distance from the original location for multiple reasons,if the City does not allow the movement;the City is obligated to purchase the billboard.The City may negotiate alternative locations with the Billboard company. • State law requires the purchase of a billboard to include damages to the"package'. Billboards are often sold in groups to one advertiser;that group constitutes a package. • Changes in State law have left the SLC billboard bank largely irrelevant. • Many billboards in the City were erected before there were any sign regulations and they remain in areas where they have long been non-conforming. • Billboards are amortized for tax value and pay taxes on 3°/of their original value after 19 years. • By State law,billboards are the only non-conforming use that cannot be removed through the use of amortization. • There arc numerous scenarios in Salt Lake City where the presence of a billboard suppresses the redevelopment potential of the underlying land,as well as examples of redevelopment with billboards. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Request: The petition is to update existing City law to reflect industry changes and to define and regulate the conversion of existing billboards to an electronic format. Issues: • The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards. • Six electronic billboards exist in Salt lake City.Three are under dispute. • Numerous electronic on-premise signs exist. • State laws allows electronic billboards but does not require local government to allow the conversion of old billboards to an electronic format. • Electronic billboards are the emerging format for billboards. • Electronic billboards require a greater investment and offer an increased potential revenue source for the owner. therefore their removal costs are also higher. Comments Public Comments • An Open 1-louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 1 S,201(1. • There was an initial briefing with the Planning Commission at the December 9.2010 meeting. • The Business Advisory Board was briefed on January 5,2011. • Several Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5.2011 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. p.'.41ons.;00-0G-il.P;Ngcri:_010-OODJ3.p,xgcA4o10-ne717 PuSli:he d Dsse Fsbruus IS,_QI l 19 • The Planning Commission received a briefing and held a work session on January 12,'2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. • The Planning Commission held an"issues only"hearing on January 26,2011. City Department Comments Department comments are attached. There were generally no significant issues raised. Project Review A Planning Commission subcommittee met with industry members on January 31,and February 7,2011. The subcommittee discussion included the following issues: • Comparison of Salt Lake City's ordinance with Salt Lake County • Relocation potential of existing billboards • Geography of existing billboards and potential geography for allowing them • Power requirements and sustainability of electronic billboards • Impacts of electronic billboards vs.impacts of electronic on-premise signs • Lighting,timing and luminance of electronic billboards • Spacing and geographical concerns regarding electronic boards • Master plan policies regarding billboards;including the concept of Gateway streets. • The Administration's opinion on billboards Pali°s.400-05- ]PI NPC012OI 0-00032,PLNPCM2OIO-00717 Published Date Pebruar IS.20 I 20 Analysis and Findings iptions The City presently has a sign ordinance regulating off-premise advertising. Failure to grant zoning changes outlined by Petition 400-06-51 would keep the present prohibition of bus bench advertising. Failure to grant zoning changes suggested by petition PLNPCM2010-00032 would result in a situation where State law would still supersede City ordinance and allow movement into areas currently prohibited by City ordinance,regardless of the City billboard banking process. Failure to grant zoning changes requested by petition PLNPCM2010- 00717 would allow conversion of static billboards to electronic billboards by not providing any prohibition against their conversion or providing any standards to do so. Findings A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard.However,In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment,the city council should consider the following factors: A. I.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 Urban Design Element calls for the prohibition of billboards on gateway streets. The North Temple Master Plan calls for the prohibition of billboards on North Temple.The Downtown Master Plan and Downtown Rising Plan(not formally adopted by Salt Lake City)call for prohibiting billboards on entry streets to downtown and cleaning up their general appearance. The proposed amendment outlines general areas where billboards are allowed and defines gateway streets where they arc not allowed. The billboard ordinance is not the only ordinance affecting gateway streets. Other sections of City code require landscaping on street frontages,including freeways.full architecture on all sides of the building and regulation of on-premise signage. Sexually oriented businesses are also prohibited on gateway streets. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendments are supported by general policy of the City 2.Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance: Analysis: The proposed zoning amendments bring the City ordinance into conformity with State law while still allowing for local flexibility in relocation and discouraging new impacts:such as the lighting emanating from electronic billboards in residential areas.State law allows for billboards to move in the immediate vicinity of their existing location or as negotiated with the City.The proposed City ordinance would also allow the City to move billboards to Manufacturing and General Commercial areas of the City.away from existing residential and gateway areas. The proposed geography for relocation opens up much of the industrial area on the west side of 1-215. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendments are designed to be consistent with City master plan goals while also remaining consistent with State law. Pclitin,s.-100-06-Sl.PLRPCN12 0 1 0-000 2.PLRPCA12010-00717 Published Ihte Fcbtum 1 S.2011 71 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 current and newly proposed ordinance encourages the relocation of billboards onto locations outside of historical preservation overlay districts. The new ordinance would allow billboards within the approach area of the Airport(Airport Influence Overlay),but billboards would be no more impactful than allowable buildings or on-premise signs in that overlay district.One of the provisions of the proposed ordinance is to limit height of new billboards to the same height of on-premise signage. There is a provision to subject billboard lighting in Airport Influence Overlay Zones to Airport lighting restrictions. The ordinance has little or no effect on other overlay districts(transitional,groundwater,etc.). Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with overlay districts. 4.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: Changes in State law over the last fifteen years,along with the industry practice of acquiring permanent casement for billboards and the adoption of taxing billboards as personal property as tax policy,has created a situation where non-conforming billboards,which generate little tax revenue,arc suppressing development that is in conformity with master plan policies and which also generates housing,employment and tax revenue. Billboard laws vary from State to State and City to City. Fis states outlaw the construction of new billboards,conversely some cities,such as New York have use, off-premise signage to create lively and bright sections of their community(Times Square). The regulation of off-premise advertising can play an important role in defining the character of a city.For example:Las Vegas,a desert resort,allows for numerous electronic billboards to create a bright and lively atmosphere.Conversely Palm Springs,also a desert resort,prohibits billboards in the City to create more formal resort feel. The proposed ordinance is part of an overall effort to accentuate Salt Lake City's physical environment by protecting views of the mountains and the eliminating unnecessary visual clutter.The proposed ordinance codifies a Salt Lake City policy closer to that of Palm Springs. Locations that ban electronic billboards(as reported by USA Today)include; Hawaii,San Francisco, Montana,Denver,Gilbert AZ,Pima County AZ,Amarillo'IX,Ft. Worth,Dallas,Galveston,Houston, Austin,St Petersburg FL,Knoxville TN,Durham NC,Vermont,and Maine. Other cities in Utah that prohibit the construction of new billboards include Provo,Kaysville,Lehi and Park City,as well as newly incorporated cities such as Holladay and Cottonwood Heights. Finding: The proposed zoning text amendment is supported by general policy of increasing housing employment and tax revenue by discouraging the suppression of development on lots occupied by billboards. The proposed ordinance codifies a desire to eliminate visual clutter and to accentuate the physical characteristic of Salt Lake City's physical setting. Petiilons 400-06 01,I'L 6PCiNL0 1 0-00 03 2,PLx PCA12010-00717 Published Date Febr lard A.2011 Summary Staff is recommending the postponement of a decision regarding Petition 400-06-51,transit shelter advertising, in order to allow further analysis of the issues. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of an ordinance that codifies petitions PLNPCM2010-00032 and PLNPCM2010-00717 and accomplishes the following: Eliminates the billboard bank: • State Law allows billboards to move within the general vicinity of their existing sites and billboard companies often own the land or easements on many of the sites that are conflicting with neighborhoods. • Billboard companies have expressed an interest in maintaining existing distribution throughout the City(which means maintaining them east of 1-215 where all residential areas are located), • Therefore the premise of encouraging the movement of billboards out of neighborhoods into manufacturing area has been undermined and the Billboard Bank is no longer effective for its original intended purpose of moving billboards out of residential areas into less conflicting areas of the City. The three year banking period has been eliminated • Billboards will be expected to be relocated to a new area when they are removed from an old area, with no time lapse,otherwise they arc deemed removed. Still allows for relocation. • The ordinance allows for relocation to Manufacturing and select General Commercial zoning districts(but not on gateways streets or within 600 feet of residential zoning)for those instances where billboards may wish to move. • The proposed ordinance actually increases the geography of where billboards may move by opening the entire west side Manufacturing areas(west of 1-215)to billboard relocation(excluding gateway streets). Adds several new gateway streets: • 5600 West,7200 West and the proposed Mountain View Corridor freeway were added as gateways because the general area was opened for billboards. Billboards have not been allowed on these streets in the past. They are now classified as Gateway Streets because the new ordinance would allow billboards in adjacent Manufacturing zoning districts. • The 900 South off-ramp was added for clarification(1-15 is already a gateway) Eliminates special gateways: • Special Gateways previously allowed for limited billboard movement on several select streets. • Policy changes,such as prohibiting billboards as part of the North Temple Plan.have altered the concept of special gateways. Defines electronic billboards; c The ordinance includes a definition and detailed requirements for electronic billboards in the event that existing boards are relocated or new ones arc authorized for external reasons. Pc',ICur,i: 100-06-t!.PWPC5•I2010-0D032,PI_APCA12010-00717 Piiblish:d Dag Peiruxv1 S.7(i1I 23 Prohibits electronic billboards: • The proposed ordinance prohibits the construction of new electronic billboards(the City presently..., has 6 electronic billboards—three of which are in dispute) Options for the Planning Commission to consider: Recommending adoption of the ordinance with a statement to the City Council that the Planning Commission will continue with further review of the issue. Recommend expanding or reducing the zoning districts where billboards arc allowed to move. Recommend that billboards be allowed to convert to electronic billboards in those zoning districts where billboards are allowed to relocate. Recommend that static billboards may be converted to electronic billboards with the removal of equal or greater square footage of the static billboard being converted(or provide cash in lieu of removal in the event that there are no static billboards available for removal). Pen:ms 400-06-51,P1 x'PCALOI0-50032 PLNPCn^2010-007 I? Published Date: rebmar IS,2011 24 Public Utilities Justin Stoker We have no comment on the proposed text amendments. Justin D.Stoker,PE,LEEDE AP,CFM Building review Larry Butcher Engineering Randy Drummond Doug,after reviewing the proposed text amendments listed above,we find no concerns with the proposed amendments. Randy Transportation Barry Walsh .The division of transportation review comments are as follows: The text addresses transportation safety issues with references to sec 21 A.46.060 sign prohibited-"E" portable(locations)"G"Unsafe,hazardous.&"H"confuse traffic.and does not change compliance with remaining section of 21 A.46 with primary attention to sec 21A.46.070"D"Traffic hazards,which are reviewed on a case by case basis. Sincerely. Barry Walsh Proposed Ordinance Proposal which eliminates billboard bank,eliminates Special Gatev.ray Streets and modifies Gateway Streets,establishes lighting policies, expands the relocation area for billboards to all Manufacturing zones, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lace City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasor.able processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancernont of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's menial plans. B.Definitions: i011N BIL.LEOARD:A trcesluding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property ittire vice is designed or intended to direct silention to a business,product cr service that is net sold,offered or existing on the property whore the sign is locc'scl. cf E3ILLE:OARD O'NNL fi:The e:':ner ei a biliht,erd in Se!t Lekc , ;DWELL LIVE rn:.�le .nath of t'tta l a,eP.o.-ics between te..i m:c,,,s.ClCI cr..: r fir- c .r--c-r:. r anelecti-onic O. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A bii;'coa«I wih rh e,ias construcecl,ma:niainecl and in use or ter which a permitter cons:ruciicn was issued as of July'13,1993. •wt., ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,projected image,or similar device with text Images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text.images,and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for Err nence.which is equal to I7 r ttea:mdeor.Fa,uee. one lumen.incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets cr highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80: fF TInted:Ind,nt,iet:es,- 2.Interstate 215, 3.Interstate 15; 4,4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South SireetPerleys Wan from Interstate 15 to8?==.;Foothill Ens lava rd 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive1J00 South from O- -swr—`4ay1000 East to Interstate 80; 9.400 South frorn lr ter-==� - reccl Road to°__.-_.xt'1000 East 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; i 2 300 West from 900 North to 9G0 South; _ - 13.North Temple from Male Street to Interstate 80: 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Sir:et. 15.State Street horn South Temple to 2100 South;and 10.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. 17,72g0 Wool 18. Mountain View/5600 West Highway corridor(as identified and to be constructed according to UDOT Plans) 19.900 South I-15 off-rams to West Temple NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued alter December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. LUMIL!ENCE.The intensity of light faliinc on a subsurface at a defined distance Prow ,mok the source. N1OTIOLI The depiction of movement or chance of Position of text imaq cr - roan n a r st.r c s,rscre graphics. Motion shall Include,but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving sr(Fo.r r a roe.,.not and fadino text and images.running_s_vven5al text.Graphic bursts.lighting that - - _ -- _ - ---- resembles zoomino,twinklino.or soarldino.changes in light or color.transitory bursts of Gehl intensify.moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracline snares.end similar actions., ,_—{Formatted:Font:e.7 TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:I:An extension of the billboard resulting in ,For,.trsdi Norma,, .cm increased square footage as part of 2n artistic design to comiey a specific me SSE ge °lab stops: oradverlisement.. Lo.zs r>.,_o WI I TIVE the time it la:gasfor statictead images.a'tiner-cs on an elnctionio Form r d r„nt;m .._,12 cc S n to chant,.,to a different text.images.or nraohics on a_uosenueni nn ace, 'roan t d Tab src ors.,List,, i Prohibited:New Billboards nro!;ibited in Bolt Lake City. D. Relocation of Billboards: Existing billboards may be relocated as required and - (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",Hanging: 0.25 ) authorized by the requirements of Utah state law. Relocation shall follow the general priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F and only be allowed in areas (Formatted:Font:Not Fold outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.1 of this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the Mayor or designee. OE. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1. Permit: Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner - (Formatted:Indent Left: 0.71' only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3. Fee:•I he fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). L Or rl'f For N nfn Billboard Remove!: bi I o:=s^.• ..,;:;��;, B, rdAftor a ncn:rrc:� �liboaLd 4s,,.ci',:he l r :ant to 2-nit,.cued undo, be coon D1 of this coot o a,�fs.NS �I,v city shall cro te--a-h>Ifboard tank= cc ^ter i! S ti II C o .' The n- sue,.,+shell chc: the dots of the;^;-: I and the zoning district of a�ri SI T nnc g she!! iillboord.The-account she!! ref! ct bi!Ihcard crimditc for tho ter! ' - f„ ,n41e=4t f a tiilll,C. dI ci-1 !n,t rcsi4.t in shy F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic, residential R-MU or Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: ) downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; o.ss",Le' • 2. Billboards in'districts zoned commercial CN or CB, or any gateway zoning district c`'.�-rOS-c=C,1-!or on gateway streets shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;a^d IIL I=m:rom opriority; h-ilrvc=rd r7'+ ,_r re ovir.g' .0 ICs. SL ) =1 `Jv, d ,a ,.,Ctt::., .,,.. offoc`.:'.e fe in (2) -,illk,,rd.' s ,.rIfi-o-d_ si.ihosoion ANN% O of this cooti.ap,bt-ts---eeeeeiry....itti tetalco,ear.e fcctago-ssts.-se. deiee.ater than-tete-ie.:war priority-Lt4boared,am o cisectiteed in the.bi!itisord.per:seer': btilleaard bar.tya-oedeiot.If a billboard ce.ner--ha--nG-aiditisection siectioR,or its so-seeeccer,nor-conforming LAE-cards,eko(2)cutzeratj...sa;-if t4es-se-stio ,cr its e,toocessr,priority billboards may to oroditsd-ire bdthoa-d Ca-nore.s-Nlibox-d bend,acee4at to offec-ttrato th-e-bi4aear4ecrea41ts-e4 aestilearsotion F3 of thie scction,Cr its tiecoesse.. ...a.itito.ard to alioiv-thre Geire---etnei.-ottop.-stLc4-reeeet-heilibe:.saret -ote4tee- irpc co ie-eee-oes.4-iorte-Bieeteeee+-24 higloiebititesareets-Gres-istie.sit-ia-itic billboard be-oh accoo essel e.......a4y-orroe-to-e4restsisle#,e-teboea.-rd-eradite far priority tifinsar-ied: Credite .n.,tei!ibrsaicroditte-neg-t-te-e.esii4etenett4elt,t-st-t -neeer4aes. oere,-ar."^:sue- it-to Ni-Eti.boatit-Credis Iteasfsraidoe,t`,tiiieeard may mei!ereo,theerei'..i.ee teoeisf-er credit.:tigeineit-ars-ieete-efee'.i.es • the. ae.rity revisises of soboeise-tien-F-eiteis itection, siaeltnee▪ effeeti...s-ferethair hey:raw4:ereehtittieieye..eoold-hav-e-becoitto etfeetitie for the ori;ihol co.in of.Theetese.sfor is-f-areaktern÷ar-d-orodttis-cf.. their atiiereor4d.en-C of stieziesser: 1..i(5 Double Pencil Billboards:tiaexelit-lort-Rolccation of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2)advertising faces shall ispo.es-hilibed-o7cd.-Siz forthe..-os,paere footas.e • cei; ces bithoe:-eba.allowed to relocate as a coo faced billhoarci cr combined as a sinale face btjlipoercl.crov!ded that the relocated advertisind swore_ footaCe iS no areater thz,n the souare footage of tne bilireoeFd -ride not exceed the size reoulremmts outlined in 21A.46.1CO.L. eiH.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a sea billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. I41.Permitted Zoning Districts:Gs.,-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in the cc the c:"-icl b;'Ibocrdia- _Manufacturing and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that then are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway street or residential zoning district.Billboards are not to be relocated to the CG General Commercial zoning district that is massed and located between Interstate-15,300 West.200 South and the 900 South I-15 o5- rams. L1.Gem-Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: I.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file en r mauae:IL.e=_.t:Le3_0.71" application one form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall be' a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building - roornaitee:mean yea o,no,rz5 sops:' 1 - code as adopted by the city;and I,1.1P,_ft b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. = _. .':_ al!_ e -oe-ed:Fh_�r. h r Formatted:Ire,,,L^_..0.,." eefi.,....£ tl, ,...... �, i. ., !corm r o. Lc msimm i 1.75",Lee ' ?. For 1 c r ,:1: 071' --r roar:t 1 F. ...__� Pti_.F;--:Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 D of this section,or its successor,no+csw-billboard may be constructed or relocated within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. 9.=�_�vi-051 .*F t d:Intl L R.0",Hans 9:0.25' � r rnuy-sash:uct n new bill=o=-r s.�-t e-speciel tegkay��.=sn --- sc e!sq-t-.a+to-ar'nun rcctria- '? .r. ^x-,nam--whini.-4ho nnc wafer-: ;�ili ae4 i,, {ec�:adti-aids.e:t to sebsewhnov off?, eed-G-of-th;c ccctions- =rzd that ..g ciao of tho.-nexy open efex y-O O-arT-he =--i r ed.t.,.c_ Left,071-,-rat sc,: _.,u bn:b__-v_rx_t_r4fiei r-3n-gen-erai-b n.r-bio.+IX,CregLits--fg, OF L R___ =L.Maximum Size:Tire maximum size of the advertising area of any esz.-billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15)in height and fifty feet(50')in width. .Temporary Embcl!ishments: 071,era -, 5S',_c;._ _.• I em0oran!Emne list ei nts are croirbited Fe:_me,a25' it.Height:l Ire highest point of any new Ir',_.< b li oierd .,...,-:._..:,,.. :..:;shall not I:e more than. • '.—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.63",Hanging: pole sign in the'aoplicable zoning district.whicheveris less, unless 0.25" otherwise authorized by State law. 2. If a street within one hu eet(100'')-of thee hil� 1boord ma-oured from the- (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" +ree+ t+hopoint which hill r e o+r t is s., .,,a ...., at .tic the „b2a d io perNcndnc.:l� on nt n odo than.+ho i h'll� rd t� t. + 7G�1 hnnn ha a-d+�oro ., .. ca,.., .•rcr,.! i�-;�-.��-�:z.-r„ paye„Tn-`Sty^f�4hh -st e€L 3. if the provisions—of subscctl^ncr. of+-i-rrhi-ems'^ -action,or its ounce—ssar subseadon,apply to more than ono street,tho new billbcrc may he the hr or of thy,two M\ he4 h+_ SO. Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located. In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard, not just the sign support structure. TP. Spacing: 1.Small Signs: Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square. Formatted:In err,:Left: 0.71,Tab stops: 1 feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) Lesa°,Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2. Large Signs:-Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3. Electronic billboards shall not be located closer than sixteen hundred(1600) linear feet from any other electronic billboard on the same or opposite side of the street • Q Lighting: Nighttime illumination o'i billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk or across property lines. Billboards located within Residential, Mixed-Use, CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight and 6 am. Billboards located in an Airport Influence Overlay Zone are subject to Airport restrictions regarding lighting. • R:Electronic Billboards. 1. New Electronic Billboards are prohibited:Electronic billboards constructed cr - Fo:aa+.ea:List ca.ag,apb,a;n_-red+Lem reconstructed for any reason afiar the date of adoption of this ordinance are 1+Numbering style:1,2,3, +Start et:1+ Alignment.Left+Al:gr,ed at:0.25"+Indent limited to the following' F rm LS a Ind Left:05 HobuF o. Motion (vnv motion of any land is nrohibitedon an electronic sicn ece Formatted:Font:(D )Helvettco,12 p1 Electronic billboards,snall have on>y static text images ass- and a ao ) Formatted:Indent:Left:1 N :Fd L 5 Nl be 9 C, b +Start b Dwell tll?=� t:l 21g r < d :225 2 ; \ �d t t 25 The text. m ue or diulay on an electronic sign may not chance nicer F r a r r lzp n Ejd than once every twenty four (24) hours Twirl time between\l --- r ntttlF t(o'a )H ca12p suoseauenf ext.imao_s.or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. '1 \ Formatted.r e :.L Lit 2 C Brightness _ 1 Vl F p a F (De,,,,)H 12 r The illumination of any Elecionic Billboard shall rot increase ih \�lt ambient II h ina level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by n I L e s u b gs L foot card) In tar perpendicular to the electronic Billboard face I 2 z - 1 F m tt d F II_I 12 pt net Geld i. 150 feet for an e r renic b i-_,oaid L a som a.as. ro c"net. 1 I — -- more ton 242 c i; f _ 1 1 Formatted:1 e Left: 200`eel for an e)..r.rroi,„c billboard vri.3 a surface are aren cr=atxr than 242 sanare foot hut not more than 373 square feet 1p �:'rg5 b cy •5' Ili_ 250 feet for 2F1 D ..Yonlc b.'I__Litt a surface _-I c de I I z_ than 378 sou:re feet but not more thrxn 872 square feet 'Formatted:roi,.:ne 2 F :Lit r> 1 Formatted:I,[=,t L S iv. 350 set for an electronic billboard w'x.h a surface area than 6,7 sct�a rr.facet. --- ----- ---- ---- Fo 1-a b'_nit r, c F ., f d D'.pl'i l::rod N r Electronic billboards may not he illuminated or lit between the hour o Lice t Font,fieke:AD,.2pt midnight,and 6 a m if they are located within 600 Feet of a residarlat. F e d 1 1 nil ed use downtown Super HouseBusiness District a a It 1 L z I c 3 n -- _ -- ---- NelahborhnoJ Commercial. Comm.Imbf &u I_ss, or Community. Shonoin Center zoniru distr ctL,_ _ t h tl 1 qt7 I \ )Form o.•Fen,.(CA e• ,a 1_,_ ‘ Formatted:FCn:,De I'.e:e e,12^i 'IF d F ..i 12 c • • e. Controls - Formatted:indent:Lett r',rmmre,ea+ Level:5+rlurnbering Style:a,b,c,... i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer a::1+Alignment:Left Aligned at:2.2 `l + 5'+ control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's e"tat:zs-,nab scups: 1.22,Len pl, brightness and display period as provided above. Formai-LLed:Foot:Halvahca,12 No:Bold �Formal'nzd:Fong(pefeolt)F.e:ve'I_l2 p fl Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign. ——---- - - the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness,and other requirements herein. i'.i. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual reoort.to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other requirements herein. • I Formafi_d:Para:,:!, JI -S.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 or this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property strati be hard or gravel surfaced. V. .Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection 0-S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along tire street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all tire properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are net developed or,if a water line for ringntion slues not exist rn.the prepertvcor in the street adjacent lo such property,the zoning ndminisirnter may usthcrice Xer:uceprey no on alternetive for the required landscaping -V.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions cffigs section on or betoro January 1,1906. -`W.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance,, ZX.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. V.a+.r �-t,..i ror4e-of-Idr!.orr-rst.; --Fr-Rd -r,a. ^? '_'-e:, r d-- "dam- — - . —==a=:•=(Orel.72-08§2,2003:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord 25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-93§§12-14,1993:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. .._.. -199 .----.. _.. - - - Billboards Permitted within the CG. M-1 and M-2 Zones (with exclusions) in Salt Lake City , i .. 1- a• 4, f IC L i _ .„. _ . Ir.., k N. ..-------) I .y ! I .---. ,. . , 11 1, I: .1-1-1 L— _,..,_ — ,-;;':,':-;.-,,\,jjj. 'II -b----z—.-.\_..__-:---.1--=--?—;) --: I 7 I i I -71-r 4_ ._. __, .1-11,1 ! : 1,.,._-\5.--,,... 1- _4 ._..., i___ . tI I I I• NORTH TEMPLE _i rt ;11 t:f !z - I -L;r11-__ I ,`__ I _' 506� } U T� 600 s �I,Tr C,• F r i I t I �'� f1 I''� l �t t�iJT Ir' !1. _ I j_ 1.1 I I 1 k^.- '- Z i! �-�C 1-!- 14 y1 t` I�'I I,rt f.. +fi ,, 1_ ~ i T l'',..i/''''.:, 1 r —_ ' Legend �-1 1 2100 -, , a III .- --a��,� F a �. �� 1 ,_ ZONING , III CG _ �..�► 11_i -M1 `r i � i1111 +IIj T III M-2 [ i ri! L I �-f_Lf �_. Gateway I J-Map created by S1;C Planning Division 2011 NORTH :°ve L9 Briefing for sK1"� Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: December 2,2010 Re: Billboard Ordinance: December 9`i briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state late.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. An Open I louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. There will be a briefing at the December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a more formal staff report and public hearing not vet scheduled. Because of the complicated nature of these petitions,the Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hold an extensive working session prior to a public hearing. A working session has been tentatively scheduled for January 12,2011. A working subcommittee may also be advantageous. Attached are two working drafts illustrating potential changes.These drafts are provided to begin the discussion only. No comments from other departments or the industry have yet been integrated into the discussion drafts. The Planning Commission will be expected to address major policy issues prior to finalizing a draft. Young Electric Sign Company has offered to provide a seminar regarding the technical details of electronic signage. They have invited staff and Planning Commission members to view their presentation;as early as December,in order to provide background for the proposed January working session.. Any Planning Commissioner who is interested in attending should let staff know. Issues Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on I3us Shelters. Issues: • This is a potential method of paying for public amenities. • Other communities along the Wasatch Front are presently using advertising as a method of paying for transit shelters. Advertising has been used to pay for other public amenities such as public toilettes or kiosks for news racks etc. Questions: • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or are other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-.A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The original billboard bank was instigated in 1993. Changes in State Law have made the Salt Lake billboard bank ineffective. • Billboards impact City revenues and have a negative effect on development(they are taxed as personal property,providing minimal tax generation after 16 years—yet they often occupy high-profile locations, effectively preventing higher tax generating development). Questions: • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to Time Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City - Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The Federal Government has not completed studies regarding highway safety. • Electronic billboards are undefined by City Ordinances. Questions • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? ▪ !t9 Briefing for `� «11-17:n21 Planning Commission • I an; , . Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: December 2,2010 Re: Billboard Ordinance: December 9"briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM201 0-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Test Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The test amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently..the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. An Open I-louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18,2010. There will be a briefing at the December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a more formal staff report and public hearing not yet scheduled. Because of the complicated nature of these petitions,the Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hold an extensive working session prior to a public hearing. A working session has been tentatively scheduled for January 12,201 1. A working subcommittee may also be advantageous. Attached-are two working drafts iflustratingpotentiatclranges.These-drafts are provided to begin the discussion only. No comments from other departments or the industry have yet been integrated into the discussion drafts. The Planning Commission will be expected to address major policy issues prior to finalizing a draft. Young Electric Sign Company has offered to provide a seminar regarding the technical details of electronic signage. They have invited staff and Planning Commission members to view their presentation;as early as December,in order to provide background for the proposed January working session.. Any Planning Commissioner who is interested in attending should let staff know. Issues Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Test Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters. Issues: • This is a potential method of paying for public amenities. • Other communities along the Wasatch Front are presently using advertising as a method of paying for transit shelters. Advertising has been used to pay for other public amenities such as public toilettes or kiosks for news racks etc. Ouesliou.s: ^` • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or arc other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? I'LNI'CM20I0-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The original billboard bank:was instigated in 1993. Changes in State Law have made the Salt Lake billboard bank ineffective. • Billboards impact City revenues and have a negative effect on development(they are taxed as personal property,providing minimal tax generation after 16 years—yet they often occupy high-profile locations, effectively preventing higher tax generating development). Oues lions: • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to"lime Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake Cite �► Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The Federal Government has not completed studies regarding highway safety. • Electronic billboards are undefined by City Ordinances. Questions: • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? Utah State Tax Commission 2011 Recommended Personal Property Valuation Schedule for Class 16 Long Life Property 1 • Examples of Property Include: Buried Cable Bulk Storage Tanks,Underground&Surface Billboards Oil and Gas Gathering Systems Pipelines Sign Towers • Grain Elevators,Non Farm Ski Lift&Tram Towers !I Broadcast and Cell Towers Storage and Shipping Containers Truck Scales The following schedule is recommended for valuing Class 16 property for the 2011 assessment year: Iil Percent Good Year of Acquisition of Acquisition Cost 2010- 1st Year 92% l l l 2009-2nd Year 86% 2008- 3rd Year 85% • 2007- 4th Year 84% 2006- 5th Year 83% 2005- 6th Year 82% • 2004- 7th Year 81% 2003- 8th Year 76% 2002- 9th Year 71% 2001-10th Year 64% 2000-11th Year 59% 1999-12th Year 53% 1998-13th Year 46% 1997-14th Year 40% 1996-15th Year 34% 1995-16th Year 28% 1994-17th Year 22% • 1993-18th Year 15% E1 1992-19th Year 8°% and prior Class 16,Long Life Property Is Defined as: Property having a long physical life,subject to little obsolescence. fll j '1.1 I 16. ,I °� L= Briefing for ST " tgPlanning Commission mn_ ra cry,. Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 12,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: January 12°i briefing on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM201 0-00032, PLNPCM201 0-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake City. An Open I louse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November 18, 2010. There was an initial briefing in December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a work session on January 12,2012. Some Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning test amendment to address advertising on 13us Shelters. Issues: • Off-premise signage in the public right-of-way,including bus benches,was prohibited in the 1970's. o Previous use of signage in the right-of way resulted in complaints of clutter. • Previous signage in the right-of-way resulted in complaints of businesses putting signage directly in front of competitors,etc. o Salt Lake City has liberalized sonic signage since the 1970's:Specifically banners and A-frame directional signs e UTA(and Lamar Advertising)approached the City regarding the potential for advertising to pay for transit shelters. ti Using advertising to pay for other potential public furniture and services has also been considered (restrooms,bike rental,etc.) Questions: • Are the original concerns that led to SLC prohibiting signage in the right-or-way still valid? • Is this a legitimate method of paying for public amenities? • How much advertising in the public way is appropriate?How much advertising creates clutter? • Should it be limited to transit shelter advertising or are other forms acceptable? • Is this unfair competition? • Is there any need to change at all?Is the status quo acceptable? PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law. Issues: • The current ordinance was adopted in 1993 and was intended to be a cap and reduce program,allowing billboards to relocate to more appropriate locations while prohibiting an increase in the overall number of billboards in the City and allowing for a decrease. • A billboard bank was set up to accommodate movement and to prioritize areas of acceptable relocation. • State law has changed considerably since 1993. • State lass allows billboards to move to any non-residential property within a variable distance from the original location for multiple reasons,if the City does not allow the movement;the City is obligated to purchase the billboard. • State lass requires the purchase of a billboard to include damages to the"package". Billboards are often sold in groups to one advertiser;that group constitutes a package. • Changes in State law have left the SLC billboard bank largely irrelevant. • Many billboards in the City were erected before there were any sign regulations and they remain in areas where they have long been non-conforming. • Billboards are amortized for tax value and pay taxes on S%of their original value after 19 years. Agik • By State law,billboards are the only non-conforming use that cannot be removed through the use of amortization. • There are numerous scenarios in Salt Lake City where the presence of a billboard suppresses the redevelopment potential of the underlying land,as well as examples of redevelopment with billboards. Questions: • Should the billboard bank be eliminated? • What relocation is acceptable? • Are there methods of decreasing billboard impacts? • Are there methods of reducing the negative tax impact on the community? • Are there methods of reducing visual or physical impacts on the city? • Are there more appropriate methods of spacing billboards(i.e.concentration-similar to Time Square vs. dispersal-spaced every 500 feet). PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards. Issues: • The current ordinance is silent regarding electronic billboards. • Three electronic billboards exist in Salt Lake City.Numerous electronic on-premise sings exist. • State law allows electronic billboards but does not require local government to allow the conversion of old billboards to an electronic format. • Electronic billboards arc the emerging format for billboards. —.. • Electronic billboards require a greater investment and offer an increased potential revenue source for the owner,therefore their removal costs are also higher. Ouestirsis • How should the City define and regulate electronic billboards? • Are electronic billboards appropriate in the city? If so,where? • • Can conversion be used to reduce overall numbers of billboards? • Can billboards effectively be integrated into building architecture(rather than free standing signs)? • Are there safety concerns • What are the traffic impacts? • What are the impacts on adjacent landowners? • What are appropriate levels of illumination and timing? • Should spacing rules for electronic billboards be modified to allow for a Time Square type area? Draft ordinances The draft ordinances provided to the Planning Commission are to begin a dialogue and contain the following assumptions: Both drafts allows the Administration to determine the level of off-premise advertising allowed on transit shelters or other public furniture:THIS IS NOT A RECCOMENDATION,but merely a starting point for discussion. The Planning Commission may choose to maintain current conditions or define a multitude of options. Both drafts eliminate the billboard bank and allow relocation only according to State Law or as negotiated on a case-by-case basis with the City(the draft provides guidance for relocation negotiation). One draft prohibits the allowance of electronic billboards. The other draft allows the conversion of static billboards to electronic billboards only if multiple signs are removed. This draft also allows the Planning OCommission to waive spacing requirements in order to consolidate electronic billboards(rather than disperse), in order to create a"Time Square"type district. There are numerous other alternatives:including simply defining where billboards would be allowed to be converted to electronic. Next steps It is suggested that the Planning Commission discuss whether a subcommittee is necessary to research the issue. It is suggested that an"issues only"hearing be held on January 26,2010 so that the full scope of issues may be considered in advance of making a decision. Because the conversion of static billboards to electronic is being held for 180 days following the initiation of the petition(October 21,2010),it is suggested that any changes regarding electronic billboards be made by the Planning Commission AND City Council prior to the mid-April 2011. All three petitions are interconnected,but the electronic billboard petition has a time frame associated with it and may need to be expedited if necessary. Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and allows limited conversion to electronic billboards when accompanied by a reduction in overall number of billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter at a bus stop or public transit stop or station,or a public amenity,pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities,which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement,design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity'means an item generally located in the • public way to provide a public service,which may include,but is not limited to,a kiosk displaying way finding signage or accommodating news racks or other public • information.public restrooms,public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48"by 72" and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk.unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adiacent to non-residential,RB.RMU,or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity. pornography.or indecent or vulgar pictures.graphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 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-except transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically :'horized by section 21A.46.58 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) 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. O B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically authorized by Section 21A.46.058 ' f • the-cumber-and-squar e400tage-of-noneonfermiegbiliboard s-removed-pursuant-io th.tr ,ckapter, BILL-BOARB-ERE a ncr's billboard-bank-aeeount4hat showsthe-rumbe rds- BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The length of time that elapses between text.images,or graphics on• (Formatted;rat eotedd an electronic sign. (^ronsm,a:Indent First Me:o• FPonnettd:rat am __ED EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,projected image.or similar device with text,images,or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays,fiber optics.or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text.images,and araohics. (Fannetted:cadet cast Me:0- GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • IFaenetted:Indent Left oer 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. • NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; —H Formatted:went.Left 0.96 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The photometric quantity most closely associated with the perception --><—•Formatted:Font:tot Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for Formatted:Tab stops:0.25',Ust tab H purposes of this ordinance. Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or chance of position of text.images.or Formatted:Font Not Bold graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images.running sequential text.graphic bursts.lighting that 0 • resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.chances in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of liaht.expanding or contracting shapes.and similar actions. [Formatted:Fore odd NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is equal to one • —Formatted:Normal,meat Left:0.25, candela/square meter. space Before:auto,Meg:tine,Tab stops: 0.25',List tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic r eettod:Fort Helvetw,ua j sign to change to a different text.images.or araohics on a subsequent sign face. remelted:Tab stops:o.24,List tab C.Limit On The Taal Number Of Billboard..:No-greate atlew_ r of cxicting-biliboar4sBillboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • Cron names:ice:art:o;t+a,quy:o.is. J requirements of Utah state law. Additionally.billboards may be relocated from any CIOzoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of [Formatted:Fort lot Bald this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • I Formatted:went:Leis 0.7r only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Crzdlts-For-Noncorvorming-Billboard-Removal=Afars.nonconformingbillboardis demolished-pursuant-to-a-permit4s t' . its rwt_ssor-the yshalt createabillboard-bankaeceunt-for-the-bitlboard-ewaer-T e account shall chow tha daleof t;e-removal-and the—zoning.district ofihademotished • • i • F - at shall n,,..,b' andilssquare footage.Dcrnoli1ion-ofac at,csutin-any billboard-credit: F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or —Foxtrotted:Iola*Left o.wr,Tsbstops: downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; O' • Left 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or anv_gateway zoning district G-:":U,-GGC or-GH-or on gateway streets shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4--A-hiilboardewncr may-de ng-hillboarde-ota-lewec cierily be r-priority however thebillboard-credits for-removing-he-lower-priorty-billboard-shalleot-become eBective-fowse-in © cons! rd until two(2)bill ' F4-of4his-seU;on,eti's successor,with a totalsquaru footage-equal-to-er rd,a rses billboard-bank account-lfa-billboard-owner-has-no-subseetionfa-otthis section,cr itssueoessor;noneenferming-billboard F2 cf this scc'cn,cr it rds may-be-or-edited-in-the • billboacdewne4s-billboard-bankaeeounFto-effecluateahebilboard-esedits at rat Ilewthe son H ehe,purposes highzr-prierilytbil. boar -inthebillbeardbar.b account can-be-used only-oroe-toeftectuatethebillboarderedi>4ora lower-priocitybillboacd: G-6ife.Of-Billboard-Gredis•Any-billboard-credils-nct-used-withinthirtysix-(2B)-nwnths e€the'r creetie shall.expirad-be-of-no-fufihec-vatue or use except that loser priority credifc effectuated pursuant to subsets ssor shall-expire-andbeofeo further-valuaa-usewithinsixty-(60)-months of-their initial creation- {•i'c+c-r co.nvwroiliboa..r kt.BillboardEradits Tran.`er2 cwoer-r:,sTsell-er erwisetranstcr� billboard-and:etbillboardcredits-Transferredbillboan4creditc which are not effective because of the Priority€rovisioos-ofsubcacion£ef4h s sac?io,• lie se eesser, O ^^"- ` nr new c::r.:r until they c•cutd-pave-beeeane effective for the origincl cwner.The trans'c,ct il tboe- tend their-hirty-six-(6)-month-ife-prcvid:d in3ubsestion—G-cf this section,or its succ=s<ser- • t,G Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive t'S s: credit,for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. I.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. NI.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in tile area-identified-on theof vial-billboard-nap,Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not • oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. U.Nev:-Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an - (Fon...a.a:Inden Lek o.m application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building • I N:matted:w n:Left o.sc,rwscops: ll code as adopted by the city;and t.'rs','— b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. fadIse—Of BiabourdGee4 ts. 1-A 1-bitibeard-permit-shall-onty-be-issued-if-the-appGeanthas-bi4lboard utt:on• sredits-of-a-suffiGient number-o€se,-aara;aefand-billboards-to-allow constraction-of-the-new-biliboard- 4110 • zoning adrsinistoa' - - - _ a-The3quare-footage-cfahe row-billboard;and • Formatted:Indent Left eor,Tab slops: 125',im . .ware footage.was_use..;oallcw the new-billboardconstruction: 3,1f-the-new-billboard-ueexlcse-han-thecnt,reavailabte-billboard-oredits (rarrosd:Indent Left o.lr ) ilboards and nquare-footoge,aay remaining ivaretooboga cha'1 roe,ai illboardbank, (Fontatltl:Indent First We:o.is Nb.New-Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection O-D of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway_. CL.Special Gateway Provisions: • 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,theFenn/dad:extent tat o.m,rmga s Left billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special ° — J gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to other subsections P,Q,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the emou nt-c-ll-bLihoar'credits-in-ll pedal-gateway billboard-banksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2 The dcraoktien-ef a-ne-necn`orr ing-billboard-pursuant-to-this-section-shall not-aoewe-billboard{reditswithin-the-yeneral-bilboard-bank.Cradifs-fora billboard demollshedococ-nalarctad-withina-specialgateway-shallbo traokedivithina-separa:ebankaceount-far-each-spesial-gatewayA-final for-the-Genstsuction ofa-te:vbilboard-pursuant-te-this-seetionimustba-taken outivithinthigy-six-(36)months-of-thebemolitionof-they oneonforming billboard_, PM.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. 0 • • G:I.Temporary Embellishments: -1.Tcmperoryc^b,.�.> llts,'^�n'cn„sha't not exceed-tea-px6C-nt(1O)of-the • Ramsdell:Indent:Left o.71,Tab mus: advertising faceot-any-billboard;and-ehalla©fexceedfi artlt ve-feet-(5) eight o.er,teft J above-the-billboard-et ue4ure- 2-No4emporar n ellishment chill-be-maintained-onaabillboard4nore-than we've(12)mon'hs: • Temporary Embellishments are prohibited • (Fonnetba:Indent Festline:0.25' RO.Height:The highest point of any newbiUboard,billboard excluding-temporary embellishments-shall not be more than: 4—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade:or the maximum height for a ►«matter:tmetc bet ov,Merging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district.whichever is less. Unless o.zs otherwise authorized by State law. 2.If a street a:`x:n cc,hundred fact(100')of thebillboard,meacurd from-he• Lrmm.ttea:went:Lek o.n• street at the point-at-wh' F-te- e-streets-en a-different-grada than4he-new.billboard,iwenty-five-feet{25')above-the pavement clzvat!-z,,,-ofthe^'Fleet. 3,4f-the-ptovieions-of-subseetien R2 ef-hts • ha • d r may be-the higher-of ;ghtw SP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• I Formatted:Indent tort o.n•,Tat,sooty: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 0. •L t —_- linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800)from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Spacing for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and not free standing.may be modified by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59.as Iona as such modifications are consistent with State Law R Lighting:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential,Mixed-Use Formatted:meant:First line o• _ _ CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:For:(Defat)Helve<a,12 Ftul - and 6 am. Fonnattea; aPam 'Went tort:Wintered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a, b, S:Electronic Billboards: a...+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at O.25"+Indent at:0S 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited except when converting an existing billboard to i mew:.trot-- electronic as follows: o.7s,First lee:o' ma' Formatted:list Paragraph,inlet:Left:a.s•, • a)A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing,. • Numbered+Level:1+Numbering style:a,IA Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the wart at 1+a gnment eft«duo rd restriction that they are not orkelted towards,or located within 600 feet of a at:ozs-+Dent at as Heimgateway or special gateway stltet or residential zoning district. Provided that Forma F0°`(Deb�� - 12 a four times the non-electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,Ia a removed elsewhere in the City. Formatted:Font:(Default)Netvabcz,1i rrt • Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetlta,12 pt. b) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway streets Foettd:Font:(Detaull)Hetefra,12 pt provided that five times the non-electronic square footage of the new Fo enrmat9ed:rodent en:0 2s,Fi l feet o electronic billboard is removed along the same Gateway.or removed from Formatted:List Paragraph,IMnt`lef:05', another gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available on the host Numbered+Level'1+Numbering style:a,b gateway. u...+start al:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at 0.25+Indent at:0.5•• ,,((Formatted:Font(Default)Helrebm,12 tot c) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways -Formaltd:Fom:(Default)Helvello.22a provided that four times the non-electronic square footage of the new -- - - - - ---- electronic billboard is removed on the same Special Gateway or removed Formatted:Font:(Default)Heend '12 a from another special gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available FO1ia�d'Font.(Default)eielvWp,a It on the host special gateway and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Faemorm+ttd:list Paragraph,Indent Left O First tenet 0" into the architecture of a building and is not free standing_ - ----Formatted:list Paragraph,Indent Left:OS, Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar c_+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Mind House Business District zoning districts Provided that five times the non- it 0.25'+Indent at:0.s• electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is removed in any \1 Formatted:font:(Default)Helvetica,Iz a Downtown.Sugar House Business District,residential,neighborhood Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetca,l2pt commercial.Community Business.Community Shopping Center,gateway.or \l Formatted:Font:(Default)He vebm,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helveena,12 J • mixed-use zoning district and the new electronic billboard is fully intearated (Formattd:Font:(Defort)Mettle&12 pt into the architecture of a building and is not free standing. • Formatted:Font(Default)HeNetka,12 pt Formatted:indent:Left 0.5•,Space alter. 2. Motion 10 pt,tine sworn:Multiple 1.15II,No Hulett nu Any motion of any kind is prohibited cn an electronic sign face. Electronic ' nbenrg - billboards shall have only static text.images.and araohics. FFFormatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (Formatted:Font(Default)Fehepo,12 pt 3. Dwell time • Fo m ratted:Font(Defalt)Henenm,12 ut The text.image.or display on en electronic sian may not change more than once Formatted:Font netetka,12 pt,rut Bold every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subseouent text.images.or display •CF,rmatted:Font:(Dera,k)Heneoa,i2 of shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. 