Loading...
08/07/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Dennis McKone, Fire Department Administrative Assistant/Media Relations; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivision Planner; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Dave Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Marilyn Lewis, West Salt Lake/Environmental Planning Planner; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item B-2, was a joint resolution with the Mayor regarding Hogle Zoo. Councilmember Buhler said he would read the resolution. He said citizens would speak about Hogle Zoo during Citizen's Comments. He suggested the resolution be read and voted on after New Business instead of during Opening Ceremonies. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Items E-1 and E-2, interlocal agreements, the Council could suspend the rules and adopt on first appearance. She said this was done when an issue was to the City's financial advantage. She said Item F-3, Health Department ordinance, the Attorney's Office suggested the ordinance be clarified to read "violations of the ordinance were a misdemeanor" not "violations of the Health Department rules were a misdemeanor." See File No. M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW NAFITALAI UNGA KIOA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Mr. Kioa said he had served on the Library Board for seven years. He said his term on that board expired last month. He said the Police Department had asked him to serve on the Civilian Review Board. #3. INTERVIEW JENNIFER ANNETTE CONNOLE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD. Ms. Connole said she was an attorney with the State of Utah currently working at the Third District Court. She said her practice was primarily civil. She said she received 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 her political science degree from the University of Utah. She said she attended law school in Idaho. She said she had lived in Salt Lake City her entire life. #4. INTERVIEW ELMER BULLOCK PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mr. Bullock said he lived in District 2 in the Poplar Grove area for 50 years. He said he was interested in the community and the area. He said he would be happy to serve on the board. #5. INTERVIEW ANNE GRACE BELLIS SPEERY PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE MULTI-ETHNIC COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARD. Ms. Speery said she had sold real estate for approximately 26 years. She said she was the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Chairman for the Salt Lake Board and the Utah Association of Realtors. #6. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING/REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. 52-4-4 AND 54-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. 78-24-8. An Executive Session was held. See File No. M 03-3 for sworn statement and confidential tape. #7. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS. View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Louis Zunguze and Ray McCandless briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr. Zunguze said as ordinances were adopted throughout the years it was clear the Council had been careful in maintaining the integrity of the foothills. He said the ordinance had grown progressively stricter. Councilmember Lambert said suggested amendments to the foothill ordinance were important. He said the Council had talked about creating a Citywide policy. He asked what the Council could do to assist in developing a policy to reflect foothill development. Mr. Zunguze said his staff needed to know what the Council wanted to pursue. He said if they wanted to pursue a foothill policy then no action should be taken on the ordinance at this time. Councilmember Lambert asked if it would be helpful to bring in an expert on foothill development to assist in the evaluation and process. Mr. Zunguze said it was helpful to get outside opinions. Councilmember Buhler said the foothills were the City' s greatest assets. He said he wanted to bring in additional expertise. Councilmember Jergensen said he was prepared to make a motion to continue the public hearing until a methodical procedure allowed the Council to get a fuller view of what they wished to accomplish. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON PROVIDING LEGAL CONFORMING STATUS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TWIN HOMES PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-23. View Attachment Sylvia Jones, Janice Jardine, Marilyn Lewis, Cheri Coffey and Louis Zunguze briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Lewis said single family and duplex units were suffering more than other multiple units. She said owners were not able to get financing. Ms. Coffey said the City had allowed two family dwellings to be legalized in any district. She said single family dwellings should also be legalized. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2003 Councilmember Christensen asked what conditions or standards someone had to architecturally rebuild to. Ms. Coffey said currently there were no conditions other than the footprint. She said side yard setbacks needed to be met. She said the City did not have design control over what was rebuilt. She said it was possible to put some verbiage in the ordinance limiting how large a person could rebuild. Ms. Jardine said the Council was scheduled to hold the hearing September 2nd, 2003. She said that issue could be addressed before the hearing. She said some design standard language could be included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zunguze said they would prepare some verbiage the Council could consider to address design. Councilmember Saxton said she supported design language. Councilmember Buhler said he was worried about including a design element. He said it was hard to define compatibility. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON CREATING A NEW CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. View Attachment David Dobbins and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Dobbins said the Council needed to issue a Notice of Intent, decide boundaries for the district, decide on a proposed rate and what the funds would be used for and establish a protest hearing date. He said properties could be taken out of proposed boundaries but no properties could be added into the proposed boundaries. He said the current value estimate of .001425 was based on 2002 tax numbers for the district. He said the proposal was to use the same rate. He said the district's value had gone up since the last approval. He said it would generate approximately $150, 000 in additional funds if the same rate was used. Mr. Dobbins said a protest hearing could be held in November of 2003. He said the department had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and had received two responses. He said State statute designated the City Council as the governing bodies so they would need to decide on who received the contract. He said property owners in the district would want to know before they approved or protested the assessment who would manage the money. Councilmember Lambert said he was pleased with the Downtown Alliance's stewardship of the district. He said the City was struggling with businesses downtown. He said the City was receiving more money because of rising property values. He said the Council should consider a lower rate. Councilmember Buhler said he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to appoint a subcommittee to make decisions for the Central Business Improvement District. He said he would be willing to serve on the subcommittee. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY USE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR SEASONAL ITEM SALES. (SNO-CONE HUTS) View Attachment Russell Weeks, Cheri Coffey and Doug Dansie briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen said currently sno-cone huts were operating under temporary permits. Mr. Dansie said that was correct. He said historically, the City had not allowed sno-cone huts. He said approximately three years ago, a few huts were permitted as a seasonal use. He said they renewed the licenses and allowed the vendors to continue selling while the ordinance was clarified. Councilmember Lambert asked where sno-cone huts could be placed. Mr. Dansie said huts had to be located on private property. He said they had to get a temporary permit and prove they were not using required parking or blocking accesses. He said the proposed ordinance did not allow huts in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and the Residential Business (RB) zones. He said huts could be located in most commercial areas. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2003 Councilmember Lambert said he had never been charged sales tax when he bought food from a vending cart. He asked if any effort was made so sno-cone huts paid sales tax. Mr. Weeks said the State Tax Commission issued tax numbers to vending carts and the Commission collected taxes from the carts. Mr. Dansie said most vendors included sales tax in the price of the food. Councilmember Lambert said there were inconsistencies on where vending carts and sno- cone huts could be located. Mr. Weeks said vending carts were limited to certain zoned areas because certain residential areas did not want vending carts in the neighborhoods. Councilmember Saxton asked if there had been any problems with sno-cone huts on private property. Mr. Dansie said some people resented having to draw up a site plan. He said the proposed ordinance stated that signage needed to be consistent with the zoning district. Councilmember Saxton asked about prohibition of huts in the CN and RB zones. She said these uses seemed more neighborhood friendly. She said the City was trying to bring vitality to the neighborhoods. Mr. Dansie said RB zoning was left out because homes in that zone were mostly converted to offices. Ms. Coffey said a CN zone was more likely to have a residence abutting the property so there could be more conflict with noise. Councilmember Turner asked if the Board of Health had restrictions on the huts. Mr. Dansie said the Board of Health was not as concerned about sno-cones becoming a health problem. Councilmember Buhler asked if 1700 East and 1300 South and 1500 East and 1500 South were zoned CN. Mr. Dansie said they were. Councilmember Buhler said someone had wanted to put a sno-cone hut on 1700 East and 1300 South. He said he favored putting CN districts back in the proposed ordinance. All Council Members were in favor of setting the date next Tuesday for a hearing to be held on September 2nd, 2003. #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR TELEVISION MONITORS. (KUTV) View Attachment Russell Weeks, Cheri Coffey and Doug Dansie briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr. Dansie said the proposed ordinance change affected D-1 and D-4 zoning districts. He said KSL was located in a D-4 zoning district so the proposed ordinance would apply to them. He said the proposed ordinance allowed a 50 square foot television monitor to be placed on the exterior of the building. He said the monitor would be restricted to the lower floors. Mr. Dansie said the ordinance also restricted programming to broadcasts of the station. He said the station could not sell 30 minutes of advertising time and turn the monitor into an electronic billboard. He said the ordinance restricted broadcasts to daytime standards regardless of what time of day it was. He said the original ordinance taken to the Planning Commission was strict in terms of daytime standards. Councilmember Love asked if KSL would be allowed to have a monitor outside. Mr. Weeks said yes. Councilmember Buhler asked if the proposed ordinance would apply to cable stations. Mr. Dansie said yes. Councilmember Buhler said 50 square feet was not very big. Mr. Dansie said it was large enough to accommodate what people were asking for. All Council Members were in favor of setting a hearing date next Tuesday for September 2nd, 2003. 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2003 #12. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PENDING GATEWAY REZONING PETITION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE. View Attachment Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Planning Commission would hear this issue on September 27th, 2003. She said that date could change. She said the Council' s briefing could be held September 16th, 2003 if everything went as scheduled. She said if the Council chose to set the hearing date on the same night as the briefing a hearing could be held on October 7th or 9th, 2003. She said if the Planning Commission scheduled more than one meeting or if the petitioner took more time to submit additional information, the hearing could be held October 21st, 2003. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Councilmember Lambert had suggested a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Council because individual citizens might want to express opinions on both aspects of the issue. Councilmember Turner said as Chair and Vice Chair of the RDA, he and Councilmember Jergensen wanted to partner with the Council on the meetings. Councilmember Saxton urged the Council to consider either jointly or unilaterally doing a study or hiring an entity to look at options the Council could incorporate into an ordinance. Councilmember Lambert said this issue had been before the City for approximately years and it needed to be expedited. Councilmember Christensen asked if the Council wanted to hold a hearing on Primary Election night, October 7, 2003. All Council Members were in favor of not holding a public hearing on October 7th, 2003. Councilmember Christensen asked if a decision had been made to bring in outside resource as part of the deliberation process. Councilmember Saxton said there had to be a way to bring retail entities and businesses together to work collectively. Councilmember Love said one organization was the International Shopping Center group. Councilmember Buhler said the Council could solicit comments from that group or other groups with general expertise in the area. Councilmember Lambert said a consultant could give the Council some general guidance about principals. Councilmember Lambert suggested inviting some identified groups to brief the Council. Councilmember Buhler said there was value to having this out in the open for public discussion. Councilmember Christensen asked when they wanted the fact-finding hearing held. Councilmember Buhler said the hearing should be held after the Planning Commission so a recommendation could be made to the Council. Councilmember Christensen suggested that Council Members Turner and Love work with Ms. Gust-Jenson and Mr. Zunguze to come up with some outside assistance. He said they could come back with a list of people they wanted to hear from during a discussion. Councilmember Love said she supported the suggestion. She said she knew parties that were waiting to make a presentation. Councilmember Turner said he would work with Councilmember Love to put a program together that gave people enough time to express their ideas. Councilmember Saxton said she wanted the fact-finding hearing televised so the public could be informed. Councilmember Christensen asked if the Council wanted to hold the fact-finding briefing on September 16th or September 18th, 2003. Councilmember Buhler suggested they hold their regular briefing on September 16th and the fact-finding hearing on September 18th, 2003. 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2003 #13. RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ON THE RAILYARD SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. View Attachment There were no questions on the written briefing. #14. RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. View Attachment There were no questions on the written briefing. The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. bj 03 - 6 Si CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: August 1,2003 Subject: Proposed Ordinance:Amendments to Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Seasonal Item Sales(Snow Cone and Shaved Ice Structures) Affected Council Districts: All Staff Report By:Russell Weeks Administrative Dept. and Contact Person: Planning Commission,Doug Dansie KEY ELEMENTS: The proposed ordinance is a text change to the Zoning Ordinance and will require a • public hearing before the City Council formally takes action on it. The proposed ordinance would do three things: • It would amend Section 21A.42.070.B to clarify that Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are limited to 45 days per calendar year. • It would enact a Paragraph K to Section 21A.42.070 to allow snow-cone and shaved-ice huts as a temporary use in districts zoned as Community Business(CB),Community Shopping(CS),Corridor Commercial(CC),General Commercial(CG),Sugar House Business District(CSHBD),Light Manufacturing(M-1),Heavy Manufacturing(M-2), Central Business District(D-1),Downtown Support District(D-2),Downtown Warehouse/Residential(D-3),Downtown Secondary Central Business District(D-4), Gateway Mixed Use District(GMU),Research Park(RP),Business Park(BP)and Mixed Use(MU).The spectrum of districts listed runs throughout Salt Lake City and would affect all City Council Districts. • It would amend Section 21A.62.040 to include two new definitions,"Seasonal Item Sales"and"Snow cone and shaved ice hut." It should be noted that Section 21A.42.020—another part of the Zoning Ordinance chapter regulating temporary uses—says in part,"This chapter is intended to regulate all temporary uses conducted on private property."(Please see attached ordinance.)The proposed amendments to Section 21A.42.070,then,appear to regulate snow-cone and shaved-ice huts on private property. 1 It should be noted that the proposed paragraph 21A.42.070.K would allow sellers of snow cones and shaved ice to operate between May 15 and September 15.The temporary buildings from which the snow cones or shaved ice would be sold would have to be either specific commercial models or their"equivalent, as determined by the zoning administrator."In addition, the proposed ordinance would prohibit"Inflated signs,banners or other signage exceeding the regulation of the applicable zoning districts"to advertise the location of a snow-cone hut. It also should be noted that the definition of"Seasonal Item Sales"would allow"fresh farm produce, sold within the intermountain region harvest season"to be sold under Section 21A.42.070.B titled Christmas Tree and other Seasonal Item Sales.However,another part of the definition says,"Prepared food is not a seasonal item." POTENTIAL OPTIONS: • Move the proposed ordinance forward and set a date for a public hearing. • Suggest amendments to the proposed ordinance before moving it forward for a public hearing. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: If the City Council forwards the proposed ordinance for a public hearing and formal action,staff will prepare potential motions. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: Should temporary structures to sell snow cones or shaved ice be allowed in downtown • zoning districts? Should the definition of"Seasonal Item Sales"include language that would allow"fresh farm produce,sold within the intermountain region harvest season"to be sold under Section 21A.42.070.B titled Christmas Tree and other Seasonal Item Sales?According to the Administration,the current definition of"Seasonal Item Sales"was intended to allow the sale of seasonal"fresh farm produce."However,the original definition may not have been specific enough. If the answer to the second question is yes,should the City initiate regulations to describe the kinds of stands where fresh farm produce could be sold? DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND: As mentioned in an earlier section of this report the proposed ordinance appears to address only temporary uses such as snow-cone and shaved-ice structures on private property. According to the Administration's transmittal,temporary structures such has snow-cone huts historically have not been allowed in Salt Lake City.However,when the Zoning Ordinance was rewritten,language in the Temporary Uses section included a category titled"other seasonal item sales." Through administrative interpretation of the category,snow-cone huts have been allowed as"other seasonal item sales"for the last two or three years.In addition,21A.42.070.B titled Christmas Tree And Other Seasonal Item Sales limits temporary uses"to a period not to exceed 45 days."According to the Administration,some interpretations of the clause have led to the renewal of seasonal item sales every 45 days. 2 J The proposed ordinance would amend Section 21A.42.070.B to clarify that Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are limited to 45 days per calendar year. The ordinance also would add a new paragraph Section 21A.42.070 to allow snow-cone and shaved-ice huts as a temporary use in districts zoned as Community Business(CB), Community Shopping(CS),Corridor Commercial(CC),General Commercial(CG), Sugar House Business District(CSHBD),Light Manufacturing(M-1),Heavy Manufacturing(M-2),Central Business District(D-1),Downtown Support District(D-2),Downtown Warehouse/Residential (D-3),Downtown Secondary Central Business District(D-4),Gateway Mixed Use District (GMU),Research Park(RP), Business Park(BP)and Mixed Use(MU).The new paragraph also would allow sellers of snow cones and shaved ice to operate between May 15 and September 15 instead of limiting sales for 45 days in the calendar year.And it would require temporary buildings from which the snow cones or shaved ice would be sold to be either specific commercial models or their"equivalent,as determined by the zoning administrator." In its transmittal,the Administration noted in several locations that most businesses involving selling snow-cones or shaved ice have said they hoped to locate temporary structures in the parking lots of other commercial businesses such as grocery stores.However,the proposed ordinance would allow snow-cone or shaved-ice huts in downtown zoning districts,in part because their seemed to be no particular reason to prohibit them from downtown zoning districts, according to the Administration. The City Council may wish to consider whether it would rather limit the temporary structures to the zoning districts where sellers of snow cones and shaved ice said they want to locate and not include the downtown zoning districts. • One reason the City Council may wish to consider not including downtown zoning districts involves the presence of sidewalk vending carts.Council Members may recall that the ordinance regulating sidewalk vending generally restricts mobile vending carts to an"expanded central business district"bordered by : 1. North Temple Street on the north,from Sixth West Street to Third West Street; 2. Third West Street on the east,from North Temple Street to South Temple Street; 3. South Temple Street on the north,from Third West Street to Second East Street,on the south side of South Temple Street only; 4. Second East Street on the east from South Temple Street to Sixth South Street; 5. Sixth South Street(north side only)on the south from Second Fast Street to Sixth West Street. The vending ordinance also allows mobile vending carts to locate in the Sugar House Business district. In addition,the vending ordinance allows mobile vending carts to locate"on private plazas and private open space on non-residentially zoned property within the expanded central business district." The vending ordinance allows vendors to sell one or a combination of "food for immediate consumption,including beverages, inflated balloons,fresh cut flowers,and daily or monthly news publications."If snow cones or shaved ice is considered"food for immediate consumption,"the cones could be sold by a sidewalk vendor. The locations of mobile vending carts were restricted for two reasons: 1.)The carts were considered helpful to promoting a vibrant downtown for pedestrians.2)Some neighborhoods in the City opposed their presence. • Given the location restrictions for mobile vending carts,the City Council may wish to consider whether it would create an atmosphere of unfair competition to allow snow-cone or 3 4 shaved-ice huts in locations where vending carts cannot locate and also allow snow-cone or shaved-ice huts in locations where the vending carts are permitted to operate,particularly if the411111 snow-cone or shaved ice huts sell"food for immediate consumption." Finally,the proposed ordinance includes in the definition of"Seasonal Item Sales"language that would allow"fresh farm produce,sold within the intermountain region harvest season"to be sold under Section 21 A.42.070.B titled Christmas Tree and other Seasonal Item Sales.The definition makes clear that"Prepared food is not a seasonal item." According to the Administration,the current definition of"Seasonal Item Sales"was intended to allow the sale of seasonal"fresh farm produce."However,the original definition may not have been specific enough. The ordinance does not appear to address how fresh farm produce would be sold. According to the Administration, structures for sales of fresh farm produce are not defined,and sales of farm produce have not been a problem.However,the City Council may wish to consider whether— given regulations for snow-cones and shaved-ice structures in the proposed ordinance,regulations of the structure of mobile vending carts,and regulations for the structure of sidewalk art stands— it is in the public interest to require some sort of guideline for structures to sell farm produce. • Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze,David Dobbins,Gary Mumford,Doug Dansie File Location:Downtown, Small Business • 4 • • I t `, e . a 21A.42.010 Purpose Statement: This chapter is intended to provide general regulations, applicable in all zoning districts, for uses and structures which have only a seasonal or temporary duration, such as uses and structures associated with carnivals and fairs, the Christmas season, or the construction period of a real estate development. (Ord. 26-95 §2(21-0), 1995) 21A.42.020 Applicability: This chapter is intended to regulate all temporary uses conducted on private property. Temporary uses of vending carts shall only be allowed in zones where vending carts are allowed as a permitted use and only where the vending carts are associated with an outdoor sales event or special event.Art festivals, neighborhood fairs and other similar activities, authorized by other city regulations to operate on public property or within the public way, are not subject to the • provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 23-02 § 2,2002: Ord. 26-95 §2(21-1), 1995) 21A.42.030 Authority: The zoning administrator may authorize temporary uses as defined in part VI, chapter 21 A.62 of this title, and as hereinafter specified in accordance with the following provisions. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-2), 1995) 21A.42.040 No Content Based Discrimination: In applying the provisions of this chapter, the zoning administrator shall not consider the content, except legally prohibited obscenity, of any activity which the applicant claims to be protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the United States or article I, section 15 of the constitution of Utah. Regulation of such constitutionally protected activities by the issuance of zoning certificates for temporary uses shall be limited to time,place and manner,restrictions necessary to protect the legitimate governmental purposes recognized by this title. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-3), 1995) 21A.42.050 Process For Constitutionally Protected Temporary Uses: • A. Notification To City: If an applicant for a zoning certificate for a temporary use claims that the activity is protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the United States or article I, section 15 of the constitution of Utah, and that the process specified in this chapter for considering the temporary use is insufficiently expeditious or unreasonably burdensome, the applicant shall notify the zoning administrator of the timetable which the applicant claims is necessary to process the application and any burdens which the applicant claims to be unreasonable. B. Implementation Of Expedited Process: The zoning administrator shall consult with the city attorney and establish an expedited or otherwise modified process for considering the application in a manner and under such schedules as may be necessary to meet any constitutional requirements affording protection to the activity. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-4), 1995) 21A.42.060 Zoning Certificate Required-Special Standards For Issuance And Revocation: A zoning certificate is required for temporary uses, in accordance with the following standards set forth below: A. Application: An application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. Every application for a temporary use shall include a site plan,traffic plan, including the date,time, location and anticipated attendance of a temporary event or use, anticipated access routes, • ingress and egress for emergency vehicles, and available parking in the vicinity, and the application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator at least thirty(30)calendar days before the scheduled date that the temporary event or use is to take place unless the zoning administrator approves a shorter application deadline. B. Fees: The application for a temporary use shall be accompanied by a fee established on the fee schedule. C. Approval:A zoning certificate for a temporary use may be issued by the zoning administrator;provided, that the applicant meets all applicable requirements of this chapter and any other requirements deemed necessary by the zoning administrator to ensure that the temporary use will not have a detrimental impact upon other properties. D. Basis For Certificate Denial: A zoning certificate shall be denied if the zoning administrator determines that the public health, safety or welfare would be impaired, or if the applicant has not adequately addressed traffic and parking issues associated with the proposed use. E. Conditional Certificate: A zoning certificate for a temporary use may be conditioned upon such special requirements as the zoning administrator may determine are necessary to achieve the purposes of this title and to protect the public health, safety and welfare. • • F. Revocation Of Certificate: A zoning certificate shall be revoked by the zoning administrator pursuant to the procedures of section 21A.08.060 of this title, if any of the standards and conditions imposed pursuant to such certificate, are violated. G. Appeal: Any person adversely affected by the decision of the zoning administrator,may appeal the decision to the board of adjustment pursuant to the provisions of part II, chapter 21A.16 of this title. (Ord.26-95 § 2(21-5), 1995) 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses: Subject to the specific regulations and time limits and to the other applicable regulations of the zoning district in which the use is peumitted, the following temporary uses shall be permitted in the zoning districts specified,upon a finding by the zoning administrator that the parcel upon which the temporary use will be located is adequate in size, that there are adequate parking provisions and traffic access, and that the applicant has agreed to comply with such other conditions as the zoning administrator deems necessary to ensure that the temporary use will not have any material detrimental impact upon other properties: A. Outdoor Sales Of Plant Products During Spring And Summer: Outdoor sales of plant products during the spring and summer are permitted in the CN, CB, CS, CC,CSHBD, CG, D-2, M-1, M-2, and I districts. Such use shall be limited to a period between April and October.No tree or temporary structure shall be displayed obstructing the "sight distance triangle" as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. B. Christmas Tree And Other Seasonal Item Sales: Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are peumitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG,D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty five(45)days. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the "sight distance triangle" as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. C. Festivals,Bazaars, Outdoor Sale Events, Carnivals, Circuses And Other Special Events: Festivals,bazaars, outdoor sale events, carnivals,circuses and other special events are permitted in any commercial, manufacturing, institutional and downtown districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed fourteen (14)days. Such use need not comply with the yard requirements of this title except that structures or equipment that might block the view of operators of motor vehicles on any public or private street shall not be located within the"sight distance triangle" defined in part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title. Such use need not comply with the maximum height requirements of this Title. The concessionaire responsible for the operation of any such festival,bazaar, outdoor sale event, carnival or circus shall submit at least ten(10)calendar days in advance of the event date a site layout displaying adequate ingress and egress plan for emergency vehicles with no dead-end aisles. • D. Farmers' Markets: Farmers'markets are permitted in all commercial districts, except the 40 CN District and in all downtown districts. Such use shall be limited to the period from June through October. Such uses need not comply with the yard requirements of this Title except that structures or equipment that might block the view of operators of motor vehicles on any public or private street and shall not be located within the"sight distance triangle" defined in Part VI, Chapter 21 A.62 of this Title. Such uses need not comply with the maximum height requirements of this Title. The person responsible for the operation of any such farmers' market shall submit at least ten(10)calendar days in advance of the event date a site layout displaying adequate ingress and egress plan for emergency vehicles. E. Movie/Film Locations: Movie/film locations are permitted in all zoning districts subject to approval of the development review team,with specific approvals from the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation and Police Departments. F. Tents: Tents associated with outdoor sales are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two(2)days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of ten (10)days.Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. G. Construction Trailers And Temporary Contractor's Storage Yards: In conjunction with development during the construction period,trailers serving as contractor's offices and temporary on-site storage yards for construction materials are permitted. Such facilities shall not be located in any required front yard on the site. When, due to site constraints, location outside of the required front yards is not feasible, the location of such facilities may be approved by the Zoning Administrator.Temporary construction facilities shall be removed upon the completion of construction. H. Outdoor Sales Of Fireworks: Outdoor sales of fireworks are permitted in any commercial, manufacturing or the downtown D-2 District from temporary stands or trailers only subject to the requirements of Title 18 of this Code. I. Relocatable Offices: Relocatable offices as defined in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title, are permitted in all zoning districts that permit offices subject to the requirements of Title 18 of this Code. J. Bus Shelters,Kiosks And Other Temporary Buildings: Bus shelters,kiosks and other temporary buildings are permitted in all commercial,manufacturing and downtown districts. Such uses shall be limited to a period not to exceed six(6)months. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard or any required parking area and sales from these facilities shall be prohibited. (Ord. 14-00 § 10, 2000: Ord. 35-99 § 65, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-6), 1995) I • • 21A.42.080 Bulk And Yard Regulations: Except as expressly provided otherwise in Section 21A.42.070 of this Chapter, every temporary use shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which the temporary use is located. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-7), 1995) 21A.42.090 Use Limitations: A. General Limitations: Every temporary use shall comply with the use limitations applicable in the district in which it is located as well as with the limitations made applicable to specified temporary uses by Section 21A.42.070 of this Chapter. B. Hours And Days Of Operation: No temporary use shall be operated during any hours or on any days of the week except as designated by the Zoning Administrator, in the zoning certificate required by Section 21A.08.030 of this Title, on the basis of the nature of the temporary use and the character of the adjacent and surrounding area. C. Traffic:No temporary use shall be permitted if additional vehicular traffic_reasonably expected to be generated by such temporary use would have undue detrimental effects on adjacent and surrounding streets and uses. • D. Sign Limitations: Temporary signs may be permitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of Chapter 21A.46 of this Part. E. Parking: Before approving any temporary use, the Zoning Administrator shall make an assessment of the total number of off-street parking spaces that will be reasonably required in connection with the proposed temporary use,on the basis of the particular use, its intensity, and the availability of other parking facilities in the area.No temporary use shall be authorized that would, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,reduce the amount of required off-street parking spaces available for a use in connection with permanent uses located on the same zoning lot. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(21-8), 1995) • MAT 3 ZUU3 f,e CUM ��;, . ALISON WEYHER AF rA\ C 1 i¢J RP ION �'^ - � , ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT TO: Rocky Fluhart, hief Administrative Officer DATE: May 6, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-02-1 : A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to c761 reevaluate the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to seasonal item sales. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner 535-6182 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The petition was initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission in response to issues raised by the building permit personnel regarding the • interpretation of the term"seasonal sales" as part of the Temporary Use Section of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: Historically, temporary snow-cone huts, coffee kiosks and other similar temporary structures have not been allowed in Salt Lake City(these are temporary buildings,not sidewalk vending carts or permanent buildings). During the 1995 Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project, language in the Temporary Uses section of the zoning code was rewritten, and included the category"other seasonal item sales." Through interpretation at the permits counter, snow cone huts have been allowed for the last several years as an "other seasonal item sales." The original staff report presented to the Planning Commission recommended defining the term "seasonal sales"to clarify interpretation consistent with historical practices. The Planning Commission discussed the impact of seasonal sales upon neighborhoods and the comparison to vending carts. After holding a public hearing,the Planning Commission decided to clarify the Temporary Use section of the zoning ordinance to specifically allow snow cone sales as a temporary summer use, but not to expand other forms of temporary use. Their recommendation would allow specific numbers of snow cone huts (or equivalent) within the CB, CC, CS, CG, CSHBD, M-1,M-2, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, GMU, RP, BP and MU zoning districts within Salt Lake City between the dates of May 15 and September 15. They also recommended amending the Temporary Use section to clarify that Christmas tree lots, etc are limited to 45 days per calendar year. New • definitions for seasonal uses and snow cone huts are provided. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 11 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6230 FAX: BU1-535-6005 ♦�i ccvcco PnPca Master Plan: Master plans are generally silent regarding the issue of seasonal sales. . Public Process: August, 2002 The Community Council Chairs were notified of this issue by mail.No responses or concerns were expressed. January 8, 2003 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. The Planning Commission tabled the issue pending a closer look at the specific issue of shaved ice/snow cone huts. February 26, 2003 The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-02-17. Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to the Zoning text are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. As detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). • Based on these five factors, staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity, impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones, the adequacy of existing services and facilities. Based on this analysis, the Planning Commission recommended the text be amended. • • CONTENTS 1 Chronology 2 Proposed Ordinance 3 City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list 4 Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark [January 8, 2003] Staff report [January 8, 2003] Agenda [January 8, 2003] Minutes [January 8, 2003] Staff report [February 26, 2003] Agenda [February 26, 2003] 11) Minutes [February 26, 2003] 5 Original Petition • • 1 Chronology • Chronology May 21, 2002 Foinial petition initiated by Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development (repeated by the Planning Commission in November 2002). August 2002 Staff mailed a letter to the Community Council Chairs, Vest Pocket Business Alliance and the Business Advisory Board describing the proposed amendments. No responses or concerns were expressed. January 8, 2002 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue and tabled their discussion pending more information regarding the legalization of snow cone huts. February 26, 2003 The Planning Commission passed a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-02-17. March 3, 2003 The staff delivered the proposed changes to the Attorney's office. • March 27, 2003 Staff received final ordinance. i 2 Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amendment to City Temporary Use Ordinance to Provide for Seasonal Item Sales) AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TEMPORARY USE ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW FOR SEASONAL ITEM SALES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-17. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains regulations regarding temporary uses; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, it has been determined that the City's temporary use ordinance should be amended to provide for seasonal item sales, and that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City; • NOW,THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.42.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Christmas Tree and Other Seasonal Item Sales. Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are permitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG,D-2,D-3,M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty-five(45) days,per calendar year. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the"sight distance triangle" as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. SECTION 2. Section 21A.42.070.K of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: K. Temporary uses: Snow cones and shaved ice huts. Snow cone and shaved ice huts are permitted in the CB, CC, CS, CG,CSHBD,M-1, M-2,D-1,D-2,D-3,D-4, GMU,RP,BP, and MU zoning districts between • the dates of May 15 and September 15 of each calendar year. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard area or any required parking area. Their placement shall not interfere with pedestrian access to411 other businesses on the site. The building should be located to minimize any light or noise impacts on adjacent residential properties. The temporary buildings shall be limited to 1) Snowie models: 8 or 12 foot kiosk, or 2) Sno Shack models: Sno Shack building, Sno Shack 2000, Sno Shack Concession or 3) equivalent, as determined by the zoning administrator. Inflated signs,banners or other signage exceeding the regulations of the applicable zoning districts are specifically prohibited SECTION 3. Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to include the following definitions in alphabetical order: Seasonal Item Sales: Items that are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons; spring, summer, autumn or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include,but are not limited to, Valentines Day or Easter items, Halloween pumpkin, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are governed independently in this ordinance. Prepared food is not a seasonal item, however fresh farm produce, sold within the intermountain region harvest season is allowed. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. 111 Snow cone and shaved ice hut: A temporary building designed to accommodate the sales of flavored ice only. SECTION 4. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. z -03 Published: -_-. • • G:\Ordinance 03\Amend Temp Use Ord for Seasonal Item Sales-Clean-Mar 27,2003.doc • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amendment to City Temporary Use Ordinance to Provide for Seasonal Item Sales) AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TEMPORARY USE ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW FOR SEASONAL ITEM SALES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-17. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains regulations regarding temporary uses; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, it has been determined that the City's temporary use ordinance should be amended to provide for seasonal item sales, and that the proposed amendments are in the best interest . of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.42.070.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Christmas Tree and Other Seasonal Item Sales. Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are permitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days,per calendar year. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the"sight distance triangle"as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. SECTION 2. Section 21A.42.070.K of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: K. Temporary uses:Snow cones and shaved ice huts. Snow cone and shaved ice huts are permitted in the CB, CC, CS, CG, CSHBD,M-1, M-2,D-1,D-2, D-3, D-4, GMU,RP,BP, and MUzoninji districts • between the dates of May 15 and September 15 of each calendar year. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard area or any • required parking area. Their placement shall not interfere with pedestrian access to other businesses on the site. The building should be located to minimize any light or noise impacts on adjacent residential properties. The temporary buildings shall be limited to 1)Snowie models: 8 or 12 foot kiosk, or 2)Sno Shack models:Sno Shack building, Sno Shack 2000,Sno Shack Concession or 3) equivalent, as determined by the zoning administrator. Inflated signs, banners or other signage exceeding the regulations of the applicable zoning districts are specifically prohibited SECTION 3. Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to include the following definitions in alphabetical order: Seasonal Item Sales: Items that are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons;spring, summer, autumn or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include, but are not limited to, Valentines Day or Easter items, Halloween pumpkin, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are governed independently in this ordinance. Prepared food is not a seasonal item, however fresh farm produce, sold within the intermountain region harvest season is allowed. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. • Snow cone and shaved ice hut: A temporary building designed to accommodate the sales of flavored ice only. SECTION 4. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on . • Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: . III • G:\Ordinance 03\Amend Temp Use Ord for Seasonal Item Sales-Mar 27,2003.doc • 3 City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing List 40 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-02-17, a request to reevaluate the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses and associated definitions), in relation to seasonal item sales. Specifically; the proposed amendments would allow 'snow cone huts' in most commercial zoning districts. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: • PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you are the owner of rental properties, please inform your tenants of this meeting. If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon 24-hour advance request. 41110 Pollyanna Pixton Lorraine Miller Camille Chant 1115 S. 900 E. Cactus and Tropicals Chameleon Artwear Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 2715 S 2000 E 875 E 900 S • Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Mary Corporon Jason Cowan Peter Corroon 808 E South Temple Cowan's Retail Systems Red Gate Properties Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 1165 W 2950 S 444 S 700 E Salt Lake City,Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Aim Floor Elizabeth Guss Random Projects Cohesion Bim Oliver 30 U Street 1220 Second Ave 1804 E Hollywood Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Don Steward i3EOJ as I Ct4 rLi_ m30-flri,v& ALLIG1nc The Dog Show Z4 5 to R C'bb I e wev 2.03 IMti i n 1508 S 1500E 56'`di fti- 1541043 1 i , VCt -110 k Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 506 6116(V. 1 DO U(9 D2kA.:15 i ALL Cina fL yal� S 30 W. wh'4 ne Ave L_ M ki d s 5 � fi �Il ,ic (Ai 9-11I1 • 6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Richard Smiley Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY 816 16th Avenue 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 8411 4) Catherine New Samantha Francis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O. Box#521744 70 W.Van Buren Ave. 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah84101-2201 Bruce Alder Ellen Reddick Jim Byrne ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 1835 S. Lakeline Dr. 2177 Roosevelt Ave 1966 East 900 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 841108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee ST. MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S. Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 • Beth Bowman Kenneth L. Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E. Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Dennis Guy-Sell Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 436 South 1200 East 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Mark Smedley Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1372 Gillespie Ave. 846 W 400 N. 1410 N. Baroness Place. Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Ray Pugsley Randy Sorensen SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE 2171 Hannibal St. 1184 S Redwood Dr. Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 0 Lynn Child David Brcrns 3820 South 4745 West 375 West 200 South lest Valley City,UT 84120 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Gregory Gruber Mary Corporon 8318 South Ridge Point Road 808 E.South Temple Sandy,UT 84093 Salt Lake City,UT 84102 Marilee Latta Yolanda Sanchez 1475 Tomahawk Drive 553 Garn Way Salt Lake City,UT 84103 Salt Lake City,lIT 84104 Lyrin-gtild Mar .orporor 3820 So 5 West 808 E. t emple Valley r UT 84120 Sal,t La Cr , '1' 84102 13a 'd Brem. Tony Caputo 375 0 South 3684 East Kaibab Circle Salt 1 e y,UT 84101 Salt bake City,UT 84109 • Yola da Sandi z Lois Johnson 553 Ga W' 6338 South Canyon Cove Drive Salt Lake UT 84104 Salt Lake City,UT 84121 Yolanda Sa ez Mary ro 553 G ay 808 E. pie Salt I_ e ,lJT 84104 ake City,UT 84102 Yolan Sanc z L n Child 553 Gam 3 2 h 4745 West Salt Lak .ity,UT 84104 ley City,UT 84120 To y Caput ory Gm Lynn 3684 ' s aibab Circle 8318 Ridge Point Road 382 ouch West Salt e r , T 84109 S y,UT 8 t Valley City,UT 84120 Mary r Ma orporon 0 South 47 est 808 E.So Te e 808 E. Temple West Vail City,UT 20 S It e City,UT 84 02 Lake City, 84102 • 4 Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark [January 8, 2003] Staff report [January 8, 2003] Agenda [January 8, 2003] Minutes [January 8, 2003] Staff report [February 26, 2003] Agenda [February 26, 2003] Minutes [February 26, 2003] • Original Notice and Postmark [January 8, 2003] • IP SALT' Knif glum °j,:. /I"OI 1 . STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ..,.� vwAgi -- �,� �1. ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR December 20,2002 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition 400-02-17*, a request to reevaluate the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses and associated definitions), in relation to seasonal item sales. The Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing to accept public comment on: • January 8, 2003 Salt Lake City County Building 451 South State Room 315 6:00 P.M. If you haw questions, comments or wish to view the proposal, you may do so at that time. If yam.____ve additional questions, you may contact me at 535-6182. .ResRectfil , Doug Dansie,Al P Principal Planne emended notice - corrected petition number We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpreter services provided upon 24 hour advance request 410 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801.535.61 74 :: we�.aeo P.PEa s tt S S NOTICE OF MEETIl' -:_ : 47 tl::l • Salt Lake City Planning Division— p 451 South State Street ,� �'A k F `�° ��F1�1C* Salt Lake City, Utah 841 l l DEC2,`p2 j� n i aj . 41/ t A H METER 7 6C A. • DbU(7 DWDIr_ 527 Al M A ilk i Staff report [January 8, 2003] • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION i STAFF REPORT A request by Salt Lake City to reevaluate the temporary use section of the zoning ordinance, in relation to seasonal item sales. Petition 400-02-17 January 8, 2003 REQUEST Petition 400-02-17 is a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to reevaluate the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance, in relation to seasonal item sales. Historically snow-cone huts, coffee kiosks and other similar temporary structures have not been allowed in Salt Lake City (these are temporary buildings,not sidewalk vending carts). During the 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite, language in the Temporary Uses section of the zoning code was rewritten, and included the category"other seasonal item sales". Through interpretation at the permits counter, snow cone huts have been allowed • for the last several years as an "other seasonal item sales". This interpretation needs clarification. Staff is requesting clarification from decision makers whether food sales from temporary buildings should be allowed. If not, the ordinance needs to be made more explicit. Or, if so, the parameters need to be defined. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW: An overview of the problem and the concept was mailed to all Community Council Chairs in August of 2002, along with a request that they provide feedback from their individual Community Councils. No Council responded. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 1 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Purpose of proposal: The purpose of this petition is to clarify what uses can be allowed as seasonal sales under the Temporary Use section of the zoning ordinance. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: Existing Temporary Use provisions apply to Christmas Tree and other Seasonal Item Sales in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Separate regulations also apply to farmer's markets and fireworks sales. Existing Master Plan Policies: While several master plans discuss enlivening the street and maintaining a 24-hour population, they are generally silent regarding snow cone huts or other seasonal uses. Affected areas: The proposed definition and clarifications would affect the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D-2, D-3,M-1, and M-2 districts • IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. The purpose of this petition is to clarify what constitutes seasonal item sales. The existing language at issue is as follows: 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses:B. Christmas Tree and Other Seasonal Item Sales. Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are permitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the "sight distance triangle"as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. There has been pressure from applicants at the permit counter to deem snow cone huts as Seasonal Item Sales; although other individuals interpreting the ordinance have argued that food is not seasonal (ice cream, burritos, etc. are sold year round and even snow cones are available during the winter months). • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 2 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Should we allow food as a seasonal sales item? • Historically, temporary buildings have not been allowed in Salt Lake City except as specifically defined in certain circumstances (fireworks). These circumstances have their own individual sections in the ordinance defining the time frame, size and removal. The primary issue for the Planning Commission to discuss is whether Snow Cone huts or other temporary buildings (for food sales or otherwise) are appropriate in the City, and if so, how they should be defined, and if not, how to amend ordinance language to clarify the issue. Farm vegetables are commonly sold on street corners in the autumn. There is a separate farmers market section of the ordinance but it does not cover the fresh produce sales that are generally sold from a truck or cart. These types of farm products are not addressed in the zoning ordinance at all. Also,temporary buildings are only allowed for 45 days. Operators of snow cone huts have been receiving multiple "temporary use"permits to extend their time frame for the entire summer season. That was not the intent of the original ordinance. The Planning Staff has prepared a sample definition of seasonal item sales and changes to the zoning ordinance designed to stop the practice of issuing consecutive 45-day temporary use permits and continue the general provision of prohibiting temporary buildings, except those specifically outlined in the ordinance (fireworks stands, Christmas tree lots). Snow cone sales or other food sales could still continue to exist as long as they ale located n ithin bona fide permanent shoelaces ot the business is conducted fion7 legally licensed vending carts in appropriate zoning districts. Should we allow temporary buildings to sell food? If the Planning Commission wishes to alter the ordinance to allow temporary structures, the staff needs direction as to what they would like an ordinance to address. If Snow Cone Huts are allowed, the following are some of the issues that need to be addressed: • Description/limitations on size • Duration of their use (whether extending the 45 day limit to the entire summer season is appropriate) • Building code coordination • Placement on lot • Parking • Signage • Hours of operation • Types of foods to be sold from temporary buildings(coffee, fruits and nuts, snow cones, tacos,produce, etc) • Number of employees per cart • • Difference between seasonal sales from temporary buildings and vending carts on private property Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 3 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • Timeframes these"stands"should be allowed, without allowing continual renewal of the business license to extend the number of days they can operate. • Internally plumbed and electric power requirements. Competition with permanent buildings and interface with vending carts Because snow cone huts are temporary, issues such as parking, lighting, signage and other issues normally reviewed with permanent buildings are not defined or regulated. Vending carts are allowed on private property in certain limited zoning districts. Many issues surrounding vending carts also apply to temporary structures. In the past, the Planning Commission denied a vending permit, as a conditional use application for outdoor sales of prepared food from a vending cart on private property, finding the use would increase traffic congestion,parking lot safety concerns and was unfair competition to adjacent businesses in permanent buildings. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT The following standards were evaluated for zoning ordinance amendments (attached), which are designed to define seasonal item sales and to clarify the 45-day time period for temporary uses, consistent with past interpretation to generally not allow temporary structures. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend allowing food items or other sales from temporary structures, the staff needs the Planning Commission to provide direction and reschedule a new hearing,with a new set of criteria, at a future date. 111 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: Because temporary building have not been allowed, master plans are generally silent regarding the issue. Findings: The proposed ordinance definition and clarifications are consistent with current interpretation of master plans. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Historically, Salt Lake City has not allowed temporary building except under specific circumstances. Amending the definition to clarify what constitutes seasonal item sales will require that the sales of food, or other temporary businesses that do not meet the definition, operate from a permanent structure that meets all sign,parking and building code requirements or are operated from a vending cart that is also defined and regulated. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 4 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division The proposed amendment will clarify the original intent of the zoning code. • Allowance of temporary buildings has an impact on adjacent land uses,such as loss of parking, traffic,noise, and lighting. Amending the ordinance to limit such uses will eliminate potential conflicts. Findings: The proposed zoning ordinance amendments will limit seasonal sales, from temporary buildings,to only those uses included in the proposed definition. The proposed definition is consistent with historical policy and interpretation. Limiting temporary buildings, and the sales of food from temporary buildings, is consistent with historical practice,which included concerns of adjacent property impacts(parking, lighting, noise, etc.) C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendment will limit temporary buildings from being erected for the purpose of selling products that are not defined or regulated elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. The limitation alleviates potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties associated with such uses. Findings: The proposed amendment will limit new temporary structures for the sales of seasonal items, therefore adverse impacts will be precluded. • D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed amendment is a text change, not a site-specific change. Applications for food sale in permanent structures will have to meet all City regulations, including the overlay districts where applicable. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of overlay districts. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools,storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposed changes would require any item that does not meet the definition to operate from permanent buildings,which are required to meet all zoning and building code. Temporary structures have historically not been allowed because of associated utility and parking issues. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 5 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Comments were requested from other departments. Public works and Fire responded that they had no issues with temporary buildings in the form of snow cone huts. Findings: The proposed amendment insures no impact to public facilities from temporary structures and/or businesses. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of fact, the planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council, zoning ordinance amendments designed to define seasonal item sales and to clarify the 45-day time period for temporary uses. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend allowing food items or other sales from temporary structures, the staff recommends the Planning Commission provide direction and reschedule a new hearing at a future date. Doug Dansie Community Planner • Attachments: Exhibit I —Letter to Community Councils. Exhibit 2— Draft Ordinance. Exhibit 3 Other Division Recommendations. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-17 6 01/08/03 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 Letter to Community Councils. • Dear Community Council Chair Salt Lake City is currently reviewing petition 400-02-12, a request by Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development, to review temporary uses. The primary issue is snow cone huts and other similar seasonal uses located in temporary structures on private property. Prior to 1995,the City did not allow any temporary buildings or uses with the exception of items such as temporary fireworks displays,Christmas tree lots and seasonal farm sales. In 1995 the zoning ordinance was altered to allow for other seasonal uses. Shortly thereafter,several snow cone huts were permitted as seasonal uses,although the zoning code does not specifically mention or regulate them. The interpretive decision raises other administrative issues regarding other "seasonal uses",such as: • At what level should food be considered seasonal? • Are roasted chestnuts, etc. a seasonal use? • Are coffee or other hot drinks seasonal because more are sold in the cooler months? • Are snow cones or ice cream really seasonal(you can buy them in December at most grocery stores)? • Should temporary food sales be allowed at all? • If seasonal food sales are allowed from temporary buildings, what kind of design criteria should be applied? • • Is it fair to prohibit mobile sidewalk vendors if food sales from temporary buildings are allowed? I-or clarification: Snow cone huts are not regulated as sidewalk vendors. Snow cone huts are within temporary buildings,whereas sidewalk vendors must be mobile(have wheels) and are limited to strict design criteria.The sidewalk vending ordinance does not allow,by either ordinance or interpretation, sidewalk vendors in most zoning districts(they are limited to downtown and manufacturing zones). This is in large part a response to citizens concerned about food sales from vending carts on private property in their neighborhood. Please have a conversation with your Community Council to inquire whether or not these uses should or should not be accommodated.I would particularly appreciate feedback to the following questions: • Should temporary structures be allowed in parking lots and vacant areas or should they only be allowed if the buildings are permanent and meet building code? • If temporary structures are allowed,what types of temporary buildings are acceptable? • Should some temporary buildings be allowed in some zoning districts but not others? • Should sales be restricted to only snow cones or should other food sales be allowed? • Are other sales(crafts,t-shirts)from temporary buildings acceptable? Please contact me at 535-6182 if you have any issues and concerns,or would like me to attend your Community Council meeting and discuss the issue. I would appreciate your response by September 30, 2002. Sincerely, Doug Dansie,AICP • Community Planner • • Exhibit 2 • Draft Ordinance. • 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses: B. Christmas Tree and Other Seasonal Item Sales. Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are permitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSI4BD, CG, D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days,per calendar year. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the "sight distance triangle" as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 21A .62.040 Definitions: Seasonal Item Sales;Items that are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons;spring, summer, autumn or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include, but are not limited to, Valentines Day or Easter items, Halloween pumpkin, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are governed independently in this ordinance. Prepared food is not a seasonal item, however fresh farm produce, sold within the intermountain region harvest season is allowed. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. • • • • Exhibit 3 Other Division • Recommendations. • Dansie, Dou9 From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:47 AM •To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: Clarification of seasonal sales (commonly known as snow cone shacks) Doug, Although I think I understand the differences between a "snow cone shack" and a vending cart. From a Public Utilities point of view, both appear more similar than different. Both are temporary or seasonal and have no water or sewer connections and yet most need water and drainage for operation. There is no provision in the rules governing water and sewer to treat a seasonal or temporary facility different from a permanent connection. Hoses are not allowed. Therefore, the carts are constructed to be self-contained. - Public Utilities has interest in how this captured liquid waste stream is handled and disposed of. This waste must go back to the "commissary"where these carts are parked at night, cleaned and restocked for the next day. Our concern is that not all licensed carts are complying with the rules and may be opting for waste disposal strategies that are convenient but illegal. Unlicensed vendors have even less conscience. We are relying on the Health Department for regulation, oversight and inspection. I suspect their resources are spread thin, especially with the rapidly increasing number of street vendors. Perhaps SLC should broaden its oversight and regulation of street vendors. As ordinance or policy is re-written concerning these temporary or mobile food services, will you include Public Utilities' concerns? I'm available if there are future discussions. •Thank s. Brad Original Message----- From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Monday,July 15,2002 4:48 PM To: Stewart,Brad;Young, Kevin;Tarbet,Valda;Calfa, Enzo; Evans, Roger; Hodson,John;Andrus, Dan;Johnston, Richard Subject: Clarification of seasonal sales(commonly known as snow cone shacks) Recently I sent you an interoffice memorandum asking for any input you may have regarding the legalization or clarification of seasonal uses (snow cone shacks, etc. ). I have not received any responses. Do you have any concerns or input regarding the liberalization or clarification of current city policy? They have been allowed on a limited basis through the determination that snow cones are seasonal - others argue that food is not seasonal. The City does not allow temporary buildings and separately regulates vending carts and peddlers- should we allow temporary "shacks"? Should they be dealt with by having their own regulation, such as firework stands? I am looking for whatever issues may arise for your department that may affect the clarification of the • ordinance(I.E.Do Police have drug issues as they did with vending carts?Does Utilities have drainage/waste issues? etc.). Thank You 1 Dansie, Doug . From: Young, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, December 17,2002 5:10 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Categories: Program/Policy Doug, Transportation has only a few issues to bring up on this. Our concern is that whatever is allowed doesn't block the sidewalk or driveways, impact existing site conditions,or cause a sight distance problem, whether the temporary buildings are on private or public space. If the temporary buildings are placed in private parking lots they may take up parking spaces that are normally needed to meet parking requirements or block driveways or pedestrian walking areas. If taking up needed parking spaces or blocking driveways is the case. I don't know how we justify lowering the needed number of parking spaces or allowing the driveway pr access ways to be blocked for a very long duration. It could end up causing congestion problems and overall parking problems. I don't see the tie between snow cone huts and a seasonal celebration or holiday. They are generally associated with the summer season, but not a seasonal celebration or holiday. Kevin Original Message • From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:50 AM To: Stewart, Brad; Young, Kevin; Tarbet, Valda; Calla, Enzo; Evans, Roger; Johnston, Richard; Andrus, Dan; Hodson, John Cc: Aramaki, Jan; Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent Subject: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Importance: High Last summer, CED initiated petition 400-02-17 to clarify temporary seasonal uses; specifically regarding the allowance of temporary buildings or snow cone huts. I distributed a memo and an email at that time to see if anyone had any major issues or concerns with the issue. I received some questions from Brad, but no major concerns. (i also received a note from Jan-but cannot locate it in the email file - I believe you said to limit them to downtown-would you resend your comments-thanks) Since that time, i have written all Community Council Chairs to inquire of their concerns. I offered to come to their Council meetings to explain the issue. I received no response. The issue has been lower priory for several months, but I now need to resurrect and follow through with the petition in order to resolve any issues before spring(and the associated pressure to license new snow cone huts). Before I do, I wanted to make another inquiry to insure that you have had a chance to provide input. if you have any issues or concerns would you please forward them to me ASAP. Historically Salt Lake City has not allowed temporary buildings and has only allowed snow cone huts for the last few seasons under interpretation of the temporary structure portion of the zoning ordinance. I know that they were prohibited before 1995 and their legalization was was not the intent of the language written in 1995. There has not been a groundswell of support or opposition to the current interpretation, so I have written a proposed definition to simply close the loop hole. Attached is a draft of tentative language. Basically it eliminates the ambiguity by providing a definition for seasonal uses to clarify exactly what is and is not seasonal. The definition, as written,would not allow continued use of snow cone huts or any other food sales in temporary buildings that are not directly tied to a specific holiday. If you agree/disagree, hate 12/17/2002 it/love it/don't care, find it confusing or think that is the wrong direction to go, please let me know now. PLEASE BE BRUTAL There are likely better ideas/solutions, but I must start somewhere. (Enzo-please have your staff dissect it) If you think we should allow snow cone huts, please feel free to take a stab at defining them. I also would like to hear any and all arguments in favor or against temporary buildings in general (structural, crime, sewer, parking impact, etc) • Just as a note of clarification;We already have specific regulations relating to seasonal fireworks sales, Christmas tree lots and farmers markets. While the current issue has stemmed from snow cone huts, the current interpretation would allow for other potential seasonal food sales from temporary buildings. (Remember -these are temporary buildings, NOT VENDING CARTS -there is a major difference. Huts are temporary buildings located on private property, carts are mobile and located on public property/sidewalks as well as private property in limited areas) Again, The leadership of the Planning Division would like this on a January Planning Commission agenda so that it can get to Council before winter thaws. If you have questions please call me 535-6182 Thanks DOUG 21A .62.040 Definitions: Seasonal Items; Items, which are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons; spring,summer, fall or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include,but are not limited to, Valentines or Easter decorations,Halloween pumpkin sales, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day decorations are seasonal, however Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are not considered seasonal items for regulation purposes and are governed independently in this ordinance. Food is not a seasonal item unless customarily identified . with an individual holiday. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. • - 12/17/2002 Dansie, Doug • From: Aramaki, Jan Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:52 PM To: Dansie, Doug Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Jardine, Janice; Weeks, Russell; Mumford, Gary Subject: RE: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Categories: Program/Policy Hi Doug, Thanks for including our office on this email. I'm not certain if you are referring to me when you inquired about limiting to downtown. I don't believe I provided you those comments. Thanks, Jan Original Message From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:50 AM To: Stewart, Brad; Young, Kevin; Tarbet, Valda; Calfa, Enzo; Evans, Roger; Johnston, Richard; Andrus, Dan; Hodson, John Cc: Aramaki, Jan; Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent Subject: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Importance: High • Last summer, CED initiated petition 400-02-17 to clarify temporary seasonal uses; specifically regarding the allowance of temporary buildings or snow cone huts. I distributed a memo and an email at that time to see if anyone had any major issues or concerns with the issue. I received some questions from Brad, but no major concerns. (I also received a note from Jan - but cannot locate it in the email file- I believe you said to limit them to downtown- would you resend your comments - thanks) Since that time, I have written all Community Council Chairs to inquire of their concerns. I offered to come to their Council meetings to explain the issue. I received no response. The issue has been lower priory for several months, but I now need to resurrect and follow through with the petition in order to resolve any issues before spring(and the associated pressure to license new snow cone huts). Before I do, I wanted to make another inquiry to insure that you have had a chance to provide input. If you have any issues or concerns would you please forward them to me ASAP. Historically Salt Lake City has not allowed temporary buildings and has only allowed snow cone huts for the last few seasons under interpretation of the temporary structure portion of the zoning ordinance. I know that they were prohibited before 1995 and their legalization was was not the intent of the language written in 1995. There has not been a groundswell of support or opposition to the current interpretation, so I have written a proposed definition to simply close the loop hole. Attached is a draft of tentative language. Basically it eliminates the ambiguity by providing a definition for seasonal uses to clarify exactly what is and is not seasonal. The definition,as written,would not allow continued use of snow cone huts or any other food sales in temporary buildings that are not directly tied to a specific holiday. If you agree/disagree, hate it/love it/don't care,find it confusing or think that is the wrong direction to go, please let me know now. PLEASE BE BRUTAL There are likely better ideas/solutions, but I must start somewhere. (Enzo-please have your staff dissect it) If you think we should allow snow cone huts, please feel free to take a stab at defining them. I also would like to hear any and all arguments in favor or against temporary buildings in general(structural, crime, sewer, parking impact, etc) • Just as a note of clarification;We already have specific regulations relating to seasonal fireworks sales, Christmas tree lots and farmers markets. While the current issue has stemmed from snow cone huts,the 12/17/2002 current interpretation would allow for other potential seasonal food sales from temporary buildings. (Remember-these are temporary buildings, NOT VENDING CARTS - there is a major difference. Huts are temporary buildings located on private property, carts are mobile and located on public property/sidewalks as well as private property in limited areas) • Again, The leadership of the Planning Division would like this on a January Planning Commission agenda so that it can get to Council before winter thaws. If you have questions please call me 535-6182 Thanks DOUG 21A .62.040 Definitions: Seasonal Items; Items,which are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons; spring, summer, fall or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include, but are not limited to, Valentines or Easter decorations, Halloween pumpkin sales, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day decorations are seasonal, however Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are not considered seasonal items for regulation purposes and are governed independently in this ordinance. Food is not a seasonal item unless customarily identified with an individual holiday. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. • • 12/17/2002 Dansie, Doug S From: Andrus, Dan Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:13 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Categories: Program/Policy Doug, this looks fine to me. The Fire Department's scope is limited to tents over 200 square feet or canopies over 400 square feet. The intent is to provide a regulatory presence when the occupant load exceeds about 30 persons. I don't believe the snow cone hut would fall under that. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Dan Dan Andrus Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Department 305 East 200 Smith (801)799-4163 (801)799-4156(fax) e mat}: dan.andrus@ci.slc_ut_us . Original Message From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:50 To: Stewart, Brad; Young, Kevin; Tarbet, Valda; Calfa, Enzo; Evans, Roger; Johnston, Richard; Andrus, Dan; Hodson, John Cc: Aramaki, Jan; Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent Subject: snow cone huts and seasonal uses Importance: High Last summer, CED initiated petition 400-02-17 to clarify temporary seasonal uses; specifically regarding the allowance of temporary buildings or snow cone huts. I distributed a memo and an email at that time to see if anyone had any major issues or concerns with the issue. I received some questions from Brad, but no major concerns. (I also received a note from Jan -but cannot locate it in the email file- I believe you said to limit them to downtown-would you resend your comments- thanks) Since that time, I have written all Community Council Chairs to inquire of their concerns. I offered to come to their Council meetings to explain the issue. I received no response. The issue has been lower priory for several months, but i now need to resurrect and follow through with the petition in order to resolve any issues before spring(and the associated pressure to license new snow cone huts). Before I do, I wanted to make another inquiry to insure that you have had a chance to provide input. if you have any issues or concerns would you please forward them to me ASAP. Historically Salt Lake City has not allowed temporary buildings and has only allowed snow cone huts for the last few seasons under interpretation of the temporary structure portion of the zoning ordinance. I know that they were prohibited before 1995 and their legalization was was not the intent of the language • written in 1995. There has not been a groundswell of support or opposition to the current interpretation, so 1 have written a proposed definition to simply close the loop hole. Attached is a draft of tentative language. Basically it eliminates the ambiguity by providing a definition for seasonal uses to clarify exactly what is and is not seasonal. The definition, as written,would not allow continued use of snow cone huts or any other 12/17/2002 food sales in temporary buildings that are not directly tied to a specific holiday. If you agree/disagree, hate • it/love it/don't care, find it confusing or think that is the wrong direction to go,please let me know now. PLEASE BE BRUTAL There are likely better ideas/solutions, but I must start somewhere. (Enzo- please have your staff dissect it) If you think we should allow snow cone huts, please feel free to take a stab at defining them. I also would like to hear any and all arguments in favor or against temporary buildings in • general (structural, crime, sewer, parking impact, etc) Just as a note of clarification;We already have specific regulations relating to seasonal fireworks sales, Christmas tree lots and farmers markets. While the current issue has stemmed from snow cone huts,the current interpretation would allow for other potential seasonal food sales from temporary buildings. (Remember- these are temporary buildings, NOT VENDING CARTS - there is a major difference. Huts are temporary buildings located on private property, carts are mobile and located on public property/sidewalks as well as private property in limited areas) Again, The leadership of the Planning Division would like this on a January Planning Commission agenda so that it can get to Council before winter thaws. If you have questions please call me 535-6182 Thanks DOUG 21A .62.040 Definitions: Seasonal Items; Items, which are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons; spring,summer, fall or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include, but are not limited to,Valentines or Easter decorations,Halloween pumpkin sales,or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day decorations are seasonal,however Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are not considered seasonal items for regulation purposes and are governed . independently in this ordinance. Food is not a seasonal item unless customarily identified with an individual holiday. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. • 12/17/2002 • Building Services information from temporary uses during the Olympics Survey of Temporary Structures • November 26,2001 1. What regulations do you have that are different from the model codes in the enforcement of temporary structures(tents,canopies,seating,and fencing)? Under Fire Department'98 Cal Building Code,chapter 34 San Francisco Cal Building Code 10'to valence 8"to metal frame fabric fire proof,approved by Fire Department and zoning. Handicapped rep for even one day. Handrails Pasadena 3 to 3 not amended. Amended on tents Chapter 39. Dallas Building Code for tents Dallas Variance process-limited time-written font,anchored for wind Los Angeles County ordinances-more restrictive LA County City ordinances. UBC-NFPA have their own fire code. I.A City AFPA ID2 SBC Atlanta 2. Do you have any special requirements for tent structures that are used for assembly uses such as drinking,dinning or dancing? Do you have any special requirements for fire sprinkler systems in tents(when the reach a certain size)? No,exits,signs,lighting Dallas Fire Department checks,fire spanks installed,fire extinguishers Los Angeles Yes,not seen a sprinkler system in a temp stmetue or tent LA County No,only if used in a structure that has a sprinkler system LA City No to 2'd question Atlanta 3. At what point do you require a"fire watch"for temporary uses? When required by Chief Dallas Always required for occasional use in lie of sprinklers Los Angeles "rake extensive look-equivalency. Fire watch-meet exiting requirements size a big factor. Involve building housing Fire Marshal,district captain LA County 50 or more LA County 500 people LA City • Over 200-300 people-fire watch and hose lines Atlanta 4. Do you allow assembly use (drinking, dinning or dancing) on temporary bases in existing buildings that are not designed for assembly use (lack of fire 411) sprinkler system)? If so, what are the conditions? If recognized before,not if changed Dallas Sprinkler system required—Fire Depai(went to do fire watch,number of security people outline of procedures Los Angeles Go through building department—change of use—assign a fire inspector LA City Engineer equivalency—fire alarm—fire watch—standpipe Atlanta 5. If the existing building were located in a high seismic zone, would you allow a temporary assembly use if the building did not meet seismic requirements? Increase by 100 people and 10%,same for temp San Francisco Have to comply with all requirements Pasadena For night,ok—look at exits—ground floor,2"d floor maybe, fire alarm bell Los Angeles Refer to building department LA County Again,goes through building department—allowed most of the time LA City Only small area in seismic zone-Atlanta 111,_ 6. If there were a requirement for a lire sprinkler system, under what conditions would you waive this requirement for a temporary use? No waiver San Francisco No way!! Dallas Adequate security Los Angeles See#4 LA County See#4 &#5 LA City See#4 Atlanta 7. Do you have any special requirements that allow temporary dormitory style sleeping in existing buildings? Do you require fire sprinkler systems or seismic upgrade if the buildings do not meet these requirements? Administrative Bulletin San Francisco Could be exempt,exiting required. State must approve temp mobile building Pasadena Wasn't designed for change of use,must upgrade. Dallas Sprinkled,alarms Los Angeles • Have tried to require sprinkler system—seismic in some,yes LA County Fire alarm system—prefer building w/sprinkler system Atlanta City Surveyed Contact Person 1110 TemporaryOlympic I �� AssemblyUses Assembly Uses are defined by the Uniform Building Code or the International Building Code. a� I 2. Applicant submits a detailed floor plan drawn to scale showing exits, exit signs, 9 s, bathrooms and a seating layout. 3. The life safety issues are addressed in the temporary use matrix . (� 4. The following definitions are given for clarification: Q( 0 a. Fire Watch -Two firemen selected by the Fire Marshall who "standby" i when the event is being held. The applicant must have an agreement signed in writing from the Fire Marshall when they make application to Building Services. The fire watch is an option when the space or buildings would be required to have a fire sprinkler system. An example would be a tent that exceeds 5,000 square feet that is being used for assembly purposes. L�I b. Portable Heating Equipment - Portable equipment (gas/propane) that has approval from the Fire Marshall. Products of combustion cannot be vented into the assembly area but must be vented to the outside. i1 c. Seating Layout- Floor plan that shows tables, seats and aisle ways. q Occupant load signs must be posted by the main entrance and the occupant load factors are from Table 10-A of the U.B.C. The number can be exceeded only with permission from the Fire Marshall. d. Bathrooms- May be portable but must be accessible as per ANSI 117.1. 1998 Edition 5. Applicant will need to fill out the Olympic Temporary Structure application and the planner will stamp the plans with the zoning stamp with the conditions for the temporary use. (i.e. time period, certified address, zoning district.) • 6. The plans examiner stamps the drawing after review of life safety requirements. 7. The applicant will need to then pay the $100.00 fee and the permit number is 12/01 _ placed on the drawings. 8. Electrical permits are required for any wiring (temporary electrical service fee $20.20). . Emergency lighting is required for occupant loads exceeding 100 occupants and all exits' must have an approved exit sign. 9. Mechanical permits are required as per the current fee schedule. ($12.12 for minimal heating.) 10.Most of the temporary uses will occur in the expanded downtown area. (North Temple to 900 South 200 East to the freeway.) 11.TEMPORARY USES THAT SELL PRODUCTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE. • Olympic FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Temporary Use � L Permit Number: =�= �- _�= Date Received: space within Date A roved b = a structure ) Zoning Approval by. Subject Property Address: Suite/Floor: Applicant: Phone: o Zone: Occupant Load: (to be posted) Mailing Address: Description of work to be done: nO � fig l"� General Contractor Business Name: State License Number: Contact Phone Number: File completed application with a floor plan to: Building Services and Licensing 451South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, UTAH 84111 Telephone (801) 535-7752 FAX: (801) 535-7750 1110 nnn I A permit fee of$100.00 will be required. U � and approvals Sep arate p permits will be required for signage. Notice: Separate sub permits(electrical,plumbing and mechanical)may be required for any improvements associated with the temporary use of the structure. All permits must be issued to Utah State licensed contractors. Include the following information: Comments: Temporary use of buildingas hospitality suite,occupant loads to be posted,Buildingto be P �T P h' P P Qvacated by March 31,2002, <1 I If the temporary use is a hospitality suite, for whom is the suite for: Date/duration of temporary event or use: Beginning: and EXPIRING March 31, 2002. ALL USES OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE MUST GO THROUGH THE OMNIBUS COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL AND FINAL TENT, ETC.APPROVED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT. This application shall be submitted to the SLC Building Services Department for review and approval at least thirty(30) calendar days before the scheduled date that the temporary use is to take place unless the Building Services Director approves a shorter application deadline. All work must be inspected and approved prior to occupancy. 12101 IIISignature of Contactor: Date: Temporary Assembly Uses in Existing Buildings/Tents ELEMENTS I 51-99 Occupants 1100-200 Occupants 1300-499 Occupants 1 500-999^ncupan's. 1,000+Occupants ! 5,000 So Fi(tents) 0-4.999 SG FI(tents)'5.000 Sq.Ft.+Tents __.._ _....___.._..._ .._.___..__. rN/A if limited to I main and second IN/A if main floor or N/A if main floor or 1 Seismic(Lateral Force)(floor ;basement basement iNA ma. -nJ only IN/A main floor only IN/'A N/A N/A N/A except for 1 T iRequ vec see foctnoteiRequved see Required see footnote Fire Sprinklers basement IN/A IReeuired ;Require:: Required 141 'footnote 41 41 2-4 see UFC Table 3-4 U.F.C.Table • 13211-A see footnote 3211-A see footnote I4+UFC Table 3211-A Exits 2 21 21 4� 4ip2 ' 2 see footnote#2 Emergency Lighting (N/A ;Yes )Yes (Yes ,Yes )Yes '!!Yes Yes Disability Access (Yes IYes Yes ",Yes ',Yes (Yes ;Yes Yes I !As per Chapter 29 lAs per Chapter 29 As per Grapier 29 I1As per Charter 29 !!As per Chapter 29 .As per Chapter 29 IAs per Chapter 29 As per Chapter 29 !Appendix U.B.C. ;Appendix U.B.C.(can Appendix U.B.C.(can'Appendix d B.C.(caniAppendix U.B.C. ',Appendix U.B.C.(can'!Appendix U.B.C.(can Appendix U.B.C.(can i(can be portable but be portable but must be portable but must .be portable 7'ul must (can be portable but Ibe portaole but must ibe portable but must be portable but must Toilets/Lavatories (must be accessible).be accessible) be accessible) 'be accessilt et must be accessible)1be accessible) '.be accessible) be accessible) 1 1,000 or more --- occupants per U.F.C. Automatic Fire Alarms N/A N/A Required IRequired (Rired N/A 'NIA 1007.2.2.2 .....___. ,Required +2AtOBC rated 2A'OBC q rated 2A108C rated 2AtOBC .0 ,2A708C rated 2A103C rated 2A106C rated 12A108C rated extinguisher within extinguisher within l extinguisherwthin ext gusn within !extinguisher wltrn .extinguisher within 75'extinguisher within !extinguisher within 75' Fire Extinguishers :75'from any point 75 from any point 75 from any point 75'from a .point •75'from any point !from any point 75'from any point ,from any point 1 Portable heater one Portable heaters ;Portable heaters Portable heaters (Portable heaters Portable heaters Portable heaters !Portable heaters !permitted with Fire permitted with Fire permitted with Fire permitted w ,i Fire !permitted with Fire permitted with Fire permitted with Fire li permitted with Fire Heating Facilities 'Marshall's approval permitted approval Marshall's approval ,Marshall's r.::proval Marshall s approval IMarshall's approval Marshall's approval ;Marshall's approval Occupant Load Signs Yes __!Yes Yes _ ;Yes 'Yes !Yes ,Yes (Yes Seating Layout !Yes !Yes Yes ;Yes !Yes 'Yes Yes ;Yes 11111 1111 • . • Temporary Assembly Uses in Existing Buildings/Tents ASSEMBLY BUILDING Is a building or portion of a building used for the gathering together of 50 or more persons for such purposes as deliberation,education, #1 Where impractical to #2 All exits shall be instruction,worship, have fire sprinklers officers within 100'from any entertainment, for fire watch may be point Inside the amusement,drinking,od utilized.See UFC 2501.18 structure, awaiting transportation. • Agenda [January 8, 2003] • . AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 315 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 118. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, December 5, 2002 & Thursday, December 12, 2002. 2. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: (See attached list) 3. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:40 p.m.- Petition No.410-621 &410-622, by Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, requesting a conditional use approval for the construction of two Public Utility Buildings that will contain water fluoridation equipment. These new buildings are proposed at the existing water well sites located at 1285 East 2700 South, in a R-1-5,000 Single Family Residential District, & 1907 East 2700 South in an R-1- 7,000 Single Family Residential District. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. — Petition No. 400-01-10, by the Salt Lake City Planning • Commission, requesting reevaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales. (Staff— Doug Dansie at 535-6182) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.—Petition No. 400-02-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the text of Section 21A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide legal conforming status for existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M- 2. (In M-1 and M-2 zones they would be allowed as a conditional use.) (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:45 p.m.—Petition No. 410-617, by Matt Swain of Johansen Thackeray Commercial Real Estate Services, requesting a conditional use and planned development to construct a new commercial building at approximately 1140 East 3300 South within the Brickyard Shopping Center. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. Request to reopen View City Plat A Amendment, by The Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area • currently used as a parking lot. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) • b. Request from the Planning Division staff to initiate a petition to study the time requirement for written notice of decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission. (Staff— Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) Salt Lake City Planning Commission Wednesday,January 8,2003 a. University of Utah and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—The University is requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a revocable permit to allow the location and operation of a remote location seismic activity recording and transmitting instrument at the City Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 1365 West 2300 North, in a Manufacturing M-2 zoning district. b. Judy Bell and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management—Request for a renewal of a property lease agreement to allow the continued encroachment of paved parking and access upon the portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 1742 East Holladay Blvd(approximately 4175 South) located in un- incorporated Salt Lake County. c. Veda Barrie-Weatherbee and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management— Request for a property lease agreement to allow continued encroachment of pavement and fencing upon a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 4163 South Highland Drive (approximately 1700 East)located in un-incorporated Salt • Lake County. d. Picture Memories, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management— Request for a property lease agreement to replace an expired lease agreement to allow the continued encroachment of pavement and parking upon a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, for the property located at 4227 South Highland Drive (approximately 1700 East) located in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. e. Quest and Salt Lake City Public Utilities— Request by Quest Telephone to be allowed to install telephone cables in existing conduits that encroach into a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Property. The utility permit encroachment is located at approximately 8600 South State Street in the un-incorporated Salt Lake County. f. Millrock Development, LLC by MTC Partners LTD and Salt Lake City Public Utilities— Request for Salt lake City Public Utilities to accept a new easement for a new 12 inch water main to service new commercial development. The new utility easement is located at approximately 3115 East Lion Lane (approximately 6400 South) in un-incorporated Salt Lake County near the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. g. UDOT and Salt Lake City Public Utilities/Property Management—UDOT is requesting an exchange of property to allow the realignment and reconstruction of a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal in conjunction with the construction in 1999 of Bangerter Highway at 13800 South and about 700 West in Draper City. • Minutes [January 8, 2003] • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, January 8, 2003, 5:30 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (berger)Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig. Ms. McDonough left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Doug Dansie, Marilynn Lewis, and Melissa Anderson A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. III PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-17 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting re-evaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales. Planner Doug Dansie explained that this petition addresses temporary uses as seasonal item sales. The petition resulted from discussions regarding snow cone huts, coffee kiosks and similar types of uses that will also be affected. He explained that temporary huts are different from sidewalk vendors which fall under the sidewalk vending ordinance. Snow cone huts and coffee kiosks are allowed as permanent buildings but only after the applicant has gone through the building and zoning code process. The issue for discussion relates to temporary buildings which are generally brought onto a site and set on skids so they can be moved off. The City has historically taken a position of not allowing temporary buildings. Mr. Dansie explained that in 1995, when the zoning ordinance was re-written, a phrase was added regarding permitted temporary uses, Christmas tree lots, and other seasonal sales. Two summers ago, someone at the permits counter decided that snow cones were a seasonal sale and should be allowed IIIfor 45 days, and every 45 days a vendor would be given a new temporary permit through Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 8,2003 the summer season. The issue came up last year, and the permits counter allowed the two vendors previously approved to operate for one more season. There have been • discussions about whether these are their seasonal sales. Notices were mailed to all community council chairs in August and September with no response. He explained that he tried to find the names of the snow cone vendors who operated last summer but was unable to obtain that information. Mr. Dansie explained that he has drafted wording to better define seasonal sales which ties it to a holiday or event and specifically excludes food, except for food harvested in the Intermountain area such as Bear Lake raspberries and corn. The proposed ordinance modification also specifies 45 days per calendar year to let the permits counter know that permits cannot be renewed every 45 days. Chair Jonas asked about the kiosks on Main Street that served food during the Olympics. Mr. Dansie replied that those kiosks operated under the temporary Olympic ordinance. He noted that snow cones can be sold from a vending cart under the guidelines of the sidewalk vending ordinance, but they cannot be sold from a temporary building. Mr. Chambless asked about the coffee vending building at 1100 East and 900 South. Mr. Dansie explained that the building is built on a foundation and considered a • permanent structure. Ms. Funk referred to produce stands which operate during the summer. The staff report indicates that if this petition were approved, the ordinance would stipulate parking, signage, placement on the lot, and hours of operation and asked why these issues were necessary for snow cones but not for produce stands. Mr. Dansie explained that, if the City wants a variety of temporary uses and not just snow cone huts, the issue needs to be addressed on a larger scale. He did not believe vendors would want to put up a snow cone hut for 45 days and not be able to operate for the entire summer. He explained that produce stands have a short harvest period and do not operate all summer. Chair Jonas reported on a letter received from an operator of snow cone kiosks who operates in several other communities around the Wasatch Front and asked Mr. Dansie if he had looked at how other communities regulate temporary and seasonal sales. Mr. Dansie stated that he did not contact other communities about their ordinances, but he was aware that each community is different. The staff report was written from the standpoint these uses have not been allowed historically. If the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 8,2003 would like to allow more temporary uses, the staff could address it as a larger picture • and obtain information from other cities. Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Dansie knew of anything that would deter the Planning Commission from allowing the kiosks for a period longer than 45 days. Mr. Dansie replied that 45 days was meant to cover the longest seasonal time period, such as a Christmas tree lot. Extending that period could open up a number of other issues that would have to be addressed. Mr. Wilde recalled that, when the Planning Commission addressed sidewalk vendors, they decided not to allow them in neighborhood business zones. There are three categories associated with these similar types of uses: 1) sidewalk vendors; 2) temporary building vendors; and 3) permanent building located within a parking lot. Mr. Wilde felt this presented a consistency issue. Sidewalk Vendors are not allowed in neighborhood business zones, but if temporary buildings for coffee and snow cones are allowed, and since they cannot distinguish between types of food, this provides another avenue for all types of food vendors to locate in neighborhood business zones. Mr. • Dansie noted that the original vending cart ordinance was a Downtown and Sugar House ordinance, but through creative permitting, the carts ended up in any zone that allowed outdoor sales. Ms. Arnold felt the difference was that taco stands are mobile and go away at night, whereas snow cone huts are stationary. Mr. Dansie stated that the huts are brought in and stay for a season. Sidewalk vending carts must go back to their commissary between approximately 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Ms. Coffey recalled that when Mr. Dansie drafted the vending cart ordinance, the Planning Department received a conditional use application for a vending cart to sell tacos at a Smith's on the west side, which was considered a conditional use because it was outdoor sales. The Planning Commission denied the application after discussions focusing on unfair competition, parking, noise, and other neighborhood issues. In looking at this matter, the staff felt that the Planning Commission had dealt with these issues in the past and did not want to see them again. If the Planning Commission believed it was appropriate to have these uses, they should go back and address those • issues. Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 8,2003 • Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. • Fred Ross, a real property owner at 214 West North Temple, stated that he was frustrated as a property owner and budding entrepreneur. He believed shaved ice was seasonal. He stated that he came to the business license office two years ago to apply for a business license and was told to go to the planning desk, where he was told that the City does not allow temporary use for temporary sales. A few weeks later, he saw the same building he owns operating in a Smith's parking lot in Rose Park. A few weeks later he saw a similar structure at the Smith's in Sugar House. He called the City and was told that the uses were allowed in error and would not be allowed the next year. The next year the two establishments were operating again. He found it frustrating that as a resident and taxpayer in Salt Lake City he could go to West Valley and Bountiful to conduct business but could not operate in his own city. He stated that Salt Lake City is the shaved ice capital of the Country. He noted that there are industry standards for this business. He believed there was a distinct difference between coffee, shaved ice, and tacos,just as there are separate regulations for fireworks, Christmas tree lots, and produce stands. He did not see a distinct issue in allowing snow cone huts in Salt Lake City and stated that he supports regulating these operations and making sure they meet standards. He urged the Planning Commission to research the issue and he offered to • meet with Mr. Dansie to discuss the process and industry standards. Mr. Daniels asked Mr. Ross if he discussed his issues with anyone in the Planning Department. Mr. Ross replied that he spoke with his councilman last summer. As a City employee, he did not push the issue because he did not want to make waves. However, it appears that Christmas trees, fireworks, watermelons, and raspberries are all right, and he wanted to know why there was a problem with shaved ice. Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Ross speak with Mr. Dansie who could explain the situation and help him find answers. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Mr. Muir stated that he is sympathetic with all property owners who struggle to lease their properties. He believed temporary vendors are entrepreneurial, provide the street life they hope to achieve, and are an asset to the community. He felt they should keep the 45-day time period because it forces vendors to renew their license midpoint in the season, which allows the City to reevaluate their performance and whether the use • Planning Commission Meeting 4 January 8,2003 poses a nuisance factor to adjoining property owners. He supported the • recommendation to forward this petition to the City Council and believed it could be revisited in the future if it gets out of hand. He fell that a snow cone shack every 20 feet along Main Street would be better than the boarded up store fronts. Mr.Dansie recommended that,if the Planning Commission wants summer vendors,they define seasonal to keep other uses from being allowed and then create a section for summer temporary structures. Chair Jonas agreed that temporary stands along Main Street would enliven downtown but was concerned about allowing a temporary stand. He felt a number of issues needed to be addressed before allowing these uses. Mr.Wilde clarified that the recommendation to advance the seasonal sales definition would exclude food products from being dispensed from temporary buildings. An operator would have to construct a small but permanent building. If the preference is to legalize a structure that is between a vending cart and a permanent building,they should think through standards and realize that it will be difficult to distinguish between food types. Chair Jonas stated that the Planning Commission should decide if they want to pursue temporary structures or• take action on the staff recommendation Mr.Daniels stated that he did not favor doing anything that would exclude shaved ice stands and felt that the City had ordinances in place that would look at these uses on an ongoing basis and not just every 45 days. Mr.Dansie explained that there is no ordinance that regulates seasonal use. If the Planning Commission wants uses such as shaved ice,some criteria would have to be drafted. Ms.Seelig stated that another option would be to define a temporary structure. Ms.Noda agreed with Mr.Muir's comments about not excluding these types of vendors from certain areas. Downtown needs vitality,and that is why they tried the vending carts. Many vendors,particularly snow shacks,add vitality to a community,and she did not want to exclude them. She suggested that the staff look at defining seasonal vendors and how long they should operate. She believed most snow shacks operated on a 90-day basis during the summer,which they should be allowed to do. • Motion for Petition 400-02-17 Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 8,2003 Laurie Noda moved to table Petition 400-02-17 and asked that the staff look at defining seasonal vendors, specifically snow shacks, and the period of time they would operate. Mr. Dansie addressed the potential for temporary buildings and noted that staff could write something specific for snow cone and ice cream summer sales. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted him to go into bigger issues such as temporary coffee kiosks, food vendors, etc. Chair Jonas suggested keeping the issue specific to snow cone huts. Ms. Funk agreed. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. McDonough referred to Mr. Dansie's comment about snow cones and ice cream and asked if they should be product specific or product general. She felt that should be investigated in the definition. Mr. Muir did not believe the Planning Commission should discriminate against bona fide property owners on Main Street who cannot lease their buildings and would like to put,a temporary facility in their store front. He requested that the definition of temporary . structures be expanded to include those built within store fronts of bona fide buildings. Mr. Dansie explained that, if the structure is built within an existing building, it becomes a permanent structure and would not fall under the temporary definition. Mr. Muir suggested that Mr. Dansie meet with Roger Evans to look at building code issues, but he did not see why that option should be precluded. After further discussion, Mr. Wilde felt this concept could introduce a third category. He offered to meet with Mr. Evans to evaluate that possibility and report back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Muir stated that he viewed these vendors as retail pioneers who might leverage into more income- producing entities in blighted areas of the City. Chair Jonas agreed that they should start looking at ideas for turning unoccupied buildings into temporary uses. Mr. Chambless agreed that this could be a pioneering effort that might be very successful. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. • Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 8,2003 • Staff Report[February 26, 2003J A.LOUIS ZU NG UZE 5� ,motif A &%11.1r VI�EEP 1=j,( ROSS C.ANDERSON • v�BRENT ENT B.WILD.WILDE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT wnvow PLANNING ANO ZONING D DEPurr F R e 'T1T �/� cTaK DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP MLJMOI�L 1NL`JT\4 Date: February 26,2003 To: Planning Commission From: . Doug Dansie,A1CP Subject: Seasonal sales/snow cone and shaved ice huts. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received petition 400-02-17 from Salt Lake City Economic Development Department requesting zoning text amendments to clarify the types of seasonal uses allowed in non-residential areas. The Planning Commission heard the issue and held a public hearing on January 8,2003. The staff report and minutes from that meeting are attached. During the hearing,the Planning Commission raised the following issues: • Practices of other communities • Temporary uses within permanent buildings/building code issues • Temporary structures within permanent buildings • Temporary structures on public property • Temporary structures on private property • • Snow cones vs.ice cream or other types of food vendors • "lime period they are allowed 45 vs.90 clays or longer • Appropriate districts for snow cone huts • Fairness issue—vending carts A brief review of these issues follows the Overview. Overview • A large portion of the Planning Commission discussion focused on temporary uses within permanent buildings Downtown,however this is not prohibited by the existing zoning ordinance.The larger issue is the cost of a temporary business license. • Many suburban communities have more flexible ordinances regarding temporary buildings and food vendors in general;conversely,many do not allow sidewalk vending. • Most snow cone vendors are interested in locating in grocery store parking lots, not Downtown. Conversely,the separate but similar sidewalk vending ordinance is specifically focused on Downtown.The Planning Commission has previously resisted the idea of allowing sidewalk vending in neighborhood commercial zoning districts. Page Break • Practices of other communities • 451 SMITH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH SO I 1 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:501-535 5174 - - Staff requested information from other communities throughout the state,as well as • several larger cities out of state. Their responses are as attached Name of Length of Types of uses Fees Size City allowance Heber 6 days per year Retail sales $30+$1.00 400 sq.ft each day,$200 additional for fireworks Ogden 6 months Produce and 400 sq.ft. beverage Lehi 5 months Seasonal sales including shaved ice and ice cream Sandy Based on use Seasonal sales $1000 bond including snow cones West 6 months max Fast food Valley SI, Mobile store County Temporary uses within permanent buildings/building code issues • There is nothing in the zoning code that would prevent temporary uses located within permanent buildings. The code defines setbacks and building area for permanent building. As long as the use is within the building and is an allowed use,it is treated as a permanent use(regardless of its actual duration)and would be acceptable for zoning. The Temporary use section in the zoning ordinance generally applies to temporary uses with temporary structures,not located within permanent stnictures. Staff discussed the issue with the Building Services Division and Building Official Roger Evans. Mr.Evans indicates that there is nothing in the building code that would currently prevent temporary uses in permanent building. The city allowed numerous temporary vendors in permanent buildings during the Olympics. The larger issue is temporary licensing.The cost for a business license for a permanent business is approximately$70 per year. The cost of a temporary merchant's license is approximately$150 per day.Normally if a business is locating in a building(which meets building code)on a temporary basis they will get a permanent license because the fees are less. This works when the building meets code and there is no need to upgrade. However,it is customary that at the time of change of use or remodeling the Building Services Division normally requires a building to be upgraded to meet code. If a building needs substantial work to be occupied,they will require that it meet code before they receive a permanent business license. They will only allow a temporary use in the • building if it is licensed as such(and even then it must meet minimal safety standards). Building Services will allow temporary uses in substandard buildings only for temporary • events such as the Olympics, otherwise the definition of temporary and permanent become blurred and there is not a clear trigger when to require the building to be upgraded. Business licensing allows fireworks stands and Christmas tree lots to receive permanent licenses at the lower fee rate because they are specified uses in the ordinance. A temporary use is defined by the zoning code as a use intended for limited duration. Temporary structures within permanent buildings There is nothing in the building code to prevent someone from placing a temporary structure within an existing building. The same business licensing issues apply as with temporary uses in permanent buildings. [There is no definition of temporary structure in the zoning code,however the building code treats as any structure that does not have permanent utility hookups, is not attached to a foundation, and can be readily relocated as a temporary structure.] Temporary structures on public property Historically temporary structures on public property have only been allowed as part of a larger event permit (Olympics, arts festival, etc.). The zoning ordinance generally applies to private property. The kiosks placed on public property during the Olympics were done administratively through a special events permit. Temporary structures on public property have otherwise been discouraged. The City Council recently requested that the administration remove the former kiosks from Main Street. Vending carts,which the City allows on public property in the Downtown and Sugar House areas, are required to be removed from the property each day. Temporary structures generally have short term duration, no foundation and no permanent utility hook-ups, but they usually are too bulky and large to move each day. Temporary structures on private property Historically temporary structures on private property are prohibited except under defined conditions. Exceptions include Fireworks and seasonal sales. This petition was initiated to define seasonal sales. Fireworks stands are only allowed 3 days before and after the 4th and 24`h of July and New Years day. Seasonal sales are only allowed for 45 days; therefore their impact on parking etc. is minimal. Expansion of temporary structures as a temporary use requires amendments to the temporary use section of the zoning ordinance(seasonal sales) or creation of a new sub- section of the ordinance to deal with specific temporary uses (as we do fireworks). The attached proposed ordinances constitute a new subsection legalizing snow cone/shaved ice huts. Page Break . Snow cones vs. ice cream or other types of food vendors The Salt Lake County Health Department differentiates between ice cream and snow cones because ice cream is a dairy product that can become unhealthy if not properly • refrigerated; snow cones merely melt and poses no health risk. The inspection for an ice cream hut would be greater than for a snow cone hut. The City Attorney has said that because of differences in these types of foods, it is legally acceptable to create separate regulations allowing snow cones but not other types of foods from being sold from temporary structures Time period they are allowed- 45 vs. 90 days or longer At the present time, seasonal sales are only allowed for 45 days. Snow cone huts in suburban communities are generally allowed for 90 days or longer(up to 180 days). After discussing the issue with a snow cone vendor and reviewing other cities' policies, a time frame for the proposed ordinance changes was suggested as May 15 to September 15. This covers the majority of the summer season. It also allows for setup and takedown time before and after the summer school vacation. Appropriate districts for snow cone huts A major item for the Planning Commission to discuss is the appropriate districts for snow cone huts. The Planning Commission and City Council recently restricted sidewalk vendors to the Downtown D-1, D-2,D-3, D-4, Research Park RP, Business Park BP, Manufacturing M-1, -2, Gateway GMU and Sugar House CSHBD zoning districts. In talking to the snow cone vendors, their primary desire for location is within grocery store parking lots. Most of these grocery stores are within the CS, CC,RMU and CB zoning districts. Sidewalk vendors are specifically not allowed in any of these zoning districts. 411 Staff recommends that snow cone and shaved ice huts be allowed in the following zoning districts. Downtown D-1, D-2, D-3,D-4, Research Park RP, Business Park BP, Mixed Use, Manufacturing M-1, -2, Gateway GMU, Sugar House CSHBD, CB, CC and CS zoning districts. (Please see Attached Draft Ordinance Changes Fairness issue— vending carts Vending carts differ from temporary structures in that vending carts are mobile, smaller, must be removed each night and have an off-site commissary for food. One of the major topics of discussion during the sidewalk vending public hearings were complaints that temporary structures/uses, as well as sidewalk vending carts were locating within neighborhood districts creating impacts on neighboring residents and unfair business practices with permanent business establishments. On October 5, 2000 and again on April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council changes to the sidewalk vending ordinance that would limit the location of sidewalk vending carts to public sidewalks within Downtown and Sugar House and private property within Downtown, Sugar House, research parks, business parks and manufacturing areas. Those are not the zoning districts where snow cone huts have asked to be located. Complaints may arise from any ordinance that allows snow cone huts in neighborhood business districts,but not sidewalk vending carts. Requiring the temporary structures to be located On the site in a manner to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas may help alleviate some of this concern. Limiting the sale to only snow cones will decrease the 41/ amount of competition with permanent uses. • Additional issues 1) Type of building. There are basically two ways to define the types of snow cone huts allowed: 1. define actual model of the building allowed, or 2. define the square footage size and mass of the temporary building. Our existing horse carriage ordinance specifies specific model numbers and manufacturers of carriages that may be used in the public way(to prevent someone from simply showing up with a hay wagon). There is a process to allow additional comparable models. The existing vending cart ordinance defines the height, width, length, canopy square footage, etc., of a vending cart, but does not specify manufacturer or model. The horse carriage ordinance has actually been better at guaranteeing a good product, but it is more elaborate and could be seen as unfair to other competitors, or limiting creativity in design. Staff recommends that the ordinance be drafted specifying model numbers with the caveat that other comparable models be allowed. 2) Clarify definition of seasonal sales. The existing ordinance regarding seasonal sales is still vaguely defined. Any new allowance of snow cone huts should still be accompanied by a new definition for seasonal sales. That proposed definition (and associated clarification of time period) is found in the attached draft ordinance. • 3) Creating a definition for Snow Cone and Shaved Ice lint Under either scenario a new definition is also required: Summary: 1. Temporary uses and temporary structure within permanent buildings is already allowed by the zoning ordinance. 2. There have been ongoing issues with temporary structures on public property, when unrelated to a special event. 3. Limiting sales to snow cones or shaved ice minimizes health department concerns and review, but does not address the fairness issue of allowing snow cones but not other types of food vendors (ice cream, coffee, tacos, etc) 4. Providing an amendment, both to allow snow cone huts and to define seasonal sales, will clarify issues to improve administration of the ordinance at the permitting phase. Business licensing issues may be resolved if the snow cones huts are treated as permanent licenses, such as fireworks and Christmas tree, for fee purposes. 5. Sidewalk vending carts and temporary structures are two completely separately regulated items, although their products and impacts may be similar. Sidewalk vending carts are mobile, small, have a separate commissary and must be removed nightly. • Recommendation Based on the findings identified in the January 8, 2003 staff report, Staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend • various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Snow Cones and Shaved Ice Huts as outlined in the attached proposed ordinance changes. Attachments: Draft Ordinance,Snow cone hut building designs and supplier comments,Minutes, Previous Staff Report,Building Services information from temporary uses during the Olympics_ • • • Draft Ordinance • • Planning Commission Meeting1 January 8,2003 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses: B. Christmas Tree and Other Seasonal Item • Sales. Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales are permitted in the CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D-2, D-3, M-1, and M-2 districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days,per calendar year. Display of Christmas trees need not comply with the yard requirements of this title. No tree shall be displayed obstructing the "sight distance triangle" as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 21A .62.040 Definitions: Seasonal Item Sales;Items that are identified with individual holidays or celebrations relating to the four seasons;spring, summer, autumn or winter(such as a winter festival or harvest festival). Such items include, but are not limited to, Valentines Day or Easter items, Halloween pumpkin, or Christmas tree sales. Independence Day and Pioneer Day fireworks are governed independently in this ordinance. Prepared food is not a seasonal item, however fresh farm produce, sold within the intermountain region harvest season is allowed. Food pertaining to farmer's markets and farm sales are regulated separately. 21A.42.070.K Temporary uses:Snow cones and shaved ice huts. Snow cone and shaved ice huts are permitted in the CB, CC, CS, CG, CSHBD, M-1, M-2,D-1, D-2,D- 3, D-4, GMU, RP,BP, and MU zoning districts between the dates of May 15 and September 15 of each calendar year. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard area or any required parking area. Their placement shall not interfere • with pedestrian access to other businesses on the site. The building should be located to minimize any light or noise impacts on adjacent residential properties. The temporary buildings shall be limited to 1)Snowie models: 8 or 12 foot kiosk, or 2)Sno Shack models:Sno Shack building, Sno Shack 2000, Sno Shack Concession or 3) equivalent, as determined by the zoning administrator. Inflated signs, banners or other signage exceeding the regulations of the applicable zoning districts are specifically prohibited 21A.62.040 Definitions:Snow cone and shaved ice hut. A temporary building designed to accommodate the sales of flavored ice only. • Snow cone hut building designs and supplier • comments • i Attn:Doug 451 S State Street • Salt Lake City Utah,84119 Dear Doug, I appreciate so much the time you have given me in regaurds to this matter and the anticipation of the summer of 2003.I am extremely intrested in the buisness opportunities that these temporary Shaved Ice buildings bring to the community and the employment opportunities for kids during the summer months of May through august.The locations listed below I have spoken to and received the approval from land owners and managers. Foothill Village Shopping Center 1360 S Foothill Dr Salt Lake City Smith's Food King(Rose Park) 1174 W 600 North Salt Lake City Smith's Food King 876E8thS • Salt lake City Smith's Food King 402 S 6 Av Salt Lake City Fred Myer 455 S 500 E Salt Lake City Gateway Mall 400 W 1005 Salt Lake City Rite Aid 220 S 7th E Salt Lake City Each Location will receive a brand new Building as seen in the picture included and will be operated with the upmost concern and care for surrounding Buisnesses and the • community. I look forward to hearing from you and anticipate the decisions concerning this matter. If I can help in furthering you please let me know, Have a great day!! Sincerely, Ben Michel l-(80l)-716-0202 Snowie Shaved Ice • . I .."' Just like our building but with a little different feel.This kiosk is great for indoor _ uses including malls and arenas, as well as large outdoor events. Our kiosk accommodates more workers and more lines which equals more money. It has ��y►_^ many of the same features as the building minus the plastic windows making it 4.--;_, t W;I' easier to communicate with people in line. The Kiosk comes with an aluminum II top or a cloth top as shown below. The tops go up and down for safe, easy KIOSK transporting from location to location. lei 0 (7 0,l 1/ Or I o 11 T b 0o II 0 bin © � b b b 0 b� b b b b b b b &' cc I. Q.. 0 0 �— 0. g — 0,, • Plzara-12"-iali.„111 -2,00.00 1 ® b II! .. .. -- --7,4,......4411-A ' ea illiosiliiiiliF 72' B 5' 5. 8 Foot Kiosk y 12 Foot Kiosk •S/ 0- Round Sign 0-9 Puck Lights(12') 2-Exterior 110 Outlets Wheel Kit 0- Blower Tube 0- Telescoping Poles Easy 0-Water Tank Fill Cap o` Assembly (18 Inch Diameter Set-up And Take-down 15 Gallon Water Tank 15 Feet High) Top Collapses To 67" 0-4 Basin Sink 0- Halogen Flood light For Easy Mobility Faucet With Sprayer `�' Liar r®- Cool Mist Spray OO -Pins 0- Drain \\ / s0- Composite Fiberglass 0-5"Sneeze Garde 0- Instant Hot Water �v_ Roof,Ceiling,Counter O- High Impact Graphics (Coil 115 Volts) �f6-M ivai � . And Shelf W/FDA 0-Optional 21"Counter 0-Water Pump �•� ' e Approved Gel Coat 12'Building only 0-Aluminum Skid Provides O-Hi lift Jack ` 0- Lit Top With 56(8') 76(12') O-12-110 Volt Outlets(8') Heavy-duty Structure 0-Suspension Wheel Cubic Feet Of Storage 14-110Volt Outlets(12') 0-Sockets&Receivers 0-2 Inch Coupler& 0- 6 Puck Lights(8') 4- On/off Switches For Wheels&Coupler Swivel May Be Outfitted With Custom Graphics Snowie Shaved Ice RC 1006 West Beardsley Place Salt take City, Utah 84119 Phone (801) 268-2225 Fax (801) 268-1814 Toll Free 1-877-4-SNOWIE • .1, .. , • 0.... .. •. : . :irtii; •Y to ~:: it ZI .�':":-...,, -- :-.-..- „If ''':-- -.-. .. . .... .,-.... •:i ::::::., e.... -1--,--f*--:•:f 4 r; • �.. ! -:s ti_ �" ii•.::::..•... • .,........._ . . ..._............5m, . • -2.,!:...;.. ,,t_,,,.,,..1 . ._.-„ . .4;:.ir:Va Nr:-..--,-. . .... .tt„z-::, I . ,„ s • * . , --,.„ r___-__ ,c- .'- .� � _\� S ,,.� ../•.*7 I.`.. _•, ice` j .a�.i iiiii iiI t. - 4;-., -- t. d Pi �S - .- tE7 a .. .co-S �_ s_ . / y _ jS� a_: r � t` 3, s r' •.•' ,- z� �_ Wj. =+=� tea+ 1 • F _ _ ;•••'..,,'fig. i . :�;44 • j- .veer' �...� } .. L _+�� 1 _ 3 i` !. I }.3 j 4r iF 3 ...r.,'. ... -,-;•.:. . , -1.:-::,r':::.;1::_ "',-.;i1:.-- '..: ‘..7.3::,' .,Vatij•::.,:'''V''''. . - - :-":. -.......L.:: :i"---.:--7,---7'-7,;;:,---'.::-•L-;.;:-•:-"---.::'...;.... : :. 'I .11 • . ,..... . : . _,_ ......,.:-..,..-.....4 5.....-.,-'.,V•'-..:7..,.„-.-...,..-.,,,•,-‘1t. _p,„„c.:.„.-.----..).:*.,17:.::,:•,:;:.,--,.k..,,-,.....„.v._..„.-.,.le..„_l. .. .r.'.'..„.„--..:..8.,',.,-:'.-::,,•-.-:;_"-:'.::,-:--1-....--.,-..•7..."..!,..1--.:-i---.--...-.z-rf-..,._„'..-.....,.-..,..-',„.--,."',...;'.,...-,...:-„,A.„..t._:': :-„n,-...:•:. .-..i4T,.,, I:,......-. ._ t 3 F` - 'Z l = :yam. 4. � 3' .:i.,N,.,,,:..,r2,.1,-..e',- 1 - IC'.c.,4.4--'*;;7'.•4,- ., f •••V11-6 V..."'",•:0 ' IL/', . — „,_;.ri 1.,,...--7-....„z;zr., :.,,:„.:::::......;,.,..7.: :;,,,..:,,., ...;_.:.; ..., ",.,1:: i ., ,...,:ti ._ , .... '1-,-i _- - t-7.4..........' f t ' air �.._ � � �f � + i _ " - - Q J • i �, i • d ,� r t . . . :v.------- iliksi 1.4 04. i ,. . ., ........,:::-,- -,•%.. fr , r ;•I 1T��t I r •• it -s, .. NpVEDic, , s_ - SnoVSn* - Cgr ack • Sno Shack® 2000 `tom SNO SHACK 2000 BUILDING 94'ACROSS AT ROOF } STEEL SIGN ON TOP REMOVABLE - 2 BOOS —�_ DtUE STROBE LIGHTS EYE. CATCHERS' 17 -- I = I THREE SERVING WINDOWS ONE FRONT AND POSSIBLE TO HAVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING SURROUNDS- ' TWO DRIVE UP SERVING WINDOWS BUILDING o o • ELECTRICAL PANEL OFFERS FOUR ACCESS TO ATTIC STORAGE ° ° 20 AMP BREAKERS G 8000 DTU THRU THE WALL ° BACK LIGHT AWNING ROOF OR MR CONDITIONER ° o • o SIC1EL ROOF 0 c °t ° G "SNUG GRIP" RACKS HOLD ` DYNAMIC, BRIGHT FULL COLOR 48 SYRUP SERVING BOTTLES GRAPHICS, CUSTOM OR SNO SHACKS ALL ELECTRICAL IS IN CONDUIT AND � � UE LISTED PARTS STEEL SECURITY DOOR WITH `" _ 1 I HEAVY DUTY LOCK BOX � 4_:e'•:;«i�' 164 CUBIC FEET OF OVERHEAD SPRAYER AND FAUCET = ' ' " I11 + STORAGE 4 NSF STAINLESS STEEL SINK lit�� - —I-- EASY VI[W NON-SCRATCH 77 TALLI SECURE WINDOWS lOP COUNTER HEIGHT FOR EASE � 0 AND ACCESSIBILITY �, ' "SWING AWAY" SECURITY BARS \�1--� • '\15 GALLON NSF FRESH INSULATION IS FACED WITH WATER TANK I . �� WATERPROOF WHITE WASHABLE �P FOR WATER SYSTEM- _ % LAMINATE ;,I,�N ;,N CM:+'1C __ THERMD-INS,9ATION P&C FC1S HOT WATER HEATER X` ` 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED STEEL--- �� \ COLD -4 POLYCARBONATE WATERPROOF EXTERIOR SKIN OVER STEEL COUNTERS (NOT FLIMSY FIBERGLASS) FRAME 3 COAT PAINT LOCK '-------- LIFETIME 1READBRITE FLOORING SOCKET AND RECEIVERS FOR-�� AND SKID WHEELS - THEY PIN ON AND OFF IN MINUTES /' TT�( I 77 �� ___.-- ENTIRE BASE IS 3• STEEL TRAILER FORME WITH TANDOM AXEL TRAILER STEEL TRAILER BASE FOR TOWING q3 i 7 FOR TOWING CD Nothing compares to the newest Sno Shack 2000 for ultra-modern four-man concession trailer with up to two serving windows designed for function and efficiency. The exterior boasts dynamic eye-catching graphics (custom available) and unique vibrant lighting. Up to 2 serving windows (1 Standard, I Optional at extra cost). The roomy well-planned interior has over 164 cubic feet over-head storage. Waterproof Polycarbonate 3/4" counters (not flimsy fiberglass). Four NSF approved stainless steel sinks. 2 and 1/2 gallon on- demand water heater...see attached diagram for all features. Sno Shack 2000 Building . . . $13,900.00 Tandem 4 Tire/Tri-Hitch Towing System . . . $1195.00 Options for Sno Shack 2000 •ustom Decals for exterior of building $690.00 Concession-External Generator Access $1150.00 Freezer 6.5 cu ft installed undercounter $450.00 Security DepositBox $125.00 Canopy over front windows (removable) $325.00 Sno Shack Inc. • 360 Whitney Ave. SLC, UT 84115 • Fax (801) 466-1760 • (801) 466-1771 Web: www.snoshack.com • Email: sales@snoshack.com Effective 8/1/01 - Prices subject to change without notice , ,-, ,,,,,,,,",_-,-,,,„.",,, - •.„,,,, .„...„.. c-_,)- 4 (ca € ,.kcD SAO��shack The Sno Shack® Building With the purchase of a Sno Shack®budding you can be ready to go into business the day it's delivered. No remodeling or expensive leasing.Simply set it up and watch the dollars come in! Each Sno Shack®is built with solid steel construction anti designed to move easily born one location to another.Portable buildings are a low cosy alternative to leasing expensive and hard to find commercial retail space_ The interior is insulated and completely washable..It consists of an aluminum no slip floor,storage attic.air conditioner,shelving, _ counter space and a self-contained water system(fresh-water hold rig tank,hot water,pump IIse— A faucet.sprayer,triple basin stainless steel or fiberglass sink,hand wash sink,and waste-watt; r tanks) IT e..nw t- Clue polyurethane paint covers the 16-gauge metal exterior Colorful weather resistant logos,flavor 3., lists,signs and flashing lights,catch the eye and draw attention to the business_The choice of a 1 __ steel to with multi colored lights. —c- - _ All buildings are equipped with all the necessary breaker panels,wiring tin conduit).outlets and '-- switches 220 or 110 volt electricity can be used. _/ •Rugged steel construction •Waterproof counter tops all •3 coat paint lock system rr. 3 - • rowing system around •Signage on all four sides •NSF approved self-contained •Custom shelving throughout •Bright outside electrical water systems,holding tanks • I serving window signage &4 stainless steel NSF •5000 BTU air conditioner •Exterior breaker panel tit plugs ae- __-- approved sinks •Completely insulated T,3uNyk__•z- 4 •Bright interior lighting throughout Price $10,900 S Tongue St Wheel Package. . .$585(your buildinguilJding can be ready to tow in minutes 1 • cfi,) ctnY cth3� tcYn3) c ,.a§ tct CC cc (.''Xi,) C Sno Shack® Concession * Is the perfect solution for those Events,Fairs,Festivals and Carnivals_Roomy enough for 5/6 people to work in at the same tune . .and because your operation is under one secure self contained roof,it is easy to supervise anti runs smoothly. Whether at the State Fair or a Roth Concert,you can be ready to service even the largest crowds.We offer tip to 4 serving windows and our Real Snow Ice Shavers,the fastest shavers on earth to help you do it!Only Sno Shack has the full line of equipment,flavors and shavers to meet the high demand,of high traffic events we are your"Source for the ------ ----- Cool Way to Make Money." Standard Features on Concession - •Rugged steel construction •Custom shelving throughout �O��p� •Tandem axle base/springs with •Up to 4 serving windows electric brakes optional. •9000 BTU air conditioner n3- // •Towing system •Completely insulated throughout •NSF approved self-contained •3 coat paint lock system IC / water systems,holding tanks&4 •Signage on all four sides stainless steel NSF approved sinks .Bright outside electrical signage •Bright interior lighting •Exterior breaker panel N.plugs •Waterproof counter tops all .,_ - around Price $17,900 —I •86 cubic feet of storage ors\ AK- `r Options for Sno Shacks,Concessions or Sno Shack 2002 Building. Security Drop Box. ..$125(it is bolted into your shack,only YOU can access the deposits made into the slot.) Sno Shack Inc. • 360 Whitney Ave.SLC,UT 84115 • Fax(891)466-1760 • (801)466-1771 Web:www.snoshack.com•Email:sales@snoshack.com Effective 8/1/01-Prices subject to charge without notice • s_,., E . 'I goy \ • ir .,n ma nv roK. ,. 4 \, its' --,„i"- acP/4 W--.'7., i , • i N• 1, t jdi ,jli VII 4. f -,` a - ._ • Agenda [February 26, 2003] • • AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Update on the Status of Land Use Appeal Cases 6. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES a. Request from the Planning Division staff to initiate a petition to study changing the boundaries and the zoning of the Central City Historic District. (Staff- Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS • e. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:40 p.m.—The Highland Dental Plaza, Subdivision and condominium amendment case re-opened from 11/7/2002, for a 10-minute rebuttal by the applicant or a designee. The property is located at 1955 & 1977 South 1300 East, in a Residential/Office "R-O"zoning district. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354 or Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No. 410-626, by Brothers Auto Sales requesting Conditional Use approval for an automobile recycling business to be located at 3505 West 900 South in an M-1 zoning district on approximately 5-acres of property. (Staff—Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) g. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.—Petition No. 410-599, by Smith's Food and Drug Stores represented by Bret Wahlen of Great Basin Engineering is a request for a conditional use permit for redevelopment of the site located at 2135 South 900 East, in a Community Business (CB)Zone. The proposal will entail demolition of the existing structure and development of new buildings for The Smith's supermarket and related retail space. This is a continuation of Petition No 410-599, which was heard on December 5, 2002. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 400-02-17, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting reevaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in • relation to seasonal items sales. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) • Minutes [February 26, 2003] • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 5:30 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, John Diamond, Aria Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda and Jennifer Seelig. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Elizabeth Giraud, Jackie Gasparik, Greg Mikolash, Melissa Anderson and Doug Dansie. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Petition No. 400-02-17, by the Salt Lake Planning Commission, requesting reevaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales. Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. Mr. • Dansie stated that he had addressed the issues brought up by the Commission at the last meeting. He sent out an inquiry to APA members and of the various communities and had received responses that indicated temporary use permits vary considerably. Mr. Dansie stated that he had talked with Roger Evans, of the Building Department, regarding temporary structures within permanent buildings. The key issue is business licensing and associated fees. There are two types of fees, permanent and temporary. Permanent license fees are approximately $70 a year, temporary license fees are $120 a day. Temporary licenses are purchased by someone with a short term sales event, for example (selling paintings in a hotel ballroom on a Saturday). There are grander enforcement issues with the temporary license. If someone gets a permanent license to work within a permanent building, the Building Department requires the business to be up to code. The bottom line is; temporary uses are allowed. Even a temporary structure within an existing building is allowed. It is the fee structure that discourages it. The philosophical question is whether you want to encourage temporary uses in structures that do not meet building code. Mr. Dansie discussed the issue of temporary structures on public and private property. The amendments he will discuss involved private property. On public property, the City has the administrative alternative to permit it. • The last issue was whether or not the Commission wanted to permit ancillary items or restrict sales of cold items. Mr. Dansie said the County Health • Department said they distinguish between snow cones and ice cream, because when ice cream goes bad it is unhealthy, and when snow cones go bad they melt. A draft time period from May 15th to September 15th was decided upon because the vendors mostly wish to be open during the summer season. Appropriate districts for snow cone huts and the fairness issue were the two most controversial issues. The Planning Commission earlier had decided to limit vending carts to downtown zones and a few other districts. Where most of the snow cone huts want to be is in grocery store parking lots, which are in neighborhood zoning districts. Mr. Dansie produced an ordinance that legitimized snow cone huts as temporary uses. The zoning districts used include all districts that allow sidewalk vending, plus the districts where one would normally find a grocery store. A definition for a snow cone hut is included in the ordinance. The major issues that the Commission needed to resolve were 1) whether or not they were comfortable with the zoning districts; 2) the structural models allowed; and 3)whether the Commission wants flavored ice only or other packaged foods not regulated by the Health Department. • Mr. Daniels asked if soft drinks would be disallowed. Mr. Dansie said at the moment the definition allows for shaved ice only. Mr. Daniels suggested it might be safer to leave the definition as is. The more you sell, the more competition and potential for conflict. Mr. Jonas asked if the 45 days per calendar year worked for the vendors. Mr. Dansie said the original petition was for permitted temporary uses and other seasonal items, and he was defining seasonal items in terms of farm product sales. The 45 days was to keep someone from selling farm products such as Bear Lake raspberries from June to December. There is a proposed new section that specifically allows snow cone huts. The time frame for snow cones is from May 15th to September 15th Ms. Coffey clarified that Mr. Dansie was revamping the permitted uses and seasonal sales definition because the Permits Office was interpreting what seasonal sales was. Ms. Arnold asked if the Board of Health did not regulate cold products. Mr. Dansie said that they review snow cone huts, but do not regulate them with the same rigor as they do dairy products or other things that spoil. Ms. Arnold said . she had visited several golf courses in Arizona where the Board of Health would not permit them to provide any ice. Ms. Funk asked why Mr. Dansie included the words, "Prepared food is not a seasonal item" in the first paragraph. Mr. Dansie said that it was to clarify that some foods are not intended to be seasonal items. Ms. Funk asked what was meant by the words, "Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard area." Mr. Dansie said if you were in a zoning district that has a 15-foot landscape setback, you cannot put your structure in the landscaping area. It has to be in buildable area on the lot. Most snow cone huts need electrical outlets and will locate near the door of the building. After seasonal items are allowed to be in the required yard area, but only for the 45 days per calendar year. Ms. Funk asked if the vendors had to buy a professionally made structure or could build their own. Mr. Dansie said he had prepared a alternate definition that could be used that defined it in terms of square footage and heights if the Planning Commission chose. Ms. Funk asked for any public opinion on that matter. Mr. Mark Murdock, 3615 East Copoint Drive, he was planning on using something besides the models listed. Ms. Funk asked about the size of his . structure. He replied that he would have no problem following specifications outlined in the draft ordinance. Mr. Dansie noted that if the Commission simply set a size for the structures it would not guarantee quality. However, that would give greater latitude for creativity. But by defining model numbers the zoning administrator could look at another structure, compare it to the models listed and make a judgment about the professional quality. Mr. Carl Rought, Murray, spoke next. He manufactures the Snowie buildings. He felt it was important that attractive buildings were put in the parking lots. He works with the Health department to meet code, and so expects any other models to have to meet the same codes. Mr. Chambless asked about the proximity of the structures. Mr. Dansie said there were no specifications about how many structures could be placed in a block or neighborhood. The structures are only allowed on private property. Mr. Jonas asked if the structures were moved during the five month period. Mr. Rought said they were not moved the entire time they were up. Mr. Daniels asked if there may be concern that a particular model was being IIpromoted by naming names in the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said it did not restrict other companies because the ordinance says the "equivalent" may be used as • determined by the zoning administrator. Mr. Jonas said he felt the "equivalent" element in the ordinance gave enough latitude for others to come in and did not favor a particular brand. Mr. Dansie also felt it also provided an extra layer of review by the zoning administrator. Mr. Jonas asked if any other ancillary items were sold in the snow cone shacks. Mr. Rought said occasionally people sold packaged cookies or candy bars. He felt it should be left open for soft drinks, coffee and cocoa, which are considered non-hazardous. The Health Department gets concerned with dairy and meat products that are being cooked. Mr. Dansie reiterated that the ordinance stated it was for flavored ice only. If a soft drink dispensing machine is used, there would be Board of Health review of that. It is a value judgment as to what items should be allowed, but the more items allowed, the more conflicts there are with permanent businesses and vending carts. Motion Ms. Funk moved that with reference to Petition Number 400-02-17 relating to seasonal sales items, specifically snow cones, that the Commission approve the recommendations of Staff with the new ordinance Section 21A.42.070 and • 21A.62.040 and 21A.42.070.K as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Chambless seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye". Mr. Muir and Mr. Diamond and Ms. McDonough were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. There being no further business to discuss, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 40 0 5 Original Petition • PETITION NO. �'V-- OcP - /7 • PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 5/4 CZ„.1_ Petition delivered to Planning /4/61— f Petition assigned to: bud bans) e 2 C`--) _ 1) Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date 17, -,,—.'&: Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover /3 t ,_ vi- Chronology • za_. J/___1_ Property Description (marked with a post it note) AI-- A�i Affected Sidwell Numbers Included • , /I Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate / Community Councils 54 J _-- _ Mailing Postmark Date Verification ti u='is.. 21) Planning Commission Minutes l 7 3 TIJ Planning Staff Report F: - ,.LL ' L) Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. V�? Attorney's Prepared by the Attorne 's Office �frie _L- Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. Ai fl1LtLi' — Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition • 1 -- Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office SAL' ! I A G =RPORATI,O1 MARGARET HUNTS '®`- --g5. �. -� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR May 15, 2002 Stephen A. Goldsmith, Director Planning Division BUILDING Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to clarify the types of seasonal temporary uses allowed in non-residential zoning districts. Dear Stephen, In light of the ongoing issues relating to seasonal temporary uses (such as snow cone shacks) in various non-residential zoning districts (such as commercial, special purpose, downtown and gateway zoning districts), I request that you create a petition and have your staff analyze this issue. The purpose of the petition is to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to address issues • associated with various temporary uses located on private property, such as store parking lots, in non-residential zoning districts. More specifically,I suggest that these issues be addressed by clarifying the types of seasonal temporary uses allowed, specifying in which zoning districts they can be located and clarifying the length of time they can operate. Please assign one of your staff members to work on this project. Sincerely, Margaret Hunt, Director cc: file • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO1-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 ®aecvc�eo PnveR REMARKS Petition No. 400-02-17 By Margaret Hunt Is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to clarify the types of seasonal temporary uses allowed in non-residential zoning districts I � Date Filed Address • • • 1111 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: July 21,2003 Subject: Briefing:Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Allow for the Installation of Outdoor Television Monitors in D-1 and D-4 Zoning Districts Pursuant to Petition No.400-03-09 Affected Council Districts: Districts 3 and 4 Staff Report By: Russell Weeks Administrative Dept. and Contact Person: Doug Dansie,Planning Division KEY ELEMENTS: • The proposed amendment would change the text of the sign ordinance in the City's • Zoning Ordinance to allow television stations in zoning districts D-1 and D-4 to have one outdoor television monitor of 50 square feet in size on a building that houses the station's television studio.The studio must contain at least 15,000 square feet of floor space. • The proposed amendment stems from KUTV-TV's plans to relocate its broadcast studios to what is now known as the Wells Fargo Center at 299 South Main Street.If adopted, the proposed amendment also would affect KSL-TV.That station is located at 55 North 300 West. • As a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,the proposal will require a public hearing and a 14-day public notice of the hearing. • The proposed amendment reads in part,"The material displayed(on the monitor)shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports and or public affairs broadcasts to the general public" ... The italicized language was incorporated from a Salt Lake City Planning Commission motion the Commission adopted May 28.The Commission's entire motion was to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the sign ordinance. • Another part of the proposed amendment would require that broadcasts on the monitor "shall not be in conflict with the Federal Communication Commission's Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6 a.m. and 12 midnight(regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor)." ‘1 • The proposed amendment would allow television stations to broadcast"daytime programming,consistent with Community Standards"between midnight and 6 a.m. • The proposed amendment also: 1. Would limit an outdoor monitor's brightness so the monitor would not cause "undue glare or interference with adjacent properties." 2. Would limit sound from the monitor to those in"Salt Lake City or County health regulations." 3. Would limit placing a monitor on a building"to locations on the lower two floors." • The D-1 and D-4 zones are downtown zones bordered by North Temple,200 East,600 South and 400 West streets. POTENTIAL OPTIONS: • Forward the proposed amendment for a public hearing and formal City Council consideration. • Discuss with the Administration at the briefmg whether broadcasting on the monitor between midnight and 6 a.m.is a necessary component of the proposed amendment and the television station's operating plans.It should be noted that local morning news broadcasts at KUTV and KSL-TV currently start at 5:30 a.m. According to KUTV representatives,that station plans to start broadcasting local news at 5 a.m. in the near future. �) POTENTIAL MOTIONS: City Council staff will prepare motions if the City Council forwards the proposed amendment for a publio hearing and formal consideration. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: The proposed amendment as written would allow a television station to broadcast on an outdoor monitor 24 hours a day. According to the minutes of the Planning Commission's May 28 meeting,a KUTV representative said the station guaranteed seven hours of news programming for an outdoor monitor.Between news programs there would be"some programming and(at) other times live weather shots."(Please see Planning Commission minutes,Page 7 in the Administration's transmittal.)Council Members may wish to explore whether it is necessary for a monitor to broadcast after midnight. The proposed amendment would allow a television station to broadcast on an outdoor monitor only if the station is located in the D-1 and D-4 zones and has a broadcast studio containing a minimum of 15,000 square feet of floor space. However,one speaker at the Planning Commission hearing suggested that the proposed amendment be expanded to allow"any newspaper,radio or television station which as Salt Lake City as its primary market to locate a television monitor downtown in a manner consistent with the ordinance."(Please see Planning Commission minutes,Page 8.) l 1111 Some speakers and Planning Commissioners at the hearing expressed concerns about the content of daytime television programming and the broadcasting of commercials on an outdoor monitor. DISCUSSION/POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed amendments stem from a petition from the Planning Commission to change the text of the sign ordinance in the City's Zoning Code. The Commission initiated the petition after KUTV representatives talked to the Planning Division staff about installing an outdoor television monitor on the wall of the Wells Fargo Center at 299 South Main Street.KUTV plans to relocate to the Wells Fargo Center.Construction of the studio is projected to finish between September 1 and September 15,according to KUTV representatives.The station is scheduled to begin broadcasts from the studio in October. Council Members may recall that the Council adopted Resolution No. 19 of 2003 on May 13 to lend$1.2 million,and the City Council as the RDA Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 550.04 in January to lend$2.8 million to help KUTV move to the Wells Fargo Center. Installing an outdoor television monitor does not appear to be a necessary condition of the loans. A stated reason for both loans was to stimulate business expansion and development in the downtown. Similarly,the Administration's transmittal letter in support of the proposed sign ordinance amendment cites the Downtown Master Plan as encouraging"a lively downtown with a variety of uses. According to the transmittal,"Signage is meant to enliven the area without being so profuse and intrusive that it begins to detract from its viability." As mentioned earlier in this report the proposed amendment would change the text of the sign ordinance in the City's Zoning Code to allow television stations in zoning districts D-1 and D-4 to have one outdoor television monitor of 50 square feet in size on a building that houses the station's television studio.The studio must contain at least 15,000 square feet of floor space. At present,the proposed amendment would affect the anticipated location of KUTV and the current location of KSL-TV.According to the Planning Commission minutes,a third station— KJAZZ—has some studio space in the Delta Center.However,that station's main studios are located in the International Center west of the Salt Lake City airport. If one reads the Planning Commission minutes,the minutes contain discussion ranging involving the proposed monitor's brightness,how much sound the monitor would project,how long the monitor would be on,and the content of material broadcast. According to Planning Commission minutes and City Council staff discussions with KUTV representatives,the station plans to broadcast at least seven hours of local news programs plus live shots of local events.In addition,the station plans to broadcast items such as a community calendar,Amber alerts,flash flood warnings,weather alerts,traffic views and other items of community interest.Most of the time the monitor would not broadcast sound.According to Planning Commission minutes,news broadcasts would use text subtitles to convey what anchors and reporters are saying. The main exception would be when the station's anchors, reporters and weather personalities are actually out on the street or Gallivan Plaza as part of a news show or a live event.KUTV representatives said it was not the station's intent to have people gathered around the monitor because the station's"ideal backdrop"is people walking along Main Street. In addition,the representatives said the monitor's audio cannot exceed a certain limit because the sound would result in audio feedback in the studio.KUTV representatives said it was the station's intention to turn off the monitor at midnight—except in • cases, such as the First Night celebration,where live events downtown warranted keeping the monitor on or when issues of public importance warranted keeping it on. Another issue raised during the May 28 Planning Commission involved the placement of television monitors. A representative of KSL-TV suggested that the ordinance be expanded to allow"any newspaper,radio or television station which as Salt Lake City as its primary market to locate a television monitor downtown in a manner consistent with the ordinance." According to Planning Commission minutes,the representative said the ordinance as written on May 28 appeared to allow only one monitor to be placed in the City's core.He indicated that KSL's location might not be ideal for the placement of a monitor.