4. Brightness Formatted:Font:ttelvetca,12 Pt,Not Bold During daylight hours between sunrise and sunset,luminance shall be no greater Formatted:Font(Default)Hehetca 12 pt than 2.500 nits. At all other times.luminance shall be no treater than 500 nits. 5. Size �Farmatted:Font.Hetvetlq,12 pt,Not Bold The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no larger than the billboard it (Formatted:Font(Detadpflelve0Fa,12pt_ replaced or shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in heicht and fifty feet(50')in width _ whichever is less. Formatted:Fart:Helvetca,12 pt 6. Display period Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 Pt,Not Bold Electronic billboards may not be illuminated cr lit between the hours of midnight. Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetca,12 pt and 6 am if they are located within 600 Feet of a residential, mixed-use. t Formatted:Font(Default)Hehedca,12 pt downtown.Sugar House Business District.gateway,Neighborhood Commercial (Formatted;Font.(Default)Helvetlra,12 pt Community Business.or Community Shopping Center zoning district Formatted:Font tiered.,izy - 7. Controls (}Formatted:Font:HeNedm,12 pt„Not Bold • a. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or [Formatted:Font`(°era"n�xeneno•12pe other mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness and display period as provided above. h. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign,the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell time.brightness.and other requirements herein. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time brightness,and other requirements herein. • LFaer rued:Ust Paragraph _---� Fi .Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • • VU.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as • specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. V.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. XVI.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the © landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. Zr'.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. \1.Spaniel Praviaens; a .A.pp;icabild':Tha-prcvis'.».,gs-of•hi,ccc'inn-shallappty4o-spes4edkiilboards located: -Peu cbc.`.veen4500-Nerth}and-1F-CO-Nodhh-adaeenfo-th.esvest sideof-iaterstatea5 nd .Ane-existing-billeast-si4aef-W3tory-Rsad-a'.-appreximatc,y 11CO NmAtr • • ral AppCcabittty:Except as rrodied by. b th s sccts on,etl c'Fr_r-provisiers of this eha t r shall a ! a boera pesiaP--riority ikz we-(5)spesi4edbiliboardsshail-be-considered-as-gateway biFboarils-ter-theporposescftkapricrity$wvisionsofsubseotion--af•-(bisection,or its r,s_ andscap og:The five(5)sp_shied-§inboard.ehait b a lan�'.seaped-pursuenfto-he prowisiens-ofsubseEtl©n- 6f1�;,T-.�-=�..•-'•••• •••'•+F�Tsu-` ='esoor-sebsection, 88-State Mandotcd Petocat ca Of Siiibcards:-E-xsep;as otherwise aatheri<ed-,emir} existirgbillboards-maynot be{etocated exceptas{nanda edby4he-requirerrents-of Utah-state-law,(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. A),1995) r Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter eta bus stop or public transit stop or station,or a public amenity.pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities.which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement.design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity"means an item generally located in the public way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk O displaying way finding signage or accommodating news racks or other public information,public restrooms,public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48'by 72' and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk.unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent, to non-residential.RB,RMU.or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity pornography.or indecent or vulgar pictures.graphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 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; C B.Any snipe sign; C.Balloons; D.Bench signs;except transit shelter and amenity advertising specifically authorized by sedicn 21 A 46.58 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: (11:11 Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995)- 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. 0 B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and public amenity ad."_: :cif-catty authorized by Section 21A.46.058 B' sam-e' the-wumberar.0 squ?re-footaeuevf-;onconforming-billboards-rerruoved-pursuam-to this chapt_c BIh6BOARO-CREDf- An-eetr;ranfo-abigboard-owners-billboardbank-ate-Faint-hat shows-the-cumberapdrGuara:ceta-ge-of-dery c!ishzdncncon`crming-billboards- BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. • DWELL TIME The length of time that elapses between text.images,or graphics on• (Formatted:Font Not and an electronic sign. (Formatted:Indent nest lire:V • rrorammd:Font:odd EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display.projected image,or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to,signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays.fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright.hiah-resolution text.images.and graphics. • Formatted:Indent First line:0• GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • (smr.mnted:Indent:Lef:osr 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; C 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after • December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; Cr«.Yu.e=Indent ref:osc 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The chctemelric quantity most closely associated c;i;ir tire uerceotion Formatted:Font Not Bole of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per sauare meters or"nits"for Formatted:orb stops:o.2r,i.ne MO 1 purposes of this ordinance, "{Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bole graphics. Motion shall include but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolvi� and fading text and images.running sequential text.craohic bursts,lighting that 3 • resembles zoomina.twinkling.Cr sparkling.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracting shapes.and similar actions. �r r.ra.e:rat told NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is etc ual to one • Fe. :Normal,Indent tat o.xs, candela/square meter. Space Bef :Auto,M r Auto,Tab stops:02s,Ust tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic • ,For.ue.d:rat uncap,12 pt Sian to change to a different text.images.or Graphics on a subsequent sign face. rra.tettad:Tab slops:OW,List tab C.Limit On The Total Number Of Giilboards-No gra tcc-nemb cr of-illtuerds.shell-be altowe"G o roc "' ke-City-the, It' nambecofexisang-billboacde,Billboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City.. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • (raw.tt asWentnt Left tr,wnpac cur ) • requirements of Utah state law. Additionally,billboards may be relocated from any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of [:rat Not Bold this ordinance.unless otherwise negotiated with the City.. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner i Fonne ed:Indent:left:0.71• j only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). EGreditsFGr-Nensonf erm;r g-Billboard-Removal:-Afte r-aroncentorming.billboardas demolished-pursuant to permit issued-under-subsestion-91-of-this-seetiersor-its suesesser,fhc city shall{.reateab+Abgardbank-aooeunt-forit billboardowner,The acoountehatl shewzho dole-of the;emovatee4the_o•;ing district of thadernotished • • Ord.Tha acccuct she a far the billboard and-its cquace foetage.-Den'soti£ion-ofu>n£c-rm ag bi11board-shallfetfesu3 in eny billboard-credit, F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or • ror«m.m Indent:ak:Left 0.71•,Tab saoc.: Uft downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; d8W• 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or any gateway r.pin district G-MU GC-or-GH or on gateway streets shall be removed second; • 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4 A-toil board cv•ner-laa•,,dersolish-nonc-entvmsing bitlbeards-ofaaewer$erity befora-ramcving billboards in a higherpvierity owevm'R^b�b^^rdaredits fouemoving4Ne-lower-priority bitlboard-shalhotbecome-effeetivetor-usein rd-ntil-Avo{2)-hdlboards spccitied-in-subsestien • F1 of this secticn,cr i•c successor,with a total square footage eq.ral-toer greater-ha board:are c�-.e4itedan-the-bilibeardewnels billboard-bank-account-ifa-billboardawner haeeo ubsestion-F-4-of4his section,or itscuccesscr-neneen enwng-biUboardsfi this-reel rds maybe creditedin-the billboard-owne4sbdtboardbanl unHoetfectuatethebitlboarderedits-of constructien-ef a new billboard--€cnthe-purpeccs c£this secion he-twe{2) higher-prieritybiNboards Credited-in-the-billboard ba only-once-toefiectuate-thebilUwar4credits-fora-lower-prioritybilboard- -Life Of-Billboard-6redits-Anybillboardareditsnot rrsed-wit in-thhiRy-eix{36)-aronths of-thei:creation shaltunher-vataeer-use-excepNhataewer prieritycredit successor; shallexpireand-eefeo-further-valueer-use-wi;binsixty{60)-meaths-ofiheir-initial creation, k4.-Billboard Cvediie Tier ar-othcnrilso transfera t�tlbeard-an re-net-effeollve besause-of-the-prisri:ypFo isionsasubser'ian€-eithissection,oriiesuc:acsor, • • sea e« e • their--thirty-six-3&i&).month-life{rovir',ed-in-subsestion-G-ofthic scction-0c-its sueoessor- I C Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive L:. -c credits:for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. Kl.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in thg area-identified-on-the-official-billboard-map,Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and ® CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. I.:': Billboard relocation or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • frs..rt.a:lease:telt o.n• application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and planoceyiew,fa W es re r 6 rraittMNd Indent i w O•W Tab •slops: code as adopted by the are*e* �"'•�`'- sar,iert b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successbr. M.Use Cf Pillbeardd-Gredi•iw t 1-r sir b;beard p`rrr she.fondyt3e-issuedif heapplicanthas-bi hoar•. (Formatted:mast:Lett oar credits,of a ou``:cicat-ndrabet-sfssfuara feetated-bilibeards-to-adal eenstruotionof the-new-billboard: • 0 2. a oeing administrator shall dcd . a-The-square-footage-,f-.'e—no -billboard and -Formatted:meetleft i.oe•,Tab stops: t.24,Left b.TThe.umb^•of..,.,R-of bbittboei'• _rdo sntrcce eg,aat^ ha new-billboard-cons{rucficn- 3-1f-the-oew-bitlboardtrsesaess-thartihe.entire-availablekillbaardcredits Form.wm:Indent telt rrn• y rcmeiniag-squaw w:ag n;emak.in t e-b4ltoerd bank, • [Formatted:Indent:nrst Line:0.2 7 N:-C.Novi-Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection O-O of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. ©L.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the • �F.ramttad:I dee Let On•,Tab smps:. billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special OM,ldt gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to other subsections P and-S-of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount-ofbi l-gateway billboard-banksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards mat,not ba relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2.-The-demelitionofa-rwnoonferreing-bilboard-pursuant to this section-shall not-accrue bitlboard-creditsitithin^th ga oral-billboardbank.Credit fora billboard demolishedttr constructed-vathin-a--special-gateway-shall-be tcked wk18n-a-peparate-ban' t. ateway {3errnit far-the-soastruct suantto this-seeded-grast-a-taken out-within-thirty-eiu-(36)-months-of-the-demoli;ionef ihe-rwnconfornsing billboard- I I.t.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. 0 • ON.Temporary Embellishments: ' W Indent Fcem. d:Ind left oir,Tab stops: advertising-face-ofanybitlboard and-shaJfrlot-exeedfiveSae'(5')in-i.ght OW,Left above-thebillboard slruolure: 2 otemporany embefishrr.ent-shalFbe maintainedonabillboard-cruse-than twailve-(t2)-months- i emnorary Embellishments ore prohibited • *monad:Indent Histie:0.25. RO.Height:The highest point of any new bilf'soard billboard exotud:ng-tcmperazy ewbe:;ils hmees-shall not be more than: a--Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a • Fmm .v,nt.d:moot tec o otrp: pole sign in the applicable zoning district,whichever is less. Unless 02s otherwise authorized by State law. 2�`-o ctr cfwi1b n-e'c hundr^a r'_ (4-f ')�,r,F.e-bi .,.�rd,mneacured from Ore. (FmmetW:Indent left 0.7r atrenta14he-peixEal.whiehthebillboecdaspeFpendisulartothe-strcct,is on a-different-grada-thanthe-newbillbeard;twenfy-tive-teet-(25}abovethe pavcmcnt elcvetion cf the stroc'.© 3,-I'the prcvis;ens-of-subseolio Rig ea�o is eee';on-0r+s-sacoevs subsect;er,afpy'-f"-^• h'rwna care^,thenew-bitlbeard-maybe-the higher-ofthe-t•^-(2; :ghty SP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• f ion.a.d:Indent Left 0.71•,Tab stops: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) l OW,Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • • III • 1 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. Formatted:list Paragraph,Numbered+Level: 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+St it at 1+ Moment:rent:left+eigned at 0.25+Indent 3.Spacing for billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and at:o r' not free standing.may be modified by the Planning Commission as a Formatted:tenet left 0.5'.No Wleli or Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59 numbering as long as such modifications are consistent with State Law Formatted Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 p� i Formatted:Indent:left:1',Numbered+ Level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start at It Moment et.left+Aligned at:2.25•+ R Lighting:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not(Aare directly onto the roadway Indent at:2.5- or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential,Mixed-Use Formatted:Font:PeNeta,12 pt,Not can CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font:(Default)(D Helvetica,12 pt ) and6am. - — - Formatted:Indent:Lee ft:1.25 S:Ele_ctronic Billboards: Formatted:Font:(Default)*elsebra,12 a_-) 1. New Electronic Billboard are prohibited.Electronic billboard existing as of the • Fo.•a:5+ :lyderi Left:1•,Nuntead+ lr.•1:5+Nment:Left a,b,C,...+Sbrt date of adootion of this ordinance are limited to the following: at:1+Alignment en+Aligned at:22.5.+ Indent at:2.5• a. feloti0 Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold ) Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12pt Electronic billboards shall have only static text.images,and graphics. Formatted:Indent Left:1.25' Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ b. Dwell time level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,t....+Start The text,image.or display on an electronic sign may not chance mof at:1+Alignment:left Migr d at:2.25•+ Indent at:2.5• than once every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subsequent Formatted:Font Helvetica,ti pt,Not Bold text.images.or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. Formatted:Font:(Default)H.helia,12 pt c. Bri htness Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25' Durin da i ht hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall b Formatted:Indent Left:r,Numbered+ no greater than 2.500 nits. At all other times,luminance shall be no :s+Nment:Left a,b,c,._+Start at 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at:2.25.+ greater than 500 nits. indent at zs• ' Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold j d. Size Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt The maximum size of an electronic sin shall be no law er than th Formatted:Indent:i.ert:1.2s- billboard as it exists as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance, Formatted:Font:Helveta,12 pt e. Display period( l-Formatted:Indent:left:1•,Numbered+ Electronic billboards may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of level.Mlonne nt Le t a Al a,b,igned a._+5brt Ltd:5+ umbed:1d Al at 2.25'+ midnight.and 6 a.to if they are located within G00 Feet of a residential, Iedent at:2.5• mixed-use. downtoym, Sugar House Business District. gateway Formatted:Font Helvetica, pt,Not Bold - Neighborhood Commercial, Community Business. or Community Formatted:Fort(Default)Helvetia,12 pt Shopping Center zoning district, FomratteC:iMnt:"Lert:-�Is Famatted:Font:(Default)Helve5a,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Whet.,12 pt~�. Is . • f. Controls • r«m.e.d:Indent Left:1•,Numbered+ • level:5+N.nterVc Sgei a,b.c...+Start i. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer at:1+Wm/art Left+Aligned at 2.25.+ control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sian's [Went ae 2S,Tab sew 1.25",left brightness and display period as provided above. Paematled:ran:Macao,tz pt,Net Bold pt ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign. � �Pont(Default)Whelks,12 the applicant shall certify that the sion has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other reauirements herein. iii. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness.and other reauirements herein. • Formatted.List Paragraph UT.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. ® I =;U.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. • Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. ;C_//.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. 0 • YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or • maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. ZY.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for 1 the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. A. Spee P;cvisio ns: . pppEcabitriy y-pcoviiiOnx cf th:c section-chat _ id d:a 1ocaie .Four(1)avi ev nd 1800 t' h adjacent to the west eida cf Interstata 15;and I. na cxistiagbill boa:d-en.he eel-side of-Virtoq,teadat-apprexiraataty 1100 Ncrth- . eneral-Applicability:-Exceptas-nedihed-by this sectiea;ell-either rcviciors cf this • chapter-shallapply-to the five-(5)specified-billboards- Spec alPriosity helve-(5)specifiedbillboards-shallbe-oon;idercdas-gateway billboards-for-the-purposesv;-the-priority-provisiens-0€subsection F of this-section;-0its successor-subsection,.Lardacap!rg:The fve-(5)cpeci%d billboardsshell be landscaped-pursuant-to-the provisons-cf cub_ection V of this setion-er-its-successor-sNbsectic,r . 65Siate Mandated Relocation-0€8iltbeards xoept-asatherwise-autherized-herein; existing-billboards-e aynetbe-relocated exceptassnandatedby-the-requirements-of Utah-slat,,lax,.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1(Exh. A),1995) • .g,s t/. "-' - Briefing for fitrg ,IT Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansic,Senior Planner Date: January 20,201 I Re: Billboard Ordinance: January 2611i`issue only hearing'on proposed code amendments regarding billboards and public transit(public amenity)advertising. Petitions:400-06-51, PLNPCM2010-00032, PLNPCM2010-00717 Background There are presently three separate petitions regarding the regulation of off-premise advertising in Salt Lake Cite. An Open Mouse introducing these petitions and potential regulations was held on November l b, 2010. There was an initial briefing in December 9,2010 meeting in preparation for a work session on January 12,2012. Some Planning Commissioners met with YESCO representatives on January 5 to discuss technical aspects of electronic billboards. The Planning Commission received a brisling on January 12°i 2011 and set up a subcommittee to review the proposals. Hearing: This January 26''hearing is'issues only'. No decision is recommended or expected. The hearing provides an opportunity to hear Iron the community and industry representatives in order to provide information to guide the creation of a final product. After the hearing,the Planning Commission should discuss the next steps with staff. Previous statfinemns sins be re-read at:hup://www.slcuov.com/boardsiplancom!_plancom.hun • :` Yu? Briefing for Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 24,2011 Rc Billboard Ordinance: Policy discussion. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 In considering the three petitions,the Planning Commission should focus on general policy issues and allow the Attorneys to develop specific language. The following is a bullet point outline of the general policies codified by the existing ordinance,the policies included in the two draft ordinances provided and potential alternative policies. Policy reversals and/or significant changes offered in AN% the draft ordinances are highlighted with an asterisk*. Transit shelters Existing policy • Adverting in the public way is prohibited with exceptions for A-frame signs and logos on banners. Draft ordinance policy • Allows advertising in the public way when associated with a contract for street furniture.* • Allows the Administration to determine all details. Alternative policies • Allow transit shelter advertising only associated with City contract. • Allow transit shelter advertising and logos on other furniture only associated with City contract. • Place ordinance limits on the size of advertising. • Place ordinance limits on the size of logos. • Limit the number of shelters and/or furniture allowed to be negotiated by the administration. Billboard ordinance Existing policy • Cap and reduce program. • Allows banking of billboards for three years. • Encourages movement away from residential, historic,downtown,gateway districts. • Allows relocation to general commercial and industrial(non-gateway)districts generally located west of 300 West. Draft ordinance policy • Eliminates bank. • Allows movement according to state law. • Allow negotiated movement with the City and provides policy guidance directing negotiated movement. Alternative policies • No change(State law still supersedes). • Increase the number of boards allowed. Electronic Billboards Existing policy • Silent:does not prohibit or define. Draft ordinance policy • First draft prohibits electronic billboard conversion. • Second draft • Creates definitions. • Sets lighting and brightness definitions for electronic billboards. • Allows for conversions to freestanding boards on gateway streets*. • Allows conversion to electronic on special gateways as part of the architecture*. • Allows electronic billboards in downtown districts as part of the architecture. • Requires general reduction in boards when converting*. • Allows Planning Commission to modify spacing requirements'. Alternative policies • Allow conversion only on particular streets or in specific zoning districts. • Increase or decrease the numbers of billboards required for conversion(from the second draft). • Define standards and allow all conversions. 4. ,.L Briefing for s � Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: February 3,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Subcommittee. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 Attached is the information provided to the Subcommittee for their January 31,2011 meeting: Agenda Policy Discussion Salt Lake County ordinance Salt Lake City Ordinance Excerpts from the Urban Design Element Excerpts from the Downtown Plan Excerpts horn Dossntoyn Rising YPSCO suggestions Discussion draft prohibiting electronic billboards Discussion draft allowing some movement of electronic billboards Information being provided for the February 7.2011 subcommittee meeting: Initial inventory of neighborhood billboards(not field checked) USA today article List of cities and states indicated in the USA today graphics Comparison of land values adjacent to residentially zone billboards(spread sheet done in 2002) Map of Salt Dike County \slap of Salt Lake County Townships(Salt Lake County ordinance applies to unincorporated County and Millcreek,Emigration,hearns,Copperton,White City and Magna townships) Official Billboard and Gateway map Salt Lake City zoning maps Information bring acquired,but not vet available for February 7.2011 meeting_ Salt Lake County zoning maps Consolidated map of billboard locations in Salt Lake City Briefing for -1)=- Planning Commission • r ,r Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Date: January 24,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Policy discussion. Petitions:400-06-51,PLNPCM2010-00032,PLNPCM2010-00717 In considering the three petitions,the Planning Commission should focus on general policy issues and allow the Attorneys to develop specific language. The following is a bullet point outline of the general policies codified by the existing ordinance,the policies included in the two draft ordinances provided and potential alternative policies. Policy reversals and/or significant changes offered in the draft ordinances are highlighted with an asterisk'. Transit shelters Existing policy • Adverting in the public way is prohibited with exceptions for A-frame signs and logos on banners. Draft ordinance policy • Allows advertising in the public way when associated with a contract for street furniture.' • Allows the Administration to determine all details. Alternative policies • Allow transit shelter advertising only associated with City contract. • Allow transit shelter advertising and logos on other furniture only associated with City contract. • Place ordinance limits on the size of advertising. • Place ordinance limits on the size of logos. • Limit the number of shelters and/or furniture allowed to be negotiated by the administration. Billboard ordinance Existing policy • Cap and reduce program. • Allows banking of billboards for three years. • Encourages movement away from residential,historic,downtown,gateway districts. • Allows relocation to general commercial and industrial(non-gateway)districts generally located west of 300 West. Draft ordinance policy • Eliminates bank. • Allows movement according to state law. • Allow negotiated movement with the City and provides policy guidance directing negotiated movement. Alternative policies • No change(State law still supersedes). • Increase the number of boards allowed. Electronic Billboards Existing policy • Silent:does not prohibit or define. Draft ordinance policy • First draft prohibits electronic billboard conversion. • Second draft • Creates definitions. • Sets lighting and brightness definitions for electronic billboards. • Allows for conversions to freestanding boards on gateway streets`. • Allows conversion to electronic on special gateways as part of the architecture*. • Allows electronic billboards in downtown districts as part of the architecture`. • Requires general reduction in boards when converting`. • Allows Planning Commission to modify spacing requirements`. Alternative policies • Allow conversion only on particular streets or in specific zoning districts. • Increase or decrease the numbers of billboards required for conversion(from the second draft). • Define standards and allow all conversions. Municode Page 1 of 2 • /11 1 - 19.82.185-Off-premises signs—Billboards. A. Purpose.This section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs with the intent of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards,mitigating negative impacts,promoting safety and protecting property values that further the goals and planning policies of Salt Lake County. B. Capon Number of Off-Premises Signs.The number of off-premises signs allowed in unincorporated Salt Lake County and established or future townships shall be limited to the number of off-premises signs that are existing as defined herein as of May 18,2004.This cap shall automatically decrease as off-premises signs are annexed into a municipal jurisdiction or removed and not relocated. C. Location.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-1 zone as a conditional use.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones as a permitted use. D. Size.Off-premises signs shall not exceed six hundred seventy-two square feet in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones.Off-premises signs located in a C-1 zone shall not exceed three hundred square feet in size. E. Height.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be thirty-five feet in a C-1 zone.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be forty-five feet above the grade level of the road in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones or,when oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feet of the nearest freeway lane,twenty-five feet above freeway grade level or fifty feet overall,whichever is greater. F. Separation.The minimum distance between off-premises signs larger than three hundred square feet shall be five hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.The minimum distance between off-premises signs three hundred square feet or less in size shall be three hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.All off-premises signs must be at least one hundred fifty radial feet tram any other off-premises sign. G. Setbacks.The minimum setback shall be eighteen inches for off-premises signs.The sign's front-yard setback shall be measured from tire future right-of-way line(see Transportation Improvement Plan).The closest edge of an off-premises sign shall not project into any required setback area.The minimum setback between an off- premises sign and any residential zone boundary shall be one hundred fifty feet. H. Lighting.Lighting shall be confined to the sign face,and the lighting source shall not be directly visible. I. Design.Off-premises signs shall utilize either the"mono-pole"or the"bi-pole"design and shall be continually maintained structurally and on the copy face.The back of the sign and the structure behind the sign shall be painted a dark color.Tri-vision sign faces shall be permitted and,if illuminated,must be externally illuminated. Internally illuminated off-premises signs,electronic display(outdoor video advertising)and electronic message centers are only alloyed adjacent to the interstate freeway system and limited to no more than one change to the copy face in a twenty-four hour period.Two-decked off-premises signs are prohibited in all zones. J. Credits for Removal.Prior to the removal of any off-premises sign,the owner shall obtain a permit for the demolition of tire off-premises sign.Permits may be provided following application to the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division.The Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that a permit for demolition of an off-premises sign has been issued.After any off-premises sign is demolished,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall create a"billboard bank account"for the sign Oviner.The account shall reflect credits for the off-premises sign square footage as well as the date of removal.Any off-premises sign credits not used within thirty-six months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use.An off-premises sign owner may sell or otherwise transfer off- premises signs and/or billboard bank account credits.The transfer of any billboard bank account credits does not extend their thirty-six-month life as provided in this section.Demolition of an off-premises sign that has two advertising faces shall receive billboard bank account credits for the square footage of each sign face. K. Relocation.The owner of an erisling off-premises sign may remove an existing off-premises sign from any site to an approved location only after a permit for relocation is obtained upon substantiation of coinpl'.nce with this chapter.Prior to approval of a permit for relocation,the sign owner(applicant)shall submit to the county a notarized affidavit signed by the property owner,a copy of the lease agreement or other document to be signed by the property owner,indicating ate minimum the duration of the lease and renewal provisions. Additionally,prior to approval of a permit for relocation,Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that application for an of`-premises sign permit has been received.Off-premises signs moved to approved locations shall conform to all off-premises sign requirements of the new location.Off-premises signs moved from one location to another must be installed in the new approved location within the period allotted by the International Building Code(IBC).A new off-premises sign permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard bank account credits of a sufficient number of square feet.When the permit for construction of a new off-premises sign is issued,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall deduct from the sign owner's billboard bank account the square footage of the new off-premises sign.If the new off- premises sign uses less than the entire available square footage credits,any remaining square footage credits shall remain in the sign owner's billboard bank account. L. County Council Review and Monitoring.The county council shall,on a regular six-month schedule be updated Municodc Page 2 of 2 at a regular public meeting to changes in status and effectiveness of the provisions related to off-premises signs in unincorporated Salt Lake County. ,+,^ M. Severability and Conflict.This section and its various parts are hereby declared to be severable if a court of competent jurisdiction declares any subsection,clause,provision or portion of this section invalid or unconstitutional.No court decision will affect the validity of either this section as a whole or any parts not declared invalid or unconstitutional by that decision.If any part of this section is found to be in conflict with any other provision of the county,the most restrictive or highest standard will apply,prevail and govern. (Ord.1532§4,2004) ,or' �,� o.�mi�n i' oI]r111 Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 1 of 6 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 0.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 2 of 6 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars ($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways ."..` shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 1/,11/2011 Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Paso 3 of 6 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor, billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits fora lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty (60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I.Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has tv,'o(2)advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face,but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K.Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application one form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 4 of 6 of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,O,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits ""4". within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. O.Temporary Embellishments: '1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard, and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one ._. __.._., :.—K[17e4 1/1/2011 Sterling Certifiers,Inc. Page 5 of 6 street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(30D)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred(300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large, on the same side of the street. U.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts:Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. V.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. `,V.Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection, arc not developed or,it a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such properly,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for rho required landscaping. X.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. Y.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. Z.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary,such subdivision. AA.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:Tile provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 6 of 6 a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and ..� b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection. BB.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72- 08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord. 83-98§§12-14, 1998:Ord.88-95§1 (Exh.A),1995) Ark . . v;1I7nn • • VIEW CORRIDORS AND VISTAS A view is a visual image having aesthetic beauty worth preserving. A"view corridor"frames a view of a building or natural feature from either a short or a long distance. View corridors are most often associated with streets or pedestrian walkways. The buildings adjacent to the street often frame a view of a prominent feature of the city. A vista,on the other hand, suggests a wider perspective or panoramic view. It may encompass an entire city,a sunset over the Great Salt Lake,or the Wasatch Mountain backdrop. While views are an important part of a city's urban form,their value is often overlooked. They can easily be destroyed before the loss is realized leaving an environment of monoto- nous development and further damaging the city's identity. Salt Lake City has many view corridors w.vhich influence both the urban form of the city and the development character of its districts and communities. The:most prominent include the following(see Vista Protection Mapl. Figure B) - State Street corridor of the State Capitol Building and surrounding foothills - Exchange Place terminating at the Post Office Building - Main Street to The Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum - 200 South east to the University of Utah Park Building - 300 South Street terminating at the D&RGVJ Railroad depot - South Temple,from Union Pacific Depot to Federal Heights Foothills �• - First Avenue terminating at the LDS Temple Square • - Ensign Peak :. A s, � ° r - Oquirrh Vista k s -- `tJasatch foothills • f +,' 'I• • f 2G .... .. a-'{.[ 0o°o88g:woo�g oo°oo°o°ooSe 088 0�'�888 °°gs g, . Agog seooa° s ss3E° EAS _ oho oo os° a g°° °s°s�s..o�°°� °°n SS -� :sego s 88g03 8'°_°°off::§°so° 0008o° 0 00000 08 a 000 °°O° 08:. .8.r�. ....8g.o5°0°0°8 8d J"�/// o88tog °41.88 o O°e°•oa 'g88k°°o°°O°o°��xx "�'�=` � % �%8°.':or:8°o° o°o 88088°°��;;�''°88°�° as, M e ' nassg 82:3,§ g�aa gg osa°°° a apron °°g° °geaao°aQ ob��R°° �. ����1�aoa:: •.° °a°°g8' °° a 4:1 sa°:aaa a3°a°°g 000a.°°°° r/ 4' 'g°g6O:81asa °s°°° s:: 0 Co °o o�� a a5' , I / $ /�i / /�, a°a. °° °a ° �°... :oas ofi °�o woo°°o8 00 88°aBgP rY r� /�y% �� �{C4': 8': �� 0�88°o o• 88880 a°t°o°°a°oo o .I/ . o°° k °0000 _.,8K oaesao°e �s °ate � �9��, �..//%;:�� � �o ��°as°seoao°° °,,a°°°° s� °g�goo°°g°oo°,o°o %P to.44. r e aa° gEr a.°g_ao oaroo°soaa§,r q • //, 4 � N. t .j'.. °'R..°s33 ° , oo Tb:IJs%n E�6 i.rrVr Z%•llf .. sa PI - � °4 � � v Y �a_�°�°°tea°°° ,/,0 ✓ 3' �+5.• °Aaa o§sae gagssu _e GATEWAYS VISTAS -,_ //j �11,,• 'y �w�marrommeo .388,,°°° o j F .,,rr./.ice E 1111BWA,,' °s° °o GATEWAYS k „.. /iJeiiir 8 gog -804 VISTAS I /r a _.0 8I9$ /ife:%/% 4 4 A A' • . ..... // ��"°���/.ice •- _ V..: MAJOR VISTA TERMINUS % r ize,6�/� �% f'—s °osor-F. .77 STREET VIEW CORRIDOR /, / / /'aoo°8800°-°° 0 V6EW OR VISTA OBSERVATION POINTS i MOUNTAIN BACKDROP mg! LAKE/DESERT VISTA figure. 8 ..i.i.. MAJOR STREETS • 21 Gateways Gateways refer to the entrances in and out of a city,but may also refer to the entrances into districts cr neighborhoods. They are an important part of an area's image because they provide visitors and residents with their first visual impression of the city. A gateway often frames a principal view,providing a point of identity from which the viewer begins to evalu- ate the form and scale of an area. A gateway may occur as an au>dliary function to an area's main purpose. For example, airport and railroad terminals,bus depots,or freeway off-ramps may function as gateways since they are the point at which a visitor gets his first impression of a city. Changes in transportation modes,speed of travel,street pattern,or topography are often gateways because they signal"the entrance"into a district of the city. YY I s-. ,, ice- .� �•'z-aar a am DELTA N tops toP n do `` r , 4� fps s. Gateways into the City can be a road,or transit terminal. POLICY CONCEPTS o Develop Salt Lake City's gateways to provide a good first impression of the city. o Develop gateways in a fashion which strengthens the identity of the city. Gateway streets should be visually uncluttered,their views unobstructed. o Preserve the City's major gateways. They are as follows: - Beck Street entrance - Parleys'Way(Parley's Canyon entrance) - South State Street entrance (2100 South at State Street) - Interstate 15(north and south entrances) - Union Pacific Railroad Depot - Denver and Rio Grand Railroad Depot - Salt Lake City International Airport - Western city entrances(I-BO West and 2100 South) - Foothill Drive - 7th East - Al I-15 and 1-80 Interchanges Strategies - Improve gateway vistas and the immediate environment of the major gateway roads. - Rehabilitate the areas immediately around gateways by providing landscaping, special streetscapes or district improvements. Rehabilitation may require modifying the zoning and allowed land use activities. Street improvements must go beyond 25 simple replacement of hazardous or worn out equipment,sidewalks,or street furni ture. If thoughtfully installed,such improvements announce to visitors that they have arrived. One such technique is the use of pylons or community identification markers to denote entrance into a neighborhood or district. - Prohibit by ordinance,sky-bridges and skyways over streets identified as significant view corridors on the Vista Protection Map. - Remove overhead power transmission lines along streets in gateway and vista areas. - Unify street light fixtures and equipment into a consistent design theme. - Encourage development which takes advantage of natural features such as topo- graphy,vegetation,water elements,etc - Amend Salt Lake City's sign ordinance to prohibit billboards along roadways that • serve as gateways into the city and along view and vista corridors.(Figure 9) In addition,the following ordinances should be initiated for gateway districts.(For additional recommendations on sign regulations see"Signs"below.) / Beck Street vista/Gateway 26 - Establish legislation allowing the city to amortize the useful life of existing bill boards as a method to remove signs in areas identified as city and community gate ways,principle city streets,and view corridors. - Reduce the allowable billboard sign height in vista areas zoned C-3,M-1,M-2 and M-3 from the present 65 feet to 40 feet. (Figure 9) - Require a minimum distance of 400 feet from freeway"no access lines"or right- of-way lines in sign free corridor. (Figure 9) - Require a minimum 1,200 foot spacing between billboards located in areas outside of sign free corridors. - Establish sign-free zones beyond the minimum distances proposed. The ac- companying map illustrates the areas where this is important. - Survey existing billboards to determine whether they were constructed legally. Those erected without permits should be removed. If legally constructed,signs need to be moved. - Require that signs located within a vista be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to building surfaces. - Require yard areas of properties adjacent to gateways or principle streets be treated as front yard space with landscaped setbacks and screening of unsightly uses.In conjunction with this,rooftop equipment such as air conditioning equip ment,satellite dishes,etc.,should be well organized and painted a neutral color or screened to minimize the visual distraction they often create. - Re-analyze allowed land uses adjacent to principle gateways. Prohibit open stor age,auto wrecking,junk yards,and open air refuse recycling processes within view corridors. ONOMMOMMil 23 Signs Signs are an integral and expected part of the city landscape. Signs contribute to the char • - acter of different areas of downtown and are often a major identifying feature.Most signs in O Salt Lake City are oriented to the street level environment as a result of the city's sign ordi- nance. This has helped to make buildings and land features the landmarks instead of signs. This not only helps to maintain the individuality and quality of buildings,it enhances views of �_ 1 the mountain setting. Unfortunately,however,signs are still a dominate feature of the n,cm landscape along our city's major boulevards and gateways. Signs sponsored by city,county,and state governments often set a poor example.Too often, r1 4-01L':' ! i II little attention is paid to the impact directional and informational signs,such as street name �J "7 signs have on the city's image. Our present lad:of clear policy helps to create haphazardly -'"'I-1- t Iti;". located,confusing,and often poorly designed signs. OS• 61111 i POLICY CONCEPTS „ DIES L FUEL L_ "41a :2 . 51: o Provide ample opportunities for business to advertise products and service with � Q""`.- "" out having a detrimental effect on the community. o Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development,not as an after thought. o Ensure that government sponsored signage sets a positive example. o Regulate the size and location of billboards so they do not detract from the city's positive environment. Strategies - Initiate the following billboard sign ordinance amendments and legislation: MINNINIMMINE 36' • - Establish State enabling legislation allowing the city to amortize the useful life of existing billboard signs. • - Reduce allowable billboard sign height in vista areas. (Presently the C-3,M-1, M-2,and M-3 zones allow 65 feet of height.) - Require a minimum distance of 400 feet from freeway"no access lines"or right-of-way lines in sign free corridors. In some cases protecting prominent views may require establishing sign-free zones beyond the minimum distances proposed. - Initiate a minimum 1,200 foot spacing between billboard signs located in areas outside of sign free corridors. (Figure 9) - Survey existing billboards to determine whether existing off-premise signs were constructed legally. Those which have been erected without building permits should be removed. If illegally constructed,signs need to be removed. - Require the review and approval of all signs in conservation districts,view corri- dors and vistas as part of the construction permit process. The following guidelines should be considered in granting sign approval: Require signs located within a view corridor to be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to the building surface. Encourage sign design as an integral part of the design of buildings and developments. Increase enforcement of the sign ordinance. • ; 37 U CC Q mac' bt i o J 0 4.•.T1aoo-11 t W I. Wm o _ l'i - `'L. -1,9" 0 °° ‘.,- 1. il r �_I a, _ ii ! nip : �atiuueui Itieailuai� ■ c � � :jai . --r Q n Lie mil„ isizotnte •Qv et I'guppy ,}u I IIIItt' .-. - „ rY 1�'m nt ten �t iVul�}ua�tna� pp ❑ .I l:lr ' gpia�t{ll tlitlesII G •• � r CC —taa, Is 7 tiiti( . Th O 1A1.8allli eels .Vnup , •"� I. �� J e} Tr..alpthu�e t..itmi, Ge�tIn F u nn lann n' `itrh e i qe1 iut5nletllp °ram +o si �I/lt jltlale fell";A�� t 1114t^ •` fir •�t��Itglneeim ea EIn.„A!.„t6utctnI C UL$ IN 1 �rli UIIYll91Y111i 111t nt file I It lttll tlsell I 7(lnllntl lfg 1 pTi `Mixed-use zoning should he applied to the area adjacent to Pioneer Park. Previous plans have called for the enhancement of existing residen- tial and the introduction of new residential populations into this underutilized area. This zoning does not need to require residential as �.: the host use,but it should retain a residential component. J � moso,n-....•. . -. sur- rLIounding IIr Warehouse l _ �. historical �•the a_ ,u - L e House Historic District: The lus.e r_ i survey for n�area.. r >: <�'�" •___ rounding the Pro Grande Depot and Pierpont areas has been done and [ indicates a potential for an important Historic District. Such designation ew swm il would enhance the existing character of the area,providing architectural 1 ow ( t�[ protection and insuring compatibility of new development. Importantly, I r� II r historical designation provides a"theme"for the area,inviting reinvest- VaREHouse ment capital and providing an"Avant-Garde"area for the arts to thrive. HISTORIC DISTRICT *Temple Square/City-County Building/Cathedral of the Madeleine/ State Capitol View Corridors: These buildings represent the most archi- tecturally and historically significant buildings in the City. They provide an immediately recognizable image to residents and tourists. A view �. corridor would"red flag"new construction that interferes with si . y' w . cant views and subject it to design review. This will insure the continued .' ' view amenity of these important buildings. R.` 5 ;- -- a ram, *View Corridors:Views from Downtown to the mountains and major , ? i landmarks should also be preserved. Skywalks or other obstructions �- ,7 "\ that would block view corridors are prohibited on Main Street,State Street,South Temple,200 South and 300 South and are discouraged on c---- __-_—__z_-° other streets except in extenuating circumstances. Historic Social Hall *Gateways:Changes in zoning should be made to enhance the entry into Downtown on major streets. These changes include landscaped setbacks, land use controls and prohibition of billboards. 30 S ; ) • n 'j°tt�''Uvol(1 i\1. ,•• ) (_ Ager-4vI foal!Ce titP"'; . Downtown Rising supports Street character ■ Plant more shade trees, install more wayfinding the designation of streets Each of downtown's streets serves a slightly different role signs,repurpose turning lanes to create pedestrian as either"boulevards," -some are key walking routes,others are vital regional refuges, public art or landscaping, and explore traffic arteries and some serve an important rote for public reconfiguring on-street parking t0 provide more "transit corridors,"or transportation. Despite their role for moving traffic, all parking opportunities. "promenades."Here's downtown streets, regardless of their primary function, the distinction: must be beautiful and convenient for pedestrians. GRAND BOULEVARDS SOUTH AND SOUTH). These two streets are thhee p principal auto gateways into •• • BOULEVARD. The following streets are recommended for priority and out of the city. Both streets should be grand i . Quality design action to improve their beauty and walkabitity. expressions of a capital city;they should provide a more on these key dignified entrance and exit. More-stately and urban .�A 200 EAST has the potential to be the focus of a revived traffic arteries boulevards can be accomplished by adding monumental • urban neighborhood. White automobile traffic would ' 'imbues all of trees and distinctive lighting to form a canopy over the 'l downtown with the feeling of still be a primary use of the street,200 East could spur streets,reducing the number of large signs that visually development by providing active open space in a"Park conflict with the conce vibrancy.These are the main entry pt of a grand gateway,building and exit points for people traveling Avenue"concept similar to the center park blocks on multi-story structures to the edge of the sidewalk,and by automobile.A pedestrian would 500 West or 600 East.Turning 200 East into a dynamic preventing visible surface parking lots. ^� feel comfortable on these decidedly urban street is a signature project of Downtown Rising. 100 SOUTH east of the Salt Palace Convention Center urban,landscaped streets. WEST TEMPLE plays a key role in moving automobiles is a prime opportunity to create a new gathering space. through i downtown. Nonetheless, West Temple has a IT1 TRANSIT Traffic demands on this section are low.A pedestr an- il! , CORRIDOR. tremendous opportunity to be transformed into a oriented street could showcase the Salt Palace tower Downtown pedestrian-friendly boulevard, linking together major and a growing restaurant scene.First South could thus ��''•r'�A•= relies on hotels on the south to the Salt Palace,Symphony Hall, become a linear park filled with people,but stilt open ?( City Creek Center and Temple Square complex to the to auto movement and on-street parking not unlike Rio transit.These north. Modifications suggested through the Downtown p 9. corridors put priority on the Grande Street in the center of The Gateway. convenient movement of buses and Rising process include: trainsyet cars continue to be ■ Retail uses that 200 SOUTH provides a major link for bus and greet the street and feature automobile traffic travelling east to west through the welcome. All trips start and prominent entrances for pedestrians. city.It also serves as a critical corridor linking the core end with walking,so these streets must be walkable. ■ Changes to the Salt Palace facade to provide downtown area with Salt Lake Central Station. purposeful pedestrian destinations along the west ,a.7+ PROMENADE. side of West Temple. These could include a "City ' ,.'r' . ; : - While cars are History"walk,a linear sculpture garden,kiosks and :- still welcome, food carts,and outdoor dining. ' 'til .'Y the pedestrian d'u�.. q gets priority on these beautiful walking routes. l • • In S` ce µ A 1 7,,, n .14 `'‘.' ,,St. r•L _ a tt i. ` :1? ;< VR ,.r t , r f4 rwt. .._ ..,.Bwt �. Yj ... 1... d'i0..:' R 1:.,,. /.. p4 IIWStation:hut Brown+ - Grand Boulevards District The Grand Boulevards welcome the world to downtown Salt Lake. leading to the doorstep of the Grand America Hotel. Buildings This district includes the foremost entry corridor from the Salt Lake here clearly have the strongest presence on the street-creating an International Airport and is also home to many of Downtown's urban ambience-while stately landscaping hints at the beauty hotels. With many hotels,it is truly a hospitality neighborhood. As further within downtown. The urban design is monumental, such,the Grand Boulevards offer an outstanding first impression, befitting the width and character of these Grand Boulevards. The dominant features of this district are 500 South and 600 South • • 0 vdMI -� ' ; tt FI :CIS '; ':- •at1 : , .1 of i,i• g E WEEMS a. I il . f ��• ! ■1�1 I 41:. •- c U.s • W C... ■ e 111:11237011 cc) a; ti7 J E1 I. ill fkg o .� F 4 - rnM OOZ g I .isaM OOC. i - E_ V 6 • M ■ • ,.... a-•• p a ` cd‘ E. - v 2 v i T o f0 ' III ; • U ++ ♦ • y ti. C L X N N C y I—r y V City of Salt Lake Digital Billboard Presentation • YESCO Electronics We recognize the importance of establishing effective sign codes. We appreciate the good and hard work done on the ordinance to date. We suggest the following revisions to the proposed digital ordinance: Use the following provisions for brightness: Illuminance:The intensity of light falling on a surface at a defined distance from the light source. Foot Candle: The English unit of measurement for Illuminance,which is equal to one lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot. The illumination of an Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting level by more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter perpendicular to the Electronic Billboard face at: (A) 150 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area of not more than 242 square • (B)200 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 242 square feet but not more than 378 square feet; (C)250 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 378 square feet but not more than 672 square feet;and (D)350 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 672 square feet. [Keep the provision relating to"controls"] Change Dwell Time to Eight Seconds This is standard recommended by the Federal Highway Administration and is consistent with state law. Eliminate Electronic Billboard Curfew The signs are needed by business owners,stakeholders,and public service organizations 24/hrs/day. Eliminate trade-for-upgrade provisions This is a legal concern. 411 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East, 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and • r 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West, • --(ForrnaltedIndent:tee:0.96 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. 'ose.17 F.seated-":ith,-the-perEectien- •. _.•(Formatted:rat:Na Boit St6enwugn s.of-bricht es —_uminareeic mcasyredln-candelas-per-setiare-meters-er`nits'-foF •l?Formatted:so-ikethrough puFpeae=ef-this-ecdwenee, I Formatted:Tao stops:0.25",List tab illuminance:The intensity of light falling on a surface at a defined distance from the --(Formatted:Not Strikethrough light source O • • 1.Formatted:Font Bold MOTION The depiction of movement or change of position of text,images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bold graphics. Motion shall include,but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and images,running sequential text,graphic bursts,lighting that resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of light,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions. Formatted:Font Bold pllTS:A-unit-of.measure-ofbrightness-or-luminance.--Onenit-is-equal-to-one .-{Famattee:suaewou°n ccndclaFseearc motor. '\ Formatted:Normal,Indent:yen:0.m", Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: Foot Candle:The English unit of measurement for illuminance.which is equal to one-. `.: 0.25,List tab lumen,incident upon an area of one square foot.. Formatted:Foot Bold,Strkethrough formatted:Smkethragh TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in Formatted:Normal,Indent:Left:0.25", increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message B�2s•,1f me Auto,After:Auto,Tab steps: or advertisement. .• Formatted;Font:Bold TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text,images,and graphics on an electronic Formatted: Auto,o,,After:et,Left: b vo Spare Before: Auto,Tab stops: son to change to a different text,images.or graphics on a subsequent sign face. .0:25",List tab Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Tab stops:0.25",List C.LimilGn-The-Teta-Nur,ber Of eaFds-No greeterrdumber-ef biltbeards-shall-be eilowed-in-Sait-Lak Cit ,an the-cumber-ofexisting-bilibeards:Billboards Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • -(Formatted:mde t:Leff 0•,Hanging:0.25"j requirements of Utah state law. Additionally,billboards may be relocated from any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district.Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection g1A.46.160.F of ...•( amlateed:Font:Not Ba __d _1 this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. DE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: -- - -.� • 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner � I Fomratted:lMent:Left:o.n• only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. • • • ig.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• Formatted:Indent:Left 071",Tab snips: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 0.e8",Left linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; Formatted:Strlkethaugh 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred Formatted:Indent Festline:b• (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred • (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of Formatted:Font:(Default)Hehrec a,12 pt Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", the street. Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c, +Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned 3.Soecing for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a at:0.25"+Indent at:0.5" building and not free standing,may be modified by the Planning Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined I Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt, in section 21A.59,as long as such modifications are consistent with State I Sbikethrough • Law Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • Formatted:Lot Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line:0" • R LIQM)no-{liehttirreiltumination-ef-biltboerdsmay-not-e!are-dircctly-ente-thei-0aolway Formatted:Lis[Paragraph,Indent,Left:os", ' lumbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, or-sieleiva!!e-nececress-preeerty-lnes„ BillboardslocatedwithinResidential,Mixed-Use, r, .+start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight at:0.25"+Indent at:0.5" • and 6 am. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt ' (Formatted:Stdkettaough S:Electronic Billboards: I Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12pt, 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited except when converting an existing billboard to 1-St__kethrough electronic as follows: Formatted:Stri h • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt, a) A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing, Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts,teit-the Fwmatted:9rikeducugh restrietien-that-hey orenot-eciented-towardsror tot ted-within-600-feet-of-a Formatted:Font.(Default)Helvetic,12 pt, gateway-er-special-gateway-street r-residential-zoning-distrietAafevided-{hat ' s`r`°d fouw-times-the-non-eleotren a seuare foolage-of-the-new-e!eetrenm biltboard-♦s removed-elsewhere-♦n-the-City: Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • '.:t.(Formatted:Indent:Left:0.75•,First line:0" bL) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway streets ' Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left:0.5", pFevtdedi.-cd thac�'• ve-timcs th"-nen-eleetreats-sguace-footage-ef-the-new---- Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, ----. +Start at 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned clectroniebillboardictemevcdalenctthe-same-Gateway.er-r-emevcd*from • at:o.zs•+Indentat:0.5" anelheF-tateway-enly-if-sufficient-square-footaaeas-tetavailabie-en-the-host t Formatted:Snkeh ough gateway- � Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt, • Stnketivough o) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways • Formatted:Stekethroogh previded-that-eeetimes-the-nen-electronic-seuare-feofage ef-the-aew ,r' -. Formatted:Font.(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, elestrenic-billboardis-removedorl-the-sameSpecial-Gateway:or-removed • wikethmugh • Formatted:StrikeMrgph- O from geraiheF-sccci:l gateway-only-ifsun!cient-square-featage-is-net-availabie Formatted:Font:(Default)tkNeNo,12 pt, en-the-host-speeial-gateway-and4henew-eieetronic billboard—i`ullyinteorated sattetnroogh into-the-arehiteeture-ofa-building-and-is-not-free-standing, ...fFor atted:5tnkntnro h Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 1 d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar • Formatted:Lot Paragraph,Indent:Left: House Business District zoning Aistriets-provided-thatawe-times-tho non 0.75",First line:0" electronic-square-footage-o the-newelectronie-billboards removed-in eny Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", Dewntown ar-Heuse-BusinessDistnict-residential-neighberhood s-B ,� Numbered 4-U Lend:1+Numb ering Style:a,b, eemmereishowmunFty-Busiresorn nity-hgppl"gGenter--oaleway-or at:..g+.2sm+rt at'l+aAigmnt Lei'+Algned mfed-use-zening-district-and-he-new-elecirenie-billboard-is-fullwnleareted �:sy yvn into-the-arebiteelure-ofa-building-and is-not fcco ctandinti Formatted:Font:(Default)Henetira,12 pt, 5uirednugh 2._Motion • ~t,v.'.'. Formatted:smkeuvaoh Any motion of any kind is prohibited on en electronic sign face. Electronic':'::+E'i:''•, ,y am""' °OyhF°nt`(°d°un)HeNeKa,l2pt billboards shall have only static text.images.and graphics. ;,'.Formatted:so-tedn°ugh '::Formatted 3. Drell tires - The text.image,or display on en electronic sign may not change more than once '' .•' Farm'Bed:strrenrwgh every`ixty-(60)eight($),seconds. Twirl time between subsequent text.images. :"F°rnattea or display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. Formatted:StrIet Yotoh Formatted .3 4. Brightness Formatted:Font(Default)Hehet 'During-daylight-hour:Ebctween-sunriseand sunset-luminance-shall-be no-greater': Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica, pt than-25500•nit=,—Atxll-other-times,tuminance-shall-be-no-gcealerthan-60O-nits: F°rmaffea wU The illumination of and Electronic Billboard shall not increase the ambient lighting : Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold level more than 0.3 foot candles when measured by a foot candle meter '. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt perpendicular to the Electronic Billboard face at: Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (A)150 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area of not more than 242-.•:,'':,,''.I Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetica,12 Pt square feet :?'r�Formatted (Ja (B)200 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 242 Formatted:Font:(Default)HeNetira,12 pt square feet but not more than 378 square feet F°`matted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 a Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold (C)250 feet for an electronic Billboard with a surface area greater than 378 Formatted (...f6 square feet but not more than 672 square feet ,. Formatted:Not 5B* fragh (0)350 feet for an Electronic Billboard with a surface are greater than 672 square • rrnattea: � feet Formatted:Not strike hrough Size Formatted:Not strkedno gh The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no larger than the billboard it Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt replaced or shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in :I I Formatted:Font(Default)Hen'etira,12 pt whichever is less, Formatted:Font:Hdvdira,12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt :Formatted:Font:HeNetiea,12 pt • 0 • • 6,-4OPlay-peppoci. •• Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, SIestroni lbeards;-R-.av-ref be illuminated-or-tit-ben-the hoens ofinidnieht • sfr"h"'gh and-6-aunt-if-they arm ted-within-60O-€eet of o rosidentiat,-mixed-use; • Formatted:Rot ttenena,12 pt,No Bold, st ietlra ph dewnEEswra,SugaNdeuse Business 8isirisf satewav-Ne ghberheed 6err+rneroia! Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, Comnwritty-Busineoc,cr Communitytiheppin9-Geeter-zenia§hiistrfet ' sof:rmmugh 'Formatted:SDikethough 7. COnlfol5 'Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetia,12 pt, a. full electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer control or Strikethrough other mechanism that automatically controls the skins brightness and display Formatted:Strdredaotgh I .period as provided above. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 p5 Strikethrough b. Prior to approval of any permit for to operate an electronic sign.the applicant •- ----� shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the motion,dwell Formatted:Strike nm gn time.brightness.and other requirements herein. .,'Formatted:Font Helve a,12 pt (Formatted:Fent:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold c. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sian shall submit an annual report Ir e;Font:(Default)HeNetno,12 pc to the city certifying that the sign complies with the motion,dwell time - brightness,and other requirements herein. Formatted:List Paragraph .Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: e Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections • 21A.26.020 and 21A26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shell be allowed only as part of a shelter eta bus stop or public transit stop or steitcr,or a public amenity,pursuant to en approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities.which sets forth the reaulatcn of size,content,placement.design and materials used in the cn,rrstrection of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section."public amenity"means an item Generally located in the public way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk displaying way finding signaae or accommodatina news racks or other public • information,public restrooms.public furniture such as benches cr trash receotacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advettisina shall in no case be larger than 43'by 72- and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk,unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent to non-residential.RES.RMU.or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public serenity advertising display may not contain nudity rarnoaraohy.or indecent or vulgar cictures,arachics or lanquaoa or advertising of _pal products. 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; V • B.Any snipe sign; C.Balloons; D.Bench signs;except transit shelter and amenity advertising specifically authcri<d by c t 21 A.t6.58 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 O I.Painted signs which do not meet the definition of wall signs.(Ord.53-00§3,2000: Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. • B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or 4e`n'fial property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and oeb`_c ,nits advertising specifically authorized by Section 21A.46.058 STIL-BOAR-D-RANK:A s=scout-tag syetcta cstablichcd by the city to kecp track cf sec number-e 3-square-feetageef-rerscafer g-billbezt-d-re ve4-pa p t`ic civets. BILL3CARC-CRE-LAri-On.ty in:o a b:fi .cr1-ewrsvnra billboard bank ac,t.2.urt that ehcwa-Ilse t. aeraadsyaare ee ag,cf c4e tshe4-anecetcrnrrng-i'Ibearde BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The length of time that etvcues between text,images.or graphics on • 1 FormattM:Fo t:Not eoe • an electronic sian. (Formatted:edsnt:Fat line:0•__— _. Fomtatted:Font:Bold EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign.video display,proiected image.or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic components. Electronic signs include.but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).plasma displays.fiber optics.or other technology that results in brieht.hieh-resolution text.imaces.and eraohics. Formatted:Indent Flat One:0'-- GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: -- `t-- - --- --- - --1 1.Interstate 80; • (Form.erm:Indent:ten:0.83• 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8. Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10. 500 South.horn Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12. 300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13. North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14. Main Street frcm North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BiLLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY: The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; (Formatted:Indent Left: 0.96" 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The photometric uuentity most closely associated with the perception ti�Formatted:Font:Not Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for l)Formatted:Tab stops: 0_25,List tab purposes of this ordinance._ Formatted:Font:Bold MOTION The depiction of movement cr change of position of text. images, or /-1Formatted:Font:Not Bold craphics. Moticn shall include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissolving and fading text and imaces.running seouentiel text. nraohic bursts, lighting that • • • resembles zooming.twinkling.or scar-Mina.changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity,moving eailerns or bands of tight.expanding or contractir;; shapes.and similar actions. Formatted:Foot: NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is equal to one • Formatted:Normal,Indent Left:o.2r, Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: Candel'c/;g Uafe meter. 025',list tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images,and grechics on an electronic • Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt sign to change to a different text.images,or nraohics on a subsequent sign face. Formatted:Tab stops:0.25^,List tab -5) C.Limit-Oa-T;eT-stat44u bcr Of 8i'Ibcmde:41-a g-aztcr number of billboards ctio'.t-be aiewetri„o-€att-tcice-City thaa4ho nurr.`_c-cf enisting bi!!teardc.Billboards Prohibited:New Biltboarra are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated es mandated by the • CFoorrne e,Indent Ler“o•,wrymy:o.zr ) requirements of Utah state law.Additionally.billboards may be relocated from any • zoning district to'Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or special gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall follow the priority outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of (! .aBoa:Fan:Not Bald this ordinance.unless otherwise negotiated with the City. • BE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • (Formatted:Went: on- only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). €,Ctedi-ts-s:-Nosccionfefi-rng-Billbesrol-Rcwm at-Aitaca-f nnwsfarsaiag-bi:ibcnrd is de•sc!ishad pursuant c a perm3 iq�der-s�Esaety 01 c`epic acetiaa,or ita eueeesso=1iie-nsy-eha:create a-NI ilbe 4-;sok-acccjst for- e-billbogn,aca.ne T� e__aui-.-s'ha=.l-sha;-yre-da:o of the removal-anid e.zenin g-dtsast-a'tha define-fished • • • • • 41111 :ha!!r2^C_t b!!!boord c :dit:for th., an'i sy',.._:2 oot:go. D:T-c:' '.r=3;-$f-i'.f.:r:`:;::�bi 5c-ard�!'.C!I not,-re '=-ii-aPrf Cr_44- F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic,residential R-MU or • (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 0.88",Left 2. Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway.-- district G-MU,G Gr-F- or on gateway ' s shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;a4=:4 1.,^.bi!ltead ^'�1S f•r-=.y.4e ?:_":"_-:r z�C�r_,,.�:'"-F~;!!�G dC t to it b;fore:c?3-wing bi!I~2ir�s in a hisherpFior'ty howevcr,`.f;C 1;illbcnr4-Gre. - f*r-r2 avin-g- -f9 :e r yrity boar -s al:-hot bcse-rne ectiva-fsr-use-in ® co.V tract g a-,4e i!:bc:r-d-'c.'c - vo. (2)t)'!I'J^_'_r�s- i ed 1, C1i-SeG F1 c $A f this-as i sue:�;=J r: `.mot=��=„c foc=a -e uc 4a-or than 1.149-kwiE-:p:=rity-i...:�tr_...rd,:co_cr:s ad la-the.billboard Cw+€cs o•:.,er tras-n subseetier-F-1 of this Sec.._ i... c cif :rcFcifC:r:iing t':!l5car..'&#i.o-(2-)-s?ts'ection F2-of racy Fa-raditod in the b:!lbea;-d-srr.ers bitibaard bcn.r-a r t-taencctuata-tae-bil;bcord-credits-of a-s5r?ct:C..F3 ac.hi:suction,or its- _cam rC billboard t3 C.l!ow the C:' �`.•�£t:Cn r-7,-.^:w !t= -n—For the p,:;-F.ese.cf thio scS`.;on,the two(2) r.riorit,t.tli•`_ear'rc cr-e t d in the bill .. .^rVc c3 zci Rt fxf� @ ys'3 CSnty-onse-t?eff ctuate tii •'hlbt}ar!-6reditt.-fir 2 tow prority-billbcerd- r� 1. n t.'n• t.• O.-Lite-Of-Billboard C:3�siis �ii .-i-r8'?crc'f�fli��St-EJS$ �i1'ii!'.fi7-tiriFiy-SiX-(36-)fi'•16Flt{?8 et thoir_:eet;_n c~,a?l expi o and t,crf �rt:ho. :atue-or-use exsep-t 2tt-;owes pcec -rr-dit: Fdt Cf-t~rs-.ec`.:cn,cr its ,r,'.'CCc: 'er, silo!!expire 3 b e-af-r ru der-vatue--or-t;se-yArhia-si- y(64)manthsof-their-initial creation. H..bcerd Croft:Tram f- w:-�_2!: A billboard e 1=j::l!cr ct rerr e t:ansfec-a lr:tl afcr•r.1fif ti!l'eoerd cry :.T:.•, sf`rred Sit-oar d cca its '-t4oh-aco not cf:zcvo ti f-t it f i F cis .:C. o its S'.�corr cc-�r'�?E-:r.�:T=/. ....�.-.^.c's-S1�2c �-flr='r-r:-f-s..sc;. s-ac_ 0 • • chzil r:^.L€c C"C F th n-r^€W C^X;er:. ."'they w::.:td have b:..cros. ff€c.I`ic fcr the`•':':r.el c—€ .Mn trusser af:r.y F.i cid Credit:.0..ci C;:`.c.^,d t eir thirty cix(36)r cnth life prcv4ss.'-ia cubs ti-3.^.G of th-i -fikn,or-its I-G Double Faced Billboards: Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive==il4bo-= credit= for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. JH. New Billboard Construction: It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. •.�I.Permitted Zoning Districts:NeN-elocated billboards may be constructed only in t=:e arca id:nt; ed-e-n-the-rJf*:e-iai-b Ilbear -2_Manufacturina, Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial oatevwav street 11111 cr residenhzl zoning district. ;. Billboard relocation or remodelinc Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • L Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2. Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a. Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building - Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.96",Tabstops: code as adopted by the city; and 1.13',Left b. Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. ?-A= .4:ifiloe i-' .arm it a•`ka�I rSry-c-r-iccL.'?a-•j-'r'4e- i..licui,t h'\:c Mile c:� • LFormatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" cr-e.1.=s of a-zuf:c:e .1 ?I ei-es -L?:2-f-ae`c,r t?i beards to avow co s`l oboe'- f4he-r sw—biitl_•c-.:4 III • • • 2—--iier • the j C- icrcr-�rc4z^n tci 4:cn of a r:w-tigbgacd i s.:d the-z-a-g;r9 a s.. f^ c' arda4 ctf:cm C :P,crcb!!,brrd~ateac. _u t; a.The se'4-aF2-fiFti 6f-ihe--r•a -b-i'44fra' ,-and 1 Formatted:Indent:Left 1.08",Tab stops: 1.25",Left syu:re4e.ctZg�wo:ucet to o14cv/the FcYr-�I£c1=fd-r:;t'iFF.�ti9i?: avoiloble billaoo;d cro4its •-7 Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71" —) conside-geg- -::T.h thc-eE'..:,__'x-of b'.Ilba'_;de and s"ucce-feet,ge,any b'!!' card bank. (Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.25" _J NK.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways: Except as provided in subsection 0-D of this section, or its successor, no ne:'/billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600') of the right of way of any gateway '_. Special Gateway Provisions: --- 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.71",Tab stops: billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special 0.88",Left gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming biilboard was removed and subject to other subsections P Ra- '.,-S--of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the billvoar -ca---Asize of the billboard beina relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas ont0 a special aate`.vav 2.The d:rncl:ton pu;sl:-a,nt to this se:tcn thou of., ti'un ra 7 t tF. I i!!b 1 t c r:., ,..^`�-��-c—i:rvc-a.-r�:rrV�:Sir?ifir.'�-�j'-6:rcr�: -+?a{(#�.'i.:i`.C,Cc�i:.S billboard do rc!i_ d cr ccrrs-t.;=3t-`. d-:4In -sp= ai--gateway-s,hati-be tradcesf-wit!-1!:i,. p r: -zo' ec-eoch cp cial t'ataw,y.A pent for tha cc.^.ct..;:c.._r-of a „z1iF'�:e : p'. Jc.nt to this s-ection-riust be tat en Get-Lifftrs''vR-tr'=r'Ri'Y'XZ :ikiS�'ri�f=?�''.`iif-lEi:Bt;of tha ncnSvf1fcrrtth g g;llbe-aft - ".I. Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50') in width. C • 4N.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Tz--crcryc^._cllieh—:cs challed cxece2-tenperr_C)iOt)c•t`e • ror,nateed:nay:Lert:0.n•,Tab eoc: 2dyerfcie;-_cec`anyt`Rts-azd—z-.- „z-_- ha'4eo-eeeevd-ve-teek S in nght o.ee`,urt the billloosY4-stA4clu. re, 24Ng-te aperary-=_s beiSshmer.-ehe!l b_iaainteined on 3 btlbeerdeeo•e that tvch2(12)mxn4he Temc;rr:_F^:�,'_'>b�:"` 'fS�lj_t_d • (rar.rttr:Wog:First line:0.2r RO.Height:The highest point of any new'I4bgenG,biilboard cxcludiag-tempc:arf embe!4 sh.mer.tx-shall not be more than: • 4—Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a • ►er.ntw:index:Let 0.6r,Hanging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district.whichever Is less. Unless 0.2r othereise authorized by State!aw. _—If ..ct-wii# .re' t-(tC0')cf the billboard,moacured from he• (ro eamea:rarer.Lek 0.71 eive<'�'�: et vt wk eR tkc bilibaa ^a:^.t_ a-iffwent-gve4ethan4he oew-bi4bard-iwenty five feet{25')-abcvc pa f-the atmet- • 3-1`the provisions cf sutseGtion R2 of this ccction,or its-sueeesser eslecccticn,apply to more then en:stoat,the new bilbeard may be the k 're of tie tre(2)heighte. P.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. • TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square• p.mtattedr went:Let:0.7r,Tab stops: feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) 08r,telt linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • •• 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Lae: 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at 1+ 3.Scacino for billboards fullyintecra:ed into the archive ,Alignment:Lert+algreeat:o.zs•+bleep :lure of a buildr.a and 1 1.as not free stendinamay be modified by the Planning Commission as a Formatted:Indent:Left:o.s•,No wleear Conditional Building and Site Desion Review as outlined in section 21A.59 numbering as long as such modifications are consistent with State LawFormatted:Font(Default)HeNetka,12 pt Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left a Aligned at:2.25+ R Liohtinq:Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway I Indent at 2.5' or sidewalk nor across property linen. Billboards located within Residential.Mixed-Use. Formatted:Font:Helvetic,12 ph Not Bold CN or CB zonlna districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font,(Default)Helvetica,12 pt • and 6 am. Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25" Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetic,12 pt j S:Electronic Billboards: 1. New Electronic Billboard are prohibited.Electronic billboard existing es of the Formatted:Indent:Oft:1•,Numbered+ Level:s♦Numbering Le style:gn d :..+Start date of adoption of this ordinance.are limited to the follolvino: I at:1+Alignment Lert+Rligned at:2.25•+ Indent all 2.5" a. Motion •Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold O Any motion of any kind is prohibited en an electronic sion facer Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,I2 pt Electronic billboards shall have only static text.images,and areohics. Formatted:Indent::Left:1.25' Formatted:Indent:Left:1',Numbered+ b. Dwell time level:5♦Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start The text,imaoe.or display on an electronic sion may not chenae more: Lit:1 nt+az:alg2snmene Left+Aligned at:2.25'+ e than once every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subsequent -d Formatted:Foul:HeNeaa,lz pt,Not Bold t=xt.images.cr display shall not exceed 0.25 seconds. - - -------- Formatted:Font:(Default)Helveao,li pt c. Brightness Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25' During dav'ioht hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall be• ,,!!Formatted:Indent:Left:1•,Nulnberet no grealrr than 2,500 nits. At all other times.luminance shall be no /,Level:S+Numbering St le:a,b,o,...+Start. greater than 500 nits_ I Indent at:2.5" Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold d. Size, Formatted:Font:(Defeat)Helvetlo,12 pt The maximum size of an electronic sign shall be no lamer than the_ • - billboard as it exists as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance .Formatted:Indent:tort:l.zs• Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt e. Display period Formatted:Indent:Left:I',Numbered+ Electronic billboards may not ba illuminated or lit between the hour of ah 1 5 t Numbering Le See:a, a:_+Start Alb 1 a Alignment:Left t•Aligneds.2.25+ midnight.and 6 am if they are located within 600 Feet of a residential. Bldemat 2.s• mixed-use, downtown, Sugar House Easiness District, gateway Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 ptut Bold�... Neiahboncood-Commercial, Community Business, or Community Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Sh000ina Center zoning district. Formatted:Indent:Left:125• Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Defeob)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt -- O 0 raill f. Cansols, • Formatted:Indent:Left: 1",Numbered+ Level:5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start I. All electronic signs shall be equipped with an automatic dimmer at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 2.25"+ i Indent at: 2.5",Tab stops: 1.25",Left - • control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sion's briohtness and display period as provided above. Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold j Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt ii. Prior to approval of any permit for to ocerate an electronic sin. -the applicant shall certify that the Sian has been tested and complies with the motion.dwell time.brightness, and other requirements herein. 'ri. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sion shall submit an annual report to the city certifying that the sicn complies with the motion.dwell time. brightness.and other requirements herein. • ( Formatted:List Paragraph 1 . Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A 26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title, or its successor chapter. No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VU. Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts: Property in all districts other than as III specified in subsection U of this section, or its successor subsection, upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall he landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50) linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. VA'.Xeriscape Alternative: If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section, or its successor subsection,are not developed or, if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property, the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. /. Existing Billboard Landscaping: Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. . _ `.=X. Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance: Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection ordinance.. Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve, rr,ake minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary, such subdivision. AA. Sccc-Frei =.-.. T'r.^r.ro'i;?'J.^.s of:5:s:s-c-t4o.F`rSheTh2rpl}'to cr:e.g:i2d-bi{7^.:-a81'{;. -.�_ oxi:t r.; e - --gt . '4 ° Ne-rt,n-ceff:Ge t to the west sid^.:f!GI-^_ce:t^_ 15;and 'a on the a-rsido of Viste. Re_od c.t-approximato y 11C0 North. E- -sr' d::ied by-this-se c",a!!c4.or pro 5=io,= f th4 e!-;We,=4 a1!aptly to-the-,~<.'e(5):p ;ife biI ocrd-s: Z TGI P,� ry:The�`-ve(5)-rpea;:ied bill acd -share-ssnsideed-as-gateway • b libearsss-fac-The p'urposcs-e;-the-pciety- coicions of slu5sesticn F of this ccc"cn,or it:, • . L an—Laa-r;:".g:T;c-4iv.o. (5) s::nt to the • of this ce iirsin,or its v'J/e:SCr s'.:°=se hcn. 82. cat--l',4andatea-Re':o `:io:i-c+-giWaoards--E':Gett-es-ritl-ri4se-author-ized—har ex+s`:i?g--litte ircis?4ay-not-be-reiosated-except-as-rnanziet;ed-br-th2feq'u'f^ern7 Utch etc=e'er--:(Ord.72-08§2, 2008:Ord.42-08§ 12,2008: Ord. 13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§ 1-3,2000: Ord.83-98§§ 12-14, 1998: Ord. 88-95§ 1 (Exh. A), 1995) S MIN 41) Discussion Draft Proposal which allows transit advertising,eliminates billboard bank, defines electronic billboards and allows limited conversion to electronic billboards when accompanied by a reduction in overall number of billboards. 21A.46.058 TRANSIT SHELTER AND PUBLIC AMENITY ADVERTISING Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall be allowed only as part of a shelter at a bus stop or public transit stop or station.or a public amenity.pursuant to an approved and executed agreement between the City and a provider of transit shelters or public amenities,which sets forth the regulation of size.content.placement.design and materials used in the construction of said advertising and shelters and public amentity. For purposes of this section,"public amenity"means an item generally located in the • cublic way to provide a public service,which may include.but is not limited to.a kiosk disctavinq way finding sionage or accommodating news racks or other public information.public restrooms.public furniture such as benches or trash receptacles or public services such as bike sharing. The common element is that they are offered for public consumption and provided as contract services to the City. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising shall in no case be larger than 48'by 72" and shall be limited to no more than three panels per shelter or kiosk,unless otherwise restricted further by contract. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising is only authorized when located adjacent to non-residential.RB.RMU,or RO zoning districts. Transit shelter and public amenity advertising display may not contain nudity pornography,or indecent or vulgeLpictures,oraphics or language or advertising of illegal products. 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: 0 • • A.Animated signs excluding public service signs; B.Any snipe sign; C. Balloons; D. Bench signs;except transit shelter and public amenity advertising specifically authorized by section 21A.48.58 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) 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number. This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. C B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located.A billboard does not include transit shelter and cubilc amenity advertising scecifcally authorized by Section 21A.46.058 aniBOARD-BAN . ,,-;".a accou:r'ioi-si`;'���'is = _y-thp city to kccp track of the numbecan4-s;uer_footage-of e9r.e forhm kiliboards-removed-pwsuant-to thic chcg'o. BILLBOARD CR 1T=Ar-2atq-xttow-bdlbc-ord owoeAfifii9Searol-✓3anYaaeeuxt-tile= they o-t;-—:-: r-ar--s:, -g font o r'r :•�^"_ ?�.��-_,r.`oroc�r;billf pda, BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. DWELL TIME The tenath of time that elapses between text,images,or graohics on• (hrmatted:ran:Not Odd an electronic Sian lFammtted:Went wst line:d' -1 Formatted:Font:BON EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use • or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. • ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:Any off-premise sign,video display,proiected image.or similar device with text.images.or graphics generated by solid state electronic comoonents. Electronic signs include,but are not limited to.signs that use light emitting diodes(LED).Plasma displays,fiber optics,cr other technology that results in bright.high-resolution text,images.and graohics. Formatted:Indent:Rot One:a GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; • EF.rn.we:indent:Lett:oar 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; • 0 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8. Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10. 500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12. 300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13. North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14. Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South; and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; - (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.96" 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South; and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. LUMINANCE The L''Gt jrhl?iri cu:ntity most closely associated with the oercection Formatted:Font:Not Bold of brightness. Luminance is measured in candelas per square meters or"nits"for - Formatted:Tab stops: 0.25",List tab purposes of this ordinance. Formatted:rm _-Font Bold MOTION_ The depiction of movement or chance of position of text.images.or Formatted:Font:Not Bold graphics. Motion sha!I include.but not be limited to.visual effects such as dissc vine and fading text and'maces.running seau ntial text• 0raohic bursts. Tiehting that • • resembles zooming.twinkling,or sparkling.chances in light or color.transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of tight,expanding or contracting shapes,and similar actions, I Formatted:ran:Bold NITS A unit of measure of brightness or luminance. One nit is aural to one • Formatted:Normal,Indent:Left 0.25% candela/square meter. Formatted: Space Before:Auto,After:Auto,Tab stops: 1 0.2r,list tab TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting In increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images,and graohics on an electronic • r.r,n.tted:Font:Helvetica,12pt skin to chance toe different text,images,or graohics on a subsequent sion face. Formatted:Tab stops:0.2s,List tab_ C.Unlit On :bra--__ ,.e-.�.b:llkca, _ cn the cutrb_r c`,cxicting billboad:.Billboards r Prohibited:New Billboards are prohibited in Salt Lake City. D.Relocation of Billboards:Existing billboards may be relocated as mandated by the • (Formatted:Indent:Left:0•,wrgbq:0.zs requirements of Utah state law. Additionally.billboards may be relocated front any zoning district to Manufacturing.Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial • zoning districts with the restiction that hies are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. Voluntary relocation shall foliow the prierit,outlined in subsection 21A.46.160.F of' (Fomr.eed:Font:Not BaldLi this ordinance,unless otherwise negotiated with the City. GE.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • rFormatted:Indent_:Left 0.7r only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars(S111.00). E—Gradita-For-No onfarrri:.g-!f liboard emeea{-A.a•a rcnoewfoeming;:I:b card-is dorrokehod pure-uont to a po'rrit iscu:;4-u4t::c::b:octie..^r cf t la to city:hall cr stn o a bit!boo"d toga-a .tat for c billboard-o•s:cr.T:a _so 'a=."-show ihe-dateef4ie+e nee'.:r.t1 tha caning diat':t of der..c!ishad • 0 • • noncor orriag-taiga^or''.Tho as-dint shall r_ :b'in: c d oreslits4or t ^billboard c cgu _ omega• R—:on-cf a conforming bfilhcard:hull nct ro.u't in-em} billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or ror..te.a:Laent Lett.0.7s•,Tab stops: ' downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall he removed first; a.ea•,t.rt � 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or env gateway zrninn district G-MU-GGC-c or on gateway steels shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and ''.A billboord—ww nnrsy-dwwel=chii:hvc c:aiewc rr.a before rasnariing bilibcorde in c higher-parity;FswVr_r,tho bi.'bcsr s fer-removing-the lower-priority billboard:hall-no'bacome e"eci;ve-f use-in constructing a new 5:'Ibccr d until two(2)til:tccrdc^pee' ad i out:cation O Ft of this section,or it ussessar, ol to Cr gro-tort on thow c :,e''billboard,ore c c?Itod in tho ti9Scord cwr.:r, billboard band-aor..ourt.If r.i tboacd-owoer-has-no-eubsect'cn Fl of this seotiea erito sresocssr nconfernoi g b,''bearm•to(2)cub_0C:^n F^si this costior.,or , ry rc orily !:cards-raay-be-mcdi:a"_in Pro billboard-owne4skilbrnrd-bank account-to-effectuate-tho bitlbeaa credits-cf aeubseetan-14-o€his-seethon,Cr i'c successor,billboard to alloy-the eensfsuctien-of-o nee billbeard-Fo ri=aec of tho cec- two•h all e Pr o(2) hiohor priority biltbscrds credited in tho billhoar d bank a^coont cal bo uccd only onaa to aticoteate-the bi,'lbeardchd:s-far-v-1cwcr prioriti b:'lbeord, G r+a8f3 fard-Cadiis-Any t'i ardsredi' nclace-d-wi hin thirty-six(36)months cf air araabort ch:Rexpiraan-d-boof- =_r fe'uc Cr COO exec pt'hat lower priority crcd°.se v-a4 d-yu.aoart to csbceCdoc F4-e'this cect.'on,sr its sussesyr; shaitex re-and be-of-no`.:o ie'v at_asr-usrvda;a-sysiy(6D)nenths oftheir*-ir?.-;'ct H—Srlboard--Credits 7caasfc•cbta bi'lNeard-ew„er—r,aye!!crc:h:r ita-tcwr ofcr a bitiboorland/o-billbccdcrcdito.T-orfcrrod-bitthocrd^^edit;.•"?- oe- _ .. -c -c4h/pro./I:a. of bves e F-e-'.h'c ccct:o^,c ills-s'wne� O . • shalt-set-bocome o ..4 ,ve vwew crur_i hcy•fro. havo fie�r-sger-efaey billtoard crcdit_da rat extzfid their 5:irty-sir(36)month lie-prev;ael-s,..�e.+c of oa-G-G€;his 'ton,ee-he l:G Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive b•i+,5..rd credite for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. JH.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 141.Permitted Zoning Districts:New-Relocated billboards may be constructed only in the Ed-ea-identified-an t o.e 9eialbiliboard mop_Manufacturing,Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the restriction that they are not oriented towards,or located within 600 feet of a oateway or special gateway street • cr residential zoning district. 6J.:!-_,:Billboard ie'ocaticn or remodeling Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an • 1Form.naa:Indent:Lett on• application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building • Fannettedt rat Left:O.96•,Tab stops:—1 code as adopted by the city;and 1.17•,Lett • b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. • M Jee-Gf-3i' Credits: a,-Aga::billboard pa:ra..-shall-ony� a3;t-heapp;+,ant-has-Ntthne 3 Lr.rm.rua:rmenru:k 0.71. 1 • credits of a euf:iclort-numberof-equrra fec'and bi"or; sT2—aliew seastrustien-ef tiro sow-bii;beard- • C . m 2.I'.e.,the perra.t fer the cf e:ew-t-i l4__ iro• orr the_ ..i.,.. a4rataistra`.r staikteductt-from the►,;lit and ma:r's °•cer1 t:'f a.T'r. $q afe f octa c cf the r eti'!biltbc:r c hi Formatted:Indent:Left: 1.08",Tab stops: _ 1.25",Left . b. Ther-rira?ter of t s-w.cse -fastcs•-e. cr sti,3F,.. .--thi.:-iew brkcard-ases less than the-entire ic Ia e bit o L fced-its (Formatted:Indent:Left: O. 1" ccr drar-ip -t th-th{e-n•l"b ei-Gt-Nttvetas. , 'nofm -ing-sware-feeu'gehall-r- hpan'irt44e V!:tLearu :Frf bank..' • (Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.25" Billboards Prohibited On Gateways: Except as provided in subsection OD of this section,or its successor, no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway street. • • Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the `Formatted:Indent:Left: a.7r,Tab stops: billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special L0.88•,' J gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to c subsections it Q, R as i S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the talboard-bar,ksize of the billboard being relocated.Billboards may not be relocated from other areas onto a special gateway 2.T r a iia�-:` .'i-F.r� -fsa na$ci,.."`:.G?-c�'.-1=-�v:r n,1=i�::�_.i;to t .: net 4 ,roe-biitbc:.L fired tt?�s c ,e�bit!bcerr1 bitbo,~£Ρd6rnalish d-er ccgatrustsd`Nithhin-a-sreoi2l--giatew'ay shall`ba w!th.'n sep oca c bank acco" nt`er_aci- pec:a!get:v.ay.A perf:'.'.t far the e'.:ett,nef a ro v-brt;`na `i pu.suar't t3-t`r:5 S3 -,..,...et t ta:4$r4 cut within tht7I- !x( -nne ti- cf the.-de elitien-cf-i.``a-ner. cnf3lming . Maximum Size: The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50') in width. • Q_i.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Tccperaryacbci sar;aeetcsho'tr-e ese ae;es-p ttsny) the • wm.ro.e:indent:Left sir,Tab stops: adverising-Sass cf an/kit;beard;and-stsell-Fet-e;_:md;;ve;aerf }ia hcight per,ran above the-bi,,�.nw.n.r.strutsye, 2:Ne-t wperarg salae:liehrae4tsl>a:l be r.aiateinedc-rra-bii:b_ard-more-hen beaive(12j nths- Temocrary Embellishment;are crohibded (Formatted:Went:Mal line o.zs• R0.Height:The highest point of any new:,":ec-r=.billboard cxciadic,tcrrprarj errbattiahrnents-shall not be more than: 4-Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or the maximum height for a Formatm:Indent Left o.ba•,Hanging: pole sign in the applicable zoning district,whichever is less. Unless o.zr otherwise authorized by State law. 2-If C st."_t. i•ttir,.,T„' ,.—,4.. . rei t ir0)c`the billhccry, r:'!`:ccl the• 1 Fmmrtt.d:IMerc Left:0.71" c§cct at the-point zt which the billbocrd-ieferpeadiselar to the stror t,is cn a-differentrrade-than the f_et(25')above-the pavcr:xnelev^_tlonsf-thekeet- • ;rhf e prow err of-ubcectio-r P2 of thf suction,cr its cuccceaec eke .c=.---Facet-the-Fi.-.,e.:-omoowtnr.,.s:3iriayi 44-e higho.cf Ste too(2)heights. • sP.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. TO.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square. Fenmatted:went:Left 0.7t•,Tab stow feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) oss_teft linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; • 2. Large Signs: Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300) square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800) linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. 3.Soacinq for electronic billboards fully integrated into the architecture of a building and not free standing,may be modified by the Plannina Commission as a Conditional Building and Site Design Review as outlined in section 21A.59,as Iona as such modifications are consistent with State La VI R Lighting: Nighttime illumination of billboards may not glare directly onto the roadway or sidewalk nor across property lines. Billboards located within Residential. Mixed-Use, Formatted:Indent:First line: 0" CN or CB zoning districts may not be illuminated or lit between the hours of midnight Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt and 6 am. Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left 0.5", Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned S: Electronic Billboards: j at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" 1. Electronic Billboard are prohibited exceot when converting an existing billboard to = electronic as follows: Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" • Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", a) A Billboard may be converted to an electronic billboard in Manufacturing. � Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, c,at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5"+Startat 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned Extractive Industry and CG General Commercial zoning districts with the ... restriction that they are not oriented towards.or located within 600 feet of a Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt gateway or soecial gateway street or residential zoning district. Provided that four times the non-electronic square footage of the new electronic billboard is Formatted:Font:(De Helvetica,12 pt removed elsewhere in the City. Formatted:Font:(Deffault)ault)Helvetica,12 pt • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt b) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards on Gateway-streets, j Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt provided that five times the non-electronic square footage of the new Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" ) electronic billboard is removed along,the same Gateway.or removed from Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", another gateway only if sufficient square footage is not available on the host Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, + c,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+Aligned gateway. I at: 0.25'+Indent at: 0.5' Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 1 c) Billboards may be cc;r:erted to electronic billboards in Special Gateways Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt provided that fair times the non-electronic seuare footage of the new Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt I electronic billboard is removed on the same Special Gateway or removed from another soecial catevvav only if suf icient sauare footage is not available Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt on the host special gateway and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.75",First line: 0" into the architecture of a building and is not free standing.. _ Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Left: 0.5", Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:a,b, d) Billboards may be converted to electronic billboards in Downtown or Sugar c,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned House Business District zoning districts provided that five,times the non- I at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" r Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt I electronic sauare footage of the roeur�tearonic billboard is removed in env Downtown.Suaar House Business District,residential,neichborhood Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt commercial.Community Business,Community Shopping Center.gateway.or Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt 0 • mixed-use zoning district and the new electronic billboard is fully integrated Formatted:Fort.(Default)ilelveoa,12 pt into the architecture of a building and is not free standing. • Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 Pt Formatted:Indent:left:0.5",Space After: 2. Motion 10 Pt,Line spaeng:MUtiple 1.151i,No bullets Any motion of any kind is prohibited on an electronic sign face. Electronic croambe11g billboards shall have only static text,imaces.and graphics. Formatted:Font:Helvetia,a pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt 3. Dwell time Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 pt The text.image.of display on an electronic sian may not change more than once Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold every sixty(60)seconds. Twirl time between subseeuent text,images.or display Formatted:Fat:(Default)Helve e 12 pt shall not exceed 0.25 seconn,. _ - 4. Brightness Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 Pt,Not ec'd During daylight hours between sunrise and sunset.luminance shall be no greater `com itior Font:(Detour)Helvetia,12 pt than 2.500 nits. At all other times,juminance shall be no greater than 500 nits. 5. Size Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold The maximum size of en electronic sian shall be no larger than the billboard it Formatted:Font:(oeraon)Helvetia,12 pt replaced or shall rot exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. whichever is less, Formatted:Font:HtlMIa,12 et 6. Display period Formatted Font Helvetia,12 pt,Na Bold Electronic billboards mu not be iih:minated or lit between the hours of midnight. Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetia,12 ptpt and 6 a.m if thee are located within 600 Feet of a residential, mixed-use Formatted:Font:(Default)HelM1o,12 pt downtown,Sugar House Business District,aatewav,Neighborhood Commercial Formatted:Fora:(Dradt)HeNelo,1z pi Community Business.or Community Shopping Center zoning district. Formatted:Font:naFeuo,izpt 7. Controls Formatted:Font:Helvetia,12 pt,Not Bold a. All electronic pion shall be equiooed with an automatic dimmer control or Formatted:Fo::lcox�)Ho'oeu�a,t2 p: ether mechanisln that automatically controls the sicn's brightness and display period as provided above. b. Prior to eooroval of any permit for to excrete an electronic nice.the applicant shall certify that the sign has been tested and complies with the rnot on.dwell time,brightness.and other reuuiremente herein. c. The owner and/or operator of an electronic sign shall submit an annual recoil to the city certifying that the Sian complies with the motion,dwell time. brightness.and other requirements herein. [Formatted:list Paragraph INT.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. • C VU.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts: Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection, upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50) linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible, evenly on each side of the billboard. ','V.Xeriscape Alternative: If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or, if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the properly or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may L:uthorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. X .Existing Billboard Landscaping: Existing billboards shall comply with the 0 landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. YX.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance and the Tree Protection crdl;:ar: ;7Y.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve, make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary, such subdivision. tA.Gpcc ctp_r, =s: '�r0P 4.�Ct..• ti mac:=.is•. ra - ,s'k-n 4.a.r.....L.�Zs�:r,c It .-:'c::+._G rr�Fia�.. :?-f:r ,r.^_;r� .r�r�:.c��.�-.. _�_-n., Il...£�-ci-.. - _.,::.. �3:.r{1)C�'atlag iil!t:oats t e-t:•: 1 En^_ T;:,rt i a::44E00".art a tha .;s :-Q- �::ia',:ac!,'lt:3::". —s- -ct..ife.cf-NAet:3��-ro ,(�. ,:..,a•_!7 I.TO Ncrth. S • '0 (�.. •-t_L 1�t'•,' nl _-..J- 't^ _ct! !! al... _ cf at. 1.Z�,1{.,�1,L�•I�IT,.?f=r:,l. It:�yt: c � :iG"��rYi�l-� 7-�:.1�!t�.G�.+•�n�iG^L�.�.�•s.'' .•.•^:.way I� �.�����...�.r�:�.. F cf.F.i.^.:: in,or.;s cf 48 tat. .. . _ tee. _ t!sn Of Ei:l2c:f Ex_:rt 2s,t`c�:vi3-2 1.:`.`:,r:2z`:72... Utah s".:4.2law. (Ord. 72-08§2,2008: Ord.42-08§ 12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26, 27,2004:Ord.25-00§§ 1-3,2000: Ord.83-98 §§ 12-14, 1998:Ord. 88-95§ 1 (Exh. A), 1995) e111111k C Information being provided for the February 7, 2011 subcommittee meeting: February 7. 2011 Planning Commission Subcommittee agenda Review of Administration position — Frank Gray Comparison of Salt Lake City to Salt Lake County — zoning maps Review of Gateway concept. Discussion • Initial inventory of neighborhood billboards 2/3/11—not field checked—not all inclusive Type Board owner. Land owner Residentially zoned billboards 1290 East 700 South Reagan Reagan 760 South 1300 East Reagan Joseph Shore �-' 2708 south 900 East Reagan Reagan 300 North 900 West Reagan Reagan 1040 West 200 South (freeway) Reagan Reagan RB Residential Business billboards 380 E 900 South Reagan Three Eighty LLC CN Neighborhood Commercial billboards 432 S 900 East Reagan Janda 1314 S 500E Reagan Hogle O314E 1300 South Reagan Reagan 1706 s 900 East Reagan Robinson CB Community Business billboards 2348 E Parleys Reagan Neerings 2320 E Parleys Reagan Cochrane 252 S 1300 E (University HD) Reagan Penelope 227 E 2100 S Reagan 21 and Roberta Ilc 2219 South 700 East Reagan North Building Ilc 2191 S 700 East Reagan Miller 2208 S 900 East Reagan McDonald 912 North 900 West (freeway) Reagan Shree Historic District 276 W 700.North (Capitol Hill) Reagan NTS investments More cities ban digital billboards - USATODAY.com Page 1 of 2 •Cars•Auto Financing•Event Tickets•Jobs•Real Estate Online Degrees•Business Opportunities•Shopping Search How do I find it? Subscnbe to paper .*D1 USA MOW Home News Travel Money Sports Life Tech Weather News D Nation Census Troops at Risk Lotteries More cities ban digital billboards Videos you may be interested in Updated 3/24/2010 5:22 PM I Comment I Recommend E-mail I Save I Print I Reprints&Permissions IEMI . . By Larry Copeland,USA TODAY Share As the USA cracks down on texting while Yahoo!Buzz driving,more than a dozen cities around the nation have banned what some consider a • Add to Mixx r V`not V'tt v vvI` growing external driving distraction:digital ' billboards. Facebock preparations in... _ ry ;wow rill -t gf Digital billboards change images every four to Twitter More v dv s . - 10 seconds,flashing multiple messages from - one or more advertisers on the same sign. More Opponents such as John Regenbogen of • Subscribe Most Popular E-mail Newsletter Scenic Missour deride them as"television on i / a stick." myYahco Sign up to get: 4. 1111Ege Several communities have banned digital iGoogle By Tim A Parker,for USA TODAY 9 Top viewed SLvi1t5,pr:Ot.' A billboards outright,the most recent being More gallerir> r'tn:and OOuntty UMW St Louis is amonga growingnumber of&ties Denver earlier this month.Other places have posts of the day instituting a moratorium on digital and other electronica put a moratorium on them pending a federal billboards,at least until if sees an extensive review by study on whether they distract drivers.At least two other cities MOST the Federal Highway Administration. and two states are studying moratoriums. POPULA ——----------- •�i<S t sign all 1:w USA TODAY E-mail nevrstette s MAP:Digital billboard laws across the USA DIGITAL BILLBOARDS HIT DISTRACTIONS:States go after texting drivers ROADBLOCK LAHOOD:FocusDriven combats distracted driving • PDigital billboards along public roadwa •face "The digital billboards are a distraction,"says Fred Wessels,an Chargedhace Chores PremiumSetmeCont Ads by Gooa!a -Y 9 for Content on Your increasing regulations.Among the state and alderman in St.Louis,which just approved a one-year Landline Bill?File a Claim Today! • local governments limiting them: moratorium on new such signs in that city. •.,-wait-n-C'-'CIassActicr coin "It they weren't distracting,they wouldn't be doing their job,"says Max Ashburn,spokesman for Scenic America,a national non- CLICK HERE for a larger map. profit group that seeks to limit billboards. Research on the issue is mixed.A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study in 2007,financed by the billboard industry,found that they aren't distracting.A review of studies completed last year for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,however,concluded that they"attract drivers'eyes away from the road for extended, demonstrably unsafe periods of time." "There's no doubt in my mind that they are not a driving distraction,"says Bryan Parker,an executive vice president for Clear Channel Ci..' which owns about 400 digital billboards.He cites industry-sponsored studies of collisions before and after digital billboards were installed in Albuquerque,Cleveland,and Rochester,Minn.,that found no correlation. "We've looked at that very carefully,"says Bill Ripp,vice president of Lamar Advertising,which owns 159,000 billboards,1,150 of them digital."We don't want to cause any unsafe conditions for drivers." Digital billboards area fast-growing segment of the outdoor advertising market.Since a federal rule against them was eased in 2007,the number of digital billboards has more than doubled to about 1,800 of 450,000 total billboards.At least 39 states allow them.They cost an average$200,000 to$300,000 apiece,according to the industry group G'_._ .s.i')As,,cial:cn cf America. In 2007,the Federal Highway Administration relaxed a rule against digital billboards,saying they don't violate the 1965 Highway Beautification Act's ban on"intermittent,""flashing"or"moving"lights.FHWA is researching the signs,using eye-trackers inside volunteers'vehicles to determine whether drivers look at the billboards and for how long.The study is to be completed this summer. There is little current data on whether greater distractions for drivers come from in-vehicle or external factors.The Department of Transportation,which is leading the national push against texting while driving,says that 5,870 people were killed in distracted driving crashes in 2008.But the agency has not determined how many of those deaths involved an electronic device,another distraction such as eating or tuning the radio,or something outside the vehicle. You might also be interested in: O Are.cholesterol drugs OK for healthy people? (USATODAY.com in News) Lake Superior's great mystery (USArDAY.com in News) Is focus on distracted driving going down the wrong road? (USATODAY.com in Money) Car navigation,radio touch-screens can distract drivers (USATODAYcom in Money) OCities and States that restrict electronic billboards(as reported by USA today 3/24/10) Ban Hawaii ' San Francisco Montana Denver Gilbert AZ Pima County AZ Amarillo TX Ft.Worth Dallas • Galveston Houston Austin St Petersburg FL Knoxville TN ® Durham NC • Vermont Maine Moratorium Los Angeles El Paso San Antonio St Louis Minnetonka MN Considering Atlanta Minnesota Michigan O Residentially Zoned Billboards Billboard Adjacent Sidwell Zone Lot size Lot Improve- Tax on land Tax on Bill- Tax on Total tax Owner- Notes location property number in acres value8 meet value,/ and land,/ board billboard', on land ship (sq B) (total) improve- (billboard value,/ and mentsll sites) billboard. 1290 East - 16-8-231- R-2 0.07 $3,900 - - $56.' $105 SI." $57.m Reagan, Substandard lot*. 700 South 014 (3,049.2) .William+ Potential park. 1280 East 16-8-231- R-2 0.05 and $26,400 - $208.' - - - - Bastow, Multi-family 700 South 013 and 0.16 $62,200 $89,400 $1,199.59 Jeffery and 704 015 (9,147.6) ($178,000) ($I,408.") South 1300 East 760 South - 16-8-231- RMF- 0.14 $51,800 - - $745' S35 $0.50 $745." Shore, Lot capable of 1300 East 032 30 (6098) Joseph accommodating one housing unit. - 766/776/ 16-8-231- RMF- 0.10/ 554,000 - $776.00 - - - - Shore, 7-11/ 780 South 025/026 30 0.14/0.16 $72,600 - $1,044.° Joseph commercially 1300 East /027 (17,424) $124,500 $36,100 S2,310." used residential (5287,200) ($4,131.") land. - 756 South 16-8-231- RMF- 0.14 $55,700 $215,100 $2,142" - - - - Fettled, Multi-family/ 1300 East 023 30 (6093.4) ($270,800) Raymond non-conforming units. 2708 South - 16-20- R-1- 0.11 $35,700 - - $282." S315 $4." $287." Reagan, Substandard lot• 900 East 381-007 7000 (4791.6) William+ 2712 South 16-20- R-1- 0.21 $40,300 $215,500. $2,024." - - - - Abassi, Duplex to the 900 East 381-017 7000 (9147.6) ($255,800) Masoud south/non- conforming unit 300 North - 8-35-404- R-1- 0.17 $25,500 - $366." $224 $3." $370." Reagan, Lot capable of 900 West 001 7000 (7405.2) William+ accommodating one housing unit - 868 West 8-35-404- R-I- 0.09 SI8,100 $91,000. 5863.i' - - - - Zovkovic, Home to cast/ 300 North 002 7000 (3920.4) ($109,100) Ginna substandard lot' - 334 North 8-35-258- R-I- 0.09 S20,100 $58,800 $624." - - - - Mendez, Home to north/ 900 West 001 7000 (3920.4) ($78,900) Sapai substandard lot* 1040 West - 15-02- RMF- 0.25 $19,200 - - $250" No No tax $250." Price,Edith Lot capable of 200 South 178-021 35 (10,390) value listed accommodating a listed triplex - 1044 West 15-02- RMF-' 0.19 S40,000 $19,300 S0.' - - - - LD Church Church 200 South 178-020 35 (8276.4) (tax exempt)• of Christ - 1030 West 15-02- RMF- 0.12 $16,200 $41,500 $0.' - - - - Kohart, 200 South 178-022 35 (5227.2) ($57,700) Francine N •A single housing unit may be built on substandard lots if they were legally subdivided. . +Owner of both billboard and land • ,/Values provided by Salt Lakc County Assessor and Treasurer • 0 Billboards Go Interactive With Help of WiFi-WSJ.com#printMode Page 1 of 2 ilE._-:usts•Csryessr,- mTuuseSffmntt THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS Request an ECO■I1omicS Invitation MARCH 2 4,2011 ECOnomics.wsj.com ••CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL 6acara Reso71 Sara 6E t a'a.Ci. Dow Jones Reprints This copy is for your persons,non-commerdal use only.To Greer pr esenlelion-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues.clients or customers,use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit wow.djrep,its.con See.sample.print in POF for ret. Other a reprint of this anic:e ry ee 'IHE WAIL SINE JOURNAL ws+aa. TECHNOLOGY I FEBRUARY 4,2011• Billboards Join Wired Age Wi-Fi Lets Once-Static Posters Interact With Smartphones and Their Owners BySPENCER E.ANTE Billboards and posters are one of world's oldest forms of advertising.Now,some marketers and start-ups say wireless technology could revamp outdoor advertising by bringing interactivity and pay-for-performance models. ' Over the last few months,Google Inc.,Nokia Corp.and France :.unr-rr-r� Telecom SA's Orange have run pilot advertising campaigns that let a 0 t wlr iar \ person interact with posters in bus stops,phone booths,train stations , ro.v }'•i ; N ,,. _ and airports in cites including New York and London. 0 �b.,•• C:,F-; .f . So far,companies are using the posters as a way to distribute wireless _ '- applications or ringtones for smarphones.But outdoor advertisers t` and marketers say the ads could also be used to distribute games, video ads,coupons and even as a way to sell physical or digital goods Mabeeand services. An Interactive ad for Nokia in a London phone booth 'You have to wait here.You don't have to be bored,"read the poster urges passers-by to download an app on the spot. for a Google campaign,which ran in Boston-area bus stops.The poster let a person download Google's mobile app through a free Wi-Fi router installed in the location. "It's an old-school media that has been around for hundreds of years but we've dressed it up and made it fresh,"said Zohar Levkovitz,chief executive and co-founder of Amobee,Inc.,a start-up based in Redwood City,Calif.,that has developed the technology and begun selling it to advertisers. The billboard also gives users free Internet access at the bus stop.People can download the advertised app through their cellular connection as well,but Amobee says using the Wi-Fi connection allows people to avoid any data charges. Interactive outdoor advertising is still unproven on a large scale and the business model is in an early stage of development,but Amobee says it is in discussions with other large multinational companies to roll out new campaigns. EXPERIENCE WSJ PROFESSIONAL Starting March 1,European wireless operator Orange will spend several hundred thousand dollars to run an advertising campaign Editors'Deep Dive:New Tech,Analytics Yield across 300 sites in London and New York City for its ON wireless • Targeted Ads application that runs on Google's Android wireless operating system. MEDIAPOST.COM • A consumer waiting at a bus stop can hold his or her smartphone near How Media Multitasking Fuels'Brand Response'Advertising the poster and download the app over Wi-Fi technology or by sending ADVERTISING AGE a text message to the company. Marketers Suit Up With Twitter and Facebook for Billboards Go Interactive With Help of WiFi-WSJ.com#printMode Page 2 of 2 The interactive ads have allowed the company"to more accurately co measure the effectiveness of our marketing spend"and made the "campaign experience more personal and engaging for our customers,"said Jean Donadieu de Lavit,chief marketing officer of an 'Social Bowl' Orange subsidiary that develops wireless hardware and software. STRATEGY New Analytics Tools Help Businesses Nigel Emery,director of marketing and business development for Understand Foursquare Cemusa North America,a large outdoor advertising company that has worked with Amobee to place ads in New York City bus stops,said Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web.Learn More traditionally outdoor ads are sold for a lump sum covering a certain time frame.In New York City,Mr.Emery said the company charges $5,000 to$8,00o per bus shelter for a month. The interactive ads,however,are built around a performance-based model.Advertisers pay only when a customer interacts with the ad,much like Internet search advertising works.The cost per download can range from$1 to$3 depending on the client,the budget,the offer and the location of the posters,said Harry Dewhirst,an advertising executive at Amobee.The ads run until a set number of downloads are reached. Cemusa has yet to fully embrace the model,however.Instead it sold the outdoor ad spaces to Amobee,which is reselling them in a performance-based model to advertisers.But Mr.Emery said the idea holds a lot of promise."If advertisers have positive results they will do more of it,"said Mr.Emery."I love the idea and think it will attract more money into the outdoor medium." Over the last few months,Nokia said it got a good return on its$i million interactive poster campaign that ran in the U.S.,U.K,South Africa and Australia promoting the app for its Ovi app store. • "Get apps and much more for your Nolda,turn on your Bluetooth now,"read the poster,which displayed a Nokia smartphone and icons of apps for Facebook,Foursquare,Angry Birds and other programs. A consumer could download the app through Bluetooth technology or by sending a text message.During the so weeks that the campaign ran,Craig Hepburn,global director of digital for Nokia,said 1.5 million people interacted with the poster and tens of millions of people saw it. Mr.Hepburn said the campaign helped drive registrations for the Nokia Ovi app store and was relatively cheap compared with the cost of display and search ads on the Internet.And in an age when advertisers are facing tight ad budgets,the campaign was welcomed because it helped him show that Nokia was getting results for its money. "We've been really impressed with the kind of performance and the engagement,"said Mr.Hepburn.As a result,he is already mulling new campaigns and plans to move more of his ad budget into this area. • Copyright 2011 Dow Jones&Company,Inc.All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal,non-commerdal use only.Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit wwsedjreprints corn O 123VI R 2 1N R1 W R 1 E R 2 E ROE • ..,77 Z . Salt Lake County Legend Jordan River .-- °N.d. Freeways ... , * , -, '---, 410D NORTH ..-.---/ Townships A "\l‘Z.-.., - 3500 NORTH -,,, 1. I ;,..S. -:]. :IP Lt '-..- -,..)._I 2700 NORTH • -..... -,"s; , *IOC, -.../ 1._, A, I ' . . i I r r-----1. ,..: \ 2100 NORTH $7- r...___... I . c„4,.. :,_ -7:1 . . f. • 1300 NORTH I----' .., , r t ./Emigration zi '..) 700 NORTF1 ... Salt Lake City I /* Canyon .• (." , ..r. • ( ....-•/ . BASE UNE N ,'I - --, 700 SOUTH '\, . . , L12 /,i I 1300 SOUTH I ) I . , ,,, 2100 SOUTH IL. \ •*"I .'',Y ) 2700SOUTH Magna . 1—••/ . \ , West \ Valley So h SaltrtY-t' ) 3500 SOUTH eN. / City L. e City I 4100 SOUTH ( 1----t— 'IP ..1.... \ 1 Millcreek 0 - I L___, . r-- , mcl.:,....._1 , mu, ,..;\Holladay „--,........„,.."\_,.../-/.. --.\"-----...-C1'\ l Y City 4700 SOUTH 5400 SOUTH r, k ri. KearrfraY-icj°i t 6200 SOUTH . 7000SOUTH Cottonwood — . West ,'Mcidvale Heights I .., ‘.. 7800 SOUTFI City 1--. ?.?---1.1‘ tr Jordan ( ) Copperton if City -2:1 i••--.. •"r1-.. A - e„ ....t •Sandy 'if cv Ma 1--- SOUTH 9400 SOUTH i' .K _......—_,1 ___ _, city.p t7i, .rce: k.,Tenien($-.• 10200 SOUTH \ South Jordan City _ .\e.4,.. 511:Trr-",--1 2 Mite City. 4‘'r".--. .:,': • 11000 SOUTH F- 1 --- -- 'of/ --. 1 . hrioo sousru C7,----------------- T"----r—r-LI r. 12600 SOUTH i - IL Riverton City i ,i\., (III ----I Draper 13400 SOUTH City (.. 1 f C-1 \-, Bluffdajle-it ri) '—'j,.. '',2/--' 14200 SOUTH \ _ ,.... Herriman City t\..0 15000 SOUTH / l -1 / .., , , .... , --., 15800 SOUTH .,_ \ 16600 SOUTH N / •, I % • \., 17400 SOUTH 1 i........ i '%- •' 18200 SOUTH w --. — E t III ,'i3 - rg i g 'g g 'g '‘A 'A 'A. '‘A . S Fe" S 1 a 1 a a a 1 1 I 6 W: 1 1 1 1 Pi I 1 I I i I ri '' ri t; REID J.DENMAN P.L.S. May 2010 • il -11P , FIf. - - f I�11I11 / E'TGon Canyon !g • ilt A �Wd Township 1111 n Sall Leke City �� r���11 n11■1 �■�cei■w■1�1k L.lIIIIII11 111■11■1■■111►1 �1�■1�m sow,sarc . `f _ : � `� West.Valley City �l: Lafce'City �, Y i E101 uniu WAIINIIIMIlikillileis L • • 1 T.aylorsyille _atoms ollada a 6 l '4,1 , CityI ...11 U r ila 1 i' g kw Fit Cottonwood { �' IIII IdRa_'Aii tielghts City' _ � "' T�� {-. w`' u 1 i West Jordan City �� bG - �+r :.- -■■■u■�/•n Sandy City ` .'{ .I+�'� rk'''/ )1 _ �'"'j Nta. cevv rto„ �I 11111 fit'. y -- '_ -__, .'.r. Town sew,.rvo South Jordan City 714, . allEri it * - ; = , Riverton II >' \ City sac�w«e ' conr:,...y i.-. ! � Draper Legend \‘.7_,,,,,,,_____..er.} � City —nop.r�, ���' TOWNSHIPS COLNCIIS Herriman Bhgfdale CM ca'v`n'" Q nmc....o.16,,,, City I Cilyl 0 r:gn,an CI., ®cm. .` / Q at.mot in,,,,,„a © ram.-wr QWT Calm hh shin, n O ttuimepoeed.Nee IE:3uneCoy 'F" SALT LAKE COUNTY 4.v,II Townships and Community Councils s lT t..r • ... i ? SALT LAKE CITY i 1 2 -i 31 i II OFFICIAL BILLBOARD 100 MORTII ..'.\ t:, AND GATEWAY MAP i ,.....„,„,,, , _ inuniu:tolt miliiimmir — • ,.= . .:?..4, , -. ..7,......•,,,,,.. li -A,. 4 . MA • • ....\ , 111•1111.1111111:11:1 M . : ' \1111111111111.WA i .4. \\A. 2 , 4.-i ,,..,,,,1111111 liN 't 1 Jr ,FIZ 1,:lir.,1 _IL xt, ,,,,N, a;,.....0.4, 1 . till 7 111111111M101 i\kl‘-.sliP,., , 144.1f , ..._.. .N, ,, ,...... --,..=_-.,--,-..__, 1 .11111.-A t i.....itiVill...---I ilL31.01! ''.., 1/4,,•; -... ..R.,,.....)r `111111111r 1 -Itldm V., 1 •05kflill 4%iiiti 'IN.-, .4 :4-yt-'fif4'• t tt . g E:13 - Illii..,.0.7111111/. • ... lillilli ,._...7.7,•,..:• ' 1 I V IIIIII NIEL- ---i . 1 WINE 21kv.v-it Nik.-,•;1!.:,".-.-.1 iiii :466:11111RarEEBni a.--- ,_,....B.;;L.:,,1:::4x,.•= . _:k % _ . , k:Ea, -1.1r.IT191HIN III- II N Ir.rwl., ava:.:.;441,:. 7. • 51E12 Kr' 111N10-' g:1+:1:21,%:-..::117:-....,...,*s.T4...,.., . RSTATESO j.Mille11711111( ... 4 , "iirall'ill iZill' ,,,N,,, I-in -." ---__ - I ' ,, t r", ..!.:issimrrar 1.LE'II II U .• • • , Aiy;'.0g1". - --- -+11-4%iiikallayli 0 ... , , a wimp-4001,w_.,Aimet:.2.7-,,_ Ell/d0111 • tit ,. CILUEICHEIIELEM.D0,5! 4 A '' M1.7"-,.,,,e' . -, - I' - ,„..-_,--10111111 . ..Sii iCIDDIF ig " I;DIEIDEMEIttuommun. ---'''Vc- l' -01'....'''llitniiiiiimi-....-ymElpt :13 ,TDElian2EIREBEEID ..1 , /.. MI . f miliLlir- AC/0X*, wir•e•sin In it IL.W1 IF1 '11111.- ,TiNiF1 rirTi9e20511, lik .. .••• ,/, . . 0" l_r ,i' ,. .M1-__Wr,!`„ N., ., iitwatiritrwfr:;...541111P1.11laM111.11111N _WrEpa $ . —Rii.ii•Rovile: 011 Viilatia. vii=: irr"73,777,-rilL4Emm _ of., 4 IIPIIMIVit-.24t:ts - _G e -i" ‹C ,-- killiillik:4, 17-1,7_41'_.=:=17t:741!1,..4 II g OM k rill[ III• !! ., AllIDORIDATIQELEIREIEifik_ sim- i lig -• TINW11.14-1 is'---:,-*:4*, :i.T.----F ;;Igy"..4-7E.mq111 ,!!„fig I ritEENIIIIIMEI„„im-erii.ba- r.7, --:::_,:".• . .- i - .lor !gown iam-AN• g.p El iiiidocilh-r-,____ =g,.,.., pultipildkfil6ww.s=;=t Afar tr...1 • ._ _ * , mo; insiumi 1, i • , , ,.11ird,,, ,,,... 4.‘,----4-,vgill .i. =r4orii dilliim.,:.- rpol: -...,•-4:--trp,-, =NU) ' - — . '!rg-II4.: 1-4 t‘'-vartlin- t! ri-'4V-Inf. ( -.2$17i1R HilioA.T1,=„----":41.ASsErir.4\- , . _. CUIFORNIAAVE ' , 1 CALIFORNIAAV ___, I -lizitIl...,1 ki k- -1'.11-1 P-1.116:141 :I ! tRitC1-Vil i: tz...-e,.-whInt--11-011f.-z_--_,t,.-zr.f.iii-lproar.11.,--r-oh —' -I - '"- -6' 1 -I.'Pi, A NM-it 4-fittiigi. 121 .1,,r.41„ni 1 III m . 'TLI"1...0 frill: '°151110;q01-0 I i'''-,'.1-7iii,!:.•!.',"miiilitztripii,_777;!--a7lEtEittorixt-i,r1,4,1*7 ;Iii- , • tra_i_r— _ ,...100.= _ 1, ,_.: 7,:ii,.,,, ,, „ ii. • •-,- -.II.J_!_ _ . ... •=11.0111.3.1 • 1 121.=: .liir 11111111:=1. 1-.12::,..M;....rnm , '' . .10A,Nir — wiia 11- . ,..Lo=i01E.,,,,QT. ,,-,..... .._,...1 .,-k ,r nari. ID s' ----) MO SOUTH ._, 11111. I 1111111100,0 ii.11j , - tirtaw .: F4-4=111.i ni1=1:12.. I-.:= INV= Legend )1 ,,----- 7 74--ziltrilt_Mi .... _. -,..“"--,--- N kir"--11111r911114ffiritr-tmi- 1 ‘i loin., . ,,,.,.......... „p.u..... A6*100 — Gateway 1 w-.50-- E m winviospqmingim • ----- Special Gateway g -*147-1,17iSio 1 - .June 2001 Billboards Permitted S oP iiiii,ni MAP LEGEND=I Historic Preservation 11111 CN,Neighborhood Commercial ICS,Cornmunity Shopping FP,FootNils Protection FR-2,FR-2/21,780 Foothils Residential fAirll FR-3,FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential IIIII I,Institutional IIIII OS,Open Space =PL,Public Lands 1 1 OS R-1-12000,Single Family Residential I 1 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential I I R-1-7000,Single Family Residential !1!1R-MU,Residential/Mixed Use --, ..•. .„. , ,_ 0 *•' . , i I I I I 1 I I Mil RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential 4 • =RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential j ,-; ** 1 1 MI RMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential ri _...„1111rill 191111010411 .4 tsrt, 4110,11 I I=I REEEEEE I - 'I RO,Residential/Office / 'r, c Al PS% ir 1 . , Oa SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential .14 IM Ul,Urban Institufional '-r, 0, ;. . WWII.liklINARN, . Aft•r. 4-gital -- Q'tk. % (./ ' "a ° .-1 148/F4 404t 71,v ''44-0-e 3 `s„ gm 41*. ** •...4P 1111111.111110I glit '..4-i4, \ ,' HS ••• *4.. ... 4012N1111* st,,, ial..4 _ '''.. okvenues ) . :-.-v.liCOIKPOoNT OR : • .4.V.1101110 ...it. ., dik 91.11 %VO 104 -ia ,,.. zs in I, . IT i fr w•41 i 41,,N Hill •-..- simmi• er Alb - ‘,. ""''''''''' N* Ala *int" - g itt• NOM _ .....14-41. r , 1 1 !II 1 lig 1 - * j - MIMI 11 inn man al F,9 , IvAllegnin- IIM Mil r.ki 1 On nu r ,.., ).-7. rom _II. AIIII nip! ILI _i_i, inn lion Iik. sitej —P' 1,1 i7 .3 kt ' —4 41141/11k --iv,-;..„6,... os..: -,.- - „ 811* ,L a,,..,--'—,--L.• in_ 4.4-, f-‘--:.'-'• 1 PA* read4,„__41111ftini 4, : A iti ,,,k,4 N t' gm* •• --''RV/• ii4 Zoning , , , , EA TIT 114-T- oil 'fii 1 -r''T RIB iIIM . . -- ' / • s!' / EZ 11 WW1 -Ill HMI aim 1.1 1-, i i WI 1.1. 1 ri Hp .. .7 4/14•:4 '4 ,Wit:,,,' gialWatit *Apr.4 . i soinies .,11—meietik A n MEIIIMiritaik frA Aim in 1F 1 gliii _L__.ii ilitifi HIM TII-r TEM Trlif ii ii' Trfp Ell 4t-r;. / ....= ionsonunti 4411e=srell II ,-.... EIE! -I-14,1y ---- ,..,-,,: i!HE --dig HUH s...21a. mg, i i "'-_. oirmarArmitrisim=tilkUp I H!F Imo ' 1,;:;,:l ri. ail Egini if ffirG al ram iiiii •11,,,,.., ._.. -1,..nommorilik arm, 71,,,,,....,__.---,-„, Map ff"i111117 slim .:FI,,, Elm .4-w: ELI= mi:n..1.-i mg: Elit qg FEuu .04c_____ ,,,..„, ITia lid. lila -1It1 ifigi Mien TM fil r -1":5 FM,' Mlls -IH a= al=12,alq Im citY°s ,,,,,,...„, Illitiri,„,4111115 M wen Bill 1min 1F., m Eft q TIT1. -F-r-ro 91 1I1 , iii nit I I flliiii t LIN!EL Atft--- u'' OH M NM A.:_ilt - .,-a.-0_ • 22 IIE NM& =I " _Is ,,==-I lila 1 II fr irl IL Inla I= III311 T-fr 1_11 HIM illiii Far tiling Ili 7 CEMETERY oo I ii, 111-1 - - • 01111.14.4 R- I •01110h4_Is Llin.J.!!a 7,11 E --, -:.=42 Eli FIE 1:1 Luit2 Ku ,EiLat! .11` '--I--. RI sfs 1=1111104A0 ANV,i,‘ * Ai litniiil lilitV • ig -... gignilEillIN :Ili d Irr RUB Milll Mill Ella ilia illi MN lv-hr Ett mill ... IIIIIII,im lin 4/ 44 •ir. •• va at MBE)Y__=7.- im;;-4. E 2 nili. 1:114 '7 WE: Ui--= gig ,... I of- Equ Ego mr2 Tils - lui)-11641111P4o 441444.0,... AMP III It-jr- Niti 111111.ii :Ill' Mlii In h ril ft' MI' MI NH 1 '6 Tril 4.s.-Cf" ri- ci- Fin 1 riTr Mr rid img Filiii ilirri0:5; bitIti . Will ---'- a--,''- Ma T. wm! -..= wil avki miii ..-no Tp9 JR, I'M 2 E rif !Ill 1111 VG 1046 Ell: Lulu'IllikVIM:'4v ''. ,... • 111 T-1----7' Dm ,_ ,,..1 giffi mi min Wm Faim ditiii q,.:1 I 1, atm fliii a Eh, ifilil Milli itibi Eli Dmirdl, ."'" /2111'it- iiv igr sw _Aii f.p , . „A 4,1-1M, jk. 111- fil : EN- = alp L-..K., =',..,- EWE. FM .J1-1 -AR . __, am CAW. DR - '.— ' r _ .nu.r-t-d M iiiiiii Ell 4 IiiM ilii iiiiR -rtrri I I I i' X. nu TETI. bill 131: Itidi 771 TM IMI ffidi.•rzw, .r ILVF Salt Lake City Planning Division Geographic Information System 11 1C-i 11— PlYjilL- % LIT-- r'- 113 Min .3111g MIIIIPii" 1.1-1 IIIHU 11,14._ 1111 ir =-Juo •Um" am . „-44. NOT TO SCALE r., ,,,,,.,_, ...._ 11110.'„LY .”'' April 2003 R- all1111111111 alli 'Li_ EMI F ER L_ LI Ha HMI IIII 1111.• : L I Ilia MI 71 IIIIII zio Nil mg N Am. - Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map . . .... ,, _ -,....•••-• • • . • - -- , 1:.,;.:.,;::.i. ..., ,•: . . .r. . . ,..Z.st;'W' •'.r., 'pi,- ,.... ,.,. . . er. .,,, ,:t•';,' ., . . •• .. ////.//:// 'd // •,,,,:i.'?"r,,."?':(11'-4,•,',.,;'5.',". ,,.ri,...,.7,4,r.:,,,..,-,,,,,I.r.t • /law i P. r•g m 1 1.- ; ,r''l \\ 1 2. \\ . IP ii * c_jos 04 , , -\\\_ j 4 111111b1:\ —TU; .11 1111k 'C/ IIIIIIIkVAO * \ J NI 1 \ ' r4,1111iLivr, i - , • I 40 New Tarago Ay ii "irsoriar __I , . 7.--- 1.440 , ilk , . .., ;Silt.4v 'IA lair i MIL i A 4Thb*-#.44....71111 MAP LEGEND -i,w.-.41 4).•.4.461111 eh.00 VI/IPA.* / r.:3 Histocc PreSer.1011 • I =Capitol Hill Protection Area ... I A; ' 11 44.11.• ..'1 •'•' / \.4: A ii. L.,...,j co,CommunIty Business ' . A.., Eli CC,Commercial Corridor ':,, .1.. m . '.•1 di 11 \N\' . al .11t Eli ,..1 MICG,General Commercal k\,• ; ''-ql l .CS.Commumly Shopping • ' 'Pi I 111 Insiness District 1(\7\,1 1.R,.himn,I .Kr1. I1 \1DCaDud '10IM1= ▪FP,FoohillsProtecton 11NiiIbli 2-41 m! r -.•Z. iI„ idia INIIIIMIL44:1 gg gg 11111 Ez3FR-1.FR-1/43,560 Foollells Estates Residential v_.miliwailm am Ri v i mils tiling I vi:v —os sim FR-2.FR-221.700 Foothills ResKlential a I 1 FR-3,FR-3/12,000 Footn•lis...dermal -...lagil ;Ida wi;iliM I . i I,InslAut•onal ,.. .• . 4,,I.. L 11.1111111111.4. MIMI M '•i11111 'T'''!-;] :` 7::..:::-.7 i [ I M-1.Light Manufacturing / I, 0 glidM-2,Heavy Manufacturing . 111 i ME MU,Mixed Use .. -" OS,Opel Space .111 111111 PL.Public Lands • R, nig. \-— i in i, i g r . /1 1 I R-1-7000,Single Famly Residential I . 74111111 I: • '- 1 1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residenhal / -.1111 '' ,•. 4 ':Vgi ,41;;Ilan LJa-MU,Residential/A.0d Use 1 ....wee ..... we I pli Salt Lake City Planning Division ME RMF-45.Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential D-1 Mall Geographic Information Systems 111111MI Egi rA INRMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential L.....j 5R-1,Speoal Development Pattern Residential =SR-3.Spenpal Development Pattern Residential II.Ul.UrbaCanal 0 0 Central Community /,/ -I .Nrny ( U --- - - n[1 } : �f Kill? �0!1 BURY An; sf T. mlnlr '= ❑ .. I . v1nR "Ztzf nZ ® nin Ma A G IF -y IP 'minim nll - ...t Mg.iii2 a7rTrnl m �II 1 ill .s . 1.' I !■"1 ry ■1 r 1`■��� �1111. :GM MN ri121'. \1(i _ itti; 6E- [.-:1 11i--E7 i-r '1,: `'- �I T:iv IRiJl• �IIII�!�. .11U11 _ 1~ tint H I IIIiri 1 Uu •• .uui, _A j�f ■1 nix c j-ID Er ill 1 tilt Map Legend 1 _ Ir w - i n, 4i0r 1 U I I URN IU 1 lug eel 111�1� �• � ming •, '' rl,ae II II UILi �® Historic Preservation Overlay District 1,Institutional \ IIII --- ►� �Im -=;�;;_• gr, Tf. T` =A�iii III moat ` 1 ~ :: Transitional Overlay District LEI OS,Open SpaceI. 1-t += - I�South State Street Corridor Overlay District I-EL,Public Lands II `g- =.lf� o-z �,■'IB'_ ■tit m I- iiiiiiiil n F.Q.Field Sign Overlay District PL-2,Public Lands IN A Fag e-Z 1 l, -�;� him NI I Delta Center Sign Overlay District I I R-1-5000,Single Family Residential I - 1 ll• ■II°hlr, IL1 I-BP,Business Park I - I R-2,Single and Two-Family Residentialmil it ,=j y 1 l f r {. 11111 n IIITne '1■ flaCB,Community Business .,-A R-MU,Residential/Mixed Use ' l! `1 _� -� 1 4i 'r: "- .unri 3_ CC,Commercial Corridor I I RB,Residential/Business ,_ -®_ �j 1ytyl:'� r�'ja' i?] � ", J ..as i a-; (III.CG,General Commercial RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential ' im 1 -+�- P a,.rrlc;an . - ®®® � � i11 g. __ Min itj ®CN,Neighborhood Commercial ®RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential 1 ■ _ a 7 Lm�qI v t = 1 a IIIIIIIII,CS,Community Shopping IIIIIIIIIIII 1 RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential a 111 O P S I �� Ph=. �� 0 I I D-1,Central Business District _6 RMF-75,High Density Multifamily Residential 1 -- ILA D-2,Downtown Support District t- 1 RO,Residential/Office '_ ®VP 1444114 S , T. Th • v � ' ®D-3,Downtown Warehouse/Residential a� SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential A ' HMO F Ih , z-i- 1 tltt1��N�'l!lmIri'IIl�177��16�1!11lm���nnJttt�L��LLIIr�LV�177 _it I- . .. a ..o,ql e IIIIIIIIIII,D-4,Secondary Central Business District eZr`�'�l SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential IIIII ❑I _ ��� yr�.3 to ailV?I.a�l �'� I f...mftsa n 1B1JPm. .W�� • II _ • w11I3ATt� �i,,1ilil-F[F���: lir m t*1 ti 1 ��. IIIIIIIIL GMU,Gateway Mixed Use IIIIIIIIII,UI,Urban Institutional p I _, t I _ -�1 C[7cu^..¢±E3 �'`.1 � 1� !.`. (4(i - N. —ca cam*r III . 1 = E# ,. atlr ti Tc n _ a c'i+ v + a a _MEE =lid_ Ali I_ j^'In 1i� r t Lt e\yl�M ®Rs.elLlst��r1 ��1�....���'1,t1 _ L. •I i. tl_-it,,,,,= I i{.it lie lln...�t�7�l�]".�¢�'l g 1}�)71�ll�{R Iq����7�9v�t71�v1 ,,! F _ 'e re' 1/1 s'IV Ali "Tr 111!: . Xic„Wu4 Ct1L7EE Q'ai.:_T41,E HMG .I,6 ! •�' ,y 1 a 1 1�IIfIN6 1 � I 1 1 -_ rTr `t py�Ln7�LI�t-�24��'� .,t ' f d-gt- c� lE�sp ,,,, I` I �uulilt. ninn._ €Al uhlaP£�.^{fia E'LIS-�}effEsm ^'� + `, 15 nl Y 1 EN 111 NEE EL WO 0:61 M 11wn11�� L (i) :4 , '-,' r w u --1 F _ Ivpu el E.(�[�,I L LL III4 i u w_n nnl mrn difil % NE - Jig 11 cr u au IIIIIi n1111iS XLI�WIII. Sall Lake City Planning Uirision �- d./�_ - ill'vt® �iCtiii IIIN�1116F11■ '1114rIL.IIIrIIUII It I. Geographic Information Systems LIB II'IIIII Milli It etinit111!!111111111111!�11�YII//M gIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!tlllllllllllllr,�1111111p r 1 w 1 I L) _ [Po NII=■IIIIIIIIIs_I'twagim n•• 1-11 IIITimid- h-_ 1; —���psa n ll!! , � f1111111: �� I a—r_ arm:5t1111111111111 icl1��'�--' �/ -■nTl =1,-=111nunn-ISIRi3'P.I Y)111. _ .._1111!_11 Mill 1t....-n►�ammmul�""IIII I _lalp11111i= 1 :III I u =j1m!„.■®elllyunnl 1111111111111N slfsll g golfIO Milt 1 immunl-11m ffig11111` ■inn um nl • �11�!!lfllllllllllli ���: ■'IIII IF 11141+511 IIIIIII 1 Human= :Iim1® WE: • vote•�•1� =uumuu, IIIIIIIIIII _II RE —rtmf uj � IMO*_ =�f I+ ..�iiitiiiiiii��f I I F=11111111111_ ti))11�{�4� �1H / rr 1� r„_ Emu, .nnullW■t1i summit Bimini m lmnmmml mum um=111111MM ES minor nmumn P h: ill 11 ■13I1. . ia =1111111= .T.E 1111111 ufirm! Sugar House '�-1= 11■ymn,1=ot411 111 Orli ' 'III wog O•I-30 _n1m11111= I ,1 1111■11111 1 11111C=11I --. =F min= I 1[:3[1m I n s"1PPU:111�Elm�`?=�- AI;1 N In - T .immn_ 'mum _* I �-'i _mnluwe un1i1 a :[.morn B S�� n,'gym I ITilil olio■lon■ _�_uauuuu, _II1i!iIIi..I r. �n-nilnun g_ _ „ZI �L minim ME IIB!!'!f1111= n 1=_ 1iLNE:1� �till 5 I 1 nun err all 1 Y/1m1., 11 11111111 t4;i.IMIlle�unm11 g , _ :=r laum frf t��lil�� 1�.. �rc muumuu �ma�1���� I ■muffin l Communit Zoning Full.film UIIIIIII, `1r--�■ IIII 11 Yit16 ;�" �EI,�1 11111 11111:Y11SYI 1" [11 1 — E muumuu'11111111111111 �IIIIII 11 e=nn uul_=1 II AlIBld.11111111I1 _ + _u�tn,[d:a a.1 u I �nf[Is.faw_nnnnun unu�nun =�.a[�eiin J wl__-=miff 11 m marl I,_ .1=_� imimmem -}{1#i Ilmm�um 7uumuu miming os H 1unnn _ __1't�L .-w i Roo Illry = _ d 11:.�1111,mzscanm�n2e1 ' �1r n■--",411 _ �tltl �f1� a mm 11 _ p - 111111111111114 M111 1111n' ill[33.-11111 1. • I 1 t 11 I i rtl=,. f _� .Roo C�im 14414410 a_.1n1n1n� :1■nliu11111111, Illlll��m: _ i , a A EI IIIII I1111 NH ■1m li a . -I- lannllml M111IG1: .R �—' '".m L1 nor rt+t+ ® 1�1� f �It Ian I_m j, r L I Mg:'_n9:In a I —1_ =4� I I_ tazza�_ SUGARHOUSE _ — ,� �� w3v i a in — 1[r III le— P� PARK smg TC E.■ ,m min .. ul r -aIrnlma nit, iyn L� ?EV �R r y. _p-1 _ ■■.■ !1►ter _� d!!1I[lll!! w �� hr . �t:a is:".IIII a .✓ �� !�Ic ?- —'7�.Nr�Ion.� S�. t!a eWlIIIII• —� ■�L■ q '��Ili II -----.�... zE fit ■'li aL1711!lL ;wiiim� Os _. - I ... _�■ 1 III,!!lfnlllm , t MI s 1 E.it ■1n�' =1\'"a E_ T- °0 1=mornm nun i ::.a- -- —--• [_z:zl■ Bulk _ _ =!'. FAIRMO T OS a7, •�� -.�" ■■■ ''I I - ::_ —= PARK T�� 0 �'�,� r.:r�■\i�i3a iu i ��i 1 6�k Ititi El Ei ... ENE%1>� �1��� ���A�1i1/M��[lii�� ��■■■� 1 L're��llll�l -" T•MP . EM — ss_nre-so `t 11 2C•1 �IQ� ■.��i!�IIIIaIIIIIIP■III oltl 1...61 MP _— c 111 ■■ ■■ ■■ermzsun.. 111► ® --=- - 19!111= ca �� `=����iiiiiiil „� OS e�411,4 II •■•1 MEM b ILIEII�fM '- 11111=MIME. FOREST DALE II _111111 = \ •���:/���filial _� — �� GOLF COURSES\� ,��a���11I��I OS • - = I I H III E � 11■■ _� Ion - _- _III[+• O 1=1E 21 t !!ll Illln='ll>li� OS .. _111! _ -_ -1� =�Q:Iltlu'p11I.I1I11 -' _2.,�IA.1=_ €r€' I°' — _ n.\_ I COUNTRY CLUB 'IIA�IIII a=1I=s w.i I WI III f €.4"i t�S11 IL �w Mg III NI 111I MI Ilk \ .- I1AIAe> A 1 AIM' 1 �= 11ltllll f1_ -IIII �a.r?�� \ GOLF COURSE �`'''�® = —I1=�sus��_= � �.. ,..„,a -�,;,r1I111�� 1�. 11��`�I1OI��s� � Y 'IN iLi`-_': ■=.._x an • •—_pN _ =f11111 _ _I 11[1111in n1111111!l1111►1 --�— l=--- g-=—al -, !C_ , . E■■R I' TftGIIII Y1 1 IIIIfF711 7?�lilnn..* �� mil(rum Irv• ,1 IIM 7X itiw IRE 111'6 zed?:IIII r I Inn `IIr Ir''a all i . � // NIBLEY Luni-1 1;4411Infa, Itl ;;tip 11= — �In[ =L �1= = 11 n11 nnlim NE ET III1nun1nIlIII l \ PARK —~ 11111111= �= _ =i GOLF OS c[:.:.f.➢]_EIpllllim —.— `�. . 'i1 asd F3►\:� a 1Il!Ii!II'ILInu - �. COURSE "'=a.g:EI —__,i .IIII um um�_ .._— ` W% v 1 1,r I� '� e a i111111111•=Et, :a = s i/� ;`. �7 ij oP 4:0 111111 �I!1 a EN : a= - I L I I�PI= 4►\- ='I 1 1 111111!II l i1111 o , °o - y 1��1,1aI=,,. f r . `I 1111111--'.% L uS �C 'l ���� IIIL. �� t 1■_ ti111111111Tt Clllllln ,II— ��%... Ounn 1f= t�.irEll b 1;�• 1mn11 Va =Emu 1 IIem111�1_a i y> �e IIII IIII:+1! En IIII Intl■e ■ 0 Gclal1111B A.•11 i= >G c1+J111Ti .■ IUIDh t■■ ammo 11 ■ gm m:��i�1lAIl111 11 f11` C �: . ■ ...... ■PIIIIII■�1i� Pcal111111=RIa ni ® iiim -..�.Oig nnuulul■un■►� r `°�'IIa Map Legend Elm ■r �m.� C-SHBD,Sugar House Business OS,Open Space • �".... T ® CB,Community Business _PL,Public Lands 41 '` RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential �� ®CC,Commercial Corridor I I R-1-12000,Single Family Residential ®RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential � CN,Neighborhood Commercial I I R-1-5000,Single Family Residential -RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential -CS,Community Shopping I I R-1-7000,Single Family Residential RO,Residential/Office Salt Lake City Planning Division N_A -1t11Ilka I,Institutional I I RB,Residential/Business SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential Geographic Information Systems Map Legend west S a l t Lake Zoning Map Transitional Overlay District i( ise BP,Business Park • c -- < hjy��l� - _ I -�'• ri i// CB,Community Business / I 11 �I. ■ ®CC,Commercial Corridor �' a ~I �����; � ,/// M.CG,General Commercial um +..�� ill �� .� -_-=- �-- . r T _-_: L ;". i..�_ _r I i 4 Institutional hood Commercial �a �� / Q„■ I ri Ir• ' wr.rza I 1 M-t,Light Manufacturing S a1 /-' / B®�\r M / ,� it s_-- /� ®Man HeavyManufacturing District _ _:..�� �,� �. ... A- 11 -n=71F1 t s' t�n yE - 11 � MH,Mobile Home Park %%% '�00� �M .11111111111111111IIIII11111, ;-fl^ 91�a MI PP aF ��e�111� _ /�a !MINE nnr s `\ / r - I OS,Open Space --� \\ 1' �\,/ %'' i a IOW 11111 - ®illia -y_II (\ - 1 OPL,S Public Lands ,<� ���� -_ I�r� • �I'. , ,yj�,' ,-Ell „'! 1 t ,,,� 1 1 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential 1 � - __ - — - 1"iIur '�a� 111III11 ' —� �q 11 I��1 ® i R-1-7o00,Single Family Residential / I ` �:+4 Il�� \\� �1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residential `� -" `— !!!t_ • Ili.G�� / I I RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential Millvi, 'I - 1'' -�� \ _-_- RMF-35,Moderate Density Multifamily Residential .11 ---- ~` I -IN - _- ' ,,aI� ICIF 11y 1 - , RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential -�� --- -J 'I; :;r1.11. I--- gaai x�i ,;j ® \� SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential 04)1 !,___ ■,III -i' .:, 1a - ,, .® FE�r:� lllltl'l I f Cql. iF Es _ ,11 uttu kn I tlmAnt PoTl® AL ■� ®mtr I I ILu -1 sip °nn to � i �� .gala`. E "- 24%®IAA �' L JI Btin�=: //).....,,,,,.....,,.........,;II i NI ?MN— ,tltttli► I, rt�9y�tw'v<> - 3 a� tit au nmm a I .,_. f 1 ♦� i "♦ E�ki1k�� l �Sa=Ss T711.- IIO 1� i(1\ a a ;�;���� "�'��o �fEl ��;-�s�> 1LC 4Ci�11.�a=;"�'i�i� _!'�'_ l \ r ,rm 3 d 1 L 1 � �', N• 6 ' NI-I �• � xl <.,.a.....,- �r I I I� �►\ -1g 11nllm i -5{� Dlr. .'(6 4 r ` 51'n.•�;11�111.11rurni •QLS �, ,,L i i L1t" i 1! mil _ iwrux,n..n .m.1..a. Lm�. ��� / Ili • � � ■� � __ �.�� II,IT111ti.i �i,t�44tIG I ''',...1 r. j..1.431 2!!!ilki inillifiE mg ILA, —1 Ili. 'lh MLR 1'95 tir '1"117 .---i_. ' . ,___._.. iTii...,, I ,..-,,-„,_,_TRIM%'A,:i !:M. I 11111 li IIIII : 1 (� �; anumi guy s (-I) 11 i1111111Milithtielr A 11111 I : 1111.1/.1 1111.1E1111111Ni , ,.41 ,4,1 COMM—,;:s2 \\tin .i:I. 'EL 111111=1-61. i IMIIIMSII l'"7" '4 k \\I. imuniiii — IIIIIIIIIIr4P) i - `1' °s \ialle '- ,_:4fr Al: I 01 • �� --.„„,„ I 11,77 i .' y' ---- b 17------`----f ----------.-----11\_�---�— It,\`l 11 i Geosr.phic,Nmnetlon Systems Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-i LJ ri Salt Lake City , Mil!creek Township - Salt Lake County r .v ' -mir 1_ ___ E if A_ 1 L r ' _ — — 1 !mil .. ► u �a eT ' �� � 111111 ANol m - , 1 —� ; South Salt Lake �. =7 L/ - ^ i i • TT—, .�� — - fi_ 3900 S _(iir,irrr�d .>�='T _ L A L �i rja a �ra a -a - - - L_1r-- -`y_ . I TI , . . . i- ,-T. , ,.. ;---- ____ - �_�T tea ` w _ - - � i �\ t ..--p t =if ii ,6 ___L.4,,..___„ „7_... _ _ v�u,ra _.c-,-..-: , ; . mippp.. _ _.„ it -- ---: . . --111,111_. E _; ! T j � �' 4500 S I �N ii 6, Ai" ' . �� / ,t Legend ` q _ - fJ EN FA-5 F-1 FR-20 IN R-1-3 R-2-10 I- l� ' SLCO_zoning2011 �__;1 #. wii A_1 L_ i FM-10 L`' t FR-5 1111R-1-4 Lz.jR-2-10/zc ♦ - �1 ®A-1/zc FM-10/zc.M-1;M-1/zc®R-1-43 R-2 6.5 �T+ l ryl A-2 FM-20 -M-2 a R-1-5 R-2-8 ��\`: �� ,_ \.,..... i A-20 f I FM-20/zc MD-3/zc ®R 1-5/zc ;; R-4-6.5 / 1 ✓J - A-5 a FR-0.5 'F R-1-10 R-1-6 ��R-M !I"! *{ l C-1;C-1/zc11 FR-1 Ea R-1-10/zc R-1-6/zc[,. R-M/zc C-2;C-2/zc a FR-1/zc 'R-1-15 R-1-7 RMH ' 1 C-3;C-3/zc FR-10 R-1-15/zc R-1-7/zc Li S-1-G C-V FR-10/zc i:- 1 R-1-21 ` R-1-8 Holladay En FA-2.5 FR-2.5 R-1-21/zc R-1-8/zc hj- A! 'P-created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-i Salt Lake City orthwest - Salt Lake County j. . AIRPORT I-80 .,, V z N O O (iv ..r:.f. _ ,�/ - , I CALIFORNIA AVE y z m z — .r v.,. m z 1 SR-201 West Valley City n 111 ;. ',; ,f _. III - Legend tt !! H - t I� 1 ' SLCO_zoning2011 h— FA-5 C1 FR-20 R-1-3 R-2-10 iw 11 L .�. Al121 - rT]FM-10 f—1 FR-5 741 R-1-4 I ]R-2-10/zc -r,Y' ,Li F r , Mr Fri A-1/zc ua FM-10/zc-M-1;M 1/zc R• -1-43 v R-2-6.5 r, huh s LJ A-2 [---1 r FM-20 .M-2 '1 R-1-5 I R-2-8 I�1-F 11� 11II1EI ! j A-20 Li FM-20/zc l MD-3/zc R-1-5/zc I�j R-4-8.5 ` }Lkr' =A-5 FR-0.5 R-1-10 rE R-1-6 J1 R-M IS; 1111-iF r- 1 FR-1 R 1 10/zc �7 R-1-6/zc +I R-M/zc , 1'", -_ C-1;C-1/zc3 r_ J _ - C-2;C-2/zc El FR-1/zc ! I R-1-15 _J R-1-7 lill RMH , FR-10 R-1-15/zc R• -1-7/zc 7 S-1-G -'ti i.4 -� } s,. • }III C-V 1 FR-10/zc R-1-21 )R-1-8 c' as. 7-t: x t sx Ell - FA-2.5 r-_1 FR-2.5 T0+ R-1-21hc R• -1-8/zc x Map created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH C o East Bench o$ Community Zoning I v Map Tr-7' \ ,.-„, • c iiuQv A irposw p Nam _ % os UNIVERSITY I OF UTAH d„' 7 i / ' L • Paliii, B ••_••. . . . os 44 qh, ......, lratiL, T : ,,wun-- ...:Muml.`�1�ii �y�.9111IIIDl: It- x_r. I`5 s+■ .. .+`. I14gt��iul-uln unucr ► _ .... (TII l .� :I!'1!111'n dl= -- �j��i�iyo�i ea«�ne �— ✓ ,,,a. • Mgt: ■�V, wj+a �ag�O,�,C7`�r IIIIIh 1111111�'_9:aL.d ■■No-- --§ 10 :" �,, -'p IA"NOVTAN�4',twti �J'lial RIM- .7431 ncicE:ImII I .O'-C--7[r■IJ=. *NA? o � I Y _ ' . ..1 ..r'-J�.iIltWuallo `. a-I iII tunN:mime iiII'! 1Wll.' it] 1 mi�d *N i.. L. .i. ..„,„�.ullll/aru1 ���,��`F mod,„,,, !hill 1111111111 n11!rrain F1i ', �I IIII N— I.11►:. nl:•r•It1uuN!-nlllllllt IM ` gglPnnw . _ •••fi r, 3' Uri .. u,. wluul.,-j111uu11{_ � Idlr'I 1$11111 Ulf :1. .Pica■■�i`�'PIA - /1111NIN1:mow"- ` T� nlll^IIII 1111111111111� !]17■�w 's IM M O, %: /1 ®Rrrrrr^rrtml�[[i.:an a t �i� ►�� .:. I nIuInunn rpm-�•i, p� -+��re- rG�WUWwluwu�n mom jIp,`{`t`�IIll ll III ^0111 'F� I lIIEt.- ulurm11111rru1:1.3111nm 1ST II p�-• ► p.b'iliiii�u M TM.i nal nin tout -1%_=/ _.c� MU �1::!7! Ale,�.j:,.,.. -¢ Wrrlwu�n:a r-'—TTrT^�"T_r���ul�lptl I i�� , ■[s �.■.-... IIOri'..fi Y�=un0�IN.IwnuMI 1 n RI{Ii.I I-1LMfIRFJ" lu i"" :II,�*a _ - N ,1 III- 34,.Ii[^^.:Gu,1u.�eVIIIV.► EIV 1nn:W11111111 ILL`mith111f11imi..401..rIU.•• •• I.7 �.. B ' • P a_s-'.G31n. .%R-r-7, -1111nuuuunruunn- ial,l.x Ei.K.[�- c...-r11�• ly; ■uu■Allf■Inmm�SW,41._ C111:RII11111I11III113!i:I111E- ■ .1 t—■11❑ill r i 1►E rf..ij 1 it!l Mille, �1 ■C2 W r■[GT7,_avo .rO.r'w.:.T3lrunik/'®�'e l�■�� BMW�1 1 +a!ununl- °y•,l -_ ?®®�.; . ;..inilllll 1- _ I.o�:■-_ a WO �W _mm�n� rucc� "lc M. _ „r skg• l.. i ,I■■. ::n■:��1i�■r4.,. rP:I'.'o kki ...0 a whim 1. �y •-=N, �-_=Eiln+�i.sIfV.Q1."..N-;-:--.io,, r 1--.-\ILm i3'1!,.•r.1 a•....err x1 _ter .•....._ant_ h.,nx�n,1, 11m011--lulpllllll :: mr 1u11_uI�1•,.i'::'g1111 re.sr,.�1,.r r ;';L'MI 1 .'.1 .c.'Ilii�: RIM ft _ .iwi ruwwuu IUlwup p1p. t16�` •Imi ■ ►5(3J,1 4113V dl E= ..•..: •a'ma }:. I iw�..1�.1. Ir1t ►�5�,lS211�• c�^'•r ter•.,.:. . o,Z -1 niii ID-14Nrni?EIa.l l OP,..,..,,,Im..�' latt•iii ul- :,Ilia z•414. r:o 'Au*o... , .n ���=r. .,�,1 .9i 1CJ� IIL:BL:IJ111 I llIl r�lr�.� �y.�n=Fl p�1�/.'iLCf111T II�� MIN�IIIIIwL=_JUINIW—• /01 a f_ca..nll4 Jr■1ft►,rS lPl NI In11.141::.Z ;,.., l ` . •• II III II I71lil ttFt]Its!! l Ot�I nIy��1'T�.'�,I���I13':?AL7^Jr MEN I Hi IiI.: _ - uc. J►\'r^_'_17P'iJll�® t v.��f1—■■■� / ■, Illnllllllll�_n 1111111= -111111111: 111 \N11r1 •' .t'llMll•pmll Ij,lCll;cifpl 1 ` �I�if�•■�;^ �t'e..ir^xli. or L�: liln rl -' N►�i��'�1'+41ti',, , - Wue�7R��ua4u . :;«Ρ..ti ra:c^MI■_�1 i1i ,11 aV►.�.1► ■r.."V•1 a aril•71• :Jllmlll:, eny ,o' h s.I'. i♦,1'• • �rl•IF-:;:,.ZwWu Q3' ' :lull: ':=o ��i�xinl ��'�t't,a 1. ►IAj'��r�fir• Q� ��� 1 re '` �n__il��g ANN. Iiln11141: Twin' -�.,ry Nil .A'�'Y!?.l i•�•�Shla.m-"'II"ry=III II_ d � ........-:- uup�-C�: r i i� I�►�1 r L li�� ,-1iZ I I IjI 1r11 G^ii Euutat1:•-7--•I I4, Y'7`�y �t.,,�`}ia03.0� j••` 711t�Tf�IIf 1111� 1 Ati u7.r■i n-xxnx u� i lull L. `1 1.L.. _���.•�►.i�y� wrI■:auar iiii2 Map Legend 111:1: ..*1=..,.f7.1 v4 Zoning Districts :,_ al '_- ® . OS jj f. r.. (1TM41 co,Community easiness = • ��+- � �, '�, � Ir�`yy a}1r� ® CN.Neighborhood Commercial L"•• -• I{,�' T.PR,I.. / / \""k... CS,Community Shopping FA la le 1111 FP,Foothills Protection 7• 11 va ■■■. ■j �1Imo FR-1,FR-1!<3,500 Foothills Estates Rosidenlial �r ; .41Y.a 1���F i WwiiyiU,S�Ji��Q. - FR-2,FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential !l r 4s+ ��y,C��;y7�`.�1:. FR-0,FR-3/12.000 Foothills Residential r � � ����l T. iy fiil OS.Open Space '�, .,t.`.gloy►, 11111 FL,Public Lands ,k••.' laR-1-12000,Single Family Residential �` IS 16 R-1-5000,Single Family Residential 04 R-1-7000,Single Family Residential 4 `d$ L; ;I RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential `vl RMF-35,Moderato Density Multifamily Residential IN - RMF-45,Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential RO,ResidenliaVORica Cvll L:Ac city 1'la: i::y I>::�iui: RP,Research Park Grosrorl:i.Info:nn:ion�ysi:n:. MESR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential Northwest Os O3 1- `, • 1Quadrant i 14 . rt , ,,;,? y s 7`,,,.� . 1 Community �a I ,�,,au �, � ,lytf �'IN it P t1 iJ 9I5r rt fil><,x ��(� l�0 \� ZoningMap t 4 ..-:) , .',.14k,:"t 1' '' I u , p os ,../...z......... ---) ,J / M-I ��,,..a� L._ pl L [— -k_ ,j , , kl , i:::' , , r - _,...,. 4j OS !iill‘N\,,,,,,. M-1 ]11-1 \. ,PI I- IiJ ._9,, OS !` 1f I E , � I I d` ¶EE !P : , t „ ,. E 11 .31 rill Map Legend Lowland Conservancy Overlay District Transitional Overlay District Landfill Overlay District0 ® AG,Agriculture - CG,General Commercial M-1,Light Manufacturing Salt Lake City Planning Division OS, Open Space Geographic Information Systems IIINorthwest Community Zoning Map /1( Map Legend _ A AG-2,Agriculture-2 Acre Minimum \ �i I _,.._r]_ 1 rl :/� -BP,Business Park _� I L _ �- l�� �/ ®CB,Community Business — J I- /' ' -CC,Commercial Corridor •f ���� CG,General Commercial t-- 1.-�=` �CN,Neighborhood Commercial lEhiltral I 1 \ ,II„ _CS,Community Shopping I �tl,, NIE Nuocr •uron I �� t, \, Il LJ� I,Institutional - [��.'r'6g�lg -: �, M-1,Light Manufacturing O �{ 0 �1 BB� i -M-2,Heavy Manufacturing �' _MH,Mobile Home Park dII�1I�IIIITLE Esc .�l� r J — r i � t 3 E J + .. t=G — r —g OS,Open Space E143 { [F - ' PL,Public Lands ]II ITIT=�IIE ®®©�� 1/T rn T z�- !-- P „ f 1 W I11__ID .l I t F...r- '���®®o t� L�i R-1-5000,Single Family Residential LL ' a � �� R-1-7000,Single Family Residential lIIE _ 1__� g g Y Y I INIERMATON AIRPORT i � - t_i €�1 R-2,Single and Two-Family Residential P. r ,� larti (� NA RMF-30,Low Density Multifamily Residential { I 151 : � t^ la F\ mg RMF-35,Moderate DensityMultifamilyResidential F---1I I� Oy l,L '.*:,%� �\ _RMF-45,Moderate/High sdy Residential Residential FBI JI—iF ;i i ®` � ® � SR-1,Special Development Pattern Residential ry fi. z.'_ Pic 3 • �ilme .. T' SR-3,Special Development Pattern Residential AIRPORT ik "�F a � m ml t ttisi r� �� � �Ir.�j II 111911111.1.Al 11 0 > J ,: .' - -ly, ---1-V___N,;7_ im !ell"-, 14.-2fir 111 �� 0 \ w, I.^ \ ;. ®® F✓""= - 1S� sau Lake c-ly F� '90 Isun yd F, - r ' , ,• 1= ,t r { y''r ',,,it,• ', ..may • i 4 '` .4 6. /i W, ei 1••- • ' Kir --" ,..• ., " a r :te• aif . A fgl s r ,d• �. 4 ' .��t • ! r ;'w t t # ...S -•'"7.:' i . II • • I. mow._.A '. Sr mk. n LB% lr J't, -j l ! +.-y.. 1..' \ f 'r' ,•-tn m r i -� �•�„ qw' ti Ait 1 r�T 1. inm m ix 1 kIt. • 1ft ,_4 Yf ,..., „ _ , I -.6 n'11,,.. . ,. '-i._ •,. * r a vb..; E'' [� 14 :�q a , 141i44 t",t,...„, ,,....... , .., :cop fr T._. ..-1 gl'iin' ,^ 1 2 ' `il! ./ '' , ti ��t�*�., ., 1 i Imo. •=---I t. •,! ',••5' w �F t' 1 it 10` et I., l eta. s " .r! p 1 1F 1 y. Ca •I• ., r' ,`t 11 tCa'1 — I It191 r.glII' of,, '^ ,,;,,` ; •; :fir IP ., D ..wives .,_..... _s•+- ti•m1 [, , F:� �.wm•i t1�romr�p Im, + Sf ..-'1 •• , 1.; •' epee isx pap , m. t.. ttl Pori.i "1' i;,.„I+ , • . llIJJJ � mi yJJJ {jjj " i ©' m m uy Lt5. I: 1,, ,, W* AP 4'. r[�'.thwmr. _+�S �,r• a ' y A r+ ,; • 19 CI ❑n •, e '. pi: .. . n12 mQom, m ... - .� y❑ti, ❑ A-C) Ql 6r in d1w.. r *'. - Q mm {' " ,nzty T-I u rJ ai ��,a d q n ►ci ein F r rr ►A"t4f1 :. T�., I�§GJt,trert t Q ID ._� (Ito m ,, 1 1� �> »dMitlt © m o aea � iii r : I ; ,4. .frrlt mom m CI r1. *•t 'f��.rj,,m4i— 1alpira ,e.;I,ts @gym Its rt; i i .11Ilit+tt1' 44 m m m 1' 7 mi • �,.}1 'r Ili,.�ry-{gig �.11v iil�yjr ••a �r m ❑ Q :1 ,;":14 filo li1-..":7;-'1' 1,t1I 40,1 map - • yriku m' ,: '12 to ■ Briefing for rl r ` ;m�-cE� Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansic,Senior Planner Date: February 18,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Comparison of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County ordinances The Planning Commission subcommittee asked for a comparison of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County ordinances regarding billboards. Please find attached the following: Salt Lake City ordinance Salt Lake County ordinance Outline of comparable zoning districts between Salt Lake City and County Map of zoning districts where billboards are allowed in Salt Lake County(Millcreek Township and west of Salt Lake City) Map of comparable zoning districts in Salt Lake City Map of area where the current Salt Lake City ordinance allows billboards Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 1 of 6 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard hank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: Amok 1. Interstate 80; 2. Interstate 215; 3. Interstate 15; 4.4000 West 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; 7.The 2100 South Expressway from I-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate'15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street. Sterling Codifiers, Inc. Page 2 of 6 15. State Street from South Temple to 2100 South; and 16. 600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD: A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31, 1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD: An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY: The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1. North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; 2. 400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3. State Street between 600 South and 2100 South; and 4. Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT: An extension of the billboard resulting in increased square footage as pad of an artistic design to convey a specific message or advertisement. C. Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards: No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D. Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1. Permit: Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2. Application: Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3. Fee: The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars ($111.00). E. Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal: After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section, or its successor, the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner. The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard. The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage. Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F. Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1. Billboards in districts zoned residential, historic, residential R-MU or downtown D-1, D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2. Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB, or gateway G-MU, GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3. Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last; and Sterling Codifers,Inc. Page 3 of 6 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard ^+. shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owners billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor, billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2) higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor,shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty (60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor,shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of e nonconforming billboard that has two(2)advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face,but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. IC Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the arca identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall be: a.Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b.Inspection tag fees according to the tee schedule or its successor. iv'l.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Page 4 of 6 of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.Ness Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1. If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within e special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,0,R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard hank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. O.Temporary Embellishments. 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(tOG)of the advertising face of any billboard, and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than b;✓elve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than. 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feel(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3. If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one Sterling Codifiers,inc. Page 5 of 6 street,the new billboard may he the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a parkculer district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing: 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300)linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred(300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred(800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large, on the same side of the street. U.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts:Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. Auk V.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other Than as specified in subsection U of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest inferior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. W.Xeriscape Alternative:It all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection, are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. ... X.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1, 1996. Y.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance. Z.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to, and record as necessary,such subdivision. AA.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Sterling Codifiers,Inc. Pane 6 of 6 a. Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection. BB.State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72- 08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord.13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord. 83-98§§12-14,1998:Ord.88-95§1 (Exit.A),1995) Muuicode Page 1 of 2 • • 10.82.185-Ofi-prernisea signs—Billboards. A. Purpose.This section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs viith the intent of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards,mitigating negative impacts,promoting safety and protecting property values that further the goals and planning policies of Salt Lake County. B. Cap on Number of Off-Premises Signs.The number of off-premises signs alloyed in unincorporated Salt Lake County and established or future townships shall be limited to the number of off-premises signs that are existing as defined herein as of May 18,2004.This cap shall automatically decrease as off-premises signs are annexed into a municipal jurisdiction or removed and not relocated. C. Location.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-1 zone as a conditional use.Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones as a permitted use. D. Size.Off-premises signs shall not exceed six hundred seventy-two square feet in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones.Off-premises signs located in a C-1 zone shall not exceed three hundred square feet in size. E. Height.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be thirty-five feet in a C-1 zone.The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be forty-five feet above the grade level of the road in the C-2,C-3,M-1 and M-2 zones or,when oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feet of the nearest freeway lane,twenty-five feet above freeway grade level or fifty feet overall,whichever is greater. F. Separation.The minimum distance between off-premises signs larger than three hundred square feet shall be five hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.The minimum distance between off-premises signs three hundred square feet or less in size shall be three hundred lineal feet as measured along the same side of the street including intersections.All off-premises signs must be at least one hundred fifty radial feet from any other off-premises sign. G. Setbacks.The minimum setback shall be eighteen inches for off-premises signs.The sign's front-yard setback shall be measured from the future right-of-way line(see Transportation Improvement Plan),The closest edge of an oft-premises sign shall not project into any required setback area.The minimum setback between an off- premises sign and any residential zone boundary shall be one hundred fifty feet. Lighting.Lighting shall be confined to the sign face,and the lighting source shall not be directly visible. �^ I. Design.Off-premises signs shall utilize either the"mono-pole"or the"hi-pole"design and shall be continually maintained structurally and on the copy face.The back of the sign and the structure behind the sign shall be painted a dark color.Tri-vision sign faces shall be permitted and,if illuminated,must be externally illuminated. inter illuminated off-premises signs,electronic display(outdoor video advertising)and electronic message centers are only allowed adjacent to the interstate freeway system and limited to no more than one change to the copy face in a twenty-four hour period-Taro-decked off-premises signs are prohibited in all zones. J. Credits for Removal.Prior to the removal of any off-premises sign,the owner shall obtain a permit for tile demolition of tile off-premises sign.Permits may be provided following application to the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division.The Salt I ake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that a permit for demolition of an off-premises sign has been issued.After any off-premises sign is demolished,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall create a"billboard bank account"for the sign owner.The account shall reflect credits for the off-premises sign square footage as well as the date of removal.Any off-premises sign credits not usedTvithin thirty-six months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use.An off-premises sign owner may sell or others+rise transfer off- premises signs and/or billboard bank account credits.The transfer of any billboard bank account credits does not extend their thirty-six-month life as provided in this section.Demolition of an off-premises sign that has two advertising faces shall receive billboard bank account credits for the square footage of each sign face. K. Relocation.The oerner of an existing off-premises sign may remove an existing off-premises sign from any slIe to an approved location only after a permit for relocation is obtained upon substantiation of compliance sr lh this chapter.Prior to approval of a permit for relocation,the sign owner(applicant)shall submit to the county a notarized affidavit signed by the property owner,a copy of the lease agreement or other document to he signed by the property owner,indicating at a minimum the duration of the lease and renewal provisions. Additionally,prior to approval of a permit for relocation,Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall by letter inform the affected community council chairman and affected planning commission chairman that application for en off-premises sign permit has been received Off-premises signs moved to approved locations shall conform to all off-premises sign requirements of the new location.Off-premises signs moved from one location to another must be installed in the new approved location within Ire period allotted by the International Budding Code(IBC).A new off-premises sign permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard bank account credits of a sufficient number of square feet.When the permit for construction of a nevi off-premises sign is issued,the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Division shall deduct from the sign owner's billboard bank account the square footage of the new off-premises sign.If the new off- premises sign uses less than the entire available square footage credits,any remaining square footage credits shall remain in the sign owner's billboard bank account. L. County Council Review and Monitoring.The county council shall,on a regular six-month schedule by updated Municode Page 2 of 2 at a regular public meeting to changes in status and effectiveness of the provisions related to off-promises signs in unincorporated Salt Lake County. _ St. Severability and Conflict.This section and its various parts are hereby declared to be severable if a court of competent jurisdiction declares any subsection,clause,provision or portion of this section invalid or unconstitutional.No court decision will affect the validity of either this section as a whole or any parts not declared invalid or unconstitutional by that decision.If any part of this section is found to be in conflict with any other provision of the county,the most restrictive or highest standard will apply,prevail and govern. (Ora.t532§4,2004) Dansie,Doug From: Norris,Nick Sent: Monday,February 07,2011 4:49 PM To: Dansie,Doug Subject: Bookl.xlsx Attachments: Bookl.xlsx Categories: Other Doug, I quickly put together a summary of the counties C-1,C-2 and C-3 zones and which zones they are the most similar to in SLC. Both C-1 and C-2 are most similar to the City's CC zoning district. The CB district listed in the table is primarily used for those areas that are adjacent to residential uses. The main difference is SLC has a max building size of 20,000 square feet,while the C-1 zone in the county allows buildings larger than 20,000 square feet with a conditional use. Based on that,C-1 is kind of between our CB and CC. C-2 and C-3 are more similar to CC and CG,respectively. Ask Purpose Front yard side yard rear yard min lot size Max height Uses Uses max height min lot size rear yard side yard front yard Purpose District District provide areas in the 20 0;except 0;except 35 feet general commercial, general 30 none, 10 feet None None; provide for the CB The C-1 zone is most county for 10 10 required typically. commerci over 4 maximum close integration similar to the CB zone in neighborhood required when next Development over al and acres commercial when next to setback of of moderately SLC. The key difference is 20,000 square feet is a office,size requires a development to residential conditional use. q 15 for at sized the CB zone is intended to residential limted by conditiona least 75% commercial be closely integrated into building I use. of building areas with adjacent neighborhoods. size. Building facade. adjacent Examples of where the CB size reisdnetil zone is include the limited neighborhoods. Univeristy business 20,000 district,most stand along square grocery stores,and feet corners of City collector streets C-1 Provide areas in the 20 feet for 0;except 0;except none 6 stories or general commercial. general 30 feet; 10,000 10 none 15 provide an CC The C-2 and CC zones are county for commercial 10 10 required 75 feet Uses over one acre commerci up to an square enviornment for fairly similar,with the community uses required when next require conditional al, additional feet commercial when next to efficient and City's CC zone being more use. 15 feet development to esidential attractive auto restrictive in terms of residential may be oriented building intensity. approved commercial as a development conditiona along arterial I use and major c-2 collector streets Provide areas in the none 0;except 0;except none 75 feet general commercial, Most 60 feet, 10,000 10 none 10 Provide an CG The CG and C-3 are the county for 10 10 required fairly land intensive. intense upto 90 squarefee commercial uses, required when next q environment for most intensive commercial q Uses over one acre commerci with a t a variety of zones in SLC as well as SL warehouding and when next to require conditional wholesale -- to esideniial al zone, conditiona commercial CO. They allow similar -. - - use.. _.. - - businesses residential includes I use uses,some of uses and similar big box, which involve intensities. warehous the outdoor e stores as display of permitted merchandise or uses materials. c-3 Conditional in C- Billboard size: limited Separation: over 300 1;permitted in C- to 300 sq.ft in C-1; sq ft requires 500 ft Billboard r 2,C-3,M-1 and M-672 in C-2,C-3,M-1 separation;less than Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-1 Salt 1.uke-Cit • • 7, - • 9 Mil!creek Township - Salt Lake County , s i 0 /, ' ...r.- % . -..,.....`::-,...--_: - „-- ---- ..,:.,------ __!•_ C -..! !".17".-'? • Nut _I, li r -'- . ._ __ __--- , ,,- . 7-- -,-, '7-7 lia -.7'' 1 -. - - ------'-' 73 ' I '---- - _ ligD 1.' - = tr' ... ---„i ,,._ ,_, ii •,-- - I 411110 lalsientii r-lli- Nu if ,__ TO" 3300S 7 _ , 1(---1---..-r'._ ''_ -t r ,rE: . ,.• _ -_,.,..j .., _ ._, - •, ... ..t„.. ... •_ 1-, 1---i-aw7 Irir a cn :_ i . ,, [,_ _17--.-1:-. 7-'_. ' . , ..7____,, _ 1 r-.11R. ia ) - --jjI 11- 11111 INJ r TT., __--I 0 -LI_ . ___- 4 s._ -r 1-±--i— —-i 4_,, --I M fsi, rIMII — - ,.<----- ----, ' -1 , r---.T it-1-I -A\ i I ,--• - .1 J._ ,. , , ,,, -- 'Al --I , --- - .J1J1_,--, . :------ --: cf -, r -,. „' I ' 71-• ---: -\ 1 ' ' ,(12 . 11 .3 + South Salt Lake LIN S j - --. —, , 1 L 1 t 3900S 1-11.1-'(—ir We--F-,..:'"'•-I Ilirliti B:,7--I' - , --"--"', -LLI,,,i.iii.I';A j 1,..:2,..i:II. L. - -' - - '-/--- -- 'at _ -/ .• ii[_'L,....0_,. , ,A__, .,,., ,_J I!, ! 1. , r Legend ,y I •,itc--,q4-- _ . .H .-,-,4- -,, Jr:a 1- _;_k--., ,, 1.-7,----1, i.-iti ,...„:- :,-;._ . --,-,.-, 7- -11t, 4500 S \--- -----77 ,-'71---1-, -•71 - ,_,. ! -- 1_,-; •r SLCO_zoning2011 LI FA-5 I! I FR-20 es R-1-3 I-M-4 R-2-10 _ic,,, • 1-----7 ro,,... .' -7. ----- ._..„,,,, ..., :, IME A-1 L]FM-10 t:IT I FR-5 11111 R-1-4 LH R-2-10/ic 4-,), ! — .t....-_- L - - 'II, \!! - c•t:s 1,-,...: ,, , I r__ , , El A-1/zc .!1,4Lt FM-10/zc El M-1;M-1/ze RE R-1-43 mi R-2-6.5 • 1 :21, ---N- - _.. ,--....-- pi A-2 I I FM-20 IIII M-2 IBE R-1-5 [--]R-2-8 I _.It II li__( "-- 'k. ,I. , ,----, : 1 A-20 pi FM-20/ze in MD-3/zc NE R-1-5/zc I:. :I R-4-8.5 , !-:::,•;:: F .y. - -;,-,!_j A-5 1111 FR-0.5 Jiii R-1-10 In R-1-6 [—I R-M 1(--,) - I 1 C-1;C-1/ze lei FR-1 Ei R-1-10/zc a R-1-6/zc 171 R-M/zc 1I , L,.1 C-2;C-2/zc 1111 FR-1/zc ELIj!. R-1-15 MI R-1-7 LA: RMH li i k En C-3;C-3/zc 1111 NE FA-2.5 mil FR-10 ,2,::.4! R-1-15/zc IIIN R-1-7/zc I I S-1-G IIIII c-v •_*t. FR-10/zc LL.17 R-1-21 1111 R-1-8 Mi FR-2.5 IIIII R-1-21/zc t !i R-1-8/zc Holladay 4p created,by SLC Planning Division 2011 A& NORTH _____ Billboards Permitted within C-2, C-3, M-1 , M-2 & Conditional Uses within C-1 ()Northwest - Salt Lake County Salt Lake City r° AIRPORT 4+` { I-80 N o o to * c e 'f j CALIFORNIA AVE D sl Z '� \ 1JL 0 0 �~ m XI n� SR-201 West Valley City 1 I It-1 Legend • r� -,� � SLCO_zoning2011 L FA-5 []FR-20 R-1-3 * R-2-10 _,_i;r i li i 1 , .---1 E ':,A-1 r,"::I FM-10 U FR-5 'l R-1-4 I I R-2-10/zc ,i °Mg Ili' I i� l ,.� LA A-1/zc ®FM-10/zc l♦M-1;M the R-1-43 i R-2-6.5 i L,�� �f �' -� �1 E-I A-2 .' .I FM-20 .M-2 F;;i1 R-1-5 I R-2-8 �\ d I I �ii�fi C �,'� EN � J A-20 6 I FM-20/zc MD-3/zc R-1-5/zc I I R-4-8.5 ��I�j r i Lr__i A-5 ®FR-0.5 r i R-1-10 8a: 1 R-1-6 I R-M r '11II 1,t t-. � C-1;C-1/zc ®FR-1 R-1-10/zc R-1-6/zc;_i R-M/zc F J„ g tom_.- x < Li C-2;C-2/zc . ;�FR-1/zc I 1 R-1-15 l R-1-7 1---1 RMH El C-3;C-3/zc 7 up C-V _ FA-2.5 ®FR-10 _ I R 1 15/zc a.I R-1-7/zc S-1-G ra FM FR-10/zc I }R-1-21 a R-1-8 1 ;§ �}a, ' • — �1x. ; _ Map created by SLC Planning Division 2011 NORTH Salt Lake City CB, CC, CG, M-1 and M-2 Zones CI i 1- • a I rirJ• =I 1 M I'n.‘ ••=•0\ I _',. „ 7" 0 41.11 • ' i ;:t ..,,, __ _r___ t.3-k MI In 11 -- bilk 4 ' ,Ier i _- II NE, III 2., . iiimin 7 1-1--- i 1 2_-_, 77 1211111iii 10511%. 111: 11.4_ -,••-,- , Lnib.._MIIIIIIIII •---1.1---L-1 ,, TT Nnili . 1---- — —,-, - ..,_IELIPrii:111111WItle so ip-- t---it-v----- , 11- -- i N.ItT4TEMPLE- rail gain.i i -: ____1,4 ierlil • Malitil 1. - -471-1‘._. .:,. _./L el_-..,---1, __mIllViiIII 111 , ,_ _......4L, ...- ___.....,..----„-_ ._,.. _ , ....,,,...: . 1-----1- # • '...---N. •----- ------_-. wr.,- -1,11.47/7,1Viablivo-t.--zfi NIP —._ E tii___„_± 41, (- r 1 r---- / iiimuni ‘ .,-....11- illi ., al:: -111.;;\ `i.4 1111,1111111 ..E IC03 .. . ,..... / Is , , l ---. , - ono --1• :.-I . ''' ..,.h -4-.• 1 . . . • _ .,,„_ „..__„,_,, _ t, ,. ow Milli- In rj-1 - I n -- "1,.,- - _Antri - _ i -.:1 _ _ Ma ,:, , - g , i- 1 I- elm -• gai ] Low • w" ar, 1--' -- .--.L:r.:,---_-:- -,---,---,•., . / 0,i‘r.r. I t_. , .I. ' - , us - ', 24._, -.. . , • .. L: • :_____:„.._-___E_I-.12-1--ii,--f-,-,,.-rif__ ,.-:_...,,,1„_ ci., 1 III , N. .., _ I Ii ., .a i \ I. ow.. i - fill-) __ \ I '1111' : r , : A , lop ,t i 1 ---- - ! I ME r. •-•° --• m, _H-2-- r- •Th--1-7.---i3:---.7.- .._---:.----"---r----=- -0-- 7.'"-- tc)i .. 1 I —I .' ; I ( ii 1 _ 1w ,f ri - ,, =.1 LI = :-..-.:, ---4 ._ - Legend _ -- _ ..,,,:::: '--1"" I X: ,.. 1 a. -:.-2.i.--,;:s:.__ ___, - -1_ El __.! ir ZONING "I ft i.,,,,, ....;,..._ 1.11.111111,e••••••-:.,,,:i!0 ' F-1 CB Pi :, - :r.,_-._.,-___,...,,,,,,....„.. 1—'7 -- ----- ) min cG 1,,- ‘ _ _ - I 11111 M-1 _.,:,-,0, .....-A; 1, ' rt LI_ 114 .1111 M-2 - 47., ,1 ful'ap Cr ci by SIC Planning Division 2011 NORTH II, o i 1 i ; SALT LAKE CITY irlo7.1 — . Il Itm Iwo -,oe OFFICIAL BILLBOARD , llama .. - 1111111111111111 ..Iii ::- i, 1:4j1,4, AND GATEWAY MAP N. , gclfi, 1:;-.) ...., \-4.; .., im. 111111=M, ,....-•._. , ra.4,-,Z,4.%,„ allW1111111111AMEM.1.1 t2-154 , , III:, 13-!i•-; I ___,_ Mill1.1111,111111111t -.--';' i EkiliM yliMitrri '11 + -,. mitituminpuit t---7:,7;, 1 _ w.ii lir ion A\ •?- • , ' _II 11111111111151.-- IlL4._ 1 -.. 4.1. 11..iviliiiiirl ,41 zi II 11-1111-1!--"1 IIIIIII ' 'la; .112110i"jrliVI; ' \ __ c , . -,cs, ?. •-v-.- n' .. -• =ram"-:----,---,..-T- r IIIIIIMAI l'•• 1[7.S11.z.1 ;Ti a. a' -.. : 1 ` r _, E:,:jalk"IIIIVILFird ,, Nkt; lir. .,\•••,.....,, 1 1AL Mil IMOIT/ 111 I I z 111111 "1116111"2. 1 \1\411 le BA FAI1111111111kkgri 80 11 ,u.,.,11 .112LRE98-88T "1:'..- . , n Di Ifiguileampfil IMF:21 iiIii/ ;Iiir.V,?,:gi I1E7 - "1 t .IIIRIIISE,11=111N JIWArit 1.swi,__'00;.;:P. _ •••" JIL:' MEW1 p -"',...„.,...,,,_.,,,e.„-mF_e1l EM..,,:3i,n.r,_..E Ap aAiIomsIi.1v--•M, D1,1•.fl-mT11.1!._0,-.ig.14;-e11,;-17a.2•■6.013E1191.S31.U.0IsO.0O_O.m•48mEIL*.euN.tAI."NE.•es,...snE,:J-..;•, Ic:Wi1glla1mII1O:-.,:A•N:+171..1,:C5-c, . Oi 0 2M0a I 3, , , 4 0111104-111.01N ,==irliiall th 1 ] iri M.r.r IVIRIDIT1PIEDEfil 1 sc„,,, • 4 W , li_t,,i,,,LI. \ IMF1-7;112....111M17:z-ti111,1111;ffilliallIMIIIIMIE MM.Mli-ri. I'E8@C] I ' •. 0$ I il, —1,11-1111-iCit-ii----17-; urx 10,11.ug:,a,EVIIIIIVvetommu MEM MI M111311E21 1/1CDDIEln z\ ,... • litim..r.47u` "b=- -P-•9".11-141OHNVE111 pen i ;_,-Iv va v AMID COME . '-'f NC _ . Ti r - ' imgr:,,mi,. .-:-:_=.--- -- ', imisor, istg gwv-------- ,=.111,-Ifigim ang11 RP; ilIWCIURIITIEIJIMEIFIME10 r , -...,....=:=:;,4,,,,..,.m,..._ , __ Aiwniloi -biz..F..9.,w,F.ar-Nr._,IZ M P.:,1110 M EMIL -Ii.,.,,,...„ti . v, affinompe6,1-161 itm .5.1s Hi.0,..1.11,- 7 1 .7',:-.7lzaror RI ,111, ..:51.11 ii1.11.11.11.q.,J01e.S!,04.2-:=\1,* ' 'I - . drzi =11.1111..11 mmHg ki.iir A(IN I-t i.n.I I ,'\L----f.f..1,11;41 ' ••.:41:1;11 ithinkll:altrdrOi=:=1-•', mg 1 wgq,gi j 1 = .*,,' zd,.-11,Lo A s.Iks-1:.1---f,,, . ki. .1. Mit w.-.-_-=..i.f. pit -..g-1=1..64 • AI) i -,,,t• ''-,... vii A k,.Ile,.r.-=-*, .:, *sty au .,==_=..m.jo . ......=-,...., , C.FORNIA AVE 11 ,,....7 ---- a 1 ii 1.1 . 001 I KX$.1AN I'll F2.0( Oaf IL: t:A..71, Ill IT 'El."1 rXi . I ti I Ith'ATOM'MI efAMWT1171.=raLlAit‘..,,,, ' ' . CALIFORARA AVE ,„__,....... J , ? .iiim a 111...•;*; ..,-.iii.ii liii iirzid.Ii-i Ni miw m ; mi i i* *' * iii...i...--i' —i- ' ''''i=*ii ii-ii ii.. iiii=gi 90 _ I . Illingfilli i iligr'-jjV N\iiii LVIIIIIT Mil- 111 1 IX-411,4i iii i iiiiiirldirilliiiwilliniLCIIIIiiallirlililitii7=i-Tg1113 0161—--\ liiii Atli •*- 111 " . . r".7.En- bIdlli b•' I• - 11.0111' ..81 U iiii 1,...,41..1:L101 f-' 12,410111-='=__Mt4=. 2.:611=1 ... 11 =nit-. Vbir -00,11 , 9. ' I, 1 •e - .., • .. IM.=.1=1'..a..:IMZ.7 MI Lm 6m ......r=rri,m•-, , , , I 11.1.""Irre, • ARNIE:I Mill.•::.;.... ,,, •..:••,!:•::.51... 1 _.e 411411A -..,.•,::::,;_im..,*.'=,,,,, Irk=,1.111.116LIL.s. Rill )_ Ism souni A umeg. IREN Irtivi. 1 Ira win :::.:-..._...iplalm.u.,:-Emria.,v-:•=n2.ir-Trwril ur H , . _____.,.0 j1.1111111111_ iRkivar tam , tt-,@•- - ii,t...,--4-v.pi=11E1 ,7_417..:=1 M==ii.if...:11 .iii.,. ri- v011. Aiallillelli i NEM ,. ,---1. 1-... . ......, ' iliELR ' 1-71.7.1:Er- 'quircaispil l'u'm=tt--•:---.=Frlal,, wirms'•!..,t-__,_ .. ,. L Legend )// .,,- - I ...4. riMEM-.'5.11111111MainT"Il 111/1111,1111:11111:14t7-740k1‘."71:-; INTFA STATE 80 P.•...,-. ..... ..-------Z,_ - ' ,..__.:•AAVAS MAW '. --- N AS1000 ""•—•-"" Gateway 4 11,11:111....1-,4,7k4 IIIIIIIIIIII, rrt .ZA-,“. W-••••01, r •1 0 -------- Special Gateway E P AI iPRA11111MI , =. •'• I- 1 .00.4Ur.V„Zi.I11 .". June 2001 11 ra I Billboards Permitted S 3300 SOUTI NM 'Ly`= Briefing for tir,`' Planning Commission Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Planning Commission Members From: Doug Dansie,Senior Planner Dote: March 9,2011 Re: Billboard Ordinance: Continuation of February 23.201 1 discussion At the February 23,2011 meeting.the Planning Commission asked that the two petitions regarding rewritmg the billboard ordinance PLNPCM2010-00032, and electronic billboards PLNPCM2010-00717 be separated; with expected action regarding electronic billboard to take place at the March 9.2011 meeting and the other items be continued for discussion. Please find attached the following: c A proposed ordinance defining and banning electronic billboards e A proposed ordinance defining electronic billboards,banning them and then providing criteria for them in the event that they are moved,rebuilt or otherwise constructed for external reasons. The Planning Commission should discuss and choose which route(either those provided or another alternative)they wish to pursue. The proposed ordinances are Planning Stall drafts reflecting policy and may be modified by the Attorneys office to insure legality and compatibility with existing code. 'Ilia Planning Commission raised questions regarding outstanding balances in the billboard bank. The only company with an outstanding balance is Salt Lake Community College. Reagan has 604 square feet in the general account but is overdrawn by 660 square feet in the North Temple account. Therefore Reagan is presently in a negative overall scenario with the bank. Salt Lake Community College has 840 square feet worth of credit that expires in December 2013. Proposed Ordinance Proposal which defines and prohibits electronic billboards. 21A.46.160:BILLBOARDS: A.Purpose Statement:This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number.This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways,views,vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B.Definitions: BILLBOARD:A freestanding ground sign located on industrial,commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business,product or service that is not sold,offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT:An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER:The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. D'WEL.L TIME The,i nct:'�ot,n that I asesbetween te ,in .q= C gr:oneseC ro��,ared:Font:No:Bcd_ an electronic Sian, Formatted:ind, r t o .Forn,aued:Font: EXISTING BILLBOARD:A billboard which was constructed,maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13,1993. ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD:_Any-cfi_yremise sign.video disolay.oroiected imone.cr r�_r device with t_:t_images.or or onion generated by sgl d sate electronic, cemoo❑ents. Electronic.=.ions include but are not limited to.lions that use faht emitting diodes(LED),plasma displays,fiber optics,or other technology that results in bright,high-resolution text,images and graphics. FOOT CANDLE:the English unit of measurement for luminance,which is equal to Formatted:r,eenr First Ire:o 7 one lumen.incident upon an area of one square foot. GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; ^-----{Formatted:Indent:Left:0.93" 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East, 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; ^k 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 60; --' 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East, 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80, 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December 31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City. 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; - 1mattea:Indent:rerr.0s8 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East, 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. ILLUMINENCE:The intensi)of light failing on a subsurface ate defined distance from the source. MOTION The depiction of movement or change or position of text.images,or Formatted:Font:Not Bola graphics. Motion shall include.but not be limited to,visual effects such as dissolving I Formatted:T, st u o s,i;v.e and fading text and images,running sequential text.graphic bursts.IiphUng that resembles zooming,twinkling,or sparkling,changes in light or color,transitory bursts of light intensity.moving patterns or bands of light.expanding or contracting shapes and similar neLsns- F tted:rooc_o.d_ • TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in ' - Formatted: IC, increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific messageLC or advertisement -- --- - ---- - -- TWIRL TIME The time it takes for static text.images.and graphics on an electronic F attea:a, sign to change to a different text.im=_ces.or graphics on a subsequent sign face. {Formatted:—aL st5r.f, 0.25",List e., C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner Formatted: �,d,i Let ss only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3 Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. • F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule, 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed iesak, last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority;however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection F1 of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2)higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor, shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. aw • H. Billboard Credits Transferable: A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits. Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section, or its successor, shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner. The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36) month life provided in subsection G of this section, or its successor. I. Double Faced Billboards: Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two (2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J. New Billboard Construction: It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K. Permitted Zoning Districts: New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L. New Billboard Permits: 1. Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2. Fees: The fees for a new billboard construction permit shall be: a. Building permit and plan review fees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city; and b. Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M. Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owner's billboard bank account. a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. Auk O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within a special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q. R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard bank. 2.The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than cnc street,the ne:v billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.In the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all pans of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing. 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not be located closer than three hundred(300) linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street; 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. U:Electronic Billboards: 1. Electronic Billboards are prohibited:, rForn,atted:Let Paragraph,Numbered+ Level:1+Numbering Style:1,2,3, +Start at:1+Alignment:Left+Aligned Cr'0.25"+ UV.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Indent at:0 s' Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a (Formatted:Franc:(Default)Helvetica,12 p' billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21A.26.020 and 21A.26.030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced. VW.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection 1-S of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street �w frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. =..^.'X.Xeriscape Alternative:It all the properties adjacent to and across any street from the property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as an alternative for the required landscaping. Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996, `.rZ.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance.-, -.w ZAA.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land for the site of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. AABB.Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as oateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection`—.Ml of this section,or its successor subsection. CBCC State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998: Ord.88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) Proposed Ordinance Proposal which defines and prohibits electronic billboards and provides criteria if they are built for external reasons. 21A.46.160: BILLBOARDS: A. Purpose Statement: This chapter is intended to limit the maximum number of billboards in Salt Lake City to no greater than the current number. This chapter further provides reasonable processes and methods for the replacement or relocation of existing nonconforming billboards to areas of the city where they will have less negative impact on the goals and policies of the city which promote the enhancement of the city's gateways, views, vistas and related urban design elements of the city's master plans. B. Definitions: BILLBOARD: A freestanding ground sign located on industrial, commercial or residential property if the sign is designed or intended to direct attention to a business, product or service that is not sold, offered or existing on the property where the sign is located. BILLBOARD BANK:An accounting system established by the city to keep track of the number and square footage of nonconforming billboards removed pursuant to this chapter. BILLBOARD CREDIT: An entry into a billboard owner's billboard bank account that shows the number and square footage of demolished nonconforming billboards. BILLBOARD OWNER: The owner of a billboard in Salt Lake City. IFormatted:Font:Not Bold .. SH5 I Formatted:Indent:First line: 0" • Formatted:Fort:Eo'd EXISTING BILLBOARD: A billboard which was constructed, maintained and in use or for which a permit for construction was issued as of July 13, 1993. - !•• l'��'•/ •, ccntecnar-,t,., .iro .:s irc,uae, but are rct limited to.zinns triet r._e emittinn ainnas(LED).c ama disclays.fncer cct'cs.or char tachnc'ccv that res,,a ch hich-reacluticin text imaces and cinches- O;-) C''J ihs3 Er.T.Hih un c _-- ' m_i:,fcrlu _rcn i;' ,e • Formaaed:Indent:Frsti e o'' cner.=;:i.incidant'unonvscre ct cne.scuerefoc` - ---------- - GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.Interstate 80; Formattedandent: at.093• 2.Interstate 215; 3.Interstate 15; 4.4000 West; 5.5600 West; 6.2100 South Street from Interstate 15 to 1300 East; Ask 7.The 2100 South Expressway from 1-15 west to the city limit; 8.Foothill Drive from Guardsman Way to Interstate 80; 9.400 South from Interstate 15 to 800 East; 10.500 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 11.600 South from Interstate 15 to 700 East; 12.300 West from 900 North to 900 South; 13.North Temple from Main Street to Interstate 80; 14.Main Street from North Temple to 2100 South Street; 15.State Street from South Temple to 2100 South;and 16.600 North from 800 West to 300 West. NEW BILLBOARD:A billboard for which a permit to construct is issued after December31,1993. NONCONFORMING BILLBOARD:An existing billboard which is located in a zoning district or otherwise situated in a way which would not be permitted by the provisions of this chapter. SPECIAL GATEWAY:The following streets or highways within Salt Lake City: 1.North Temple between 600 West and 2200 West; • Formatted:Indent Let:058 2.400 South between 200 East and 800 East; 3.State Street between 600 South and 2100 South;and 4.Main Street between 600 South and 2100 South. 1,•_ i,n t - _ f. .f'n rc_ �ro'1 c. t ..In C ':r' }.C - 'Formatted:Fort Not Sold ii' _I i" Si£ - 1 23 3 r' _- Formatted:Tab steps:0.25",Ust tab ntentt f - t;. 1 imz.:SS ft 3,223231 . L ntial t c,rvr, -b r_t,.II. t OS.; _ r. o _ lr3.ch_r in 1.c:ht cr cc!cr.transitors .I„ -( ^.t.Ci'_ 'Formatted:Font:Sold TEMPORARY EMBELLISHMENT:An extension of the billboard resulting in - Formatted:Normal,Indent:Le's 0.25', increased square footage as part of an artistic design to convey a specific message Space Before:Auto,Ater:Auto,Tab stops. or advertisement. a2s,List tab _ - C 1 ,n 'Formatted:Fort:Helve:'.ca,12 p: t creh cn(:r I.l _I l f_�`' Formatted:Tab tors:0.25•,List tab C.Limit On The Total Number Of Billboards:No greater number of billboards shall be allowed in Salt Lake City than the number of existing billboards. D.Permit Required For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards: 1.Permit:Nonconforming billboards may be removed by the billboard owner • 'Formatted:Indent.Left.asp• only after obtaining a permit for the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. 2.Application:Application for demolition shall be on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 3.Fee:The fee for demolishing a nonconforming billboard shall be one hundred eleven dollars($111.00). E.Credits For Nonconforming Billboard Removal:After a nonconforming billboard is demolished pursuant to a permit issued under subsection D1 of this section,or its successor,the city shall create a billboard bank account for the billboard owner.The account shall show the date of the removal and the zoning district of the demolished nonconforming billboard.The account shall reflect billboard credits for the billboard and its square footage.Demolition of a conforming billboard shall not result in any billboard credit. F.Priority For Removal Of Nonconforming Billboards:Nonconforming billboards shall be removed subject to the following priority schedule: 1.Billboards in districts zoned residential,historic,residential R-MU or downtown D-1,D-3 and D-4 shall be removed first; 2.Billboards in districts zoned commercial CN or CB,or gateway G-MU,GGC /e. or GH or on gateways shall be removed second; 3.Billboards which are nonconforming for any other reason shall be removed last;and 4.A billboard owner may demolish nonconforming billboards of a lower priority before removing billboards in a higher priority,however,the billboard credits for removing the lower priority billboard shall not become effective for use in constructing a new billboard until two(2)billboards specified in subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,with a total square footage equal to or greater than the lower priority billboard,are credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account.If a billboard owner has no subsection Fl of this section,or its successor,nonconforming billboards,two(2)subsection F2 of this section,or its successor,priority billboards may be credited in the billboard owner's billboard bank account to effectuate the billboard credits of a subsection F3 of this section,or its successor,billboard to allow the construction of a new billboard.For the purposes of this section,the two(2)higher priority billboards credited in the billboard bank account can be used only once to effectuate the billboard credits for a lower priority billboard. G.Life Of Billboard Credits:Any billboard credits not used within thirty six(36)months of their creation shall expire and be of no further value or use except that lower priority credits effectuated pursuant to subsection F4 of this section,or its successor, shall expire and be of no further value or use within sixty(60)months of their initial creation. H.Billboard Credits Transferable:A billboard owner may sell or otherwise transfer a billboard and/or billboard credits.Transferred billboard credits which are not effective because of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor, shall not become effective for their new owner until they would have become effective for the original owner.The transfer of any billboard credits do not extend their thirty six(36)month life provided in subsection G of this section,or its successor. I.Double Faced Billboards:Demolition of a nonconforming billboard that has two(2) advertising faces shall receive billboard credits for the square footage on each face, but only as one billboard. J.New Billboard Construction:It is unlawful to construct a new billboard other than pursuant to the terms of this chapter.In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision in this code,the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. K.Permitted Zoning Districts:New billboards may be constructed only in the area identified on the official billboard map. L.New Billboard Permits: 1.Application:Anyone desiring to construct a new billboard shall file an application on a form provided by the zoning administrator. 2.Fees:The fees fora new billboard construction permit shall he: a.Building permit and plan review tees required by the uniform building code as adopted by the city;and b.Inspection tag fees according to the fee schedule or its successor. M.Use Of Billboard Credits: 1.A new billboard permit shall only be issued if the applicant has billboard credits of a sufficient number of square feet and billboards to allow construction of the new billboard. 2.When the permit for the construction of a new billboard is issued,the zoning administrator shall deduct from the billboard owners billboard bank account: a.The square footage of the new billboard;and b.The number of billboards whose square footage was used to allow the new billboard construction. 3.If the new billboard uses less than the entire available billboard credits considering both the number of billboards and square footage,any remaining square footage shall remain in the billboard bank. N.New Billboards Prohibited On Gateways:Except as provided in subsection 0 of this section,or its successor,no new billboard may be constructed within six hundred Ask feet(600')of the right of way of any gateway. O.Special Gateway Provisions: 1.If a nonconforming billboard is demolished within e special gateway,the billboard owner may construct a new billboard along the same special gateway in a zoning district equal to or less restrictive than that from which the nonconforming billboard was removed and subject to subsections P,Q, R and S of this section,provided that the size of the new billboard does not exceed the amount of billboard credits in the special gateway billboard hank. 2 The demolition of a nonconforming billboard pursuant to this section shall not accrue billboard credits within the general billboard bank.Credits for a billboard demolished or constructed within a special gateway shall be tracked within a separate bank account for each special gateway.A permit for the construction of a new billboard pursuant to this section must be taken out within thirty six(36)months of the demolition of the nonconforming billboard. P.Maximum Size:The maximum size of the advertising area of any new billboard shall not exceed fifteen feet(15')in height and fifty feet(50')in width. Q.Temporary Embellishments: 1.Temporary embellishments shall not exceed ten percent(10%)of the advertising face of any billboard,and shall not exceed five feet(5')in height above the billboard structure. 2.No temporary embellishment shall be maintained on a billboard more than twelve(12)months. R.Height:The highest point of any new billboard,excluding temporary embellishments shall not be more than: 1.Forty five feet(45')above the existing grade;or 2.If a street within one hundred feet(100')of the billboard,measured from the street at the point at which the billboard is perpendicular to the street,is on a different grade than the new billboard,twenty five feet(25')above the pavement elevation of the street. 3.If the provisions of subsection R2 of this section,or its successor subsection,apply to more than one street,the new billboard may be the higher of the two(2)heights. S.Minimum Setback Requirements:All freestanding billboards shall be subject to pole sign setback requirements listed for the district in which the billboard is located.in the absence of setback standards for a particular district,freestanding billboards shall maintain a setback of not less than five feet(5')from the front or corner side lot line.This setback requirement shall be applied to all parts of the billboard,not just the sign support structure. T.Spacing. 1.Small Signs:Billboards with an advertising face three hundred(300)square feet or less in size shall not he located closer than three hundred(300) linear feet from any other small billboard or eight hundred feet(800')from a large billboard on the same side of the street, 2.Large Signs:Billboards with an advertising face greater than three hundred (300)square feet in size shall not be located closer than eight hundred (800)linear feet from any other billboard,small or large,on the same side of the street. r 9 t Le o z e r l r - ac i t .I(_rid(1•=:',' ci• Formatted:Space Before:A:tfo,After:Auto 1 _;/-= E'I t --i t C _ - Formatted:I t Paragraph,Numbered+ '.;n>'L,.:_J for _ 1,( t- '' ( CD'ir'1 , tl SG" r Levebl+t.un g Style.l2,a +Strt r "' at,1 P anm t:Lft+Aligned,025 :'!:dt .. C':. Itrt z_:OS' Formatted:1-,dent Left:0.5',No bullets or r11 • numberng C- - CrC t,ted Cl L4,1 - _ • Formatted:For',(Cerao„)Hehet co,12 rt .`rc_^1 c , h ,e en!,s t I cr __ Formatted: Left,r',N�mor�n Lever 5+Nomtet,ng style a,b,c a'.I t�,•e. at 1 frhgnment Le;+A'.gnedat: + Indee:e..2' '--= --' -Formtted:Fc r'.1 zli_t ca,12 pt,rlct 6a,0 (? ) I1C r Formatted:Font'(Default)Helvetica,12 pl i=1 I i rIl Dot , 0 25 Formatted:I den;'Left:1.25" -- - Formatted:For,;'.(Default)Helvetica,12 pt r I' li I c.' l r :t. F. Formatted:Indent left:l",Fumbe-ad+ o'-t ;:re r r t'-.aI I eot c >, '._t r ,.-� level s.rem g scy� a,b SSA r` - t 1 A.'g2r Let+Algrd,1 2 25'+ Formatted:Font Helveico,12 ph root Eck! 1:;1 I;r 1 .ler •l"J 1 - L-: Form _ - atted:F _e(Dcfaul;)Ire et�ca,12 p: Formatted:Indent:l eft:1.25" �-,_..I F._ ,- Formatted:F :t.(Default)lie vets/,12 p: 1_ ht. _ 1 r __ Formatted:Font:He,vetica,12 pt,Not Road --- - -- - Formatted:Inds"at'Left:1",Numbered+ :i1 _ - _ Level.5+Numbering Style:a,b c .Start 1 — - -I+AI9lmc.tLft+A,gne7 at:2.2L'+ I:d-rt at:2.5" Formatted:I n;:Left.1.25" -- --_ - -- - Formatted:Indeed:Hanooth:0 19', -- -- Nun hexed+Level:1+Numbering Styie:i, +Star at.I+ •:Right r A' ..t tigntre:t• ..t 1.5"+Indent e;:1.75' Formatted:Font:Helvetica,12 Ft rt D ISC i,'f G=l i C ri • Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold E tro c(:. C '" l f i? l'. ='l( [ C;"_'S(;:• Formatted:Indent:Left 1",Numbered+ rf..n,,,t d - th.:v cry -'-J in er . e Lever.5+Numbering Style:a,b,c,_«Staid c ' 't at: «AI'gnment.Left+Aligned a::2.25"+ - Indent at:2,5' • C a•/. Ccrci. r, "_ _ Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetica,12 pt C m J / lCB,hhr VhCfllr'Q r' _ Formatted:Indent:Left: 1.25" Formatted:Font:(Default)Helvetica,12 pt Formatted:Fort(D f It)Helvetica,12 pt I. G' - 5 Ir f` 1 - Formatted:Font Helvetica,12pt Formatted:Indent:Left 1 Numbered+ �r'I C S0'31 cerCJ I r . - Level'S+Numbering Style:a,b,c, +Start at.1+Alignment:Left+Aligned at 2 25"+ r_1_t /_l Garr,CEritl :J r, r - _ _ Indent at:25,Tab slops. 125,Left til t tr _ali,7rst - '_I Formatted:Font Helvetica,12 pt,Not Bold pIi1L _1 mot:en:❑ CI _ -- - Formatted:Font(Default)Helvetca,12 pt I.is ._��--_... r .., • Formatted:List Paragraph I.Landscaping In Residential And Commercial CN And CB Zoning Districts: Properties in any residential zone and commercial CN or CB zones on which a billboard is the only structure shall be landscaped as required by sections 21=-2 0=)and 21 2-030 and chapter 21A.48 of this title,or its successor chapter.No portion of such property shall be hard or gravel surfaced "'!.Landscaping In Other Zoning Districts:Property in all districts other than as specified in subsection I!: of this section,or its successor subsection,upon which a billboard is the only structure,shall be landscaped from the front of the property to the deepest interior point of the billboard for fifty(50)linear feet along the street frontage distributed,to the maximum extent possible,evenly on each side of the billboard. Xeriscape Alternative:If all the properties adjacent to and across any street from tire property for which billboard landscaping is required pursuant to subsection V of this section,or its successor subsection,are not developed or,if a water line for irrigation does not exist on the property or in the street right of way adjacent to such property,the zoning administrator may authorize Xeriscaping as en alternative for the required landscaping. Y.Existing Billboard Landscaping:Existing billboards shall comply with the landscaping provisions of this section on or before January 1,1996. %_.Compliance With Tree Stewardship Ordinance:Construction,demolition or maintenance of billboards shall comply with the provisions of the Salt Lake City tree stewardship ordinance-_ '__=r\.Subdivision Registration:To the extent that the lease or other acquisition of land • for the gite.of a new billboard may be determined to be a subdivision pursuant to state statute no subdivision plat shall be required and the zoning administrator is authorized to approve,make minor subsequent amendments to,and record as necessary,such subdivision. .Special Provisions: 1.Applicability:The provisions of this section shall apply to specified billboards located: Amok a.Four(4)existing billboards between 1500 North and 1800 North adjacent to the west side of Interstate 15;and b.One existing billboard on the east side of Victory Road at approximately 1100 North. 2.General Applicability:Except as modified by this section,all other provisions of this chapter shall apply to the five(5)specified billboards. 3.Special Priority:The five(5)specified billboards shall be considered as gateway billboards for the purposes of the priority provisions of subsection F of this section,or its successor subsection. 4.Landscaping:The five(5)specified billboards shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of subsection-'.'1:of this section,or its successor subsection. State Mandated Relocation Of Billboards:Except as otherwise authorized herein,existing billboards may not be relocated except as mandated by the requirements of Utah state law.(Ord.72-08§2,2008:Ord.42-08§12,2008:Ord. 13-04§§25,26,27,2004:Ord.25-00§§1-3,2000:Ord.83-98§§12-14,1998: Ord,88-95§1(Exh.A),1995) \Inch;._01 I Salt Lake City Planning('onunission Michelle Noland Dear members or the Salt Luke Cits Planning Commission. Enclosed you will find a first draft of the Industrc's proposal for a net)Orr-Premises Sign (lydinanue. 1 Itis drab gill be a starting point for discussions on this cur complicated issue. the Inducer would like to discuss this drab and a(iinsale Garth interactive utai that the Industr_ has created to stud)this issue with the I'lanning Conmtiitee cn,u +ther Off-Premises Sign Subcommittee meeting. .. he Indu.s:n feels than another Subnurminec (tenting auuld be the hest platform to do this aic en the contplecities o1 the issue and the amount or lima it will take!o revicu.the neap. I It 1Ve not enclosed the map herein due to the filet it is iutpo,ssih!e to explain his.it o.nrs iu sviun and.instead.netds to he reviewed in person. !he Industry will brine this drab and the map to the Planning[guilt iaou meehra ir,, Vs efinesi.).larch,t"'-and if the 1'lannin_Cummissio❑desires.the Industry can proem both item,at that Bite as art dternatise. I Iosecser.it will take approsim::tetc one(tour of a minion:m tii do In elosirr_.:it you ref ie.,the prof isions of this Ilr:t drab regartbn Placement.I lei_ht and spicing.Meuse he conscious or the;:+a Ih:u n is only a tint draft antl it is probable the lndu>tr btu f.+ilcd to cnnsidcr all or the issues related to the elements described above. Consequently.the Industry w,tiernrands the iced for:ulditinn:d ilisansion>and,in all likelihood,ch:mee<to Ihi> document. Vert:cols soots. lim es.\.Itea_can DAlt l ie I nclos,:re Amok OfLprcrniscsarigns--Billboards. INDUSTRY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. A. Purpose Thrs section provides for the reasonable regulation of off-premises signs wen the orient of enhancing the aesthetics of existing and future billboards B. Cap on the amount of Off•Prermses Sign square footage I he amount of off-premises sign square footage allowed in Salt Lake City shall be l:.mrted to the amount of off-premises sign squae footage existing on Salt Lake City streets anti or any square footage deMasacd en the Sall Lake Crty • Off•Premises Sign Bank as defined I1ere:n as of March 2 2011 C. Location OlLprenuses signs shall be allowed In the CS,CC CG.GMU.Mgt and M.2 zones as a permitted use irrespective of overlay zoning,and the CS zone as a conditional use D. Size Ofhprermses signs shall not exceed sin hundred seventy-two square lee;in the CS,CC.CC. GMIJ M-1 and Id-2 zones Off-prenvses signs located in a CB zone shag not exceed three hureffed square feet in size. E. Hecht The maximum height of an off-premises sign shall be fortylive lost above the grade of the street in a CB.CS CC.CG,GMU M-1 and M•2 zone.unless oriented for freeway viewing only and located within three hundred feel d11he nearest freeway lane of 1,15 I.215 1.80 west of 1-15 or the 21st Soutt,Expressway west of 1.1S When oriented to the afore mentioned renter Ii!!maximal n height of an oil-premises sign shall be twenty-five feel above freeway grade level of wary-tic feed °serail wh,chevzr is greater Wlichh height shall be extended by the everatl height measured at Inv b,phest point of any sound wall traffic or rndestnan safely barrier erected by a m.n.Lrulrty.county o'agency CI the stale F. Separation The ihaten•em distance between 011i prorniSes Signs larger than three itundten Sgirr?r_ feet shalt be tiwe kindred lineal feet as measured along the same Side of the street innl,rein0 inierrections 1 he minimum distance bMreen lipremrscs signs three hundred sq=se fret or less ice, -ce shall be Ihiee hundred lineal feet as measured a:oho the saute side of hie street including :nlersect•ons All elf•premiscs signs must be ai lea51 one hundred fitly radial feet lrern any other of _ G. Buttocks T ne minimum sctheck,shall be eighteen inches for oil-premises signs The s:grl s haul- yarn and side yard setback shall be measured from the righbot-way line Tire closest edge of an o:f•prernses sign shall not protect ego any requited setback viva 1 he nunvnuni setback Le:wec•n ...n cd-;dr:,,scs sign and any yes:den•i_.zone boundary shell be one nuiutrvd f.fiy lire. P.. Lighting I„hang shall he teemed to this:sign lane a-r.',inn I gir nn source Sr;rti not visible .tr saijn Ott premises signs hat trh%de ortner the Crno--p rig the Ih i . e`design and she,Lc continueny nmmiamed sructuratly and Sr the copy fact Inn back of ine ri, and lure;.,u_.u•e bet'.ir.d the 5,g n shall be painted a nags color J. Credds fur iRi .dal Pr I>I1e removal ot any o"1ipn..ises sign tits Cih Stinii critainspry t, . the demolition tinn of the oft pre'in Ses Sign Peirnits may Lcbrodnded :'.o n at t. d o n to the Salt Lake City Planning Division Ahe,any c11 remises sign wlished the Salt Lake Cvy Division shall Creme a`biftboard bank account'for the sign owner the account Shia!!reelect ereC-ns for the off-premises situ square footage as well as the dale of removai Any vitt-pie1uuises sign et edits'C'.used scaler,forty-eight months of then creche',shad eop-re and be of no fuc ilh'va'u-a ci e An oft promises sign owner may'sell or other-ease transfer off.pre:rnscs signs dnd.er Onboard bank account credits The transfer of any billboard hank account ued.ls does not ex.;erai then thirty-silk-.pion;h 1de as provided in his sun-on Demolition of an o'i•premiseS sign that liar Mr adverlismg faces shall receive bitlboar[t bank,account[rerb's far the square footage of each sir face Amu, • L L, y.--�;1 IL SALT LAKE CITY if._ OFFICIAL BILLBOARD n AN \ -\ j1,,,,,.,),.. _li ‘ ' 1!ma' ' -, AND GATEWAY MAP lift IIIIII. r_ 1 \ •-= ;? Ill Illllllll lfllll■� ■ ` 11;„1 _,,,\ riiIIIIIIIInllllll u unililonnflfll j ; 0 [ii .DI;IIIIII� *, I !.IIIII le, Y,1. --� III ji ':i ` IIII(k�� \7411..Zti II iii; ' Wiz\. II 111111,111H�9®[ER8atiil@J■, i, H ..r _■ B®MEIEI i�lll 1►�w\. ft. y!_• Ian .+s�c:.. .u",_'._1■ " NnEsTATE UO� .. a ■®''®1`�_�® ����r1 ■■i 1!�■�!■.■,iC ,�1 0 r t—ifi■.fi■■t}i■■iL■■■■CY:_1;14LEI. �- .,_.. _J - —I �In,�,IL ,,,R ilr�, ■ ■■■'iil•.C:...L u t�Y -``- i I \_� SIC = r.�ruTill■Y�d■�■f■r� .' O •-^ �� -` �11 ,n - _m ©■ ■iiva--Hil coot ,I.,.. kftiI4!?.- 3...iY1■_.Y1, ;., ... I� � r� /IL91111ffIInn �]�_ Li uI ll.lrIllmlYarilc:IIIIIIY a �'�fAv;, ies�= t15lifq.(1 ■IF'I 'Jl ag Na■Aiiilf,l: s 1 # = `W11.1III /IIII■■aanu■I*1alco�1!!:9it�1!� lid- '" .iinml.r Ih II 1� ��'. ` .�f 11 -- . , _1z I Hlnulniai-� � F� L uuuiiillll� a�tJlilClllCl■Ie�'1W■Ill ..iilltlflrl 1'g ■�� �� . r�J� t■!�■IML"■��I 3' 15"iia''11y�1,1t1111i� = r gg ilU►(�j, f ,Il y[ilim,■11®a1E1�IMIIII liiMl��ill:MI1'�YNMI! I !-Eir _ � �,,� ;.■� ! k' IIII; " '+ 1_, fh wli ig nlrlll-■ ii„IIII .r kt�1CFOFNUAOE CF . .. L9. • 7 1 ►=�i �.���� (I�el—, I ■I�1� } r-+ IIIII I- INr �t1n 1'�,`3 �'wA� ���II� C 5 LIII ■ r '' 1 11 '1�1111 Yni' ■ 11.flll ��"19i9 _,� `�,.........T 1 a.i ■. 9�. � II �I � /I/III , uuplr_ 1 b — '�_� iIIII, �f �! I f �Y'1!�`li inllll _ ��IY II � � [ �fI IIII ..e e..=1�.ia �l yluu IIi..1_=�.dr I■ i. IVI 1 �ill1) ..u�. Pl ! n r �7�I112��_ 1ES� t'■lI'rEEgl; r P. • ISM SOUTH ".. • ■ I !/•ei, 'ui t r ll ' Li ,00—.11.ir d:, : .' ■r•r � 1 IF „. ' ���..,� 1 A'�i;�.m ,'� '` .If111 `lii nn—.e.l�y ( A�-7 = '�� --- , li i.- r-iu...Em-u lL� agcrri � ICE. 1FRT1a■� i i I;1 e!J !.I !'Ul �t� t�uClul�i,� �,� , Legend �/ Eil iullulr� `1 1 ItIn�IL� ''. -wTEasuFEco Ih I 1i =1 II 4 N :IIII 'i1 nIIIlllyllllla'','r �.:�.; �_`1 Gateway 111t f _ �_I .11.11 IILIIIIIII n 0 w-.`9' E T! 111IIM!."111�U1ria= Special Gateway rk . u�I a June 2001 �-.-_ICI Billboards Permitted S 1 �$ J]&socN 0 0 0 111-II: 1 z f11► IF oIllti,'c. v v io o • � r -J 1 • me =fi Til ..__ ARMIN N - �, c -v III == . '7:3 0 i III N ' • 1-215 .. - ...ti - l/ k.,"- -L,c `_ _ ._t��'^-ram , k, ,.i Ca i .� PLTll li i I rrr Cl q ..,1 , E91 i.;_.. Ili!!_" I .,-� r �=-. ---i--.1'i O .. ' .i� Gr'. Y_ T. Q ID., livarir i ' -ice--` a.rN O 3t- I 1 1•1- -e- -., 1 11,, _L 1 t;,`II I ' t -" 'i s 3. . 1 v ; _ +,y_, .........._,„A.,,,„- t I 1r.j I -cif I (ir 1 -. -- - _ 'p ,A - f . � SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,January 26,2011 at 7:00 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30- 6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. PLNPCM2011-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission,pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map,in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance,and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South,from 1300 East to 1900 East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(801)535-7758 or earl.leith@slcgov.com.) PLNPCM2010-00665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(YCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment •A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21A.34.120 and 214.34,020 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com). • Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 7:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing(Administrative Petition) 1. PLNPCM2010-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for an expansion of the office building located at 147 North 200 West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning districts and in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold.(Staff contact:Katia Pace at 801-535-635 4 or kativ I:ure.(y.s!cgov.com) Issues Only(Legislative Petitions) 2. Petition 400-06-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. (Staff contact:Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717: Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact.Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie@slegov.com) The files for the above items ore available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com A rt. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City &County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:00. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Briefing • PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit-A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within single-family and multi-family residential districts.This request is part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.malov(g�slcgov.com.) • Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 6:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing Legislative Petitions 1. PLNSUB2009-01424 Public Safety Building Zoning Amendment:a request by Salt Lake City Corporation to amend the zoning of the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building project. The zoning map would be amended to show zoning of Transit Corridor(TC-7S)along 400 South and Public Lands(PL-2)for the southern portion of the property. Also,an amendment to the text of the Public Lands districts(PL,PL-2)v,:ould allow for a communication tower to exceed building height only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. This request applies to various properties within the block bounded by 400 South and 500 south,300 East and 400 East,in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott.(Staff contact:Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or - ce o) 2. Petition 400-06-51:Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact: Doug Dansie al 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Pslcgov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00032:Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts.(Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Cslcgov.com) 4. PLNPCM2010-00717:Zoning Text Amendment,Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards.Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment mould affect all zoning districts. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6107 or doug.dansie Baslcgov.com) The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information,Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SICTVChonnel17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.slctv.com .wo Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2010-00717 Ili By: Salt Lake City Planning it Zoning Text Amendment for Electronic Billboards jl ilk Date Filed: October 21,2010 Address: Citywide 0LN PC Zte -w 717 Petition Initiation jt Request Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Mayor Becker From: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director 1/1 . Date: October 21,2010 CC: Frank Gray,Community and Economic Development Director;Mary De La Mare-Schaefer,Community&Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey,Assistant Planning Director;file Re: Initiate Petition to amend the Sign Ordinance relating to Electronic Billboards This memo is to request that you initiate a petition requesting the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending various sections of the City's Sign Ordinance,Chapter 21A.46,relating to Electronic Billboards. The purpose of the request is to the revise the ordinance to address electronic billboards,which the ordinance is currently silent on and to analyze issue and impacts relating to electronic billboards,which may include a prohibition of electronic billboards in the City. As part of the process,the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions,please contact me. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. / Z91/4-) Ralph Becker,Mayor Date o Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah Wednesday,January 26,2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair, Angela Dean, Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Michael Gallegos, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh,Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead.Commissioner Kathleen Hill and was excused. The scheduled field trip was cancelled. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting.The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m.Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director;Joel Patterson,Planning Manager; Doug Dansie,Senior Planner;Carl Leith, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; and Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenbcrg,Senior Secretary. 5:34:46 PM Work Session PLNPCM2o11-00015: Yalecrest Local Historic District Designation—A request by the Historic Landmark Commission,pursuant to a request from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee,to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map,in accordance with the standards of chapter 21A.34.020 and chapter 21A.50.050 of the City Ordinance,and establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the Yalecrest neighborhood which is located generally between Soo South/Sunnyside Avenue and 130o South,from 130o East to i9oo East.The area is located in City Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love and District 6 represented by JT Martin.(Staff contact:Carl Leith at(Sot)535-7758 or carl.leith(slcgov.com.) Chairperson recognized Joel Paterson,Carl Leith,and Michael Maloy as staff representatives. Mr.Paterson gave a background on the Yalecrest Land Fill Overlay Zoning District. • Planning Commission recommended approval in 2005. • Zoning Standards allow people to get building permits by right or special exception process,and nothing had required Planning Commission approval • 1999,the city worked with the Yalecrest neighborhood to establish neighborhood zoning. • In response to new construction that did not comply with the size and scale of other homes in the area,the City worked with a subcommittee of the Yalecrest Community Council • Over 5 years,the 1'Cl standards were created and adopted in 2005. • December 2005,in response to demolitions and incompatible development in the Avenues, Capitol Hill,and other areas,the City Council adopted a City wide compatible infill zoning standards that were a series of zoning text amendments that were placed within the different residential zoning districts for single family/two family zoning districts. • Example of the difference in Standards between the YCI and the City-wide compatible infill standards: Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2011 Page 1 • 2005 o Maximum building height in R-i and R-2 zoning districts were 30'measured to the midpoint of the roof. • Adoption of YCI Standards o Maximum building height in R-r and R-2 zoning districts were 27.5'measured to the midpoint of the roof. • Compatible Infill Standards o Maximum building height standards dropped to 27'to the ridge of the roof. o Compatible Infill District Zoning Standards had other modifications that were allowed to the maximum building height,if one could show that the average height of the other homes along the same side of your block face was higher than the base zoning district,you could by right,obtain a permit up to that average height. o If one could show that what was being proposed met the development patterns along the block face that had the same or greater height of what was proposed it could be approved through a special exception process. o Other standards like exterior wall height and front yard standards were discussed. Chairperson Fife asked if the Compatible Infill Overlay Ordinance superseded and the Yalecrest Compatible Infill. Mr.Paterson answered that when there was a Base Zoning District and an Overlay Zoning District,like the YCI,if there was a conflict between the two,the Overlay trumps the base zoning district standard. Mr.Paterson stated that there was a growing sentiment that the Yalecrest Compatible Infill should be eliminated;make it its own Base Zoning District in order to eliminate confusion. Mr.Paterson noted that demolition in the Yalecrest area began to increase,and far outnumbered the demolition that was being seen in other areas of the City.There was no regulation on demolition,the only demolition review was within historic areas,and the Historic Landmark Commission had the ability to deny demolition.There were checks and balances in place to protect the reasonable use of a property. Because of the number of demolitions,the City will create additional tools for better regulation. Previously,the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Preservation Plan that was created for Citywide Preservation Policy. It was still pending for Council approval;the document recommended that the City develop new tools to help with Preservation Programs,developing conservation districts. The document also recommended that the City look for other areas that were worthy of local historic designation. In the past year,the Historic Landmark Commission had gone through the process of identifying the various neighborhoods in the City and prioritized which ones should be considered for local historic designation. Westmoreland Place area,Yalecrest,and the extension of the University Historic District were the three the Historic Landmark Commission chose. Westmoreland Place neighborhood,consisting of approximately 52 homes,has gone through the ..w process and the City Council has designated it as a local historic district. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 2 The Historic Landmark Commission created a petition to consider local historic district designation of the Yalecrest neighborhood,located from 80o South to 1300 South,and between 1300 East and 190o East. The Historic Landmark Commission made a recommendation to create a local historic district for the entire area.Mr.Paterson stated that there had been competing petitions recommending modifications to the Yalecrest Overlay Infill,either for the entire neighborhood,or one petition for the Yalecrest Heights subdivision. Mr.Paterson stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had made a recommendation for designation of local historic districts and zoning map amendments would also come to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Mr.Paterson stated that these petitions compete with each other,and take different approaches; therefore,it was important to brief the Planning Commission on what was coming forward. Commissioner Woodhead asked if staff felt both petitions would be presented together. Planning Director Sommerkorn responded saying that if you look at the petitions,they were quite complex and there is a variety. There was potential for substantial public commentary on each petition,would the Planning Commission like to have all information at once,or to spread them over a few meetings. Commissioner Woodhead stated she would like to have them together. Commissioner De Lay agreed. 5:57:08 PM Chairperson Fife recognized Carl Leith as staff representative. Mr.Leith stated that memorandum was an attempt to brief the Planning Commission on the background regarding the proposal for the Yalecrest Historic District. Mr.Leith said that the application lvould appear within the upcoming months,and had been before the Historic Landmark Commission,for a zoning map amendment to establish a historic preservation overlay district for the Yalecrest National Register Historic District. Commissioner De Lay asked if the map presented was the final map. Mr.Paterson stated that the map was accurate. Mr.Leith stated that the application came from the Yalecrest Yes Heritage Preservation Committee and was received on September 1,2010. The recent consideration of Historic Designation in the Yalecrest actually dated to 2009,and the discussions have been ongoing. Mr.Leith added that a public forum seas held on September 28,2010 and was attended by over one hundred people,and received extensive public commentary. This item had also been part of the public hearing process for the Historic Landmark Commission in October and November of 2010. This discussion had also been part of Open City Hall online forum. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 3 Mr.Leith said that at the meeting on October 20,2010,the Historic Landmark Commission determined the documentation was sufficient to support an application for designation and continue the public hearing to November 3,2oio and sought additional information relative to boundaries. The Historic Landmark Commission determined that the boundaries were well documented,and included a high proportion of contributing buildings across the district,and the district and the boundaries met the national and hence the local ordinance criteria for historic district. City policy is that maintaining distinctive neighborhoods and maintaining their character is universally recognized in City plans and policy documents,the Yalecrest area in particular,is mentioned by name in several documents,including Master Plan of the East Bench. Mr.Leith discussed architectural significance,stated the a reconnaissance level survey was completed in 2007. Mr.Leith stated that the application would be coming before the Planning Commission for review within the following few weeks. 6:07:27 PM Questions from the Commissioners mot, Commissioner Woodhead asked when the issue of Yalecrest had come before them in the past,the notion of a lot of the houses in Yalecrest arc historic,but some of them are not had been presented. She was curious what the Historic Landmark Commission's opinion was. Mr.Leith answered that the detailed list of all buildings,photographs and the nomination report was included in the staff report of October,but stated that the percentage of contributing buildings was something like 91%,which is extremely high. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission agreed with the information in the Survey. Commissioner Fife asked about the contention that historic designation can devalue property.He asked if there were studies that prove or are contrary to that idea. Mr.Leith answered that there were a number of national studies that conclude without fail,that either historic designation has no appreciable effect on property values,but in a majority of cases, it tends to accentuate property values when compared to other areas nearby. He offered the National Trust website as a reference. 6:14:21 PM PLNPCM2oio-oo665: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay(YCI)and Historic Preservation Overlay(H)Amendment—A request by Jodi Howick in behalf of the Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights for amendment of the Salt Lake City Code to establish a voluntary development review process and modify certain provisions of the YCI District,and amend the procedure to establish an H District. The amendment will affect sections 21.4.34.12o "".4. and 2IA.34.o20 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 4 amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:Michael Maloy at(801)535-7118 or michael.maloyt2 slcgov.com). Chairperson Fife recognized Mike Maloy as staff representative. Mr.Maloy stated that there was another petition relative to the Yalecrest neighborhood,and it had three main parts that had been summarized in the memorandum 1. Amendment to the Yalecrest Infill Overlay(YCI)overlay,relative to design standards 2. Creation of a voluntary review committee. 3. Amendment to the process of designating a local historic district. • Relies on a 7o%approval from property owners of the proposed district.This would be applicable citywide. • At least 5o%of the homes within the proposed district would need to be original structures. Mr.Maloy stated that staff had discussed with Yalecrest Preservationists for Property Rights,that the petition could be split into two parts. An example would be the parts relative to the Landmarks designation process could be taken separately to the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr.Maloy asked for the Commission's opinion of separating the petition. Mr.Maloy addressed a third petition that bad been submitted within the week that would be an amendment to the Yalecrest Overlay that would impact approximately 42 homes within the neighborhood of Yalecrest Heights. Mr.Maloy stated that the third proposal included more extensive in the amendments to the YCI and included changes to the maximum lot coverage,from 35%to 40%to minimize the development footprint on a lot. Mr.Sommerkorn addressed the options of approving the different petitions. Commissioner Woodhcad asked Land Use Attorney Paul Nielson if it would he possible to extend the process suggestions in the Petition for Yalecrest Heights to the entire section. Mr.Neilson stated that it would be difficult to amend a petition that was presented to another person. He stated that the Planning Commission could propose an amendment that could piggyback on the original petition.He added that the Planning Commission amend another person's petition,the answer is no. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to approve,to approve with modifications,or to recommend denial. With regard to expanding the scope,it would seem that the Planning Commission would want to initiate a new petition. Mr.Paterson added that early in 2010,the Planning Commission voted on some staff initiated changes to the Zoning Ordinance that clarifies that the Historic Landmark Commission could initiate petitions that relate to historic preservation review standards or to create a new district,he noted that it had not been acted on by the City Council yet.Mr.Paterson stated that any Zoning Ordinance text amendment proposed for 21A.34.o2o dealing with the historic preservation process Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 5 would go through the Historic Landmark Commission for a public hearing first and a recommendation,then the Planning Commission would make a recommendation,and then the City Council would be the final decision maker. Mr.Paterson stated that the petitions proposing Zoning Ordinance text amendments to standards that did not relate to the Historic Landmark Commission would only be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the proponents of the petition have said that their preference was not to have the petition for the designation of the historic districts go through and that if the Planning Commission chose not to go forward with the petition,they would be satisfied,they would hope for a negative recommendation on the third petition. Mr.Nielson pointed out a conflict in section 3. Mr.Maloy stated that the applicant would be open to any changes. Commissioner Dean referenced page 8 and damaged buildings,giving people a year to replace damaged elements of a building,she stated that it seemed that the time frame seemed unfeasible. Commissioner McHugh was concerned about the issue of 70%of home owners agreeing within 30 days seems unrealistic. Mr.Paterson stated that provision was noted in Yalecrest Preservation for Property Rights petition in the section amending the Historic Landmark Commission provisions for designating new local '""w historic districts. If an applicant cannot prove within a specified that time frame that they have 70%consent of property owners,the application would become null and void and the applicant could not apply again for designation for a period of three years. Commissioner McHugh stated that is seemed unfeasible. Mr.Paterson said that the input from the attorney's office indicated that those provisions would be unconstitutional. Mr.Sommerkorn stated that each of the petitions presented was entitled to a public hearing;the question would be would it he better to hold all hearing on the same evening,or would the Commission prefer that they would be broken up into several meetings. 6:51:46 PM PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Fife opened the formal meeting of the Salt Lake Planning Commission. 6:51:53 PM Approval of Minutes Motion:Commissioner De Lay moved to approve the minutes. ""k Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 6 Second:Michael Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown,Dean,De Lay,Gallegos,Luke,McHugh and Woodhead all voted"aye",Commissioner Wirthlin abstained. The motion passed. 6:52:37 PM Report of the Chair Chairperson Fife stated he had nothing to report. Report of the Vice Chair Vice Chairperson Dean had nothing to report. Report of the Director Mr.Sommerkorn stated that the City Council approved by resolution the fact that a development agreement had been initiated with regard to the Marmalade Project,and both sides of 30o West have been rezone. The City Council had also approved the vacation of a portion of 570o West and 200 South in the industrial area. The City Council was briefed by the Planning Division on the Purpose Statements,and the City Council approved the process for getting additional public input with regard to the Northwest Quadrant Plan. 6:54:46 PM PLNPCM2o>o-00760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use—A request by Gary Gower for conditional use approval for an expansion of the office building located at 147 North zoo West in the R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)and RMF-35(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning districts and in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold. Chairperson Fife recognized Joel Paterson as staff representative. Mr.Paterson stated the application was a conditional use application for 147 North 200 West,it was proposed to be converted from a bank to an office building. Mr.Paterson stated that it was in an R-MU zone,and office buildings are conditional uses in that zone. The proposal was that the drive thru would be removed,and additional parking would be added, and underground parking would be replaced with additional office space. An addition would also be added to the rear of the building,adding a foot print of 467 sq ft and would be three stories high,adding a total of i3oo sq ft of floor area. The proposed use requires 34 parking stalls,the existing plan has 46 stalls,with the reconfiguration would include a total of 47 stalls,thereby fulfilling the requirement. The addition to the rear has not been finalized,but staff recommends that it meets all of the requirements for a conditional use approval. Staff is recommending approval subject to combining all the lots into one legal description,in compliance with all departmental requirements. 6:58:19 PM Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 7 Questions from the Commissioners None. Mr.Paterson stated that this item was presented to the Capital Hill Community Council and they voted unanimously to support the application. 6:58:57 PM Comments from the applicant The applicant noted that a site plan that included covered parking had been submitted. 7:00:39 PM Open Public Hearing No one chose to speak. 7:00:39 PM Close of Public Hearing A"" 7:00:41 PM Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2oto-oo760: Deseret First Credit Union Conditional Use based on the findings of the staff report and the public hearing,I move that the Planning Commission approve the petition with the following conditions: Number i and 2 from the front page of the staff report. Second:Matthew Wirthlin seconded the motion Vote: Commissioners Drown,Dean,De Lay,Gallegos,Luke,McHugh,Wirthlin and Woodhead all voted"aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:02:02 PM Petition 400-o6-51: Zoning Text Amendment,Transit Shelter Advertising-A request for a zoning text amendment to address advertising on Bus Shelters.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2oto-00032: Zoning Text Amendment,Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City .., Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address outdoor billboards.The proposed Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 8 amendment would update current regulations for outdoor billboards to make them consistent with state law.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. PLNPCM2o10-00717: Zoning Text Amendment, Electronic Billboards-A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Becker for a zoning text amendment to address electronic billboards. Currently,the City Zoning Ordinance does not address electronic billboards.The text amendment would affect all zoning districts. Chairperson Fife recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative Commissioner Luke stated that he had been retained by Reagan Signs to lobby for them. He stated that he had worked with them in the past, and need to recues himself. Mr. Dansie stated that it was an issues only hearing and that no vote was expected at the end of the discussion. He asked for direction on a configuration of a subcommittee. Commissioner Gallegos stated that his son in law worked for a sign company, and he believed that it did not inhibit his judgment. It was determined that due to the nature of the job; he did not need to recues himself. Commissioner De Lay noted that she was asked for documentation for comments she had made in a prior meeting. 7:07:38 PM Public Hearing Randy Horiuchi, 1785 Michigan Avenue,He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated he had three perspectives,he stated that outdoor advertising provides candidates with an opportunity to get messages in an affordable way. He noted that he does Small Business Association financing, and that billboards add to his clients'success. He added that he supports flexibility in their use rather than an across the board ban. Jared Johnson, the Director of Real Estate for YESCO Outdoor Media, 1605 Gramercy Road,he stated that billboards are his primary area of concern. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated that specific to the petitions he is opposed to the ban on digital billboards. Mr.Johnson stated that the ordinance was confusing,and difficult to work with, and said that it was unfair and that he was not in favor of removing any billboards. Ryan Young,Young Electric Sign Company, a fourth generation family member. He stated he is a Regional Sales Manager for YESCO electronics. He stated that there are 1500 digital signs in the nation. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. His concerns are the hold time, brightness, and the five for one trade. He stated that digital billboards allow his company to grow without increasing the number of signs. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, January 26, 2011 Page 9 Jeff Young,1605 Gramercy,Young Electric Signs. He stated that they employ approx 300 employees in Salt Lake City. He noted that the permit fees that they had paid of the past years were in excess of 300,000.0o and they feel they are a vested partner with the City of Salt Lake. He spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. He stated that the electric bill for his home was less in a month than an electric sign for the time frame. He also noted the Community Service they provide by donating space on their billboards. Dewy Reagan,Reagan Signs,spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions.He stated that it was thirteen years ago that the City passed the current ordinance;he stated that Reagan Outdoor Advertising owns the property under their signs. He stated that he felt that it would be a good compromise for the City to allow locations for more signs in industrial parts of the City in order to replace their existing signs. Commissioner Gallegos asked who would be the beneficiary of sales of advertising on transit shelters. Mr.Dansic stated that it would be the Utah Transit Authority. Commissioner McHugh asked for clarification of where the billboards would be moved. Mr.Reagan stated that presently there was a cap on the number of signs. Mr.Reagan added that Reagan signs had erected several electronic signs,but felt that the 3-1 exchange was a bad idea because they would lose their distribution. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she could not pre-visualize what the impact of electronic signs would he. Greg Simonsen,an attorney for Reagan Signs,spoke in OPPOSITION to the petitions. Mr. Simonsen emphasized the concept of distribution,and asked for a willingness to consider the reach and distribution of the billboards. 8:01:35 PM Close of Public Hearing A Subcommittee was formed including Commissioners Babs De Lay,Emily Drown, Matthew Wirthlin and Angela Dean. 8:05:39 PM Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 10 Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on January 26,2011. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,January 26,2011 Page 11 i SCANNED T )14411:(1:- FRANK B. GRAY SAT' ^\a� v�i��� ., t�IrI,R1'`'i'.�I�.c��! C SCANNED B TE DA ALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY St ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT jj � VisoOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR .RY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL t MAR 3 0 2011 IJ Date Received!), Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: loc 6/20/l TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Remington-Love FROM: Frank Gray, CED Direc or SUBJECT: Electronic Billboard Ordin STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Senior Planner 801-535-6182, doug.dansie@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing - Information only RECOMMENDATION: No action necessary BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At their work session on Tuesday, March 22, 2011,the City Council requested further background information regarding the electronic billboards issue. The attached information is presented in response to that request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED nccrc�co rnvca u 4. -I. as ...' --- - 0 .:* -- -- -'''''''---... - pi• `--�—_ - tc:: Y _a_ ,..... .,-- . ___„_ ,._ .... . . • ,_ _ , __________,__,,, ,.„.,.., ,_____,....... _....,, '1±i .,7 . r' if , . _ ____= ____ �' 1 BILLBOARDS •ii, the . .. OW it DIGITAL AGE .1.._..„:,....---_,eiriver-_,mmawnte.7,rit_ _ _ UNSAFE (AND UNSIGHTLY) AT ANY SPEED IMAGINE DRIVING along a twisting,two-lane "h..r in-your-race results that won't end Alabama road at night.As you slow for a curve,suddenly an enormous television screen pops into your field of vision, in a restraining order, out-of-home ome is temporarily blinding you before flashing an ad for an insur- the only way to go.' Cance company. www.hmuoutdoorcom The glaring lights of this particular sign,slapped up in subur- Digital signs are far more of a threat than their predecessors, ban Vestavia Hills,blindsided city zoning officials as well.They said Kevin Fry,president of Scenic America.They're brighter, had unknowingly given entree to digital billboard technology which makes them visible from far greater distances; they're when they approved what appeared to be a routine application much more distracting,because of their brightness and because to add lighting to a sign grandfathered in years ago.The appli- the messages are constantly changing;they're often taller than cation made no mention of changeable messages and gave no regular boards,giving the appearance of large,plasma-screen indication it would transform an old,static board into a giant TVs;and they're substantially more expensive to remove,so vehicle for digital TV-like images. localities without amortization laws could find themselves unable to afford taking them down.This would be especially Police officers immediately complained the board posed a major safety hazard.Neighbors complained about the glaring lights. true for signs along federal aid highways where the use of Lamar Advertising Company,which owns the board,claimed amortization is prohibited by the Highway Beautification Act. they'd made the changes in"good faith." Despite higher installation costs,the profitability of digital Anyone who has been following the digital-billboard movement boards provides a powerful incentive for companies to put up may recognize that argument as a popular tactic employed by as many as possible.Clear Channel Outdoor spent$3.5 million an industry that finds it easier to ask localities for forgiveness converting seven static boards to digital in Cleveland,but watched than permission.It's one of many strategies being used to bring revenue jump from $300,000 to $3 million in the network's digital technology to as many cities and towns as possible, first year,according to Mark P.Mays,Clear Channel's CEO. before localities have a chance to explore the implications That's because digital boards allow companies to sell ad space of the new technology,update their sign ordinances,or ban to 10 times as many clients as static ones;most signs change digital signs outright. messages every six seconds.They also allow advertisers to change "There's a full-court press going on at the national,state,and content several times a day or week,and unlike the static local level,being waged by Lamar,Clear Channel,and CBS boards,which require contractors to change messages manually, Outdoor,"said Bill Brinson,an attorney specializing in sign digital boards allow operators to change content from remote law and a member of the board of Scenic America.Lobbyists locations in a matter of seconds,with just a click of a mouse. are pushing state legislators to pass bills that clear the way for Lamar Advertising boasts that it has digital billboards in as 2 LED(light-emitting diode) signs on state and federal roads, many as 44 states.Clear Channel,the world's largest outdoor • and the industry is pressuring state departments of transpor- advertising company, is similarly upfront about its goals tation to rewrite regulations to allow them to transform static for spreading digital technology.In a November 2006 press signs into digital boards.And in cities and counties across release announcing the launch of multi-sign digital networks ELECTRONIC America,they are pressing for looser sign ordinances or simply in Milwaukee and Tampa,Clear Channel Outdoor Global SIGNS installing the new technology without permission to do so. President Paul Meyer put it bluntly: I DIGITAL AGE continued O "New digital technologies provide us with the capability to prohibits such signs,"the FHWA wrote to Texas transportation execute both general market and targeted advertising campaigns officials in a letter dated March 15,2006. that consumers can't mute,fast forward or erase,"he said. Nonetheless,LED signs have gone up in several cities around [Emphasis added.] the state.And in a recent media interview,Clear Channel When digital comes to town,local governments are often caught Communications CEO Mark Mays made it dear his company off guard.As was the case in Vestavia Hills,billboard owners had big plans for Texas,particularly San Antonio. arc not always upfront about what they are doing,and the "The question becomes how big an opportunity it will be over technology maybe installed without notice. the neat 10 years,"he said."Is it going to be half the signs in But in a rare victory for billboard opponents,the Vestavia Hills San Antonio,is it going to be a quarter of the signs in San Board of Zoning Adjustment(BZA)ordered Lamar to rum off Antonio or is it going to be 10 percent?" the lights and shut its board down—at least until they could "If Texas is going to allow this,the public should be involved," hold a hearing for a zoning variance.The board ruled that the switch had been made under"false pretenses."Had Lamar asked said Margaret Lloyd,policy director for Scenic Texas."In my for permission to add digital animation,the board likely would Judgment,we need at least three things:first,a safety study have said no,particularly for that location,zoning officials said. funded by a neutral,objective party;second,a cost study to In fad,Veatavia Hills'new sign ordinance,which was under con- determine the taxpayer burden if these signs have to be con- sideration at the time,would outlaw this kind o entirely.77se con- demned for highway widenings;and finally,a public opinion of re y surveyto determine if citizens want these signs to be erected BZA later denied the variance request,and the billboard co pang filed g a lauuuit which idnow in the county court system.In the meantime, along their publicly funded highways." the digital board has been covered with a traditional sign.Apermit request to install a digital fact on the other side of the sign was denied City officials in several Minnesota communities were likewise surprised last year when digital billboards began to appear on Clear Channel and Lamar sign structures.In most cases,the f . companies that leased the signs had sought building permits � r - only to upgrade them,omitting from their applications any indi- arm cation they planned to hang digital displays on those structures after the upgrades.Their chosen locations included communities with some of the strongest billboard prohibitions. Clear Channel's strategy backfired,especially in Minnetonka, which for more than 41 years has carried a prohibition on illu- minated signs that change in color or intensity.The city pulled One state where the industry hasn't been successful in getting the plug on the signs,issued stop-work orders,and then defeated what it wants is Kentucky,where state transportation regulations an effort by Clear Channel to obtain an injunction.As Judge prohibit both Tri-Vision and LED signs. Lloyd Zimmerman later found,"there is substantial evidence Tom Fitzgerald,director of the Kentucky Resources Council, to support Minnetonka's claim that Clear Channel avoided said the outdoor advertisingindustry has tried on several occa- disclosing its plans to deploy LED billboards in the City of to try Minnetonka,and operated'under the radar'in order to get the sions to push through legislation that would allow them to add billboards u and runnier the new technology,but lawmakers in the House have stood p g,in order to meet its expansion and firmly against it.They came closest in 2004,when the industry profit goals for 2006." had someone insert language allowing Tri-Vision signs into Meanwhile,one Minnesota community after another has adop- a bill that focused on tree-cutting around billboards. ted a moratorium on digital display devices to temporarily "-mat bill got through the Senate and into the House before protect themselves against a repeat of the companies'subterfuge. people realized the provision was even in there,"Fitzgerald It's not unusual for billboard operators to erect digital signs said.But the House leadership killed the bill,as it has done to even when State-Federal agreements or local ordinances pro- tree-cutting bills consistently over the years.This year,a bill hibit them,knowing that local enforcement can be difficult due that would have allowed electronic billboards and Tri-Vision to lax or inefficient enforcement or the prospect of the lengthy signs was introduced but died in committee. and costly litigation that inevitably follows. "We've not really had a toe-to-tor fight on electronic bill- The Texas Department of Transportations State-Federal agree- boards yet,"Fitzgerald said."I believe them are strong public ment clearly prohibits digital billboards.In fact,when state safety issues at stake." transportation officials requested clarification from the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)to see if they could allow the For many outraged cozens,traditional concerns about litter boards,they were told in no uncertain terms they could not. on a stick,"have now been supplanted by the prospect of con-O fronting"PowerPoint on a stick"along their communities'road- "While the technology for LED displays did not exist at the ways.The advent of digital technology has opened a new front time of the agreement,the wording in the agreement clearly in the battle against blight—with more at stake than ever before. f I. The billboard industry often trier to win support for its signs by offering ARE THEY SAFE? to display public service messages.But no amount of these inducements can compensate for the potential public safety consequences of these devices. . . 6A BTT.T BOARDS".%RI' 11)\ I ItTISI:MII \ I S. They are designed to grab our attention,and hold it,just like a television or radio commercial or an ad in a magazine.The latest in billboard technology— "No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable the digital or electronic sign—tries to hold our attention even longer people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic by changing messages and pictures every few seconds using a series of extremely bright, colorful images produced mainly via LED (light- hazard,since by their very nature they are emitting diode)technologies. designed to distract drivers and their passengers Common sense tells us that if we are looking at a billboard and not at from maintaining their view of the road." the road when we are driving,that's a dangerous thing.Brightly lit signs —Major Media?fax Southeast c.(in 1 Ratrig.k621 BSupp.1446,1450(E.11.V.C. that change messages every few seconds compel us to notice them,much 19s5),eV,792 F2d 1269(4th Cir.1986).art denied.479 U.S.1102(1987). the same way our eyes move to the television screen when it's on.They lure our attention away from what's happening on the road and onto the sign.It's just human nature.And it works.That's why these signs are so incredibly lucrative for the billboard industry. Proponents of digital billboards say nobody has ever proven that they increase traffic accidents.This statement is only partially true.Some studies have shown a link between digital billboards(as well as static boards)and ii:/..,e„ NA NBA traffic safety problems,while others remained inconclusive.Importantly, �. no objective studies have shown them to be safe, nor have studies beenEtlakiWIIP"Iii- 'li conducted since these signs have started to proliferate. ru immol Ed...r ifsmsa'° ..m"` `""" What does the research currently say? - _ 2. A Wisconsin Department of Transportation study conducted in the 1980s examined crash rates on I-94 East and West adjacent to the • Milwaukee County stadium,after a variable message sign that showed sports scores and ads had been installed.The study found that sideswipe and rear-end collisions were up as much as 35 percent where the sign was most visible. THE TWO SECOND RULE: What factors make drivers likely to look at an electronic sign for more than two seconds at a Will people stare at a changing sign What Every Community time,and therefore put themselves and others to see what's next? Should Know at risk' "The reason[electronic]advertisingworks is They are extremely bright and are designed because it is impactful.Ifyou see people parked An analysis of the I00-CarNaturalistic Driving to be visible in bright sunlight and at night. at the stoplight watching it,you see their eyes Study, conducted by the National Highway The eye is drawn to them far more strongly waiting for it to change." than to traditional illuminated billboards.They Traffic Safety Administration,released in 2006, Source:Clear Channel Outdoor lies Moines division president are designed to be eye-catching,and they are. Tim Jameson,quoted in the Ds,Moire,Blaine.Record,Feb.4,2007 showed that taking one's eyes off the road for more than two seconds for any reason not directly They can be seen from great distances,even related to driving(such as checking the rearview as far away as six-tenths of a mile,making mirror)"significantly increased individual near- them distracting even before they begin to Because the messages change daily or even crash/crash risk." communicate their messages. hourly, even commuters who pass by the signs every day will look to see what's new. The images rotate every 6-10 seconds and Traditional signs become visual background electronic signs especially drivers will naturally look at the sign long Are noise for local drivers,and thus have less safety attention-getting? enough to see what comes up next.There may impact;but electronic signs never blend into be as many as 10 messages in the rotation. the background. 'Nothings as eye-catching as an electronic LED display.The brightly-lit text and graphics can be The Florida Department of Transportation's Younger drivers may be more easily distracted •ttention een from hundreds affect away,drawing the official position is that it takes a minimum by electronic media,and older drivers may of six seconds to comprehend the message on require longer viewing times to comprehend of everyone within view." 4g p an electronic billboard,which is already three Source:Voiceover narration ofTtans-Luz promotional video often confusing,elaborate,and colorful images. pr times the safe period for driver distraction. (www.impactmosic.com/tram-lux) See Additional Resources on the back page for links to the studies referenced above. ■A 1998 FHWA memo noted that digital signs raise"significant high- way salty questions because of the potential to be extremely bright, Court Rules Virginia Tech Billboard rapidly changing,and distracting to motorists." •A 2001 FI-IWA eeview of billboard safety studies found that"the safety Safety Study Lacks Credibility consequences of distraction from the driving task can be profound." To overcome the argument that billboards are a distraction to drivers, •A 2003 report titled External-To-Vehicle Driver Distraction,by the the outdoor advertising industry often points to a study it says"defini- Development Department Research Programme in Scotland,found lively"shows the signs create no safety risks whatsoever.This study, that"there is overwhelming evidence that advertisements and signs conducted by Dr.Suzanne Lee of the Virginia Tech Transportation placed near junctions can function as distracters,and that this con- Institute,often pops up in outdoor advertising litigation,or may be stitutes a major threat to road safety."It further noted that,"Young given to lawmakers in hopes of persuading them of the supposed (aged 17-21)drivers are particularly prone to external-to-vehicle safety of highway signs. driver distraction." This study is not only inherently flawed and biased;its uselessness If other studies have remained inconclusive,there is good reason, was noted by a federal district court judgein New York.In Nichols researchers say.First,many of the studies have been funded,and directed, Media Group v.The Towns of Babylon and Islip,the court held that by the billboard industry(see sidebar).Second,there are inherent diffi- the Lee Study is so infected by industry bias as to lack credibility and cultic in conducting traffic safety research. reliability."It based its opinion on several factors: Jerry Wachtel,an engineering psychologist with 25 years of experience in the field of driver behavior,said too many variables contribute to traffic "The study was funded by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising accidents to make it possible to prove causality from a single source."Most Research and Education,a close affiliate of the Outdoor Adver- accidents are not caused by one thing,but multiple things happening at tiring Association of America." once,"he said. "Trial testimony revealed that representatives of the OAAA were According to Wachtel,digital billboards undoubtedly contribute to the intimately involved in the design and conduct of the Lee Study." growing number of distractions that vie for a driver's attention today. Cell phones,navigational systems,and DVD players constitute in-car "The Lee Study has been neither widely disseminated nor subject distractions,while billboards,especially those that change messages, to peer review.Nor have the conclusions of the Lee Study been constitute external distractions.Both,he said,contribute to traffic safety replicated in any other study." hazards that he believes are growing increasingly worse. Don't let industry lobbyists use this discredited study as"proof"that "The outdoor advertising industry in my opinion is one part of the billboards arc safe.The only thing it proves is how much money the problem,but a significant part,"he said. billboard industry is willing to spend making bogus arguments. Wachtel co-authored a report for the Federal Highway Administration back in the 1980s,updated in 2001,which concluded that"some studies showed a clear relationship between the presence of outdoor signs and driver error or accidents and other studies hadn't shown anything." It recommended government-funded research into the issue,but the research was never funded. The Federal Highway Administration in January 2007,however,announced that it will initiate a study to examine the safety issues related to elec- Digital signs are fen the brightest objects in the landscape. ironic signs.Details on the scope and timing of the research have not been especially at night.They dominate the field of view and offer released,but results are not expected until 2009. dangerous distractions for the tranolingpublic. • • • 25%Off Sale Going on Now `�i•: - eh • ARE THEY LEGAL? THE FIRST STEP in fighting a digital billboard Additionally,nonconforming signs on state or local roads not that has been erected or proposed in your locality is to find covered by the Highway Beautification Act are often governed out whether your state's agreement with the Federal Highway by local ordinances that do not allow them to be substantially Administration(FHWA)already prohibits them.Many do. altered or expanded either.Local jurisdictions have denied While that hasn't stopped the billboard industry from erecting permits for conversion to digital technology,although some the signs anyway,it can give you some powerful ammunition of those denials have been challenged. with which to challenge them and argue for their removal. Local cities,towns or counties may Flashing,Intermittent,or Moving Lights usually impose stricter regulations On July 17,1996,the FHWA issued a memorandum clarifying on outdoor advertising than the state the status of''changeable message signs."It noted that many State-Federal agreements would allow for changeable mes- or federal government does. sages such as the Tri-Vision signs that use rotating panels or slats.However,it also noted that,even if Tri-Vision signs Can Local Governments Prohibit Signs were allowed,the agreement probably wouldn't allow LED signs."In nearly all States,these signs may still not contain Allowed in State-Federal Agreements? flashing,intermittent,or moving lights,"the memo states. Yes,in almost all states.Local cities,towns or counties may A 2006 letter to Texas Department of Transportation officials usually impose stricter regulations on outdoor advertising than goes even further.If the state agreement prohibits signs the state or federal government dots.The State-Federal agree- 'illuminated by any flashing,intermittent or moving light or meets govern signs on interstate and federal-aid highways.J.ral- lights...including any type of screen using animated or scroll- iOes may also create stricter standards for state and local muds. ing displays,such as LED(light-emitting diode)screen or any other type of video display,even if the message is stationary," The First Amendment then"the wording in the agreement clearly prohibits such Often,billboard industry representatives try to convince local •signs,"it states. governments that if they ban billboards,they will be violating the First Amendment right to free speech.This is not true. Nonconforming Signs In almost all states,localities may ban billboards outright,or Another industry trick is to convert a static,nonconforming may restrict the size and types of billboards that are allowed. sign to an LED sign and claim that the change is not an The only thing they cannot restrict is what they say. "improvement,"and therefore not prohibited.The 1996 'It's only when you get into banning content that you get into FHWA memo clearly states that this is not permitted,as trouble,"said Eric Kelly,an attorney and professor of urban "applying updated technology to nonconforming signs would be considered a substantial change and inconsistent"with planning at Ball State University,who often helps local cities federal regulations. and towns draft or revise their sign ordinances. KellA July 1998 FHWA memo offers further guidance.It declares recommends that local governments also make any rules that signs with animation or scrolling messages should be regarding sign technology consistent between on-premise and off-premise signs to avoid potential litigation that might charge considered nonconforming signs and notes that they raise "significant highway safety questions because of the potential they are giving preferential treatment to one type of business to be extremely bright,rapidly changing,and distracting over another.But that doesn't mean that you have to allow to motorists." digital billboards if you allow banks to show the time and temperature,or gas stations to regularly change the prices posted on their signs,he said. Allowing signs to change messages no more than once per minute,or restricting the size of the sign to no more than 30 square feet,allows for time and temperature signs,gas stations and church message boards but essentially bans Tri-Vision Watch Me Change • billboards and digital message boards that show new ads every six or eight seconds. •- _ .__ It also helps,said Kelly,to include language in the ordinance explaining why the restrictions are there.If the ordinance states that its mission is to promote safety and aesthetics,and ties this goal back to goals in the local comprehensive plan,it strength 2 - - ens the ordinance and helps protect it from legal challenges. ELECTRONIC xr p- Follow this signi instructions and you may regret it.By taking extra seconds to watch the sign change(and change and change), SINS •— _ _ drivers place thernselss and others in potential danger i • the digital boards are so much more profitable,and because they would WARNING SIGNS: otherwise be unable to erect them,since many localities have limitations Industry Tactics to Watch Out For on erecting new boards.And once the digital signs go up,they become J cost-prohibitive to remove should the government later need to buy Billboard owners often lament on industry websites that current rcg- them out due to mad improvements,commercial development,or if the signs are proven to be hazardous. ulations and public sentiment present their biggest hurdles to mass deployment of digital signs.But in addition to the industry's normal pol- Governments should not fall for offers to take down old signs in itical influence,it frequently employs some common strategies with local exchange for permitting new digital ones.Whatever perceived benefits officials for overcoming those roadblocks.Here is what your community accrue from such deals don't outweigh the introduction of devices that can expect to encounter if permission is sought for electronic signs: will potentially lead to traffic deaths and injuries and degrade the visual character of the community.Further,in the absence of a complete mon- Amber Alerts and Other torium on new signs,the old signs will inevitably be replaced somewhere Public Service Announcements within thcjurisdiction. When Clear Channel installed a network of 10 digital billboards in When an Improvement is Not an Improvement Albuquerque,part of its deal with the state was that it would run Amber Alerts and other emergency messages for free.It made the same deal in Those days,governments should be wary of seemingly innocuous appG- Cleveland."Strategic relationships with the community arc important," cations to"improve old signs or"add or upgrade lighting,which may a company representative told the Albuquerque Tribune. hide a plan by a sign company to replace a static billboard with a digital sign.Installing digital technology over a regular board is not an update But many cities and states don't need digital billboards to run Amber or"improvement,"but should be treated as construction of an entirely Alerts.Existing government-operated digital highway signs,which have new sign. been in place for many years,as well as television and radio,already 'a provide a system for emergency communication. Some sign companies,in their eagerness to convert their signs,simply :5 ignore rules and regulations and make changes without permission,hoping Nonprofits and police departments should not allow themselves to be to intimidate local governments with the prospect of long and expensive used as justification for the visual degradation of their community.No legal battles or counting on a lack of political will to enforce the law amount of donated ad space or Amber Alerts can compensate for the aesthetic and safety damage done by these signs. Let's Trade What Does the Public Think? To erect seven digital billboards on highways entering Cleveland,Clear Billboard companies often claim that digital signs are very popular 110 Channel took down several hundred billboards elsewhere in the city with the public,but never cite data to back up the claim.Perhaps that's because research shows the opposite. This might look like a good deal,but the truth is mast of the boards taken down in these swaps arc nonconforming or unprofitable signs A 2005 survey conducted in Arizona found that by a margin of anyway.Billboard companies are willing to make the swap because73 percent to 21 percent,citizens opposed laws that would alloy electronic billboards on the state's highways.When the 21 percent . favoring digital signs were then asked if they would still support the signs if they"might distract drivers,"the opposition to electronic 8 DON'T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT... Thesurewtog survey of 6 percent. The 682 adults had a statistical precision of plus or minus 3.8 percent. How Big is the Issue? Electronics industry analyst,iSuppli,"predicts that by 2010,75,000,or as one kilometer from either side....But then you couldn't miss a 34 ft. 15 percent of total billboards in the U.S.,will be digital displays,up from x 19 ft.Hi Definition TV on the side of the road that stands almost 40 a mere 500 digital billboards,or 0.1 percent,of all billboards in 2006." feet above the ground,could you?And that's exactly what SiliconView's Sours:`Channel Viewpoint Consumer el monks-just the sideshow u the advertising at CES,' LED billboard looks like,a giant TV." eCMnnrILint Daly Nrou,January 9,2007 Source Outdoor Today,January 2005 What's Bad for You is Good for Them If You Build It,They Will Stare... "Nobody likes being stuck in a traffic jam,but Clear Channel executives for More Than Two Seconds are coming to love them.'Hey,traffic is a good thing,'quips Clear Channel Communications Inc.CEO Mark Mays.'People listen to more radio,and "[Electronic]Billboard scheduling is based on a'repeating loop'of adver- they have more time to look at billboards.'Now that's a captive audience." tising messages.The SihconView loop contains six different messages, each displayed for five seconds with a one-second pause between each Source:asoeru wrra Onfinr,June 20,ZOOS message.Thus,one message loop lasts approximately 36 seconds.The loop continuously repeats on a 24-hour basis,which gives each advertiser at And You Thought You'd Never Get that Big-Screen TV least 2,880 viewing exposures per day....A factor that determines dwell "As one drives along Hwy'.101 between San Jose and San Francisco, time,or the amount of time a commuter sees a billboard,is the vehicle's O there are many billboards that vie for your attention.But just as you near speed approaching the board.At 65 ph,a Highway 101 driver sees one San Carlos,it is tough if not impossible to miss one particular two-sided full rotation of the Silicon View billboard.During peak hours,when traffic billboard....Its excellent positioning allows it to be seen by traffic as far slows,a driver could see three to five loafs."[emphasis added] Source,'Pixels and Prints:Outdoor's Future Fusco Sign,of the Tones,August 2003 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES C• r A definitive study on the safety of electronic billboards has yet to be done,but the following documents contain information that is important to the current debate. The research papers referenced below are available as PDF files at the Scenic America website at www.scenic.orq/billboards/electronic. You41 1: ■ will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer to read them. BMX - t . The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/ 1 Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic _�`?� • - Driving Study Data a __ April2006,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -- U.S.Department of Transportation ~ A major study of driver inattention,primarily involving distractions inside the car,but finding that any distraction of more than two seconds is a poten- tial cause of crashes and near crashes. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs ScenicAmerica 1634 I Street, N.W. Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Suite 510 No.1937,2005 Washington, DC 20006 A study of electronic signs in Toronto,which finds that"On the basis of 202.638.0550 the eye fixation study and the pubic survey data, it is apparent that video 202.638.3171 (fax) advertising can distract drivers inappropriately and lead to individual crashes,"but calls for additional research duc to other conflicting data. For additional information about this and other issues, visit www.scenic.org. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction Kevin E.Fry,President,Scenic America Laura Williamson McCafferty, Writer September 11,2001,Federal Highway Administration, Kristen Argenio,Ideal Design Co.,Designer U.S.Department of Transportation This publication was funded in part by the A summary of existing research (as of 2001),on the subject of the safety Richard King Mellon Foundation. of electronic signs and a call for additional studies. Scenic America is the only national nonprofit organization Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the scenic character of America's communities and countryside.Through Sign Study: Impacts of an Advertising Variable national advocacy efforts and technical assistance services. Message Sign on Freeway Traffic local and national projects, and the support of its n state affiliates,Scenic America fights to reduce billboard blight and December 1994, Wisconsin Department of Transportation other forms of visual pollution;preserve the scenic character Study of the dangers posed by an electronic sign in Milwaukee along I-94, of the nation's highways and byways;promote context-sensitive that concluded that"It is obvious that the variable message sign has had an highway solutions;ensure the mitigation of the visual impact effect on traffic,most notably in the increase of the side swipe crash rate." of cell phone towers and other intrusions in the landscape;and promote scenic easements and other strategies to protect open space and preserve irreplaceable scenic resources. Change is inevitable. Ugliness is not. BE SURE TO VISIT THE SCENIC AMERICA WEBSITE AT W W W.SCEN IC.O RG ©Copyright 2007 Scenic America FOR ADDITIONAL AND UPDATED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS AND OTHER SIGN CONTROL ISSUES. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-2098 NASER JEWELERS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Lipez, and Howard, Circuit Judges. John F. Winston with whom Stephen H. Roberts, McNeill, Taylor & Gallo, and Winston & Bragg were on brief for appellant. Lisa M. Lee with whom Charles P. Bauer, John T. Alexander, and Ransmeier & Spellman were on brief for appellee. John M. Baker, Robin M. Wolpert, Kathryn M.N. Hibbard, and Green Espel, P.L.L.P. were on brief for American Planning Association, Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, New Hampshire Municipal Lawyers Association, and New Hampshire Planners Association, amici curiae. William D. Brinton and Rogers Towers were on brief for Scenic America, Inc., amicus curiae. January 18, 2008 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The city of Concord, New Hampshire, enacted an ordinance prohibiting all Electronic Messaging Centers ("EMCs"), which the city found were detrimental to traffic safety and community aesthetics. EMCs are signs which display electronically changeable messages (as opposed to signs with static or manually changeable messages) and so display illuminated text that can change frequently, for instance by scrolling or flashing. Naser Jewelers, Inc. ("NJI") , a Concord business, sought and was denied a preliminary :injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance on grounds of facial unconstitutionality under the First Amendment. Concord's ban on all EMCs is content-neutral. Globe Newspaper. Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm'n, 100 F.3d 175, 183 (1st Cir. 1996) . As a result, the ordinance is permissible if it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leaves open alternative channels of communication. An ordinance is narrowly tailored if it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. Ward v. Rock hgainst Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989) . The ordinance need not be the least restrictive means to serve those interests. Id. at 798; Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726 (2000) ; Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 188. Concord's ordinance meets these criteria and we affirm. Concord has enacted sign ordinances as part of its municipal code. The stated purposes of these ordinances are, among other things, to "[m]aintain and enhance the appearance and aesthetic environment of the City" and to "(i]mprove pedestrian and traffic safety." Concord, N.H., Code of Ordinances § 28-6-1(b) & (d) (2007) . Before 2006, Concord's sign ordinances contained prohibitions on ENCe, but provided exceptions for ENCs which displayed solely time, date, and temperature indicators. In 2005, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge ruled that the regulations violated the First Amendment because they favored signs that displayed time, date, or temperature. That erroneous ruling has since been overruled by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Carlson_s Chrysler v, City of Concord, 2007 WL 3306945, at *1 (N.H. Nov. 8, 2007) . In light of the interim Superior Court ruling, Concord amended its ordinances in August 2006 to prohibit ail ENCe, including ones indicating only time, date, or temperature. The city's current �- ordinance, challenged here, prohibits all signs that "appear animated or projected" or "are intermittently or intensely illuminated or of a traveling, tracing, scrolling, or sequential light type" or "contain or are illuminated by animated or flashing light." Concord, N.H., Code of Ordinances § 28-6-7(h) (2007) . On October 3, 2006, NJI sought permission to construct and operate an EMC on the premises of its retail store in Concord. The sign would be located on Loudon Road, a high-traffic corridor that includes a mix of retail and residential development and a large public park and fire station. The location is in close proximity to an elementary school and more residential neighborhoods. The store's current sign is a freestanding sign six feet off the ground that features a model of a large gold ring with a polished diamond and text reading "Joseph Michaels Diamonds." (Joseph Michaels Diamonds is a trade name used by NJI.) The proposed EMC would be located directly underneath the current sign and would measure 2.7 feet by 5.3 feet. NJI is eager to install an EMC at its store in Concord because of its experience with an ENO at another retail location in Dover, New Hampshire. NJI had earlier installed an RHO at its Dover store. Originally, NJI changed the copy on its EMC only once every ten minutes. Early in 2006, NJI began changing the text once every �' four to five seconds. NJI claims to have experienced a sizable increase in sales, some eighteen percent, as a result of these more frequent copy changes. On October 13, Concord's code administrator denied NJI's application because the proposed EMC would violate Concord's regulations. On October 25, NJI sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages in federal district court, claiming that Concord's regulations impermissibly infringed its First Amendment rights. NJI also sought a preliminary injunction to allow it to install an EMC in time for the holiday shopping season. A magistrate judge denied NJI's request for a preliminary injunction on November 22, 2006. The district court denied the injunction on different analytical grounds on June 25, 2007. The district court held inapplicable the commercial speech test in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 O.S. 557 (1980), on which the magistrate judge had relied, because the EMC ban is content-neutral and does not apply merely to commercial entities. CD Rather, the district court upheld the ordinance under the rule that content-neutral regulations are constitutional provided that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and allow for reasonable alternative channels of communication. See, e.g., Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Swift, 284 F.3d 198, 212 (1st Cir. 2002) . The district court concluded that NJI had not shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits and therefore was not entitled to a preliminary injunction. This timely appeal followed. II. Appellate review of the denial of a preliminary injunction -+ is for abuse of discretion. Rio Grande Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc. v. Rullan, 397 F.3d 56, 68 (let Cir. 2005) . The district court correctly noted the four factors considered in determining whether a preliminary injunction ought to issue: "1) a likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm to the plaintiff should preliminary relief not be granted, 3) whether the harm to the defendant from granting the preliminary relief exceeds the harm to the plaintiff from denying it, and 4) the effect of the preliminary injunction on the public interest." Id. at 75. We consider whether NJI has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. When considering First Amendment claims, we engage in de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 567 (1995); Sullivan v. Town of Augusta, F.3d , 2007 ML 4357565, at *5 (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2007) . Billboards and other signs are protected by the First Amendment, but courts have long approved subjecting them to the police powers of local government. Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 398 F.3d 814, 818 (6th Cir. 2005) . As the Supreme Court has noted, "signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract."' motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs . . . ." City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 48 (1994) . A threshold question in cases involving challenges to government restrictions on speech is whether the restriction at issue is content-neutral or, to the contrary, is content-based. Seel erg., Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) ; Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 736 (1st Cir. 1995) ; see also K. Sullivan & G. Gunther, First Amendment Law 193 (1999) . In Globe Newspaper, this court held that the "principal incuiry _n determining content neutrality . . . is whether the goverment has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys." 100 F.3d at 183 (quoting Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d at 737) (internal quotation marks omitted) . Furthermore, "[a) regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others." Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791) (internal quotation marks omitted) . As the district court correctly noted, Concord's prohibit.'.on on EMCs does not discriminate based on content. EMCs might. communicate any number of messages -- from a business advertising a sale to a high school congratulating its victorious teams -- and all ., EMCs are similarly prohibited. NJI insists that Concord' s regulation is content-based because city officials gave preference to time, date, and temperature messages in its prior ordinance. They assert Concord is using the current regulation as a stopgap measure, with plans to reinstate the original prohibition -- with exceptions for time, date, and temperature displays -- following the state Supreme Court ' s decision. This argument goes nowhere . The regulation currently in place, which is the only one before us, contains no exceptions . Concord' s regulation is properly analyzed as a content-neutral restriction on speech. NJI argues that the city bears the burden of proof on all issues . The district court accepted this argument, at least on the ultimate question of the statute ' s constitutionality, citing to Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S . 656, 666 (2004 ) . Ashcroft , however, involved a challenge to a content-based speech restriction. See id. at 665 . Content-based regulations are presumed to be unconstitutional and the government bears a heavy burden of justification. R.A.V. v. City of St . Paul, 505 U . S. 377 , 382 (1992) ; McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 2001) . Here, plaintiff has brought a facial attack on a content- neutral ordinance. In a facial attack case, it is plaintiff's burden to show that the law has no constitutional application. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart, U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1639 (2007); N.Y. State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 11 (1988) ; McGuire, 260 F.3d at 47. The Supreme Court has said that when the government "seeks to restrict speech based on its content" that "the usual presumption of constitutionality afforded [legislative] enactments is reversed." United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803, 817 (2000) . The implication is that content-neutral statutes continue to enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. The Supreme Court's most recent case on content-neutral regulations is Hill v. Colorado. Neither Hill nor Ward v. Rock Against Racism explicitly speaks to burdens of proof on the different portions of the test used to assess content-neutral regulations. But there is other law saying, in content-neutral regulation cases, but often citing to content-based cases, that the government must show that it has met the element, within the larger • test, that the regulation is narrowly tailored. See, e.a_, Turner Broad., 512 U.S. at 665; Casey v. City ofNewgort, 308 F.3d 106, 111 (1st Cir. 2002) . Na need not resolve here the intricacies of burdens of proof and production. For our purposes, and indeed in many First Amendment cases of content-neutral regulations, the issue of who has the burden -� of proof will not be important. After all, the government's purpose for the regulation is often expressly stated, as are the reasons for that choice and not others, thus removing those issues from having to be proven. In this case, no matter who has the burden as to which elements of the test, plaintiff's claim fails. NJI also argues that it is does not matter whether Concord's regulations are content-neutral or content-based because "the targeted speech is primarily commercial" and Central Hudson applies to all restrictions involving commercial speech. This is simply incorrect. Central Hudson serves as an alternative to the more exacting standards applied to content-based restrictions on non- commercial speech. See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 562-63; Sullivan & Gunther, supra, at 163, 177-78. The standards for content-neutral restrictions do not vary by whether the plaintiff is exercising commercial speech. The uniform case law on restrictions on signs is clear on this point. See, e._g_, Prime Media, 398 F.3d at 819-22 (evaluating content-neutral restrictions on billboards using narrow tailoring analysis); Messer v. City of Douolasville, 975 F.2d 150S, 1569-11 (11th Cir. 1992) (same) . Content--neutral regulations are permissible so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest ^' and allow for reasonable alternative channels of communication. The narrow tailoring test is a form of intermediate scrutiny. "[R] egulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny . . . ." Turner Broad., 512 U.S. at 642; see also Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *12 (same) ; Sullivan & Gunther, supra, at 199 (same) . Concord's ordinance satisfies the requirements for constitutionality. The ordinance is a content-neutral regulation, it serves substantial governmental interests, it is narrowly tailored, and it leaves open reasonable alternative channels of communication. A. Governmental Interests From the face of Concord's sign regulations, the city's stated goals include promoting both traffic safety and community aesthetics. If a regulation is content-neutral on its face and states its purposes, we look to the legislative body's statement of intent. "we will not look behind th[e] express statement of intent as to a law neutral on its face." Torres Rivera v. Calderon Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 211 (1st Cir. 2005) . It is problematic to permit a plaintiff, in a content-neutral case, to attempt to prove that there is an intent apart from this express statement because "the legislature's subjective intent is both unknown and unknowable." McGuire, 260 F.3d at 47. Because Concord's regulations are content-neutral on their face, it was an empty exercise for plaintiff to have conducted . M ... examinations of Concord' s mayor or code enforcement officer in an effort to show the stated reasons for the ordinance were not the real reasons . Legislative history is permissible for other purposes, but not this . See, e .q. , McGuire, 260 F. 3d at 48 (considering legislative history in determining whether a statute was narrowly tailored) . Both traffic safety and community aesthetics have long been recognized to constitute significant governmental interests . Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U. S . 490, 507-08 (1981) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases and concluding that there can be no "substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks Amok to further -- traffic safety and the appearance of the city -- are substantial governmental goals") ; see also, e. q. , City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. , 507 U. S. 410, 425 (1993) (acknowledging city ' s legitimate interest in the aesthetics of its sidewalks) ; Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 807 ( 1984 ) (" [T] he visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles . . . constitutes a significant substantive evil within the City' s power to prohibit . ") . Concord' s stated justifications plainly constitute significant governmental interests . B. Narrow Tailoring, but Not Least Restrictive Means NJI argues that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. In determining whether a provision is narrowly tailored, courts apply the test articulated in Ward v. Rock Against Racism and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado. Under Ward, "the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied 'so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. '" 491 U.S. at 799 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689 (1985)) . "[T)his standard does not mean that a . . . regulation may burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Id. Concord, however, is not required to choose the least restrictive means possible: "[T]he regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could be adequately served by some less- speech-restrictive alternative." Id.. at 800. Concord's interests in traffic safety and community aesthetics would he achieved less effectively without the ordinance'.. prohibition on EMCs. We give some respect to "the accumulated, common-sense judgments of local lawmakers and of the many reviewing courts that billboards are real and substantial hazards to traffic safety." Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 509 (plurality opinion) . It is given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that EMCs, which provide more visual stimuli than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more hazardous. See Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2006), vacated on other grounds y Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2007 WL 3193854 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) (holding, in the context of EMC regulations, that "the Town's judgment that flashing or scrolling signs constitute a traffic hazard . . . is not unreasonable") . Indeed, plaintiff's own witness stated that bypassers focus more on rapidly blinking electronic signs than static signs. This constitutes a greater hazard. Further, for drivers a flashing light is often a signal of hazard on the roadway, a signal which itself slows and disrupts the traffic flow. .ems. NJI argues that Concord must perform studies to prove that the ban on ERCs in fact supports its stated interests. Concord was under no obligation to do such studies or put them into evidence. Justice Brennan suggested the need for such evidence in his concurring opinion in Metromedia, but seven justices rejected his position. Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 521, 528 (Brennan, J., concurring); sec also Outdoor Sys. Inc. v. City of Lexana, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1238 (D. Kan. 1999) ("Relying on Justice Brennan's concurring opinion in Metromedia, plaintiff claims that the City has the burden to come forward with evidence which demonstrates that billboards actually impair traffic safety and the beauty of the environment. Plaintiff ignores the fact that seven Justices rejected Justice Brennan's analysis in this regard.") . As noted in Ackerly Communications of the Northwest Inc. v. Krochalis, 108 F.3d 1095, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 1997), "[a]s a matter of law Seattle's ordinance, enacted to further the city's interests in esthetics and safety, is a constitutional restriction on commercial speech without detailed proof that the billboard regulation will in fact advance the city's interests." Similarly, the Sixth Circuit observed in rejecting the argument that a city needed to produce evidence to justify its regulation on billboard size: "To ask the City to justify a size restriction of 120 square feet over, say, 200 square feet or 300 square feet would impose great costs on local governments . . . ." Prime Media, 398 F.3d at 823-24. Courts have "repeatedly deferred to the aesthetic judgments of municipalities and other government bodies when evaluating restrictions on protected expression. Globe News_p er, 100 _.3d at 190 (quoting Gold Coast Pub'ns, Inc. v. Corrigan, 42 F.3d 1336, 134E (11th Cir. 1994) ) (internal. quotation mark omitted) . Although courts do not wholly defer to legislative judgments, see id., there is no basis to doubt that Concord's aesthetic concern -- "not rendering [its] visual image and community character to be that of a potential Times Square" -- would be achieved far less effectively absent a ban on EMCs. Concord's ordinance also does not burden substantially more speech than necessary. NJI argues that because Concord's City Council considered but rejected alternatives to a complete ban on EMCs, the ban necessarily burdens too much speech because there are alternatives. However, the government is not required to choose the least restrictive approach in content-neutral regulation. In Globe Newspaper, this court held that a regulation banning newspaper distribution boxes from the public streets of boston's historic Beacon Hill district passed constitutional muster. 100 F.3d at 195. The opinion noted that although less restrictive alternatives existed, the regulating commission was not required to adopt them if they would serve its interests less effectively. Id. at 189-90. NJI, to its credit, concedes this is the rule of Globe Newspaper, but asks us to overrule the case. Not only do we, as a panel, lack the power to do so, Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154, 160 (1st. Cir. 1998), but we would not, even if we could, for the rule is correct. Here, the city argues that NJI's proposed less restrictive alternatives were problematic and it was not required to accept them. Ironically, NJI argues less than a total ban would be a less restrictive alternative. The city had tried such an ordinance -- an EMC ban allowing only time, date, and temperature displays -- before and was met with a lawsuit. The alternative of allowing EMCs but imposing certain conditions on them, such as limiting the number of times per day a message could change, would have created steep monitoring costs and other complications for the city. There is evidence in the record, permissible on this issue, that the city explicitly considered and rejected alternatives, and the reasons for its choice. See McGuire, 260 F.3d at 49. Concord's concerns about the proposed alternatives to its present EMC ordinance are legitimate. NJI makes a separate argument that Concord's ordinance is forbidden because it is a ban of an entire medium of communication. Factually the argument raises the issue of how one defines "medium." Legally, the principle is untenable here. P Billboards and signs are not banned, nor is the use of signs with manually changeable type. Even if EMCs are considered to be a particular "medium," the fact that a regulation bans a particular medium does not mean that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored. Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 191- 92. When the medium itself is the "evil the city [seeks] to address," then a ban of that entire medium is narrowly tailored. Id. at 192 (citing Vincent, 466 U.S. at 810) . As the Supreme Court observed in Metromedia, "If the city has a sufficient basis for believing that billboards are traff c hazards and are unattractive, then obviously the most direct and perhaps the only effective approach to solving the problems they create is to prohibit them." 453 U.S. at 508 (plurality opinion) . C. Alternative Channels Concord has not foreclosed NJI from using other means of communication. As the district court pointed out, NJI can still use static and manually changeable signs. It can also place advertisements in newspapers and magazines and on television and the Internet, distribute flyers, circulate direct mailings, and engage in cross-promotions with other retailers. Seel e.g., Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *22 (holding that the use of sidewalks, gatherings on state land, hand-held banners, leafleting, vehicular processions, and smaller-scale outdoor gatherings constituted sufficient alternatives for people unable to afford a city's parade permit) ; La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that an ordinance prohibiting flashing or blinking electronic signs left open sufficient alternative channels of communication, including using non-electronic signs); Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 193 (concluding that street vendors were an adequate alternative to on- street newspaper boxes); Chapin Furniture Outlet, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (holding that an ordinance banning EMCs "does not prevent [p] laintiff from displaying any message . . . on a sign not prohibited" and noting that plaintiff could use banners, flags, sandwich boards, and inflatable signs as alternatives to EMCs) . NJI argues that it is losing potential customers, and therefore profit, because of its inability to place an FMC at its Concord location. The maximizing of profit is not the animating concern of the First Amendment. The fact that restrictions prohibit a form of speech attractive to plaintiff does not mean that no reasonable alternative channels of communication are available. "The First Amendment does not guarantee a right to the most cost-effective means of [speech] . . . ." Globe Newspaper, 100 F.3d at 193. Indeed, we have "upheld . . . alternative means of communication despite diminution in the quantity of speech, a ban on a preferred method of communication, and a reduction in the potential audience." Sullivan, 2007 WL 4357565, at *22. Concord's prohibition of GMCs is a constitutionally permissible content-neutral regulation. Since NJI has no probability of success on the merits of its claim, we need not address the other factors in the preliminary injunction determination. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to defendants. FINAL REPORT A CRITICAL, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TWO STUDIES RECENTLY RELEASED BY THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Prepared for: Maryland State Highway Administration Under Project AX137A51 Through and with full concurrence of: Positive Guidance Applications,Inc. Gerson J.Alexander,President By:Jerry Wachtel,CPE,President The Veridian Group,Inc. Berkeley,California Consultant October 18,2007 A.BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION. Outdoor advertising has been a fixture on America's roadways since there were roadways. From the"Burma Shave"signs and"Mail Pouch Tobacco"signs of the 1920s,to the jumbo neon spectaculars and computer controlled images on skyscraper curtain walls that grace Times Square,Hollywood and Las Vegas today, outdoor advertising has always been present in our built environment.Although the pros and cons of billboards have been debated for more than 50 years,it is perhaps their influence on traffic flow and safety that has been most controversial. Now,a"perfect storm"is brewing that is bringing this issue to the forefront once again. Regulators and traffic safety experts are increasingly focused on driver distraction as a major factor in crash causation. Private roadway managers, together with traditional turnpike and toll road operators seeking new sources of revenue to support needed maintenance and safety improvements,are turning to advertisers to provide some of that revenue.And new technologies have brought large-scale,extremely bright,high resolution signs to the roadside—signs that can display a frequently changing series of images and are capable of presenting full motion video. Even more advanced technologies enable the advertiser to target roadside advertisements to the specific demographics of drivers passing these signs and to create signs that actually interact with drivers by presenting personalized messages on the billboard or contacting the driver's mobile phone. Legal battles between advertisers and government agencies over the safety impacts of roadside billboards have taken place for more than two decades,and have reached the U.S.Supreme Court.After a hiatus of some years,these battles are looming again,but the stakes are now much higher because of the costs and revenues involved and the heightened concern about driver distraction. B.THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW. In July 2007,the Outdoor Advertising Association of America(OAAA)announced on its website the issuance of two"ground-breaking studies"that addressed the human factors and driver performance issues associated with real-world digital(or electronic)billboards(EBBS),and the impact of such billboards on traffic accidents (Outdoor Advertising Association of America,2007). The OAAA website stated, in part,that this research"offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence." Since neither of these two studies had received public peer review at the time of their issuance,it was premature,at best,for the OAAA to make any claims of the validity of the findings.Also,since the accident study did not compare accidents in the presence of EBBs to accidents in their absence,the study presented no evidence,no less conclusive evidence,to justify the OAAA's claim. In addition,since even a cursory inspection of the human factors study showed that driver performance and behavior did, in fact,deteriorate when 2 EBBs were present vs.when they were absent,the OAAA claims seem difficult to support.Finally,the OAAA's claim that its Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education(FOARE)commissioned these studies to specifically examine whether there exists"a cause and effect link between outdoor digital billboards and driver behavior"demands scrutiny since the research methods and statistical analyses employed in these two studies were incapable of determining causality. Nonetheless,news media throughout the country picked up on the OAAA web posting,and the debate over the pros and cons of these new billboards took center stage in many State and local government offices. In several cases, Government agencies at all levels came under immediate pressure to promulgate new regulations or amend existing codes and to permit the construction of new electronic billboards along their roads. As a result of the issuance of these two studies and the claims made for them,and because of the need to address this technology by Government agencies nationwide,the Maryland State Highway Administration(MDSHA)asked this reviewer to perform an independent peer review of each of the two studies.This report represents the results of that review.The two studies are: "A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County,Ohio,"by:Albert Martin Tantala,Sr.,and Michael Walter Tantala,Tantala Associates,Submitted to:The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education,July 7,2007",and "Driving Performance and Digital Billboards: Final Report,"by:Suzanne E. Lee,Melinda J. McElheny and Ronald Gibbons,Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research, Prepared for:Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, March 22,2007." C.HOW THIS REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED. Each of the two reviews that follows was conducted by thoroughly reading the report,performing independent verification,where possible,of the accuracy of statements made and data provided, reviewing the statistical analyses that were performed and the conclusions drawn from them,checking cited references and identifying important references omitted,and looking for signs of possible bias that might have influenced the decisions made or the conclusions reached. For both documents,our review,followed the same sequence:(1)Decisions and Assumptions Made in Support of the Research; (2)Methodology; (3)Review and Application of Cited Literature; (4)Statistical Methods,Controls,and Analyses; (5) Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias. Because the strength of any research project rests heavily on the decisions and assumptions made in advance(a priori)by the researchers about what to study and 3 what to exclude,and on the research methodology that rests,in large part,on those decisions and assumptions,we have given the greatest weight in our review to subsections(1)and(2)as listed above. D.REVIEW OF THE TANTALA REPORT. 1.Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research This study is based upon an after-the-fact(post-hoc)review of police traffic collision reports.The weakness of trying to understand issues of driver inattention or distraction(which is the real focus of this research)through a post-hoc review of summary crash data is discussed in detail in Subsection 2,below. In this Subsection,we address the decisions and assumptions made by the researchers that led to their determination of which crashes to include in the study,and which to exclude. The decision of which crashes to study and which to ignore depends on two critical assumptions made by the researchers.The first assumption is based on their justifiable focus on those crashes that occurred in the vicinity of EBBs,i.e. within those roadway sections when an approaching driver could first see,and subsequently read the message on such billboards, In other words,the crashes of interest would be those that were initiated during the interval that an EBB was within the visible or legibility range of an approaching driver;and we would want to compare such crashes to those that occurred on comparable roadway sections where no EBBs were present.(As will be discussed below, however,such comparisons are not possible because of another assumption made by the researchers).Thus,the critical assumption underlying this decision is how to determine which crashes were,and which were not,within the visibility and legibility ranges of the seven(7)EBBs evaluated in this study.The second critical decision by the researchers that leads to the scope of included vs.excluded crashes for study is whether to include all crashes reported in these study and control sections of roadway,or whether to exclude some of the crashes for certain reasons.The researchers made the decision that certain types of crashes should be excluded from study because they were subject to certain types of biases. Below,we address each of these decisions,and the assumptions on which they were based. a.Assumptions about the visual range and legibility range of EBBs Let us first address the researchers'assumptions about the visibility and legibility distances of the seven(7)EBBs addressed in this study,which,in turn, led to their decisions about roadway sections for which to include and exclude crash data. The authors use several different terms in their report to identify those roadway sections where approaching drivers might be able to initially see an EBB ahead and later read a message displayed on that EBB.Their terms include: 4 "visible range from route,""viewer reaction zone,"viewer reaction distance(VRD)," "viewer reaction distance zone",and"viewer reaction time(VRT)." Unfortunately,the authors neither define these terms nor describe how the measures based on them were developed.The closest they come to providing this information is in their discussion of VRD,which they describe as follows:"...Viewer Reaction Distance(is)how far from a billboard that the driver is potentially within the "influence"of the billboard"(p.45,and similarly on p.79). In other words,viewer reaction distance is the distance in which the viewer can react.The authors further state that"reasonable values for VRD were previously determined in previous studies,and are a function of the driver's speed."This statement is incorrect.Viewer reaction distance is not affected by the driver's speed—the distance at which a driver can first see,and then read,any sign is independent of speed;it is only viewer reaction time that would be affected by speed.Further,the authors provide no citations for the previous studies mentioned,and offer no other basis for their development of their VRD formula.They report that,at 65 MPH,the VRD is approximately 0.2 miles with a VRT(Viewer Reaction Time)of 10 seconds(p.79). A simple calculation demonstrates that,at 65 mph(95 feet-per-second or fps),0.2 miles is traversed in 11 seconds,not 10. It is possible,therefore,that although this formula would yield an error approaching 10%(an assumed VRD of 10 seconds vs. a calculated VRD of 11 seconds at an assumed 65 mph speed),this may be the source of their assumption that VRD is 10 seconds.The merit of the researchers' values assigned to these critical measurements is further eroded by their failure to account for the fact that billboards on the opposite side of a multi-lane highway from an approaching driver provide a longer viewing time than those on the near side, and by their commingling of VRD with their measurement of"distance to the nearest billboard"(pp.45-46)-a term which they do not define. Surprisingly,the researchers'assumptions about VRD discussed above are directly contradicted by Table 2-3 on p. 15 of the report.This table is titled:"Visible Range of Billboards Along Interstate Routes;"it is never referred to in their report. The table shows the"visible range,"in miles and feet,for each of the seven EBBs in the study.Although visible range is never defined,it would appear that these distances(which range from a low of 0.28 to a high of 2.15 miles)represent the maximum distance from which each of the EBBs can be seen by an approaching driver.Translating these distances to time,it can be seen that the billboard with the shortest visible range(#4)would be within an approaching driver's visual range for 15.6 seconds,whereas the billboard with the longest visible range(#5)would be visible to an approaching driver for 118.9 seconds,or nearly two minutes.(Note that both of these calculations are based on the researchers'claim that the Speed Limit was 65 mph).These data suggest that the researchers'decision to review only those crashes within 10 seconds upstream of any billboard is insufficient even to assess the potential influence of billboard#4, no less any of the other six,all of which were visible for greater distances. 5 The consequences for the validity of the data of this study are significant because the reviewers'assumptions led them to exclude all(an unknown number) crashes that were likely initiated in roadway segments further upstream from each of the billboards that they chose to study.For example,if the researchers determined that a particular EBB's zone of visual influence extends for 850 feet, they would exclude from their consideration any reported crash that took place outside this boundary.And the effect of these assumptions on the data considered by the researchers is substantial. It should be obvious that every EBB visible along the route will have a different VRD and VRT depending upon numerous factors—sign size, height,and location,sight distance,size of characters in the display,roadway geometry,etc. Nonetheless the authors chose to assign each EBB the same VRD of 0.2 miles and the same VRT of 10 seconds.We believe that this is indefensible,especially given their data,in Table 2-3,showing the dramatically variable distances from which each of the seven EBBs can be seen.To take one example,if we assume(based on accepted industry practice)that 1"of letter height supports a legibility distance of 40',and a 14'tall billboard(all digital billboards in this study were 14'high x 48' long)with a character height of 75%of the available height or 10 feet 6 inches(a reasonable assumption based on the EBB images captured in Figures 2-4 and 2-8 of their report),then the legibility distance of such a sign would be 5040 feet,or 0.95 miles, nearly five times the VRD assumed by these authors.More significantly,the visibility distance is far greater than the legibility distance, and given the size, brightness,and frequently changing imagery on EBBs,it is reasonable to assume that crashes initiated within a given sign's visibility distance must also be considered.We have measured the visibility distance(day and night)to a recently erected EBB as greater than five(5)miles,and even though typical roadway sight distances would not permit such a lengthy visibility distance, it is reasonable to assume that the gaze of an approaching driver might be attracted to,and that such a driver might be capable of reading,an EBB at far greater distances,and for a far longer period of time,than the authors chose to evaluate in this study.We conclude, therefore,that the crash data accepted for inclusion in this study,based on the researchers'artificially constrained assumptions of VRD,has resulted in a substantial understatement of the true number of crashes that have occurred within the visibility and legibility range of the EBBs studied. Because Viewer Reaction Zone is never satisfactorily defined,all of the results reported in Tables 4-1 to 4-4 must be considered suspect. Similarly, because the Visible Range is never satisfactorily defined,all of the results reported in Figures 4-2 to 4-9 must also be questioned. b. Assumptions about bias in crash causes The researchers made the assumption that certain classes or types of crashes should be excluded from study because they represent"bias".They use the terms "data-bias"and"interchange-bias."Data bias is discussed here;interchange bias is ^� 6 discussed below.Unfortunately, in 90 pages,there are no clear statements that identify exactly which types of biases were excluded,or why.Throughout the report, "examples"of such biases are mentioned in various contexts,but the list of excluded crash types changes from page to page,and a complete list is not provided.Thus,the reader is left to question whether other categories of crashes were also excluded from the data set. Excerpting from the examples given,the following crash types were excluded from the database: -Deer hits(also called animal related) ' -Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol' -Adverse weather2 -Speeding3 -Senior related3 It is puzzling that the researchers chose to exclude crashes that occurred in adverse weather,and crashes that were"senior related." Since adverse weather is a known contributor to increased driver task demands,it represents the very kind of traffic/environmental condition for which one would want to study the potential distracting effect of such signs.Similarly,it has long been known that novice drivers and older drivers may have difficulties in highly demanding driving situations. For this reason,the decision to eliminate"senior related"crashes(no mention is made of crashes involving young drivers),raises additional concerns about the validity of the authors'approach. c. Assumptions about interchange bias The decision to eliminate crashes in the vicinity of interchanges(discussed by the authors on pages 49 and 77)is particularly troubling for several reasons.In their own words,they excluded interchange-related crashes because interchanges are "where drivers may undertake additional tasks,such as changing lanes, accelerating/decelerating,and negotiating directions."Since these demanding tasks associated with intersections are the very situations that are of concern to the traffic safety community,and since they are among the prime locations for high visibility billboards(because such locations may allow the billboards to be seen by traffic on multiple roadways),their a prior removal from this study is a cause for concern. It should be noted that the most recent billboard study published by FHWA(Farbry et al,2001)and cited by these authors,specifically noted that intersections and interchanges were highly demanding road locations,and that such locations should be included in any study of electronic billboards. Discussed in Tables 4-5,4-6.pp 45,49.77 2 Discussed in Table 4-5,pp.49,77("snowfall"and"icy roads"on pp.49,77) 'Discussed in Table 4-6(age 65 and above) 7 Decades of research into driver distraction demonstrates that alert experienced drivers can tolerate some distraction when their task demands are not high,but that all drivers have different cognitive capacities,and that there are certain road,traffic,and environmental conditions that may increase cognitive demands to the extent that additional sources of distraction should be avoided. Thus,the exclusion of some of the very types of crashes that might be expected to occur in the vicinity of EBBs is troubling,and,as with the decision to severely limit the distance upstream of EBBs in which crash data was collected,results in a likely substantial understatement of the actual crash statistics that took place in these roadway sections.Taken together,the choice of crash types to exclude is a serious weakness of this study,given that the very kinds of crashes excluded are those that would be of direct relevance to the potential for distraction caused by billboards. Although the decision to exclude crashes in the vicinity of interchanges is problematic for the"temporal"study,it is far more harmful in that section of the report that deals with"spatial"factors.In Section 4.4,the researchers describe the "spatial analysis as having been performed to study"whether traffic accidents occur more frequently at or near digital billboards on specific routes."The same crash factor exclusions apply as elsewhere in the report,but here the reader is further misled because the researchers define the"exclusion zone"related to interchanges in two conflicting ways within the same sentence.They state that they excluded "those accidents and billboards on interchanges(entrances/exits)within one mile (1/4 mile on each side of an interchange)"(p.78).Regardless of which distance was actually used,it is clear that any resulting findings are confounded by the fact that at least three of the billboards chosen for study(#3, Figure 2-8;#4,Figure 2-10; #7,Figure 2-16)are in close proximity to interchanges.Thus, if some percentage of accidents in the vicinity of these billboards was excluded due to the signs'proximity to the nearby interchanges,this artificially lowers the true number of crashes that may have been contributed by driver distraction due to these EBBs.As a result,the data for"bias adjusted"crashes in Tables 4-7 through 4-10,and in Figures 4-11 through 4-17 must also be considered suspect if not clearly insufficient. Figure 1,(taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website)shows the researchers'Billboard Number 3 and its proximity to an 1-90 interchange.As can be seen,this sign is within%mile of the interchange.So,regardless of what distance from an interchange was actually excluded in the data collection,this sign,and most likely,Billboards 4 and 7 as well,would have been excluded.Unfortunately, because the authors do not provide the reader with any information regarding the distance from the nearest interchange to any of their studied EBBs,there is no way to measure their proximity objectively. 8 c r •. DIGITAL • � ��1� • —V. • .i• C '.ate_. Figure 1. Proximity of EBB#3 to an 1-90 interchange.This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-8,p. 16,of the Tantala study. It is also Site#22 from the Lee study.(Source: http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm) In summary,the researchers'decision to exclude from study crashes that may have been affected by certain"biases"is essentially and critically flawed because it overlooks the most basic understanding of traffic crashes—that they are frequently multi-causal—and it is precisely when such multiple factors are at play— adverse weather,older drivers,complex interchanges,speeding)that the likelihood grows that the cognitive demands on the driver are increased and that irrelevant distraction cannot be tolerated. In other words,one should not exclude such factors because they cause"bias"—these are exactly the factors that interact to increase the likelihood of a crash when other factors such as inattention or distraction are present,and they must be investigated. d.Assumptions about crash baseline data Finally,one key assumption that colors the entire research paradigm is explained in two successive questions posed by the authors on p.4 of the report.The first question asks."...what is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety?"This is a logical question to ask,and the one that should have guided this research. However,the next sentence,also posed in the form of a question, 9 asks:"Are accidents more,less,or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards?"Unfortunately,it was this second question that guided the research,not the first. In other words,this study was not designed to investigate the safety of digital billboards compared to the absence of billboards; rather,it made the baseless assumption that conventional billboards were the acceptable baseline for comparison with EBBs.As a result of this assumption,the research methods failed to include true comparison sites where billboards were absent,and made any assessment of the contribution to crashes from EBBs against a true baseline impossible. Further,the announcement on the website of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America(OAAA)that accompanied the introduction of this report erroneously stated that this study"offers conclusive evidence that traffic accidents are no more likely to happen in the presence of digital billboards than in their absence."Clearly,since no comparisons were made between crashes in the presence and absence of EBBs were made,this claim is false, 2.Methodology. This is a post-hoc accident study,meaning that the researchers reviewed summary reports of accidents that had been prepared by investigating police officers.Any such investigation is limited by the detail and accuracy of the reports reviewed,and by certain significant limitations in the accident reporting system itself,which the authors should have,but did not,acknowledge. For example,the majority of traffic collisions are never reported to,nor investigated by,the police,and thus any effort to determine a crash rate in the roadside areas studied will result in under-reporting. Second,and of critical importance for this study,unless a particular crash involves major property damage,serious injuries,or fatalities,the police investigation will most likely be rather cursory. In most States,a serious crash,and only a serious one,will require a specialized investigative team to examine the precursors to the accident(by reviewing evidence such as skid marks,debris fields,etc.,and preparing a supplemental accident report);but for the vast majority of police investigated accidents,no in-depth investigation is performed.The result is that information on the traffic collision report form regarding the actual crash location is often incorrect,and leads to a serious weakness in the conduct of post-hoc accident investigations such as the present one.Specifically,police reports will almost always identify the location as the position where the involved vehicles came to rest after impact,since the costly and time-consuming in-depth investigations necessary to identify the originating location of the crash are simply not performed for the vast majority of crashes.Although the researchers are silent on this issue,it is almost certain that the crashes studied for this report are based on post-crash,at-rest vehicle positions rather than the upstream locations where the driver or drivers initially lost control or failed to pay attention. If our interest is in the"cause"of the crash,as it must be in a study such as this,the point of rest after collision is essentially meaningless—in other words,what we are concerned with when we study issues of distraction or inattention is not where the vehicles came to rest but where the crash sequence first began.As stated above,with the rare exception of ^+ 10 serious crashes where supplemental investigations are performed in an effort to "reconstruct"the event,the researcher simply cannot know this information—and thus every identified crash location used for data analysis is suspect. In short,it is most likely that the traffic collisions evaluated in this study do not relate the triggers or precursors to billboard or EBB locations—they relate only the end result of such crashes to EBBs or billboards and thus they tell us nothing about the possible distraction effect of such roadside objects.This is enough to render these findings suspect. The methodology included a"temporal analysis"which examined the incidence of crashes at locations where billboards had undergone conversion from traditional to digital display. Data was collected for 18 months prior to,and after,the conversion.Although this before and after analysis is necessary,it is not sufficient. Missing is any analysis of comparable sites in which there were either no billboards present,or billboards that were present but not converted.As has been shown in previous research in this field(e.g.Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board, 1976),it is possible that crash rates remained essentially the same in road sections featuring converted billboards,but actually decreased in sections that included non- converted billboards,or for non-billboard locations,during the same before-and- after study period. Another key methodological weakness concerns the lack of definition and description of the assessment of"accident density"and the commingling of digital and conventional billboards in such an assessment. 3.Review and Application of Cited Literature. The authors'include a list of 17 references,but none of these are actually cited in the text.Accordingly,the"References"section of the report is better identified as a bibliography. In addition,references made within the report of prior research are not accompanied by any citations,and thus it is not possible for the reader to know the source of the authors'claims. 4.Statistical Methods and Analyses Used The researchers'discussion of crash statistics,including counts and rates,is misleading and erroneous.They rely on a review of police traffic collision reports but,as discussed above,fail to note that most accidents are not reported. On page 33 they define annual average daily traffic(AADT)as"the total volume of traffic in both directions of a highway or a road for one year divided by 365 days."Then on Page 47, in their discussion of Table 4-5,the authors discuss the number of collisions per year in the"digital-billboard locations"(which they do not define),and calculate the accident rate. However,because the EBBs studied for this report were single-sided(i.e.facing only one direction of travel),the authors have overstated the actual AADT by a factor of two,and the actual accident rate is therefore twice as high as reported. 11 In a section titled "Accident Density and Billboard Density," the researchers violate the basic tenet of their research objective by commingling digital with conventional billboards along the route. By including all billboards in their metric for billboard density, they invalidate any opportunity to compare, as their research objective says they will, digital billboards with conventional billboards, as well as any opportunity to compare digital billboards with the absence of billboards (which we believe to have been the proper comparison to have been made). Further, the authors' statement: "If a noticeable correlation between billboards and accidents exists, then one would expect a significantly larger number of accidents in areas with relatively high billboards densities" (p. 78). Aside from their misuse of the words "noticeable" and "significantly" in this context, this statement is incorrect because of the researchers' failure to control for the roadside environment (geometry, location of interchanges, presence of other roadside objects that might attract a driver's attention, etc.) in which billboards were present from areas where they were not, as well as their failure to separate digital from conventional billboards which might present quite different attention-getting characteristics. • The researchers misinterpret their own data. An examination of their Figure 3-5, for example, does not corroborate the authors' conclusions that "the median age of drivers involved in an accident are 23" (sic) or that "the winter months of 2005 had the most accidents on Interstates" (p. 33). Similarly, Figure 3-7 does not show that "the majority (of crashes) occurs during dawn and daylight hours" as 011111* stated on p. 34. The authors misuse terms relating to their statistical analysis in an apparent effort to bolster their arguments. For example, they discuss a "noticeable correlation" — a term with no meaning. And, despite the fact that the authors know that correlation cannot imply causation, they nonetheless inappropriately suggest otherwise in several statements throughout the report (see, for example, pp. 2, 98). Indeed, the researchers' entire discussion of correlation is apparently intended to suggest that no correlation less than 1.00 is indicative of any relationship. On page 81, for example, they state: "Statistically, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or smaller is considered to indicate 'weak' correlations, at best, and does not indicate much difference from correlation coefficients of zero." On the contrary, any researcher who has studied traffic safety in a real world environment would be grateful to achieve results where correlation coefficients of 0.7 were found. Because of their faulty assumptions discussed above, one of their major conclusions is simply unsupportable. They state: "if a noticeable correlation exists between billboards and accidents, then one would expect significant changes in the number of accidents between the 0 and 0.2 mile range and between the 0.2 and 0.4 mile range; the correlation coefficient would be large (close to +/- 1.00)." We take issue with this statement for two reasons. First, as discussed elsewhere in this review, because large, bright, colorful, changing EBBs can be seen, especially at 12 night,at far greater distances than these researchers examined,and because it is likely to be these very sign characteristics that capture the attention of drivers long before a sign's message can be read,their potential to distract may occur far earlier (upstream)than the 0.2 mile cutoff used in this study.Second,it is generally understood that,in real world traffic safety studies,"strong"correlation coefficients rarely reach 0.6,no less approach 1.0. The analysis performed in this study is based on what the authors call "commonly accepted scenarios relating accident density to billboard density,to 'viewer reaction distance,'and to billboard proximity(how far the accident is from the nearest billboard)." But none of these terms is defined,no references to prior research are provided,and the conceptual drawing used to explain these assumptions in Figure 4-1 (p.46)provides nothing more than a visual illustration of this vague narrative.Thus,the reader simply cannot form an independent opinion of what was actually done,what assumptions were made,and how the data was collected. 5.Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias. There are internal errors and inconsistencies throughout the report.Repesentative examples include: -The key for Figure 2-1 is incorrect. -Table 2-1 misstates the direction of the face of Billboard No.3 -The description of Figure 2-2(p.8)is completely wrong -The caption for Figure 2-2 does not depict what is in the Figure -Figure 2-2 is identical to Figure 2-1 with key information missing -All Latitude and Longitude data presented in the report is reversed -The numbering system for the billboards studied is described as"arbitrary" (p. 10).This is not true.The numbering system(and all other descriptive information)is taken directly from the Clear Channel website. -Data presented in the text disagrees with data in Figures and Tables. -There are two tables each labeled Table 2-3(pp. 11 and 15). The authors base some of their calculations(e.g."viewer reaction distance" and"viewer reaction time")on their statement that the posted Speed Limit was 65 MPH(p.79).This is false.As clearly shown in their own Figure 2-10(p. 17),the posted Speed Limit for at least one of their sites was 60 MPH.Although the authors provide no information about the posted speed limits at the other six sites,there is no reason for the reader to believe that they are other than 60 MPH.Of course,at 60 MPH,a driver approaching an EBB will be able to see and read the billboard for a longer period of time than would be the case at 65 MPH,thus further challenging the researchers'choice of an upstream cut-off point for crash statistics.Figure 2, taken from the ClearChannel Outdoor website,depicts the same EBB(No.4) shown in the Figure 2-10 of the study.In addition to showing the posted speed limit, 13 this figure clearly shows another billboard within the approaching driver's field of view,and the proximity of this EBB to the 1-77 interchange ahead. DIGITAL • s Figure 2. Image showing EBB#4 adjacent to posted Speed Limit signs.This image shows the same EBB depicted in Figure 2-10,p. 17 of the Tantala study.I-77 interchange signs can clearly be seen,as can an additional billboard in the driver's view.This is the same sign represented as Site No.42 in the Lee report.(Source: http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm) The authors present considerable data that are completely irrelevant to the study,while ignoring data of central importance.They take five pages(23-27)to provide superfluous information about the Interstate Highway System,provide data in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that has no relevance for the study,and,on pages 29-31, repeat,verbatim,information previously provided on pp 10-11.The irony of this presentation is that the report is completely lacking in vital information about these EBBs and the studied road sections.For example,the authors provide no information about horizontal and vertical curvature,merges or lane drops,presence of official signage,or intersection characteristics such as entrances,exits,gores, etc.They don't even tell us how close any of the studied billboards are to the nearest interchange,despite the fact that their figures clearly show such proximity in at least three of the seven studied locations. A number of the Figures and Tables in the report are taken directly from the website of ClearChannel Outdoor,the owner of the seven billboards studied.As indicated above,despite certain statements made by the authors,such as:"The 'N'` 14 numbering of the digital billboards in this study are(sic)arbitrary"(p. 10)this numbering system and other information relevant to each billboard is actually that provided by the billboards'owner,ClearChannel Outdoor, LLC.Further,in an article reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer(Slobodzian,2007),a ClearChannel Outdoor executive stated that his company"hired"the researchers to perform this study in Cleveland. E.REVIEW OF VTTI REPORT. 1.Decisions and Assumptions that Guided the Research a. The decision to collect data for an 8-second interval prior to passing a site. The researchers chose a time period of 8-seconds in advance(upstream)of a billboard,and,indeed,all sites,to record driver performance and eye glances.This interval was chosen,according to the authors,because this was the message- change cycle for the digital(electronic)billboards studied at these sites.The assumption that 8 seconds was a reasonable data capture interval raises several concerns,discussed below under Methodology. b. The choice of"control"sites The researchers selected four types of"events"or"sites"at which to collect data. For the main(daytime)portion of this study,there were 5 digital(electronic) billboard locations,which we have called"study sites,"and three other types of locations,which we have called"control sites."These included conventional billboards(N=15),baseline sites(N=12),and comparison sites(N=12).The study authors provide no images or schematics of any of the 44 locations,and their descriptions and definitions of the site characteristics,particularly for the baseline and comparison sites,are vague and inconsistent,making it difficult for the reader to determine just how these site types compared. Baseline sites,according to a statement in the study Abstract,contained"no signs"(p.6).But we later learn that this was not the case.Some baseline sites(the authors never state how many)in fact,contained signs.But the most serious problem is with the assumptions made for the comparison sites.On page 8 we are told that comparison sites are"similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving."On page 21,they are described as "areas with visual elements other than billboards."Later on the same page we are told that some of these sites included on-premise signs,variable message signs, and"digital components."Then,in Table 2(p.22)the reader can see that one comparison site is described as a"tri-vision billboard"and three others as an"on premise LED billboard."In reality,then,the comparison sites may have been just as visually compelling,if not more so,than the EBB sites that were the principle focus of this study.This intentional confounding of study and control sites seems designed to further the researchers'purpose of diminishing any adverse findings from EBBs by showing them to be no worse than existing sources of distraction. 15 As expected,the report's findings tend to bear out this concern in that,for many measures, EBB and comparison sites elicited similar results,and these results differed,often significantly,from those obtained at conventional or baseline sites.The problem for the researchers is how to treat these findings given their a priori site selection decisions;the problem for the reader is how to interpret them.In our opinion the approach adopted by the researchers is seriously flawed. It takes the clear evidence found in this study that digital billboards are associated with adverse driver performance,and twists these conclusions in such a way to suggest that there is no problem with digital billboards because drivers are already distracted by other"comparison"sites.The net effect of this is to avoid directly addressing the research objective,which was:"to assess the effects,if any,of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance"(p.8),and instead answer a question that was not asked—how does driver behavior and performance compare for digital billboards vs.similarly distracting on-premise signs?In short,the authors' assumption that their carefully chosen comparison sites were appropriate control locations against which to compare the effects of EBBs enables them to slant their findings to suggest that,because driver performance in the presence of digital billboards is similar to their performance in the presence of these equally distracting "comparison"sites,there is no cause for concern regarding the safety of EBBs. Looking at the data,this seems to be a serious error. c. The decision to minimize nighttime data collection. Digital billboards are of particular concern to traffic safety experts at night,due to their ability to achieve high brightness and contrast levels,their high resolution imagery,and their visually compelling message changes,all of which can act to capture the attention of the driver at the expense of other targets in the scene(such as official signs and signals,pavement markings,and other vehicles).Thus,we question why the researchers chose to perform only a limited night-time study,one which included,by design,too few participants to enable them to analyze the data statistically.This decision is particularly troubling because,as might have been hypothesized,the researchers found indications of greater distraction by digital billboards vs.control sites at night with all of their measures,and,they suggest,at least some of these findings"would show statistical significance"in a larger study (p.64).They state:"The overall conclusion(of the nighttime data),supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital billboard and by longer glances in the direction of these billboards)"(p.10).They also report that both performance measures,speed maintenance and lane keeping, were poorer at night for digital billboards(and conventional billboards)than for comparison or baseline sites. 2.Methodology a. Lack of control locations. ^� 16 The researchers selected some study sites on the right side of the road and some on the left,then recorded and analyzed whether drivers glanced in the direction of these sites as they approached and passed them. In some cases they found examples of participants looking in the direction opposite to the site being studied. When such behavior occurred in the presence of billboard sites,they interpreted this to mean that the billboard was not attention-getting. But there is no evidence to suggest that they sought to identify or control for the possible presence of billboards or other visually attention-getting targets that may have existed along the roadside opposite their study sites.In other words,when they selected a study site on the right,they provide no information to suggest that they made sure that there was nothing on the left that might capture the driver's attention.If, in fact,they did not identify and control for such opposing sites, ,then the eye glance data that they captured are suspect..Since they do not report any efforts to evaluate and control for such conditions,one must assume that they did not do so. In short, it is entirely possible that glances to the left when a billboard was on the right(or conversely) were made because there was a competing,perhaps compelling,site across the road from the study site that was neither controlled nor evaluated..A similar concern exists for uncontrolled sites that might exist on the same side of the road as a site of interest,and within a driver's field of view as he or she approached that site.Given the coarseness of the eye gaze data,there was likely no way for the researchers to know whether a particular participant was looking at the study site or an unidentified site for which they did not control.As one example,a review of Figure 1 shows the EBB of interest on the right side of the road,but the figure also shows a large billboard on the left side of the road that appears in the center of the image. If the researchers captured eye glances straight ahead or to the left at this location,they might have been due to the participant looking at this uncontrolled billboard. b. Lack of controls within and across study sites. Although the five EBBs studied each measured 14'high by 48'wide,we are given little information about other important characteristics of these signs;characteristics that could have had a direct impact on their attention-getting qualities,such as their height,angle to the drivers'line of sight,and proximity to the road.Further the reader is told little about roadway geometry,prevailing traffic speeds and volume, etc.Any of these factors may have affected the comparability of sites. Even though all five EBBs were 14'high and 48'wide(although mounted at very different heights relative to the road surface elevation)there was no consistency of sizing of conventional billboards or signs on the comparison sites. Indeed,we are told on page 21 that conventional billboards included a"few"that were of other sizes, including"standard poster,junior paint,and 10'6"x 36'bulletins."Since the size of a billboard or other sign likely has a direct relationship to the distance from which it can be seen and the size of lettering that it can accommodate,this failure to control for sign size and other characteristics relative to a sign's visible and legibility range is an important oversight. In our opinion,without any effort to control these basic 17 site and sign characteristics,it is difficult for the researchers to defend any interpretations they may have made from their data. c. The implications of the 8-second data recording period. As discussed above,the authors describe four different types of"events"to which they studied driver response. Driver response to each event was recorded for a period of 8 seconds,ending at the time that the instrumented vehicle passed the event,and beginning 8 seconds upstream of that location.However,there are several methodological problems both with their choice of an 8-second interval,and with their ability to define and measure it. At 65 MPH,the presumed speed on the freeways studied,a vehicle travels approximately 95 feet per second.Thus,during an 8-seoncd interval,a vehicle will travel 760 feet.The accepted practice for highway signs is that 1"of letter height can be read from approximately 40 feet away.So,for a billboard with 24"letters,the sign can be read from approximately 960 feet. In other words,a billboard can be read by the average driver at distances greater than those covered by the 8-second interval.When we recognize that letters on such signs may be considerably larger than this,and that such signs may display images of products or services dramatically larger than the size of letters(the signs studies are typically 14 feet tall),it should be obvious that these messages can be read at distances far greater than the authors'8-second interval could accommodate.(Applying a scale to the word"Digital"in the signs shown in Figures 1 and 2 shows that these letters are 48" in height,indicating a legibility distance of 1920 feet. It takes more than 20 seconds to traverse this distance at 65 mph).In addition,because of the brightness,contrast, and image quality of digital billboards,and the fact that(in Cleveland)their message changes every 8-seocnds,it should be obvious that driver attention to the billboard may be initially attracted at far greater distances than those at which the message can actually be read.As a result,the choice of an 8-second data recording interval is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the distracting effects of digital billboards compared to other roadside sites including more traditional billboards and on-premise signs. The authors state that they chose an 8-second data collection period because the"digital billboards were programmed to change messages instantaneously once every 8 seconds;an event length of 8 seconds thus made it highly likely that a message change would be captured during the event"(p.21). This argument is flawed for several reasons.First,as described immediately above, the sight distance and legibility distance,coupled with the size of the signs studied and their letter height,strongly suggests that digital billboards can be seen and read far earlier than 8 seconds upstream of the sign,thus strongly suggesting that the data recording interval should have been much longer.Second, it is obvious that had the researchers selected any data recording interval longer than 8 seconds, it, too,would have permitted them to capture a message change during each driver's approach to the event.Finally,despite their implicit recognition of the possible �^ I8 significance of a driver actually observing a message change during his or her approach to the EBB,the researchers apparently never actually recorded any data on message change,and therefore had no way to evaluate any possible driver response to it. The seeming precision of the 8-second recording interval is also belied by the imprecision of the site characteristics, If a site contains a single billboard,one can measure the point in time when a driver passes that billboard.But how does one identify and measure the point of passage for the other types of sites studied? Since many of the comparison sites contained multiple objects,including multiple signs,there is no obvious end point.Similarly,for baseline sites which were devoid of any signs,one must question how an end point was defined. Because of what is often called the driver's cone of forward vision,signs on the left(billboards or otherwise)can generally be seen for a longer time and distance than can signs on the right.Given that the same 8-second interval was applied to signs on both sides,this raises questions for the viability of the start time for data collection at each site,given that this start time was defined as 8-seconds prior to the end point. Some signs are located perpendicular to the driver's direction of travel. Others,such as some two-sided billboards and many on-premise signs,may be located at other angles, including parallel to the driver's direction of travel(such as when mounted on a building facade).In addition,the lateral distance of each sign from the driver's line of sight varies greatly as a result of factors such as:lateral distance from the road edge,and the number and width of lanes,medians,and shoulders. If the same 8-second point for passing a sign was applied regardless of sign angle to and lateral distance from the road,then some signs would be visible to drivers for less time than others,thus rendering the 8-second recording interval inconsistent across the studied sites. In summary,the researchers'choice of an 8-second data recording interval was inappropriate for many reasons,and resulted in unequal exposure to signs of interest across sites.A more appropriate way to determine the data collection interval would have been to identify the point at which a billboard or other sign of interest fell outside a predetermined angle of view from the driver's line of sight along the road axis,and defined the recording interval upstream from that point. This would have assured a more equitable,and comparable,identification of sight distance and would not have had the effect of artificially reducing the available glance times and control measurements made for the signs of interest in this study. Of course, it also would have made data actual collection more challenging. d. Measurement of nighttime luminance levels The authors measured the luminance levels of different sites at night.They took these measurements from the participant-driver's eye position,a decision which 19 masked and minimized the actual brightness differences between the EBBs and the other sites.A more appropriate comparison would have been directly in front of each of the signs of interest so that the authors could be sure that they were comparing sign to sign without the contribution of the general ambient environment. Further,the authors do not state whether some of the(non-EBB)sites measured at night were those on surface streets,and whether there were fixed luminaires within the range of the luminance meter at such sites.The presence of fixed lighting would also have reduced the actual luminance differences between EBBs and other sign sites.Despite these limitations in measurement strategy,and despite the fact that the digital billboards were automatically dimmed at night,the authors recorded nighttime luminance levels at the driver's eye position that were,on average, 10 times greater for digital billboards than for baseline sites,approximately 3 times brighter than sites with conventional billboards,and approximately 2.5 times brighter than comparison sites.The authors'state:"this probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital billboards"(p.68). e. Different route types and control of variables The authors conducted their on-road studies on"interstate,downtown,and residential road segments"(p..27)Given that all five(5)digital billboards(study sites)were on interstate highways,the decision to include some of the control sites (baseline,conventional billboards,comparison sites)on roads other than interstates confounded the data collection and made meaningful comparisons across sites �*+� impossible.When conducting field research,the goal must be to reduce,wherever possible,extraneous sources of variability.In this study,the decision to include study sites(EBBs)on interstates and some(we are not told which or how many) control sites on surface streets leads to additional uncontrolled sources of variability.Some of the significant differences between these two classes of roadways,any or all of which may have affected the data,are:traffic speeds and flow;lighting levels;sight distances;access control;at grade vs.grade separated intersections; traffic control devices;and divided vs.undivided traffic. Even for the five EBBs that were the principal focus of this research,the authors seem to have made no attempt to identify,no less control,extraneous variables such as traffic speeds and volume,horizontal and vertical curvature,or other roadway and traffic characteristics that might have interacted with the variables of interest.Further,the distance between adjacent study sites was often very short. For example,using the Haversine formula,we calculated the distance between Site 37,an EBB,and Site 36,a baseline site,as less than 1.2km.Other studied sites might have been even closer to one another.Thus it is likely that the visibility ranges for adjacent sites overlapped,confounding eye gaze and vehicle performance comparisons. f. Precision of eye gaze recording 20 The equipment and methodology used for recording eye gaze of the participant drivers was apparently chosen because it is more"naturalistic"(i.e.less intrusive for the participant).The downside of this choice is that this approach yields data that are less reliable and less accurate than would have been attained using more sophisticated equipment.As a result of the speed of vehicle movement,the distances of the vehicle from the EBBs and other sites of interest,the lack of careful calibration of the equipment prior to each run,and,especially,the vague definition of site boundaries,it is highly unlikely that the eye gaze data yields results with sufficient precision that enables the researchers to know whether any given glance was made to a site of interest,another vehicle,or another site that was not specified for data collection.Eye glance location of one degree of accuracy or better is probably necessary for a study where accuracy is critical;but the equipment and method used by these researchers most likely has accuracy of 10 degrees or worse. g. Other methodological issues The authors describe this project as a"naturalistic"driving study,modeled after a much larger and broader-based study conducted at the same institution— generally known as the"!00 car study"(Dingus,et al,2006).Although they used an instrumented vehicle with on-board cameras,and although their test subjects drove the route without a researcher present in the vehicle,the present study differs significantly from the 100 car study in several key ways. First,the four on-board cameras used to record views of the road and of the drivers'glances were not hidden as they were in the 100 car study.Rather,they were prominently located on the driver's side A-pillar and on and adjacent to the rear view mirror.These camera locations are shown in Figures 8-10 of the report(pp.32-33).Second,the duration of the present study was typically less than two(2)hours,whereas,in the 100 car study,participants kept their instrumented vehicles in their possession and used them daily for months.Third, participants in the present study had to follow a prescribed route,with instructions taped to the dashboard,whereas in the 100 car study,participants were free to drive when and where they chose in the course of performing their activities of daily living. In short,whereas the participants in the 100 car study may well have become acclimated to their test vehicles over time and ignored the fact that they were participating in a research study,the participants in the current study were fully aware that their performance and behavior was being monitored and recorded—thus their behavior could not reasonably be described as "naturalistic." The authors report that,for each participant,they calibrated the eyeglance equipment in a hotel parking lot after the participant had driven the route.Given that eyeglance recording equipment can"drift"over time,that vibration could have changed the mounting position of one or more cameras,or that the driver could have adjusted the seat or otherwise changed position,this calibration should have been performed,for each participant,both before and after their drive.Without this 21 comparison, the researchers had no way of knowing whether any recording parameters may have changed during the run. 3. Review and Application of Cited Literature There is a long history of published literature examining the relationship of roadside billboards to crashes and to driver behavior. Relevant studies dating as far back as 1934 have been identified and reviewed by others. And research continues to be conducted and reported to the present day. The authors chose to discuss only a small, non-representative subset of studies. As will be seen below, it is clear that the studies reported, particularly of the early work in this field, were selected because they were supportive of the authors' position. When they cite studies that reported findings at odds with their position, these authors dismiss them as poorly done or irrelevant; conversely, studies that report findings consonant with those of these authors are praised with inappropriate descriptors such as "rigorous." The authors report at length about their own previous research study conducted with conventional billboards in North Carolina. That project used the same basic methodology as the current effort, with the same inherent flaws, and its findings are equally suspect. Their reporting about two early epidemiological studies is illustrative of their approach to the literature. The authors cite an article by Rykken (1951), a two-page interim progress report on a roadside study conducted in Minnesota. They quote from Rykken: "...no apparent relationship was found between accident occurrence and advertising sign type or location" (p. 12). What they do not say, however, is that Rykken called this result "a very preliminary study of approximately 170 mi. of the 500 mi. study segment (p. 42). Significantly, they fail to cite the final report of the subject study (Minnesota Department of Highways, 1951) which concluded, in part: "An increase in the number of advertising signs per mile will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accident rate" (p. 31), and "intersections at which four or more (advertising) signs were located had an average accident rate of approximately three times that for intersections having no such signs." This final report has been extensively cited and reviewed by previous researchers. Wachtel and Netherton (1980), in particular, discussed it at length. It is puzzling, therefore, why these authors cited the interim progress report and ignored the final document. The researchers followed the same approach in their review of a parallel study conducted in Michigan. They cite an interim study report by McMonagle (1951) that looked at only partial findings (p. 12), and ignored the study's final report (Michigan State Highway Department, 1952) which found that illuminated advertising signs showed "an appreciable association with accident locations" (p. 6). In a confusing examination of a study by Rusch (1951) which analyzed crash reports on Federal and State highways in Iowa, the authors fail to report on Rusch's 22 published results,and offer no evaluation of his study. Instead,they cite a brief review by Andreassen(1985)[ignoring other independent review of the Rusch work] which stated,in part:'the greatest number of inattention accidents occurred on the sections where business and advertising predominated as the roadside property usage,but this does not prove anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence"(p.13).Given that Rusch's findings,despite methodological weaknesses that often affected these early field studies,demonstrated that the number of accidents was more than double in the study section(where 90 percent of the businesses and roadside advertising signs were located)than in either of the two control sections,given that"inattention"accidents predominated over both "business"and"other"accident categories in this study section,and given that the results held when corrected for mileage per segment,the researchers'treatment of this study is puzzling. Indeed,there were numerous examples of bias present in the authors' literature review.The four cited here are merely illustrative. 4.Statistical Methods And Analyses Used a. Long duration eye glances A major weakness of this study is the authors'failure to follow the very guidance that they recommend in their review of the work by Wierwille(1993),Horrey and Wickens(2006),and the"100 car study,"(Dingus,et al.,2006),and their resultant misinterpretation of their own data.This failure is exacerbated by their decision not to present certain key data. Because this issue is central to their findings as well as to their apparent bias, it is discussed more fully in the paragraphs below. As early as the Abstract the authors state:"Various researchers have proposed that glance lengths of 1.6 seconds,2.0 seconds,and longer may pose a safety hazard.An examination of longer individual glances showed no differences in distribution of longer glances between the four event types"(p.6).They restate this conclusion on page 9:"An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds showed no obvious differences in the distribution of these longer glances across event types."As will be seen below,this is simply not true. In their introductory description of eyeglance results(p.52)the authors list the seven(7)questions that they sought to answer.The seventh was:"Are longer glances(longer than 1.6 s)associated more with any of the event types?"This is followed by a summary and analysis of the findings relative to these seven questions. In all cases except one,the researchers performed an analysis of variance(ANOVA)to analyze the data,and reported their tests of statistical significance in both graphical and narrative form.The one exception was with regard to Question 7, longer glance durations. Despite restating Wierwille's recommendation that 1.6s be used as a criterion representing a long glance away from the roadway,and despite explaining that their approach in analyzing this data 23 follows that provided by Horrey and Wickens, "who suggest analyzing the tails of the distributions whenever eyeglance analysis is performed" (p. 59), these authors failed to do any such analysis. Instead, they apparently performed only a visual inspection of the data contained in their Figure 23 (p. 59) which depicts the distribution of glance durations for the four different event types. As a result of this visual inspection, they state: "As shown in Figure 23, the distributions of glance duration were similar across all event types, and there was no obvious pattern of longer glances being associated with any of the event types" (p. 59). Figure 3, below, reproduces the authors' Figure 23 together with its original caption. Saselne Comparison 306 a N 30'o u a 25% C 25% `p 15% 0 15% 13% `c 1°% m a $, 5"s4, 2 5'it. liii 1ar, r�rr. r r r. . . t : '� JJiJu 11101,1rorrr. M1fi M1' 'y. 4 a Glance Length(s) Glance Length(s) Cor enrcnal B,IIbotrd Digital Billbcaro , 30% e 30% _ 25?ii u 25% Amok 20% 2•J?5 'o 15% c 15% q. y 1356 10% r� „�_�a�'� �������. . rrt, ter, r, aJ%?£ r ��11111111raar. r. 1. . . . , .� .. e Ct .. ♦ ♦ .,W ry-. tit, M1µ M11 ,tig tw. �, .i v '.l� ♦ , .,+, .M1 .`) � ,t`• Y •j., L, Glance Length(s) Glance Length(s) Figure 23. Tails analysis for the distribution of glance duration,(method described in Horsey and Wickens,2007). Figure 3. A reproduction, in original size, of the authors' Figure 23, together with its original caption. Because the authors do not provide data on the actual glance durations that were used to prepare these four bar charts, the reviewer cannot perform an independent review of their conclusions. However, enlarging the four charts enables at least a rudimentary independent review of their findings, with the following results. Using only the tails analysis as suggested by the authors (following Horrey and Wickens), and using both 1.6 seconds (the Wierwille criterion) and 2.0 seconds (based on findings from the 100 car study), we find the following: For glances of 1.6 seconds or longer, approximately 5.5% of baseline sites and 7.5% of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 13% of digital billboards and 16% of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. "* 24 For glances of 2.0 seconds or longer,approximately 2%of baseline sites and 4.5%of conventional billboard sites captured glances of such long duration, whereas 7%of digital billboards and 8%of comparison sites met or exceeded this criterion. Indeed,both EBBs and comparison sites captured glances longer than 3 seconds,behaviors not experienced with either baseline or conventional sites. Given that this visual inspection of the researchers'data suggests that long glances seem to occur two-three times more often with EBBs and comparison sites than they do with baseline or conventional sites,such results suggest important differences for the longest glances,the ones that highway safety experts are most concerned with.One must ask why the authors chose not to perform a statistical analysis of this data,particularly when they did so for every other set of eyeglance data,why their visual inspection of these data did not identify the dramatic differences reported here b. Findings of the nighttime study In the authors'abbreviated nighttime data collection effort,a shorter route with fewer signs and fewer participants,they examined four different eyeglance measures—eyes-on-road percent,overall glance frequency,mean glance duration in the direction of an event,and mean number of glances in the direction of an event.In all four cases they found that EBB and comparison sites showed differences from conventional billboard and baseline sites—always in the direction to suggest that the EBBs and comparison sites were more attention-getting and more distracting(pp.64-66).Surprisingly,especially given their emphasis on longer glance durations based on the"100 car study"and the work by Wierwille,they apparently made no attempt to capture data for long glance durations,no less report it. c. Obfuscation of correlation with causation Throughout the report,the authors confuse the terms correlation and causation. Although it is clear that they well understand the important differences between these two types of statistical analysis,they often slip into the erroneous mode of citing a study whose sole purpose was to measure correlation,and criticize that study because it failed to prove causation.These fallacious comments are in line with a long tradition in the outdoor advertising industry of suggesting that there can be no relationship between billboards and traffic safety because billboards have never been shown to cause accidents. 5.Misleading and Inconsistent Reporting,and Evidence of Bias 25 Beginning with the first sentence of the Abstract,and continuing throughout the report,the authors construct their language in such a way as to intentionally mislead the reader. This was not a"naturalistic"study as stated in the Abstract(see our discussion of Methods)and it should not be reported as such. The stated purpose of this study was to"assess the effects,if any,of digital billboards on driver behavior and performance"(p.8),not,as implied in the Abstract,to ascertain whether driving performance in the presence of digital billboards was on a par with driving performance in the presence of on-premise signs that were also bright,electronic,and changing.The researchers clearly found that EBBs did have an adverse impact on driving performance,and the fact that this adverse impact was similar to the adverse impact from other distracting signs does not diminish this finding nor make it acceptable,The authors admit that"there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards"(p. 6),and,as demonstrated in the body of the report,these changes are adverse,but such adverse impacts cannot be deemed acceptable merely because they"are on a par"with the adverse effects of other digital,flashing,and changing signage located on the premises of roadside businesses. Baseline sites should have been,as stated in the abstract,"sites with no signs."But,as described elsewhere in the report,an unidentified number of them A+ did contain signs,thus diminishing their potential to serve as intended control sites. In direct conflict with a statement in the Abstract,longer individual glance patterns(greater than 1.6 and 2.0 seconds)did show differences(actually,rather dramatic differences)between the event types. In fact,per the authors'own statements elsewhere in the report,these differences at the tails of the distributions for glance duration may be critically important in assessing the true impact of digital billboards on driver performance and behavior. Similar misstatements are made throughout the Executive Summary,and will not be repeated here.However,the expressed"finding"that:"An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds indicated that these longer glances were distributed evenly across the digital billboards,conventional billboards,comparison events,and baseline events during the daytime"(p.7)is plainly false,as is discussed at length in our section dealing with Statistics.Significantly,the data discussed in this"finding"was not analyzed by the researchers in accordance with their own data analysis recommendations, nor was such data even collected for the abbreviated nighttime study,when we would have expected such findings to be even more dramatic than they were in the daytime study. The authors identified five(5)EBBs for study.These are identified by latitude,longitude, route number,and side of road in Table 2,and shown graphically on a map in Figure 2.With this information,that reader can view images of these -w 26 EBBs from either the Tantala report or from the website of Clear Channel Outdoor, at http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.com/products/digital/don/cleveland/index.htm. Examination of Figures 1 and 2 in our report,must lead the reader to question the accuracy of the authors'statement on p. 19:"The Cleveland digital billboards...were located off to the side of the roadway in straight-away sections of interstate with no interference from hills,curves,or intersections." The authors provide voluminous data for irrelevant issues(e.g. 124,740 video frames analyzed,96,228 data points collected,8,678 eye glances identified, etc.)but offer no information useful to readers who might want to know what was actually studied(for example,there are no images of any of the billboards or other sites studied,there is no indication of the precision with which eye gaze was captured,etc.). It appears as if the researchers intended to overwhelm the reader with useless information in an attempt to avoid questions about the real issues. There are numerous statements throughout the report that,on the one hand, are irrelevant to the study,and,on the other,demonstrate a clear pro-billboard attitude.Some examples: "The lead author of this report recently participated on an expert panel charged with providing recommendations for a minimal data set to be included on police accident reports;billboard were never raised as a possible distraction..."(p. 11). "After a long gap in research,there were a few additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards were unsafe."(p. 11) "The national crash databases do not mention billboards in their list of driver distractions."(p. 14) The authors have coined the term safety neutral(p. 10).They state: "Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards,in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving,such as the on-premise signs located at businesses"(p.6). In other words,the authors seem to be saying,because other roadside distractions such as their"comparison sites"(which,the authors note elsewhere,may contain multiple signs,changeable message signs,and digital signs)may also attract drivers'attention and are associated with speed and lateral placement difficulties as well as long glances away from the forward roadway,EBBs should be considered safety neutral because their adverse effects are little different than these other sources of distraction.. The authors continually obfuscate the difference between correlation and causation. In reporting on a study by Garvey,et al.(1995),they state:"the common problem with these studies is attributing accident causation..."(p. 13).Given that 27 the studies quoted generally made no attempt to establish causation,this is not a problem with these studies,but rather an accusation by these authors that such studies claimed to be something other than they actually addressed. Similarly,in their review of work by Andreassen(1985),they state:"almost all studies have relied on correlations and/or subjectively assigned'inattention'factors,which can only produce very tenuous evidence for a causal link between advertising and accident frequency"(p. 13). As discussed earlier in this report,there was a serious confounding in the visual and attention-getting characteristics of the EBBs which were the subject of this study,and the"comparison sites"which were used as one of the three types of control sites.This confounding was due directly to the researchers'choice of such comparison sites which,in their own language,often included digital signs, changeable message signs,and flashing signs.That the researchers'often found quite similar driver performance and behavior in these two types of sites,and that these performance and behavior variables typically differed from the two other types of sites studied(conventional billboards and baseline sites)should have sent a clear signal that sites containing digital imagery with changing messages were more demanding and more distracting than sites devoid of such sign characteristics.Yet, the authors took this obvious conclusion and twisted it in favor of their biases by simply assuming that the"comparison sites"formed part of the normal driving environment and,therefore,that the presence of EBBs was no worse than this normal environment and therefore was no problem.This conclusion demonstrates Aft. obvious bias,and flies in the face of efforts to promote highway safety by reducing, not increasing,the number of irrelevant,distracting,roadside stimuli. (By way of analogy,if we know from prior research that the use of mobile telephones in vehicles contributes to driver inattention,and we find that the use of some newer technology leads to a similar degree of inattentiveness,we would be hard pressed to find this newer technology acceptable merely because it is no worse than the distraction from telephone use). F.IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY. To the best of our knowledge,this is the first independent peer review of these two reports to have been prepared.There may be others underway or planned,and the authors of the two reports may well wish to respond to any such peer review. Because of the public relations campaign with which the OAAA released and publicized these two studies,they have received wide press coverage in print, online,and in the broadcast media.Without exception,this coverage has presented uncritical acceptance of these two reports as presented,with no scrutiny of their scientific or technical soundness.As a result,numerous States and local government agencies have begun to modify their codes and ordinances that address the use of digital billboards along the roadside.Having completed this peer review,it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data,and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised. Even the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)has 28 issued a recent policy memorandum in which DBBs are given tacit acceptance under certain conditions,possibly based in part on the release of these two studies. Because FHWA remains concerned about the safety implications of EBBs on highways,and because of its stated intention to conduct or sponsor its own research into this issue, it seems to this writer logical that any such policy change await further developments from research. This reviewer,after careful review of different research methodologies that have been undertaken or suggested to answer these questions, recognizes that the design and conduct of such research is challenging,and that no research yet published can fully answer the question of whether EBBs create a sufficient distraction of drivers'attention that they should be banned or strictly regulated under certain roadway,environmental,and traffic conditions.Such research is needed to guide future policy and regulation. At the forthcoming 87`h Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,to be held in Washington, DC starting on January 13,2008,this reviewer will conduct a day-long workshop titled:"Digital Billboards on the Highway:A Bright Future?"This workshop will provide a forum for a discussion of the complex issues involved in this field of inquiry. In addition,this reviewer will hold the first meeting of a new TRB Subcommittee on this topic during the TRB meetings,and interested parties are invited to attend. Finally,it is suggested,given the interest in this subject expressed by many State and local government agencies,that interested States seek funding to support the conduct of an objective,independent research project at the earliest possible time. G.REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) (2007).Proposed Policy Resolution—Outdoor Advertising. Highways Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. Andreasen, D.C.(1985).Technical Note No. 1:Traffic Accidents and advertising signs.Australian Road Research Board, 15(2), 103-105. Dingus,T.A..,Klauer,S.G.,Neale,V.L.,Petersen,Al,Lee,S.E.,Sudweeks,J., Perez,M.A., Hankey,J.,Rasey, D.,Gupta,S.,Bucher,C., Doerzaph,Z.R., Jermeland,J.,&Knipling,R.R.(2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase Il—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Report No.DOT HS 810 593. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Farbry,J.,Wochinger, K.,Shafer,T.,Owens,N.,&Nedzesky,A. (2001). Research review of potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and 29 distraction—Final Report. Washington,DC:U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Horrey,W.J.&Wickens,C.D.(2007). In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions,tails and a model of crash risk.Proceedings of the 2007 Transportation Research Board Meeting.Washington,DC:TRB. Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board(1976).Decision in the matter of John Donnelly&Sons, Permittee, Telespot of New England, Inc., Intervener, and Department of Public Works, Intervener, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260, As Amended. Boston,Massachusetts. McMonagle,J.C.(1951).Accident analysis—Telegraph road 1947-1948.Highway Research Board Bulletin,30,29-41. Michigan State Highway Department(1952).Accident Experience in Relation to Road and Roadside Features. Minnesota Department of Highways(1951).Minnesota Rural Trunk Highway Accident,Access Point and Advertising Sign Study. Outdoor Advertising Association of America(2007). Ground-breaking Studies Determine Accidents Not More Likely To Occur Because of Digital Billboards. http://www.oaaa.orq/(July 11,2007). Rykken, K.B.(1951).Minnesota roadside survey:progress report on accident, access point and advertising sign study in Minnesota.Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30,42-43. Rusch,W.A.(1951). Highway accident rates as related to roadside business and advertising.Highway Research Board Bulletin, 30m 46-50. Shepherd,G.M.(2007).Memorandum—Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs.Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration. Slobodzian,J.A.(2007)."Video billboards coming this way—Police praise them. Conservationists and driver-safety groups oppose them."Phily.com(Obtained from the internet at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/9278261.html) Wachtel,J.,&Netherton, R.(1980). Safety and Environmental Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage(Final Report). Report No.FHWA/RD-80-051.Washington,DC: U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 30 Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs FINAL REPORT Submitted Under NCHRP Project 20-7(256) Prepared by Jerry Wachtel,CPE President,The Veridian Group,Inc. Berkeley,California April,2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND NOTES The author is grateful to the members of the peer review committee.Their thorough review of this paper,during its initial draft stage and again when the draft final report was submitted to them,pointed out numerous errors,weaknesses,and statements in need of clarification or documentation. We have tried to make all the suggested corrections,and to incorporate all of the changes recommended by the reviewers.Several commenters offered suggestions that were excellent and appropriate,but could not be accommodated in the body of the actual paper.They are mentioned here,with our thanks and concurrence. It was proposed that FHWA offer a short course for traffic engineers to understand the human factors issues associated with outdoor advertising signage,to assess the existing roadway environment for safety issues,and how to work with local businesses to improve signage and safety at the same time.We agree that this is an excellent and timely suggestion. It was recommended that roadway signing and human factors(Ml1TCD)experts should he collaborating with the advertising industry to promote signs and their placement with appropriate lettering and symbol guidelines or standards that will increase readability while minimizing distraction.In a similar vein,future research should address DBB o, design criteria that will provide travelers with needed information while at the same time minimizing driver distraction.We note that such collaboration has existed between human factors experts and the on-premise sign industry,but we are not aware of any such relationships in the billboard(off-premise)field. Another reviewer proposed that TRB conduct a Wcbinar on this topic in the future.This, too,would provide an excellent forum for the dissemination of this,sometimes arcane. information,in a manner that has practical applications. Reviewer#5 proposed an interesting thought experiment that addressed the difference between the question:"What is the statistical relationship between digital billboards and traffic safety?"and the question:"Are accidents more,less,or equally likely to occur near digital billboards compared to conventional billboards?"The reviewer suggests that these two questions are not necessarily incongruent,as we stated in the report,and that the second question is both technically correct(as is the first),and more useful because it addresses the safety issue in a manner closer to real-world driving;i.e.with the recognition that conventional billboards area given part of the landscape.While we do not disagree with the reviewer's position,we question the underlying assumption that the presence of conventional billboards is the accepted and acceptable norm.Most of the research reviewed for this report studied driver distraction and other safety-related measures with real-world or simulated conventional billboards,and many of these studies (as have studies going back decades)identified safety concerns;the fact that control and enforcement may be lax should not de facto make the presence of these billboards the accepted baseline.As well,there arc several States and local jurisdictions that ban all 2 billboards,so this baseline is not universal,even in the US.But our greatest concern is with the industry's efforts to raise the bar that research must be meet before,in their view,digital billboards could be found to have adverse traffic safety impacts.The study by Lee,et al.,discussed at length in our report,compared digital billboards,not only to conventional billboards,but to"comparison"sites.When the research demonstrated that driver eye movements and vehicle control issues were similar between the DBBs and these comparison sites,the authors proclaimed the digital signs"safety neutral"because, as they defined them,the comparison sites contained"items you might encounter in everyday driving."But a careful reading of the report shows that these sites included digital on-premise signs,tri-vision signs and video boards.In other words,they were rather the same as DBBs,except that they included on-premise signs.In our opinion,this subtle"criterion creep"is unprofessional and inappropriate. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2007,the Highways Subcommittee on Traffic Operations(SCOTE)of the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)issued a proposed policy resolution on outdoor advertising.This document recognized that inattentive driving was a major contributor to highway crashes,and that new technologies were enabling the outdoor advertising industry to display more attention-getting messages that were likely to cause drivers to be less attentive to the driving task.The document further noted that national interest and concern about the safety implications of these advanced outdoor advertising displays had been expressed by FHWA and TRB as well as by State and local government agencies.Because the subcommittee recognized the potential safety implications of such signs and the lack of"substantiating evidence"for determining appropriate guidelines for their control,SCOTE resolved to support the undertaking of research as quickly as possible into the safety and operational effects of these technologies and to forward its resolution to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways to be considered a high priority project for consideration by the Standing Committee on Research of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP).The SCOTE resolution became a Research Problem Statement[(NCHRP 20-7 (256)],which led to the undertaking of this work in February 2008. The specific objective of the study was to develop guidance for State Departments of Transportation and other highway operating agencies with respect to the safety implications of digital display technologybeing increasingly used for outdoor advertising signs.The objective was to be achieved through the conduct of a critical literature review of existing guidelines and research results,including,separately,research undertaken and published by the outdoor advertising industry;an identification of the human factors elements related to the operational characteristics of such signs;a review of the experiences of other countries with this outdoor advertising sign technology;and the preparation of a final,peer reviewed,report documenting the work conducted and including recommended guidance related to the safety aspects of digital display technology for outdoor advertising signs. Earlier reports published by FHWA in 1980 and 2001 had extensively reviewed the research literature in the field of outdoor advertising,and an FHWA study that ran concurrently with this project also included a review of the more recent research literature.The goals of the FHWA study,however,were quite different than those of the project reported here.Whereas this study had as its objective the development of guidelines that State and local government agencies could adopt immediately,the FHWA study sought to identify unmet research needs with regard to the potential impact of these signs on driver attention and distraction,and to propose a research strategy to fill these knowledge gaps.Thus,the two studies,conducted concurrently,were complementary- this one seeking to develop readily useable guidelines that could be implemented at the State and local level based on our existing knowledge base,and the other seeking a more comprehensive understanding of the safety implications of these signs that might lead to guidance and/or regulation at the Federal level. .w. 4 Because the technologies used in the signs of interest in this report are relatively recent, and because these technologies have advanced quickly in key performance characteristics (e.g. brightness, resolution, off-axis viewing) and have become much more affordable in recent years, research, too, has increased dramatically since the 2001 FHWA report. Indeed, of the 150 references cited in this report, more than 20 represent original, empirical research, conducted roughly within the past decade,that directly or indirectly address the potential for driver distraction from outdoor advertising signs. Ironically, and consistent with the research studies cited in the prior FHWA reports, the technology continues to lead both policy and research, and only a small number of these studies actually dealt with these advanced digital display technologies. Such research was, however, sponsored by government agencies as well as industry, in the laboratory and in the field, using controlled experimental techniques as well as statistical analysis of crash summaries. In addition to research conducted in the US, the report reviews studies performed in England, Scotland, Finland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Brazil and The Netherlands. Because of the complexity of the issue, the number of variables present in every real-world situation, and the difficulties of statistical and methodological control in the conduct of such research, we have attempted to make our review of the literature critical as well as comprehensive. Several conclusions can be drawn from the extensive literature on this topic. First, there are strong theoretical underpinnings in the psychology of cognition, perception, psychophysics, and human factors, to suggest why stimuli such as roadside digital billboards can capture and hold a person's attention, even at the expense of primary task performance. Second, it is difficult to perform a study in this domain that does not suffer, at some level, from weaknesses that may affect the strength or generalizability of its findings. Third, the research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry generally concludes that there are no adverse impacts from roadside digital billboards, even when, in one case, the actual findings of such research indicate otherwise. Conversely, the conclusions reached in research sponsored by government agencies, insurance companies, and auto safety organizations, especially in those studies performed in the past decade, regularly demonstrate that the presence of roadside advertising signs such as digital billboards, contributes to driver distraction at levels that adversely affect safe driving performance. Fourth, the recommendations from research, and the existence of guidelines or regulations that stem from that research, are quite consistent, although not fully so, both in the areas in which digital billboards are suggested for control (e.g. brightness, message duration and message change interval, and billboard location with regard to official traffic control devices, roadway geometry, and vehicle maneuver requirements at interchanges, lane drops, merges and diverges), and with regard to the specific constraints that should be placed on such signs' placement and operation. Several countries have developed comprehensive, thoughtful policies for control of roadside advertising, and their efforts can serve as models for State and local governments within the US. A number of US counties and cities, too, have developed policies and regulations for the control of digital outdoor advertising that comport with the research. In some cases, such local regulations are forward looking, in that they address technologies, or applications of technology, that are not yet in widespread use. 5 During the course of this project, we identified several recent extensions of digital advertising technologies that may add further to the distraction potential of these displays. The growing use of LED technology for advertising in on-premise applications is of concern because such signs may be larger than traditional billboards, closer to the right-of-way and to roadway sections with high task demands, and may include animation and full motion video. At least one State is considering the use of its official changeable message sign network for the display of digital advertising. And an unknown number of private or toll-road operators are also contemplating the sale of advertising within their rights-of-way. In addition, we are seeing the deployment of LED displays, often featuring video, on vehicles moving in the traffic stream. Vehicles as diverse as small trucks and vans, public transit buses, and large, over-the-road trailers, are now being outfitted with LED advertising, and the potential for driver distraction grows with each such installation. Our review suggests that, with few exceptions, government agencies have no regulations or guidelines in place to address these new uses. The newest digital billboards are also increasingly capable of"interacting"with approaching drivers. In some cases, the Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) embedded in a vehicle's key or on-board computer system, can trigger a personalized message on a digital billboard; in other cases, the billboard can display a message tailored to the radio frequency of passing vehicles. Still other billboards encourage drivers to interact with the sign by texting a message or calling a number displayed on the billboard. A patent that incorporates cameras mounted to billboards,together with eye-movement recording devices, claims to be able to capture images of drivers, and their eye movements, as they approach the billboard. Our review has not identified any government agencies, in the US or abroad, that have addressed these new technologies or their applications. The report consists of ten parts. After an introduction and background presentation in Section 1, the literature in the field is comprehensively and critically reviewed. General research is discussed in Section 2, and research sponsored by the outdoor advertising industry is presented in Section 3. The key human factors issues that inform the potential response of drivers to digital roadside billboards are summarized in Section 4. Section 5 of the report reviews a representative sample of guidelines and regulations that currently exist in a number of foreign countries as well as in several jurisdictions within the US. This is followed by a series of recommendations for potential regulations and guidance in Section 6. These recommendations are those that(a) have worked elsewhere, and (b) are based on sound research or science, and therefore might have practical applications for those jurisdictions seeking guidance to inform their own decision-making. Section 7 addresses issues of digital advertising on-premise and on right-of-way. Section 8 discusses some of the newest roadway-related applications of computer-controlled LED advertising that have begun to appear on and adjacent to public roads in the US and abroad, and for which little policy has yet been considered. Section 9 summarizes the report's conclusions, and Section 10 presents the list of references cited in the body of the report. 6 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Nearly 30 years ago,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)published the first comprehensive review of the literature on the safety impacts of electronic billboards. FHWA,through the Highway Beautification Act,had,and still has,the authority to regulate off-premise advertising signs(billboards)adjacent to Federal Aid Highways, and these regulations prohibited,in part,any signs that utilized"flashing,intermittent,or moving lights"(Wachtel and Netherton, 1980,p. 16-17).In the late 1970s,the sign display technology in common use permitted little more than digitally displayed time and temperature information,although some signs could display several lines of text and crude,cartoon-like graphic images.Even then it was possible to change the displayed s