(Please see Planning Commission minutes,Page 8.)The Planning Commission did not include the suggestion in its motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Planning Division staff evaluated the proposed ordinance by using five criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance: • Whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. • Whether the proposed amendment was harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • The extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect adjacent properties. • Whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the provisions of any accplicable overlay zoning districts which may impose addition standards. • The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, • including,but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. According to the Administration's transmittal letter,"Based on this analysis,the Planning Commission recommended the text be amended." Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,Alison Weyher,Louis Zunguze,Gary Mumford,Doug Dansie,Dave Oka,Janice Jardine. File Location: Downtown • JUL 0 1 f0U3 • ALISON WEYHER E AT ORPO ,d; :ION ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL \ ) \', / V TO: Rocky Fluhart, C.fief 4dministrative Office DATE: June 27, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher \\t,, - RE: Petition 400-03-09 is a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner 535-6182 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget impacts associated with the proposed amendments. DISCUSSION: KUTV is relocating its main broadcast studios to Main Street. They would like to install an outdoor television monitor on the wall of the Wells Fargo Building 411 (American Stores) in order to broadcast to pedestrians on the street information that is being generated within the studio. KUTV approached staff regarding the issue, who relayed the issue to the Planning Commission. On February 12, 2003, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to review the appropriateness of television monitors on buildings. Analysis: This proposed zoning ordinance text change will affect the sign ordinance in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts. These zoning districts are exclusively located in the downtown area. The primary issues involved in this rezoning petition include the content of the television broadcast(off-premise vs. on-premise advertising) and the appropriate nature of large screen televisions as part of the downtown sign package. The recommended zoning change will allow all television stations to have one television monitor of 50 square feet on their building as long as the building hosts a genuine television studio (of at least 15,000 sq. ft.). The television monitor may show broadcasts or rebroadcasts of information generated by the specific television station. All broadcasts must meet Federal Communication Commission(FCC) daytime standards (regardless of the hour of display). FCC standards are more stringent in the daytime than they are between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. Master Plan: The proposed amendment will affect signage for television stations only. The Downtown Master Plan encourages a lively downtown with a variety of uses. Signage is meant to enliven the area without being so profuse and intrusive that it begins to detract from its viability. The Urban Design Element encourages sufficient signage to advertise businesses and their products without having a detriment to the visual aspect of the City. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B411 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: BO1-535-6005 ®Ree,.eco PnaeR Public Process: Notice was sent to all Community Councils,the Business Advisory Board, Vest Pocket Business Association and all television stations. Some individuals noted that the • monitors would enliven downtown,while others commented that it was inappropriate to force people to watch information on the street that they chose not to watch in their own home. The Planning Commission heard the issue on May 25,2003 and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. As detailed in Section 21A.50.050, "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Based on these five factors, staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity,impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones and the adequacy of existing services and facilities. Based on this analysis,the Planning Commission recommended the text be amended. • III • CONTENTS 1 Chronology 2 Proposed Ordinance 3 City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list 4 Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda Minutes 5 Original Petition • 0 1 Chronology • Chronology February 12, 2003 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to consider television monitors as part of Downtown signage. February to April, 2003 Staff and Attorneys worked to create a draft ordinance. April 14, 2003 A letter describing the proposal was sent to all television stations, community council chairs and other interested parties describing the request and asking for input. May 13, 2003 Notices were mailed for the Planning Commission hearing. May 28, 2003 The Planning Commission heard the issue and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. June 17, 2003 The minutes were finalized and an ordinance was requested from the Attorney's Office. • June 20, 2003 An ordinance was received from the Attorney's Office. • 2 Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. OF 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to allow for outdoor television monitors) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR TELEVISION MONITORS IN CERTAIN DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-09. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City zoning code contains various sign regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after public hearings before the Planning Commission and before the City Council that portions of the existing sign regulations • contained in the City Zoning Code should be amended to allow for outdoor television monitors under certain circumstances in selected downtown zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.46.070.J.11 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building. SECTON 2. The table located at Section 21A.46.110.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "sign type, size and height standards for the D-1 and D-4 Districts," shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. • SECTION 3. Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby • is amended to include the following additional definition in alphabetical order: 21A.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television monitor that displays material generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports and/or public affairs broadcasts, and shall not be in conflict with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6am and 12 midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The material displayed must be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports and/or public affairs broadcasts to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and barn, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted). Outdoor television monitors may not be illuminated to a brightness that causes undue glare or interference with adjacent properties. Sound emanating from the outdoor television monitor may not exceed Salt Lake City or County health standards. SECTION 4. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • 2 • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • • G:\Ordinance 03\Amending SLC Code to allow for outdoor television monitors-June 20,2003.doc 3 Attachment A 110 21A.46.110 Sign Regulations For Downtown Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the downtown districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The D-1 And D-4 downtown districts: 1. Purpose: Signage in the D-1 and D-4 downtown districts should reflect the unique character of the downtown as a regional center for commercial, cultural, entertainment and civic activity. Sign regulations for these districts are intended to allow for the design of signage that complements the downtown's dynamic physical and functional characteristics. 2. Applicability: Regulations on table 21A.46.110A3a of this section shall apply to all uses within the D-1 and D-4 districts. 3. a. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards For The D-1 And D-4 D districts: STANDARDS FOR THE D-1 AND D-4 DISTRICTS Types Of Maximum Maximum Minimum Number Of Limit On Signs Area Per Height Of Setback2 Signs Combined Permitted Sign Face In Freestanding Permitted Number Square Feet Signs In Per Sign Of Signs3 • Feet' Type Flat sign 2 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (storefront linear ft. of below) business orientation)4 each store storefront frontages Flat sign 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (general linear ft. of below) building face building building orientation) face5 Monument 1 sq. ft. per 20 ft. None 1 per street 1 sign per sign linear ft. of frontage street street frontage frontage Pole sign 1 sq. ft. per 45 ft. None, but 1 per street linear ft. of shall not frontage street extend frontage; 200 across a sq. ft. property line maximum for a single business, 300 sq. ft. • maximum for multiple • businesses Projecting 125 sq. ft. (see note 1 6 ft. from 1 per street 1 sign per building sign per side; 250 below) (see face of frontage street sq. ft. total subsection building but (see frontage A4b of this not within 2 subsection section) ft. of the A4b of this back of curb6 section) Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per public None business side; 18 sq. below) sign face of business storefront ft. total face limited building but entry to the sign to 4 ft. in not within 2 street height ft. of the back of curb6 Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per None parking side; 18 sq. below) sign face of driveway or entry sign ft. total face limited building but parking lot to 4 ft. in not within 2 entry height ft. of the back of curb6 Marquee Subject only See See 1 per None sign to subsection subsection subsection storefront 21 A.46.070O 21 A.46.070O 21A.46.0700 • of this of this of this chapter chapter chapter Canopy, 40% of (see note 1 n/a 1 per None drive- canopy face below) canopy face through if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Awning 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but door/window (sign area not within 2 only) ft. from back of curb6 Canopy 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but building (sign area not within 2 entry only) 20 sq. ft. from back ft. maximum of curb6 per canopy Roof signs 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per street None linear ft. of below) frontage building face or 6 sq. ft. • per linear ft. of building face on buildings taller than 100 ft. Corporate 32 sq. ft. (see 8 ft. from 1 per 50 ft. 2 per flag subsection face of of street street A4c of this building but frontage, 50 frontage section) not within 2 ft. minimum ft. of the street back of curb6 frontage required Construction 64 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign storefront Political sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. None 1 per street None sign frontage Private 8 sq. ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None directional sign New 200 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per street None development frontage sign Window sign 25% of total No limit n/a No limit None frontage window area per use Public safety 8 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. None No limit None sign Nameplate, 3 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. None 1 per None building building Outdoor 50 sq. ft. (see note 1 None 1 per None Television below) sign building monitor'' face limited to 8 ft. in height Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs and Outdoor Television Monitors limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront • orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7. Allowed in conjunction with television stations only and are allowed only if • the building contains a permanent broadcast studio for the television station of at least fifteen thousand(15,000) square feet. • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. OF 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to allow for outdoor television monitors) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR TELEVISION MONITORS IN CERTAIN DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-09. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City zoning code contains various sign regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds,after public hearings before the Planning Commission and before the City Council that portions of the existing sign regulations • contained in the City Zoning Code should be amended to allow for outdoor television monitors under certain circumstances in selected downtown zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.46.070.J.11 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building. SECTON 2. The table located at Section 21A.46.110.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "sign type, size and height standards for the D-1 and D-4 Districts," shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 3. Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby • is amended to include the following additional definition in alphabetical order: 21A.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television monitor that displays material generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports and/or public affairs broadcasts, and shall not be in conflict with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6am and 12 midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The material displayed must be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports and/or public affairs broadcasts to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and 6am, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted). Outdoor television monitors may not be illuminated to a brightness that causes undue glare or interference with adjacent properties. Sound emanating from the outdoor television monitor may not exceed Salt Lake City or County health standards. SECTION 4. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • 2 • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: - z�a-03 _ 4111 11111 G:\Ordinance 03\Amending SLC Code to allow for outdoor television monitors-Clean-June 20,2003.doc 3 Attachment A • 21A.46.110 Sign Regulations For Downtown Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the downtown districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The D-1 And D-4 downtown districts: 1. Purpose: Signage in the D-1 and D-4 downtown districts should reflect the unique character of the downtown as a regional center for commercial, cultural, entertainment and civic activity. Sign regulations for these districts are intended to allow for the design of signage that complements the downtown's dynamic physical and functional characteristics. 2. Applicability: Regulations on table 21A.46.110A3a of this section shall apply to all uses within the D-1 and D-4 districts. 3. a. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards For The D-1 And D-4 D districts: STANDARDS FOR THE D-1 AND D-4 DISTRICTS Types Of Maximum Maximum Minimum Number Of Limit On Signs Area Per Height Of Setback2 Signs Combined Permitted Sign Face In Freestanding Permitted Number Square Feet Signs In Per Sign Of Signs3 • Feet' Type Flat sign 2 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (storefront linear ft. of below) business orientation)4 each store storefront frontages Flat sign 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (general linear ft. of below) building face building building orientation) face5 Monument 1 sq. ft. per 20 ft. None 1 per street 1 sign per sign linear ft. of frontage street street frontage frontage Pole sign 1 sq. ft. per 45 ft. None, but 1 per street linear ft. of shall not frontage street extend frontage; 200 across a sq. ft. property line maximum for a single business, 300 sq. ft. • IImaximum for multiple businesses Projecting 125 sq. ft. (see note 1 6 ft. from 1 per street 1 sign per building sign per side; 250 below) (see face of frontage street sq. ft. total subsection building but (see frontage A4b of this not within 2 subsection section) ft. of the A4b of this back of curb6 section) Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per public None business side; 18 sq. below) sign face of business storefront ft. total face limited building but entry to the sign to 4 ft. in not within 2 street height ft. of the back of curb6 Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per None parking side; 18 sq. below) sign face of driveway or entry sign ft. total face limited building but parking lot to 4 ft. in not within 2 entry height ft. of the back of curb6 Marquee Subject only See See 1 per None • sign to subsection subsection subsection storefront 21A.46.070O 21A.46.070O 21A.46.070O of this of this of this chapter chapter chapter Canopy, 40% of (see note 1 n/a 1 per None drive- canopy face below) canopy face through if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Awning 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but door/window (sign area not within 2 only) ft. from back of curb6 Canopy 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but building (sign area not within 2 entry III only) 20 sq. ft. from back ft. maximum of curb6 per canopy Roof signs 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per street None linear ft. of below) frontage building face or 6 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face on buildings taller than 100 ft. Corporate 32 sq. ft. (see 8 ft. from 1 per 50 ft. 2 per flag subsection face of of street street A4c of this building but frontage, 50 frontage section) not within 2 ft. minimum ft. of the street back of curb6 frontage required Construction 64 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign storefront Political sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. None 1 per street None sign frontage Private 8 sq. ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None • directional sign New 200 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per street None development frontage sign Window sign 25% of total No limit n/a No limit None frontage window area per use Public safety 8 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. None No limit None sign Nameplate, 3 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. None 1 per None building building Outdoor 50 sq. ft. (see note 1 None 1 per None Television below) sign building monitor4'7 face limited to 8 ft. in height Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. • 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs and Outdoor Television Monitors limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7. Allowed in conjunction with television stations only and are allowed only if the building contains a permanent broadcast studio for the television station of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. • • • 3 City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing List • • • Notice • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-03-09, a request to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed on the lower two floors of any building located in the D-1 or D-4 zoning districts of Downtown Salt Lake City that is the home of an FCC licensed television station. As part of their study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing,the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: • PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you are the owner of a rental property,please inform you tenants of this hearing. We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpreter services provided upon 24 hour advance request. III 0 Mailing List • Wynn Johnson Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY . 852 Northcliffe Drive 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Catherine New Samantha Francis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O. Box # 521744 70 W.Van Buren Ave. 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City,Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City, Utah84101-2201 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick Jim Byrne ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave 1966 East 900 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 841108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee ST.MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S. Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • Beth Bowman Kenneth L.Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E. Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 Carol Goode Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 823 South 1000 East 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 John Storrs Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1028 West 500 South 846 W 400 N. 1410 N. Baroness Place. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Helen Peters Erin Willson SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE 2803 Beverly Street 1303 South Stewart Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 • -t3`&70()5 u1 1]oti. Lynn Child David Brems 3820 South 4745 West 375 West 200 South West Valley City, UT 84120 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 • Gregory Gruber Mary Corporon 8318 South Ridge Point Road 808 E. South Temple Sandy, UT 84093 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Marilee Latta Yolanda Sanchez 1475 Tomahawk Drive 553 Garn Way Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Lyl hild Mar orporo 3820 So 5 West 808 E. t emple Valley i UT 84120 Sal La CI , T 84102 Da -d Brems Tony Caputo 375 0 South 3684 East Kaibab Circle Salt e y, UT 84101 Salt Lake City, UT 84109 • Yola da Sanch Lois Johnson 553 Ga W 6338 South Canyon Cove Drive Salt Lake UT 84104 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 Yolanda Sa ez Mary oro 553 G ay 808 E. pie Salt L e ' , UT 84104 Lake City, UT 84102 Yolan Sanc z L n Child 553 Garn 3 2 h 4745 West Salt Lak ity, UT 84104 ley City, UT 84120 To y Caput ory Gru Lynn 3684 s aibab Circle 8318 Ridge Point Road 382 oath West Salt e i , T 84109 S y, UT 8 t Valley City, UT 84120 Mary Ma orporon • 3820 South 47 est 808 E. So Te e 808 E. Temple West Vall City, UT 20 S It e City, UT 84 02 Lake City, 84102 Downtown Alliance KUTV KSL 2 South Main Street General Manager General Manager t Lake City, Utah 84101 2185 South 3600 West 55 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84180 KTVX KUED KULC General Manager General Manager General Manager 2175 West 1700 South 101 Wasatch DR. 101 Wasatch DR Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-1792 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-1793 KSTU KJZZ KPNZ General Manager General Management General Manager 5020 West Amelia Earhart DR. 5181 Amelia Earhart DR. 150 North Wright Brothers DR. Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 SL Chamber of Commerce 175 East 400 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • • Pollyanna Pixton Lorraine Miller Camille Chant 1115 S. 900 E. Cactus and Tropicals Chameleon Artwear Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 2715 S 2000 E 875 E 900 S Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 . Mary Corporon Jason Cowan Peter Corroon Cowan's Retail Systems Red Gate Properties 808 E South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 1165 W 2950 S 444 S 700 E Salt Lake City,Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Ann Floor Elizabeth Guss Bim Oliver Random Projects Cohesion 1804 E Hollywood Ave 30 U Street 1220 Second Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Don Steward The Dog Show 1508 S 1500 E Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 ` IM )r\17Fzvn ALLIAI) T ou v bAP5V (OAiv, 52' N 416-W 5 �, I1Q ( 103 • 0 4 Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda and Minutes 0 Original Notice and Postmark A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE S `` t �l�� ` `�09Pe IN A. ROSS C.ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR May 9, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition 400-03-09, a request to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed on the lower two floors of any building located in the D-1 or D-4 zoning districts of Downtown Salt Lake City that is the home of a view-for-free FCC licensed television station (not pay cable, satellite or closed circuit). The Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing to accept public comment on: May 28, 2003 Salt Lake City County Building 451 South State Street Room 326 6:10 P.M. If you have any questions, comments or wish to view the proposal, you may do so at that time. If you have additional questions, you may contact me at 535-6182. Respectfully, Doug Dansie, I Principal Pla er We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive liste ing devices and interpreter services provided upon 24-hour advance request. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE:801.535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 ��i cc.cco o.PE. 1 it. J � OOOZScfLZ sluordolj pui sn1�E3 -0IIrw aulEuoi /Slink.% �l n ram.`Ir # id • cox 9 i �d • I I I68f1 ) ariS rllnoS I Stt uorsrn!Q 3nruue r [d �t.� aIES 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you wi71 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. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 4_ Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 5. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees_ 6. A time limit may be placed on speakers to ensure everyone has a chance to comment The Chair will make that determination upon reviewing the number of people wishing to speak. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item_ Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided_ 8_ After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. •9. After the hearing is dosed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information_ 10.Meeting notices are made available 14 days in.advance. If persons wish to submit written comments,they should be directed _ to the Planning Division at least 7 days in advance to enable Planning Commissioners to consider those written comments_ Comments should be sent to: - Salt Lake City Planning Director SIC,UT 84111 Note: We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices&interpreter services provided upon 24 how=advance request t3 FFF ill FFt If IF If . . . — :►1 N AO LJI.LONI .• Staff report DATE: May 23, 2003 • TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Doug Dansie,Principle Planner RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE MAY 28, 2003 MEETING CASE#: 410-03-09 APPLICANT: Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: City Board; Planning Commission • PROJECT LOCATION: This is a zoning ordinance text change that will affect the sign ordinance in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts. These zoning districts are exclusively located in the Downtown area. PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: NA COUNCIL DISTRICT: District Four,Nancy Saxton District Three, Eric Jergensen REQUESTED ACTION: A request to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. PROPOSED USE(S): A sign modification that pertains to television stations only. • APPILCABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed change modifies Chapter 21A.46 and 21A.62 of the zoning ordinance Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-09 1 May 28,2003 Salt Lake City Planning Division MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: Downtown Master Plan SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The D-1 and D-4 zoning districts are exclusively located within the Downtown area of Salt Lake City. They span the area between 200 East and 400 West and between North Temple to 600 South. ACCESS: Not Applicable PROJECT DISCRIPTION: There is presently one television station located in the D-4 zoning district (KSL). KUTV has proposed moving its news operations into the Wells Fargo Building (American Stores) at 333 South Main. The outdoor television monitor would allow the two television stations to broadcast information to pedestrians on the sidewalk. 11111 COMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS The proposal is to allow television monitors on buildings housing television stations. Initial drafts of the ordinance would have allowed outdoor monitors in all zoning districts where television stations are allowed. Further discussion indicated that they were not appropriate in areas that did not have significant pedestrian traffic, therefore the final draft allows monitors only in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts, which are mapped in the core of the Central Business District. Comments from City departments and Community Council(s): a) Transportation Provided no comments. b) Public Services Had no comments. c) Police Provided no comments. d) Public Utilities Had no objection as long as the monitors did not interfere with water, sewer or storm drainage services e) Community Councils: Notice was sent to all Community Councils, the Business Advisory Board, Vest Pocket Business Association and all television stations. Some individuals noted that the monitors would enliven Downtown, others • commented that it was inappropriate to force people to watch information on the Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-09 2 May 28,2003 Salt Lake City Planning Division street that they chose not to watch in their own home. The comments received are • attached. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal. Since the request is a modification of the existing sign ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the proposal with a view towards forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. In undertaking the task, the Planning Commission must use the following standards: CODE CRITERIA/DISCUSSION/FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50,050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The proposed amendment will affect signage for television stations only. The Downtown Master Plan encourages a lively Downtown with a variety of uses. Signage is meant to enliven the area without making it gaudy. The Urban Design Element encourages sufficient signage to advertise businesses and their products without having a detriment to the visual aspect of the City. Findings: The limited use of television monitors as signs to highlight the activity generated by an active television station is consistent with the general plans of Salt Lake City B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The Downtown area is the most densely developed area in the City. It also has the largest amount of pedestrian traffic. The proposed zoning amendment would allow television monitors at the pedestrian level. It is the intent of KUTV to set up a studio with windows facing Main Street and the Gallivan Plaza that will allow pedestrians to watch the newscast being prepared. KSL television is also located in the D-4 zoning district and would be afforded the same opportunity. The City has engaged in many activities in the recent past to generate pedestrian activity in the Downtown area, including requiring a minimum percentage of windows or display windows in the zoning ordinance in order to insure that there is interaction between what is going on inside of a building and the pedestrians on Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-09 3 May 28,2003 Salt Lake City Planning Division the sidewalk. This proposal takes that philosophy one step further by providing information generated within the building to the pedestrians on the outside. 11111 The signage television monitor for KUTV is intended to be part of a larger broadcast studio that will feature Downtown as the backdrop, therefore placing the center of the City at the forefront of the news each morning. Findings: Limited use of television monitors for specialized purposes may add vitality to the Downtown area by encouraging interactive activity in the Downtown area. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: Potential conflicts include light and noise. The draft ordinance has been prepared to insure that the brightness or the loudness of the monitor is limited to not cause excessive noise or shine onto neighboring properties. A major source of concern is the content of the monitor. While the City does not wish to enter into the arena of editing content, it must also be aware that not everyone appreciates every television show and that a public venue is not the same as the privacy of ones home. Therefore the definition has been written to limit the broadcast to information that follows Federal Communications Commission (FCC)rules. FCC daytime standards (6 am to midnight) are more stringent than the rules that apply at night (between midnight and 6 am); therefore • the ordinance is written to apply daytime rules at all hours of the day and night. Simulcast programming of what is normally on television is required during the day, but daytime programming may be substituted during the hours between midnight to 6 am. Findings: The proposed amendment is written to minimize impact on adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed changes will affect the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts. There is one historic district that overlaps with the zoning district (Exchange Place). Any exterior renovation within the historic district is also subject to approval by the Historic Landmark Commission. Portions of the area are also within the groundwater recharge area, which are not effected by the signage. There are currently no television stations located within the Exchange Place Historic District. Findings: Any potential impact on overlay districts is minimal or non-existent. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-09 4 May 28,2003 Salt Lake City Planning Division E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject • property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposal relates to signage. Responses by City Departments/Divisions indicate the proposal will not affect any public services Findings: Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on building hosting television stations in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts. Doug Dansie Community Planner • Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Other Division Recommendations. Exhibit 2—Public Comments, Exhibit 3—Proposed Ordinance. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-09 5 May 28,2003 Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 Other Division Recommendations. s • MEMORANDUM Date: April 14, 2003 To: John Hodson, Police; Dan Andrus, Fire; Brad Stewart, Public Utilities; Kevin Young, Transportation; Valda Tarbet, RDA: Rick Johnston, Engineering; Enzo Calfa, Permits; Rick Graham, Public Services; Lynn Pace, Attorney. From: Doug Dansie, AICP Subject: Outdoor Television Monitors. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received petition 400-03-09 requesting that the sign ordinance be modified to allow for Outdoor Television Monitors for television stations. • Attached'is copy of the draft ordinance. The portion of the definition regarding Community Standards is particularly confusing. Basically there are different standards for daytime and nighttime television. Because these monitors are outside, viewable by everyone, they are required to meet daytime standards at all hours of the day. If you can think of a better way to say that,please let me know. This definition would only allow for free television broadcasts (no pay cable television). Please review the draft and provide any comment you may have. If you have questions or need further details please call me at 6182. A response by April 30 would be appreciated. • Message Page I of I Dansie, Doug From: Stewart, Brad i Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:39 PM To: Dansie, Doug Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Cowles, Vicki Subject: Petition 400-03-09, Outdoor Television Monitors Categories: Program/Policy Doug, Public Utilities has no objection to the suggested language on the above-mentioned topic so long as the monitors are not placed or operated in a way that interferes with our ability to operate or maintain our water, sewer or storm drainage facilities. Thanks, Brad • S 4/22/2003 SAL a �`GITY�= GDRPO '�. � ;I: RICHARD GRAHAM �_ � 1 vs. ., C — ,a ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR • MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Dansie FROM: Rick Graham I :/ DATE: April 28,2003 RE: Outdoor Television Monitors Thank you for allowing me to review the City's proposal to modify the sign ordinance. I have no specific comments to make. • IIIII 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B411 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7775 FAX: BO1-535-77B9 ®RECYCLED PAPER Page 1 of 1 Dansie, Doug •From:�'- Calfa, Enzo Sent: Monday,April 21, 2003 1:51 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: FW: Outdoor Television Monitor Categories: Program/Policy Doug, I passed out your proposed "Outdoor Television Monitor" ordinance to the planners in my division and asked them to identify any potential problems. I have received a response from Alan Michelsen which is part of this Email. Have you considered the implications of these monitors being "Off-premises signs" as they advertise products such as coke, beer, furniture, etc. which are not offered at the station's location? I will forward any additional comments as I receive them. • Enzo Original Message From: Michelsen, Alan Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:03 AM To: Calfa, Enzo Cc: Brown, Ken; Hardman, Alan; Evans, Roger; Boyd, Harvey Subject: Outdoor Television Monitor Enzo, • 21A.62.040 (proposed) defines Outdoor Television Monitor. Questions: 1. Will we also need to define television station? 2. Do we mean a local broadcast television station affiliated with national network? Or do we mean any local or closed circuit broadcaster promoting a product, a service, a personality, a religious or political ideology, etc.? 3. What are the free speech issues if we do narrowly define television station? 4. Where are the boundaries if we don't? • 4/21/2003 • • Exhibit 2 • Public Comments. • April 14,2003 RE: Petition No. 400-03-09 The modification of the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors for television stations. Dear Concerned Citizen: Salt Lake City has received a petition to change the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings housing television stations. The draft ordinance would allow all television stations (located within appropriate zoning districts)to place an outdoor television monitor, up to 120 square feet in size, below the second floor of the building. The proposed definition is as follows: 2IA.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television that displays material generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed must be the same information generated by the television station that is also simultaneously broadcast for free to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and 6AM, where daytime programming, consistent with 411 Community Standards, may be substituted). The material displayed shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Community Standards if broadcast on a television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The proposed changes would affect television stations only. The language describing Federal Communications Commission Community Standards is intended to clarify that community standards are applied during both daytime and 'off hours' (when they are not required by the FCC)because of the outdoor public nature of the broadcast. You will be receiving a notice of the Planning Commission public hearing in the near future. However,prior to that meeting, staff would appreciate any comments or concerns that you may have regarding the proposed ordinance change. Comments should be submitted to the Planning Division by April 30, 2003. You may call me at 535-6182 or email me at; doug.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us, or send written comments to Doug Dansie, Salt Lake City Planning, 451 South State, room 406 Salt Lake City, UT, 84111. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doug Dansie, AICP 1111 Principal Planner Page 1 of 1 , Dansie, Doug From: Elizabeth Guss [cohesion@xmission.com] • Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 11:26 AM To: doug.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: petition 400-03-09 - constituent opinion Doug, I received notice of the petition to change the sign ordinance. I am OPPOSED to allowing the outdoor television monitors of what is being broadcast. Much of what is shown would be OK. However, enough of what is broadcast offends me (violence, language, and human cruelty) that my husband and I would not wish to see the public display of the broadcasting. As television broadcast material continues to push at the edges of public tastes, we are told that we can"just change the channel" and that is so. If the city allows the outdoor monitor,then we have lost that ability. Please record our strong opposition to the proposed change in the sign ordinance. Elizabeth & Stephen Guss 1220 Second Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84103 411 4/21/2003 _..., runt 1,11 J.L.McKenzie,Inc. 1078 East 3300 South Salt Lake City,UT 84106 McDonald's • Doug Dansie City Planner Salt lake City,Utah Via Fax 9 May 2003 Dear Doug, This is a follow-up to our exchanged voice messages last week.I am sorry about the delay but as a downtown business owner I am working harder lately,and making less. than I ever had in my life. As I stated in my messages,the allowing of any TV station downtown to erect an outside monitor is a wonderful concept.I worked in Manhattan for two and a half years and the • vibrancy of the city is truly exhilarating I miss that part of my NYC experience The ordinance in question is a small step in the direction of bringing life back to the downtown of our city.We need interesting things,we need entertaining ideas.We need to give folks something they cannot get in the suburbs. Adding a TV screen visible from the street will not turn main street into Times Square, but it is a great first step in the direction of returning Main Street to it's rightful place as the heart of the entire city I have several trips scheduled over the next four or five weeks.As always,I am happy to speak before whatever board you require,but cannot do so from out of town.Please keep me posted meeting dates.And if I am unavailable,on whom I can contact by letter,or other means to lend my support to ideas that may invigorate the downtown area. Thanks for all you do for us. Tuber O r/Opat r • ..... .._. .. ., . r, VCi V4 CLEARCHAWL Jon T Fischer411 Director tab° J News&Local Program Development KTVX April 25,2003 Mr.Doug Dansie,AICP Principal Planner aba Planning and Zoning Division ews Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Via:Fax,e-mail,messenger Re: Petition No.400-03-09 The modification of the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors for television stations. Dear Mr.Dansie: Pursuant to our conversation on Wednesday,April 23,2003,please consider this ABC 4,KTVX TVs formal request for an extension of the response deadline concerning Petition No.400-03-09 relating to outdoor placement of TV monitors,currently due no later than April 30,2003. Although you explained that this current deadline is loose and merely to make sure that this issue receives immediate attention on the part of those whom received your letter dated April 14,2003,ABC 4,KTVX-TV requests an extension until June 30',2003.As I explained ABC 4,KTVX TV did not receive your document until late Monday afternoon April 21,2003 and subsequently did not reach my office until Wednesday,April 23,2003 at which time I contacted your office. As I explained during our conversation,our corporate attorney and General Manager both are located outside of the State of Utah and these documents will need to be forwarded to them for review prior to any formal response.ABC 4,KTVX-TV requests this extension so that we may fully explore the possible ramifications that may result from this proposed change.Additionally,what prompted the requested change and is there set date for a system to be implemented. Please contact me as soon as possible to inform ABC 4,KTVX-TV,whether you will be able to grant our requested extension or if other extensions are requested or implemented. ABC 4,KTVX-TV may have concerns about several issues regarding this proposed ordinance change including but not limited to: MS Channel 8ree4nslink '71 th Wrcl 11Cdl S+nin Sat like City. III III cii 801-875-4444 fnr not!i(I 414Y a NIA no. nut uii giro r. U3/U4 Outdoor sign ordinance modification 4/25/2003 Page 2 of 2 • ➢ Does said TV station(s)need to own the property where the outdoor television monitor will be placed? > If the TV station is only a tenant can they still place an outdoor television monitor? > To what degree must the station be a tenant of the building,what level of square footage or personnel must be present on the premises? > Is there a limitation on the number of hours the tenets must occupy the premises each day,week,and month? > Specifically what are the appropriate zoning districts—are all present and future TV studio locations allowable? > In what proximity to the tenant must the outdoor television monitor be placed?Is there a limit to the distance from the tenants location in the building,or can the outdoor television monitor be placed anywhere on the same property?Must the outdoor television monitor be placed on the building,or can it be mobile? • > What is the limit on decibel sound levels emanating from any speaker system associated with the outdoor television monitor'?Who measures compliance with the set standards?How often will it be monitored? ➢ What are the luminance level limitations emanating from the outdoor television monitor?Will there be a measurable standard for both day and night?Who measures compliance with the set standards?How often will it be monitored? > To what level is the city indemnifying the TV station in relation to any suites filled for injury due to negligence on the part of anyone distracted by the outdoor television monitor? > What will be the limits of liability on the part of the TV Station? > Is there a structural or other use restriction associated with the premises where outdoor television monitor may be placed(i.e.:office building,shopping mall, etc.)? > Are there any freedoms of choice issues regarding forced viewer ship on the part of tenants or residents of other buildings surrounding the outdoor television monitor who can not turn the channel off?Thereby being forced to watch and listen to the programming displayed. Sincerely, • Jon T.Fischer w • Exhibit 3 Proposed Ordinance • 0 21A.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television monitor that displays material generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed and shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication's Commission (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight(regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The material displayed must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and 6AM, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted). Outdoor television monitors may not be illuminated to a brightness that causes undue glare or interference with adjacent properties. Sound emanating from the outdoor television monitor may not exceed Salt Lake City or County health standards. 21A.46.070.J Height And Elevation Of Building Signs: 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building. III 21A.46.110 Sign Regulations For Downtown Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the downtown districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The D-1 And D-4 downtown districts: 1. Purpose: Signage in the D-1 and D-4 downtown districts should reflect the unique character of the downtown as a regional center for commercial, cultural, entertainment and civic activity. Sign regulations for these districts are intended to allow for the design of signage that complements the downtown's dynamic physical and functional characteristics. 2. Applicability: Regulations on table 21A.46.110A3a of this section shall apply to all uses within the D-1 and D-4 districts. 3. a. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards For The D-1 And D-4 D districts: STANDARDS FOR THE D-1 AND D-4 DISTRICTS Types Of Maximum Maximum Minimum Number Of Limit On Signs Area Per Height Of Setback2 Signs Combined Permitted Sign Face In Freestanding Permitted Number Square Feet Signs In Per Sign Of Signs3 Feet' Type Flat sign 2 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (storefront linear ft. of below) business orientation)4 each store storefront frontages III Flat sign 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (general linear ft. of below) building face building building orientation) face5 Monument 1 sq. ft. per 20 ft. None 1 per street 1 sign per sign linear ft. of frontage street street frontage frontage Pole sign 1 sq. ft. per 45 ft. None,but 1 per street linear ft. of shall not frontage street extend across frontage; 200 a property sq. ft. line maximum for a single business, 300 sq. ft. maximum for multiple businesses Projecting 125 sq. ft. (see note 1 6 ft. from 1 per street 1 sign per building sign per side; 250 below) (see face of frontage (see street sq. ft. total subsection building but subsection frontage A4b of this not within 2 A4b of this section) ft. of the section) back of curb6 • Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per public None business side; 18 sq. below) sign face of business storefront ft. total face limited building but entry to the sign to 4 ft. in not within 2 street height ft. of the back of curb6 Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per None parking side; 18 sq. below) sign face of driveway or entry sign ft. total face limited building but parking lot to 4 ft. in not within 2 entry height ft. of the back of curb6 Marquee Subject only See See 1 per None sign to subsection subsection subsection storefront 21 A.46.070O 21 A.46.070O 21 A.46.070O of this of this of this chapter chapter chapter Canopy, 40% of (see note 1 n/a 1 per canopy None drive- canopy face below) face through if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of11111 fb canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Awning 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but door/window (sign area not within 2 only) ft. from back of curb6 Canopy 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but building (sign area not within 2 entry only) 20 sq. ft. from back ft. maximum of curb6 per canopy Roof signs 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per street None linear ft. of below) frontage building face or 6 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face on buildings taller than 100 ft. Corporate 32 sq. ft. (see 8 ft. from 1 per 50 ft. 2 per flag subsection face of of street street A4c of this building but frontage, 50 frontage section) not within 2 ft. minimum ft. of the street back of curb6 frontage required Construction 64 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign storefront Political sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. None 1 per street None sign frontage Private 8 sq. ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None directional sign New 200 sq. ft. I2 ft. 5 ft. 1 per street None development frontage sign • Window 25% of total No limit n/a No limit None sign frontage window area per use41110 Public safety 8 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. None No limit None sign Nameplate, 3 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. None 1 per None building building Outdoor 50 sq. ft. (see note I None 1 per None Television below) sign building monitor4'7 face limited to 8 ft. in height Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs peuuitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs and Outdoor Television Monitors limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7. Allowed in conjunction with television stations only and are allowed only lithe building contains a permanent broadcast studio for the television station of at least fifteen thousand(15,000) square feet. • 0 Agenda and Minutes AGENDA FOR THE . SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,May 28,2003,at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:15 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,May 14,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Terry Sieter/Suntree Development and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to grant two easements for underground water and sewer mains to be locate within the right of way of two existing Salt Lake City owned drainage canals. The sites are located on the West side of Redwood Road on the North and South sides of Interstate Highway 1-215 at approximately 2600 North Redwood Road,in Davis County. b. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake Public Utilities Department—requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to exchange certain deeds of easement for existing utility facilities. Public Utilities would release an easement for a waterline which has been relocated to a public street,and the Housing Authority would receive the release of a private sewer line easement granted to the City by mistake. Both easements relate to the recent development of the Jefferson School Apartment project,located at 1099 South West Temple,in a Residential/Mixed Use(RMU)zoning district. (Staff —Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 4. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-02,Proposed text amendment to Section 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv), (Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission)of the Historic Preservation Overlay(H)zoning district of the Salt Lake City ordinance. Proposed revisions would require that decisions be sent to applicants within ten working days after the Historic Landmark Commission adopts its minutes,rather than ten days following the Historic Landmark Commission's decision as the ordinance currently requires. (Staff—Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-09,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,requesting to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed on the lower two floors of any building located in a Downtown(D-1 and D-4)zoning districts of Salt Lake City that is the home of a view-for-free FCC licensed television station(not pay cable,satellite,or closed circuit). (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.410-631,by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett,located at 734 East 200 South requesting Conditional Use and Planned Development approval to reconfigure the previously approved site plan for an existing reception center,and modify the landscape buffer requirements to accommodate a new parking area on a land-locked parcel to the rear of the property. The property is located in a moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45)zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-07,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission(Aria Funk) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.6.11 c.Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2.Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:30 p.m.—Petition No.410-634,by the St.Catherine's Newman Center,requesting a Conditional Use/Planned Development approval for an expansion to an existing place of worship at 170 South University Street and 169 South 1300 East. The new addition will include additional worship space and underground parking. The planned development application requests modifications to building setback and grade change requirements for this project. The property is located in a Residential Multi-Family(RMF-45)zoning district. (Staff-Joel Paterson at 535- 6141,joel.paterson slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. The Ballet West is requesting an extension of time for conditional use No.410-587,which granted approval for the construction of a new school and rehearsal facility at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue,in the Sugar House Business District(C-SHBD zone). The Commission granted conditional use planned development approval for development of the new facility on May 16,2002. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:30 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; and Planners Elizabeth Giraud, Doug Dansie, Ray McCandless, Janice Lew, Melissa Anderson and Joel Paterson. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No. 400-03-09, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed on the lower two floors of any building located in a Downtown (D-1 and D-4) zoning districts of Salt Lake City that is the home of a view-for-free FCC licensed television station (not pay cable, satellite, or closed circuit). IPThis hearing began at 6:19 p.m. Planner Doug Dansie presented the petition as written in the staff report. This is a proposal to allow television monitors on buildings in association with a television station. The issues surrounding this are tricky, because it is a medium that is hard to define. The issues include appropriateness, whether or not it enlivens Downtown, is it a valid form of signage, etc. Also, the right to decide what you want to watch is eliminated when a person is outside of their own home. The petition has been modified throughout the process. Originally the City sent out a notice to all the television stations, Business Advisory Board and community councils. The definition for outdoor television monitors has evolved through the process it no longer excludes cable or satellite as originally defined. The definition of the proposed ordinance is as follows: 21A.62.040 Outdoor Television Monitor. An outdoor large screen television monitor that displays material_generated and/or produced by an on-site television station. The material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed and shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication's Commission (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight(regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor). The material displayed must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast to the general public (except between the hours of 12 midnight and 6AM, where daytime programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted). • Outdoor television monitors may not be illuminated to a brightness that causes Planning Commission Meeting 1 undue _glare or interference with adjacent properties. Sound emanating from the outdoor television monitor may not exceed Salt Lake City or County health • standards. 21A.46.070.J Height And Elevation Of Building Signs: 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building. 21A.46.110 Sign Regulations For Downtown Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the downtown districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The D-1 And D-4 downtown districts: 1. Purpose: Signage in the D-1 and D-4 downtown districts should reflect the unique character of the downtown as a regional center for commercial, cultural, entertainment and civic activity. Sign regulations for these districts are intended to allow for the design of signage that complements the downtown's dynamic physical and functional characteristics. 2. Applicability: Regulations on table 21A.46.110A3a of this section shall apply to all uses within the D-1 and D-4 districts. 3. a. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards For The D-1 And D-4 D districts: STANDARDS FOR THE D-1 AND D-4 DISTRICTS • Types Of Maximum Maximum Minimum Number Of Limit On Signs Area Per Height Of Setback2 Signs Combined Permitted Sign Face In Freestanding Permitted Number Square Feet Signs In Per Sign Of Signs3 Feet' Type Flat sign 2 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (storefront linear ft. of below) business orientation)4 each store storefront frontages Flat sign 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per None (general linear ft. of below) building face building building orientation) face5 Monument 1 sq. ft. per 20 ft. None 1 per street 1 sign per sign linear ft. of frontage street street frontage frontage Pole sign 1 sq. ft. per 45 ft. None, but 1 per street linear ft. of shall not frontage street extend frontage; 200 across a sq. ft. property line411 Planning Commission Meeting 2 maximum for• a single business, 300 sq. ft. maximum for multiple businesses Projecting 125 sq. ft. (see note 1 6 ft. from 1 per street 1 sign per building sign per side; 250 below) (see face of frontage street sq. ft. total subsection building but (see frontage A4b of this not within 2 subsection section) ft. of the A4b of this back of curb6 section) Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per public None business side; 18 sq. below) sign face of business storefront ft. total face limited building but entry to the sign to 4 ft. in not within 2 street height ft. of the back of curb6 Projecting 9 sq. ft. per (see note 1 4 ft. from 1 per None parking side; 18 sq. below) sign face of driveway or entry sign ft. total face limited building but parking lot to 4 ft. in not within 2 entry Ill height ft. of the back of curb6 Marquee Subject only See See 1 per None sign to subsection subsection subsection storefront 21A.46.0700 21A.46.0700 21A.46.0700 of this of this of this chapter chapter chapter Canopy, 40% of (see note 1 n/a 1 per None drive- canopy face below) canopy face through if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces Awning 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor storefront building but door/window (sign area not within 2 only) ft. from back of curb6 Canopy 1 sq. ft. per (see note 1 May extend 1 per first None • signs linear ft. of below) from face of floor Planning Commission Meeting 3 storefront building but building (sign area not within 2 entry only) 20 sq. ft. from back ft. maximum of curb6 per canopy Roof signs 4 sq. ft. per (see note 1 n/a 1 per street None linear ft. of below) frontage building face or 6 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building face on buildings taller than 100 ft. Corporate 32 sq. ft. (see 8 ft. from 1 per 50 ft. 2 per flag subsection face of of street street A4c of this building but frontage, 50 frontage section) not within 2 ft. minimum ft. of the street back of curb6 frontage required Construction 64 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign storefront • Political sign 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate 32 sq. ft. 8 ft. None 1 per street None sign frontage Private 8 sq. ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None directional sign New 200 sq. ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per street None development frontage sign Window sign 25% of total No limit n/a No limit None frontage window area per use Public safety 8 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. None No limit None sign Nameplate, 3 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. None 1 per None building building Outdoor 50 sq. ft. (see note 1 None 1 per None Television below) sign building monitora� face limited to 8 ft. in height Planning Commission Meeting 4 Notes: • 1. For height limits on building signs, see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs and Outdoor Television Monitors limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 7. Allowed in conjunction with television stations only and are allowed only if the building contains a permanent broadcast studio for the television station of at least fifteen thousand(15,000) square feet. Mr. Dansie said the City had tried in the past to define "brightness" and it has been very difficult. The statement in the ordinance therefore is not tied to a specific brightness defined by specific lumens. Sound is tied to the City and County Health Standards, which is generally 60 decibels in the daytime, at the property line, and not to be audible more than 50 feet away. The reason for the restriction to television stations with at least 15,000 square feet is so that there is a bonafide presence on-site before the City will give them an on-premise television sign. Historically, because of economic consideration, that has not been a problem for on-premise businesses. But monitors have a flexibility that normal on- IIpremise signs do not have. Mr. Chambless asked if this was a new precedent. Mr. Dansie said it was, but that the City had danced around the issue. For example, Salt Lake City does not allow animated signs. Mr. Chambless said that now with advances in pixel resolution we had a very sophisticated bill board. Mr. Dansie said that was one of the issues that resulted in the restriction to content that is generated onsite. It would be easy for the station to just sell time for infomercials and other off-premise advertisements. Mr. Chambless said that each half hour program averaged 6 to 7 minutes of advertising. Mr. Chambless asked about content and if it was a national programming NBC station. Mr. Dansie said it could apply to any television station, not just NBC, and that not all of the programming would be national. The news would be generated onsite. Mr. Chambless asked if Staff was concerned with national programming (quiz shows, soap operas, etc.) versus community standards. Mr. Dansie said yes, and that was why they had tied the definition to meeting FCC daytime standards. Mr. Chambless said people walking down the sidewalk could not turn off "The Young and the Restless." Mr. Dansie said that was one of the biggest complaints he had received. The complaints have been concerned about sexual content, violence and politics. Mr. Chambless said noise pollution was an issue. He wondered if there would be visual pollution as well. Mr. Dansie said that was an issue for the Commission to • consider about whether it is an enhancement to the activity level or a distraction. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting 5 Chambless felt that the brightly lit Ginza in Tokyo in many ways was neon pollution. Mr. Dansie said in many ways this was a subjective call. III Ms. Seelig asked if the television would be on 24/7. Mr. Dansie said yes. Ms. Seelig asked if an infomercial was shown as regular programming on the station, it would be shown on the street as well. Mr. Dansie said that it would, as long as it met FCC standards. Ms. Seelig asked Mr. Dansie to identify the residential and hotel areas around the proposed television site. She asked what other residential uses occur in D- 1 and D-4 districts. Mr. Dansie had mentioned the Hotel Monaco and American Towers. The two zoning districts allow both residential and hotels. The Marriott Hotel is on the Gallivan Center block, as well as the condominiums on top of the Brooks Arcade. KSL has a broadcast house on South Temple and Third West and would have the same opportunity for a television. The closest housing to that would be in Capitol Hill or the Gateway. Mr. Muir said there were residential units in the Lollin and Karrick buildings as well. Mr. Jonas asked for clarification on Note 7. He asked if the studio itself had to be 15,000 square feet. Mr. Dansie said the presence on the site had to be 15,000 square feet. If another station moved into Downtown, set up a studio and had at least 15,000 square feet, they would qualify. Mr. Jonas asked if a company owned both radio and television stations, if they could put a camera in their radio station as long as it was 15,000 square feet and qualify. Mr. Dansie said that was another grey area they had been dealing with. But the authorization in the zoning ordinance only applied to television stations, not radio. • Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to speak. None were forthcoming. Mr. Jonas then invited anyone from the general public to speak. Mr. Steve Sharlian, News Director at KUTV, spoke next. He showed the Commission some site design plans. He hoped to use the programming as a means to generate more people downtown to Main Street. They wish to take a lot of their shows out to the sidewalk and involve the community. They do not intend to use it for commercial purposes and would not sell time specifically. Primarily what they would put there would be community service issues. The do not intend to display anything offensive. They would be able to broadcast some events from the Gallivan Center. They want to invite the community to take part in their morning show and put up their weather forecasts. From an audio standpoint, the majority of the use of the monitor would be without audio. They would use textual subtitles for their news broadcasts. From time to time they would us low audio to meet the City decibel requirements. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Sharlian to go through his site plan. Mr. Lyle Beecher, Beecher, Walker and Associates, 3115 East Lion Lane, Holladay, Utah, responded. He is the architect of record for the project. He showed the Commission design plans for both inside and outside of the station, including where the news station and monitor would be located. The size of the monitor is 4 foot 6 inches by 8 foot 6 inches, so that it falls • within the 50 square foot limitation. Planning Commission Meeting 6 • Mr. Muir complimented KUTV for making the investment downtown. He hoped for a lot of catalytic spin off and economic development in the neighborhood, and thought KUTV was a great anchor for that block. He asked if KUTV was ok with the conditions imposed by the Planning Staff. Mr. Sharlian said they were fine with the requirements. Mr. Daniels asked why KUTV wanted to put a television monitor on Main Street. He felt that KUTV had other things in mind rather than just showing Channel 2 shows. He mentioned live shots and people on the street and Gallivan Center concerts. He felt it was going to be more of an attraction than a television show. He wanted to know what kind of programming they could really expect. Mr. Sharlian said he guaranteed seven hours of news programming. Their prime focus is to inform the public. In between, some programming and other times weather live shots. Amber Alerts would be put up for as long as the Amber Alert existed. The television needs to be a part of the community. During the NCAA tournament, he wanted to put the daytime games on the monitor. It will be a mixture of programming. There would be commercials during the newscast. They will not specifically sell commercial time as an electronic billboard. Mr. Jonas asked if KUTV was not troubled by the language of the ordinance that says the material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed, and also that the material displayed must be the same information that is simultaneously broadcast to the general public. Mr. Sharlian interpreted that to mean generated from the television station. If it was a program or a piece of video generated from the • program, that was how he interpreted it. Mr. Jonas said that needed to be clarified, because that was not how he read it. Ms. Seelig expressed confusion about what the public would be seeing on the monitor. Mr. Sharlian said some of the wording needed to be looked at. Mr. Chambless asked about political ads. He asked if KUTV intended to buy and air political ads on the large screen. Mr. Sharlian said there would be no selling of any time on that specific sign. Mr. Chambless asked if the audio would be inaudible. Mr. Sharlian said there would be an option for audio, but it would not be at a high level. Mr. Chambless said commercials were higher volume. Mr. Sharlian said that would be monitored and it would not be noticeable past a 10 to 20 foot distance. Mr. Chambless asked if the station could blank out political ads. Mr. Sharlian said that would take an entire production crew to control it, and they could not do that type of investment. Mr. Chambless then clarified that the television screen would be 4.5 feet by 8.5 feet. Mr. Beecher said that was the intention. Ms. Karen Tusher spoke next. She said our children need to come first and there was no way to make sure that inappropriate images on the screen could be averted. There is much in daytime programming that is inappropriate for children. Ms. Barbara Simmons spoke next. She is a school teacher who believes that children • are our most precious commodity in the State and need to be protected at all costs. KUTV ran the Victoria's Secret program and said they could not change it because it Planning Commission Meeting 7 was national programming. Later Ms. Simmons discovered that stations in other communities did not run it. Children need to be protected from vision pollution. She III felt the station had did have enough resources to pay for a production crew to run switchers to block out inappropriate images. Mr. Boyd Hawkins, attorney for Bonneville International Corporation operating KSL radio and television, spoke next. KSL supports the idea of allowing television monitors in the downtown area. The presence of monitors would enliven the shopping, dining and work experience of residents and visitors alike. KSL is concerned that one aspect of the ordinance is overly restrictive —that is the condition that the monitors be limited to a building which contains a permanent television studio of at least 15,000 square feet. That provision will likely only allow one media outlet to place a monitor downtown. The public will only have access to one source of news and information, the City will appear to be favoring one media source and the media outlets not located downtown will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. KSL requests the proposal be amended to allow any newspaper, radio, or television station which has Salt Lake City as its primary market to locate a television monitor downtown in a manner consistent with the ordinance. The content of programming has gotten significantly more risque over time. Mr. Hawkins suggested that a solution to that would be to limit what is shown on the monitor to news and public affairs programming, or to limit it to locally produced news and information. Mr. Jonas said Mr. Hawkins wanted on the one hand news or public affairs shows, and on the other hand he was making a call for any newspaper, radio or television station • with the Salt Lake market to have monitors. Radio stations and newspapers have nothing to broadcast visually. Mr. Hawkins said the trend over the last ten years in the broadcasting industry has been consolidation. Most television stations are actively seeking to align themselves with other media outlets. He wants monitors that are not limited to the home of the television station. Mr. Jonas asked why KSL would not fit the criteria. Mr. Hawkins said they fit the criteria of the ordinance, but the station was in the Triad Center, which was not the best location for a monitor. Ms. McDonough asked if KSL's facility was over 15,000 square feet. Mr. Hawkins said yes. Ms. Mary Anne Rice Miner, 710 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, spoke next. She likes to watch CNN at the post office. She thinks it is a great idea to have a monitor downtown to watch the news. It is too bad that KSL did not think of it first, but it is a competitive business. She thought most children are not downtown during the daytime to worry about seeing soap operas. All types of media, except maybe the newspaper are risque these days. Mr. Jonas closed the hearing to the public and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. • Planning Commission Meeting 8 Ms. Arnold said she thought it Mr. Hawkins from KSL had a good idea about constant • news. She felt that the people who spoke from Channel 2 seemed to be in conflict with what was written in the staff report. Rather than Channel 2 "doing their own thing", she supported the idea of constant news. The recommendation from staff is that normal programming is required during the day. Mr. Muir felt that what Channel 2 was proposing was actually an improvement over what is written in the ordinance. In lieu of midday soap opera simultaneous broadcast, Channel 2 would put public service spots or the weather or news. Mr. Muir wondered if the language of the proposed ordinance could be tweaked a bit to incorporate that idea. Mr. Dansie said he understood that the station would be out doing concerts and live interviews on the sidewalk, but if the station is broadcasting a live concert on the Plaza as long as it is the same thing being shown in on television in other locations, it is consistent with the ordinance. The City does not want to get into the "content" business. That is why it required simultaneous broadcasting. Mr. Muir asked if they could impose a management plan that is reviewed and renewed on an annual basis. It would give the Planning Staff an opportunity to respond to some of the programming that may be sensitive. Mr. Jonas said enforcement people like other television stations and the public at large would be calling the City about any objectionable material. Mr. Jonas also liked the idea of constant news and public affairs programming, as well as sports. • Ms. Seelig was wary of talking about any sort of content. News may be appropriate for some, but to others it is political propaganda. She appreciated Mr. Hawkins' comments about other media outlets. She felt that if this was a policy that is attempting to enliven and open up the downtown area, it should be opened up to radio and everyone else. If the City does not do that, it is tailor making a decision for one particular corporation and company. She expressed some concern about visual clutter in the downtown area. Mr. Muir said the Commission needed to look at the issue in context. The media board was viewed as an extension of the glassed in studio to create a more interactive environment. He did not believe it should be viewed as a billboard or advertising issue. Mr. Dansie addressed the concern about favoring one business over another. As long as it is defined between on premise and off premise signage, where the business is located will inherently favor one location over another. Mr. Jonas asked how Staff arrived at the 15,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Dansie said it was a moderate size and he knew it would accommodate the existing television stations. They did not want it to be so small that someone could set up a satellite token studio. Mr. Chambless asked if Staff envisioned any other sites downtown for viewing areas IP for television stations. Mr. Dansie said this applied to all D-1 and D-4 zoning districts which goes from South Temple to 600 South and from 200 East to 400 West. KSL and Planning Commission Meeting 9 KUTV do business in that area. KJAZZ has some production studios in the Delta Center. Originally, Staff discussed the possibility of having television monitors in other zoning districts where televisions were allowed. However, this is an attempt to enliven the downtown area. Mr. Chambless said during the Olympics entire buildings were covered with images. He wondered if large visual screens could be a possibility in the future. Mr. Dansie said the technology exists. There was a lot of pressure during the Olympics to have commercial content on the images. The City resisted so that it would not be sued by any billboard companies and so that a precedent would not be set. That is why the proposed ordinance is rather "hemmed in". Ms. McDonough asked how the ordinance interacted with properties that front State highways such as State Street. Mr. Dansie said it applies to any building in the D-1 or D-4 zoning district. It makes no distinction between road classifications. Ms. McDonough asked if UDOT may have another ordinance that might not allow or trump the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said he did not know of any, but that issue had not been explored fully. Bus benches with advertising are deemed as billboards by the State so they have to meet State law in terms of spacing. Mr. Jonas said Staff had done a good job in reducing the size of the monitor to 50 square feet. He said that what potentially could happen in the Gateway area may make it as walkable as Main Street. Mr. Daniels asked if Staff saw anything problematic about deleting the phraseology that limits the television studios to 15,000 square feet. Mr. Dansie said it was admittedly arbitrary, because there are no other standards to directly tie it to but that yes, he did see a problem with eliminating it all together. There is a grey area of what is on premise and what is off premise. Staff wanted a minimum criteria that there needed to be a very bonafide presence on the site before you could apply for a monitor. Mr. Daniels said some very small stations were still very powerful and reputable. Mr. Dansie said that was true, but that even with Broadcast Power a distinction needed to be made between a bonafide television station and a business using the frequency as an exclusive for an electronic off-premise billboard. Mr. Jonas said the City was trying to create an incentive for television stations to locate in a D-1 downtown district. He felt a size limit of 15,000 square feet was reasonable. Mr. Dansie said the City already differentiates based on use. Ms. McDonough asked if Mr. Dansie recognized the different interpretations heard tonight on what "simultaneous broadcast" means. She had interpreted it quite literally, and wondered if it needed to be explained further in the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said he understood it to mean that if you were standing on Main Street watching television it should be the same image that you are getting in your living room in any other community in the viewing area simultaneously. That is the intent of the ordinance. 11111 Planning Commission Meeting 10 Mr. Jonas asked what Mr. Dansie would suggest if the Commission felt more • comfortable with restricting programming to news and public affairs or other local programming. Mr. Dansie said again that the City wished to stay away from legislating content as much as possible. It would have to get much more elaborate about explaining what is public service, news, public affairs, etc. There is a lot of grey area around every definition. Motion Mr. Muir moved that in the case of Petition 400-03-09 the Commission approve, based upon the findings of fact, a positive recommendation to the City Council for the ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings hosting television stations in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts, with the adjustment to the language of the ordinance found on paragraph 21A.62.040 entitled "Outdoor Television Monitor". The second sentence shall be changed to read, "The material displayed shall be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports, and/or public affairs broadcasts, and shall not be in conflict with Federal Communication's Commission (FCC) Community Standards that apply to broadcasts from the television station between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight (regardless of the time of day that such material is displayed on the Outdoor Television Monitor." The third sentence shall be changed to read, "The material displayed must be the television station's primary broadcast feed or rebroadcast news, sports, and/or public affairs broadcasts to the general public (except between the hours of 12 Midnight and 6AM, where daytime • programming, consistent with Community Standards, may be substituted)." Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond asked if that would allow the station to do some of the community things they were describing. Mr. Muir said that was the intent. Mr. Jonas called for the vote. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Scott voted "Aye". Ms. Seelig voted "Nay". Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Findings of Fact: 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: The limited use of television monitors as signs to highlight the activity generated by an active television station is consistent with the general plans of Salt Lake City G. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of • existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Planning Commission Meeting 11 Findings: Limited use of television monitors for specialized purposes may add vitality to the Downtown area by encouraging interactive activity in the Downtown area. H. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The proposed amendment is written to minimize impact on adjacent properties. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Findings: Any potential impact on overlay districts is minimal or non-existent. J. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Findings: Not Applicable This hearing ended at 7:31 p.m. • • Planning Commission Meeting 12 • 5 Original Petition • • PETITION NO. ` ; O -a -0 7 • PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required Petition delivered to Planning Petition assigned to: (.1)0140 Q n S l e _/ ` (-9Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 1,1 Chronology ' '- "'; Property Description (marked with a post it note) /V - ` )A- Affected Sidwell Numbers Included • 6/74 i5 _ Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils tl ;- Mailing Postmark Date Verification Planning Commission Minutes (r)'2 `:.' 5 Lit-) Planning Staff Report J� z) = ! ) Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. r 0, r-113 Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office if f f ,� - Ordinance property description is checked, dated and � P P Y P initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. -1:11 )::1 ? Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition O Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office la f� ip and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Muir was recused and not present. Chair Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Muir returned to the meeting. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES Chair Jonas called for comments on the summary of the Planning Commission retreat contained in the staff report. Ms. Seelig noted that the Staff had asked for feedback on the retreat from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde asked if the Planning Commission would consider a lunch meeting with Lynn Pace to discuss policy and procedures and the retreat issues at the same time. Chair Jonas favored discussing the retreat summary at a lunch meeting rather than this evening. He commended whomever was responsible for having Lynn Pace attend the last meeting. He stated that Mr. Pace's presence was helpful, and he would like him to attend future meetings as often as possible. The Commissioners concurred with having a lunch meeting. Mr. Wilde offered to coordinate a date and place. Mr. Daniels suggested that the Commissioners consider meeting mid-morning on a Saturday. The Commissioners did not favor a Saturday meeting and preferred to meet for lunch. Planning Director Louis Zunguze announced that the City Council has retained Frank Gray to work with the City on the walkable communities ordinance. Mr. Gray will be in town March 25, 26, and 27 and he would like to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their concerns and hear their feedback. Mr. Zunguze suggested a lunch meeting on March 25 or March 26. Mr. Zunguze noted that the City is receiving an increasing number of requests for street banners. In the past, the administration, through the Mayor, executed executive orders authorizing street banners. Mr. Zunguze suggested considering a more holistic approach. He noted that a section in the zoning ordinance addresses banners but is not comprehensive. He requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for the staff to study this issue and initiate proper changes to the ordinance. Chair Jonas agreed to initiate the petition requested by Mr. Zunguze. Mr. Wilde noted that on December 5 the Planning Commission initiated a petition to consider modifying the sign ordinance to look at off-premise and animated signs downtown and along ipviain Street. KUTV Channel 2 is one of the parties interested in such an animated sign, and as staff puts this together, he suggested that they consider the option to allow the sign Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 12,2003 amendments in all districts that allow for television stations. The Commission agreed to -_ broaden the scope of analysis as requested by Mr. Wilde. • Cheri Coffey commented on the Envision Utah Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan. She stated that there are many stakeholders involved, and representatives from the airport and Planning Division attend the meetings to listen to what is being discussed. A lot of environmental research is being done, and the Staff hopes to use much of that background data to reduce costs for the proposed Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. The draft regional master plan should be completed by June, followed by a specific area management plan focusing on what the Shorelands Plan looks at in terms of developable area. Additional environmental research will be needed to get a general permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Coffey remarked that the City Administration and the City Council want to complete their own plan taking into consideration the interests of Salt Lake City. She hoped funding would be allocated so Salt Lake City could to use the information from the Shorelands Plan and move forward with a Northwest Quadrant Plan. Ms. Coffey commented on the Performance Zoning Information Study. She stated that a grant was received from the Quality Growth Commission, and the City must produce a draft ordinance for them by the end of February. They have worked with a consultant and have a draft zone 1111 that can be presented to the Quality Growth Commission. Whether Salt Lake City will adopt performance zoning is still unknown. After the draft zone is presented to the Quality Growth Commission, the staff will present the information to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine whether performance zoning is a feasible tool for the City. Ms. Coffey noted that the remainder of the long range planning projects are master plans that are currently in process. Ms. Arnold asked about the Yalecrest neighborhood compatibility study and whether any deadlines had been set. Ms. Coffey replied that Joel Patterson has been working with the neighborhood, and they are still in the process of deciding what they want the regulations for neighborhood to be. Ms. Arnold stressed the importance of setting a deadline. Mr. Zunguze offered to meet with the Staff to see if there is some consensus and enough information to move forward. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Coffey for her viewpoint on working with community councils and their feedback on processes. Ms. Coffey replied that the Staff is working on a community council Planning Commission Meeting 8 February 12,2003 REMARKS Petition No. 400-03-09 By Planning Commisssion Is requesting a petition to look at off-premise and animated signs in all districts that allow television stations. Date Filed Address i • r • Resolution 19 of 2003/authorizing loan to KUTV Holdings to relocate television studio to Main St. RESOLUTION NO. 19 OF 2003 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.4 OF 2003 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO KUTV HOLDINGS,INC. FOR THE RELOCATION OF KUTV'S TELEVISION STUDIO TO DOWNTOWN'S MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has funds available to stimulate business development and expansion, encourage private investment,and promote economic development;and WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors has adopted Resolution No. 550.04 approving terms of a loan to Tower Group Holdings,L.L.C.of$2.8 million for building renovation: and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to amend the terms of the loan it previously approved to VIACOM Inc./KUTV; THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,that Resolution No.4 of 2003 be,and is hereby,amended to read as follows: • 1. The City Council does hereby approve a loan in the amount of$1.2 million from Salt Lake City to KUTV Holdings,Inc.to purchase equipment needed for the relocation of KUTV to 299 South Main Street,Salt Lake City,Utah. 2. The loan shall be at zero percent interest for fifteen years. $500,000.00 of the loan shall be repaid with annual cash payments of$33,333.34. $700,000.00 of the loan shall be repaid in the form of in-kind services to provide promotional campaigns for the downtown area of Salt Lake City. The in-kind payments shall be made until the$700,000.00 in-kind portion of the debt is repaid. There shall be no maximum amount of the in-kind portion of the debt that may be repaid annually. A schedule establishing the minimum amount and the nature of in-kind services to be repaid shall be determined every six months between the City and KUTV,with annual review and comment by the City Council,so long as an in-kind balance remains due. Because it is in both parties' best interests that the in-kind portion be repaid quickly,every effort shall be made to accommodate each party's needs. In the event that proposals are made by either party,but no agreement is reached for two consecutive six month periods,the matter shall be submitted to a third party mediator for non-binding mediation.The costs of retaining the mediator shall be equally borne by the parties.If no agreement is reached after such non-binding mediation,the City's proposal shall be given preference,provided that in no event shall KUTV be required,against its wishes,to provide more than the cash equivalent of$33,333.34 in-kind per year. The cash equivalent of any unpaid balance of the in-kind portion of the loan remaining as of the expiration of the said fifteen year term shall be due and payable upon default or at the expiration of the said fifteen year term,whichever shall first occur,in addition to any outstanding balance due on the$500,000.00 cash portion of the loan. KUTV's in-kind services shall not include any charge for production costs,except for direct out-of-pocket costs,and KUTV shall agree to run downtown • 1 promotional spots at two-for-the-price-of-one on the C card rate,the station's current lowest rate,or • on the station's then lowest rate when the spots are run. So long as the annual minimum in kind services are paid by KUTV as provided herein, said services shall be made on a time available basis such that the City shall not have priority over KUTV's regular customers. Should the KUTV Television Studio move out of the building at 299 South Main Street or should CBS Television Stations,Inc.cease operating a television station in that building,the balance of the loan, including the balance of the cash owed and the cash equivalent of the balance of in-kind services still owed,shall be immediately due and payable. All payments shall be applied first to late fees,then to service fees,then to interest, if applicable,and then to principal. The loan shall be secured by a first lien on the equipment purchased with the loan proceeds and by a corporate guaranty of CBS Television Stations,Inc. 3. Ross C.Anderson,Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 13th day of May,2003. • 2 • • • III I [ 1 N ,-' 1H •,,,, la H \ , \ 1 '.' (7, , = __, _ z-. J. , 0 ,T 1 \ \ z , ,,. 1 z , _ . 1 .g. 1 ...- 4.e ' g „ rrl § rn < > —I 0 Z \ \ \ \ 0 I 1 -,,\\ . I a \ 1 \ \ \' \ \ _ 0 t , i \ . o o g ., 6' • . tt iligr-;, . . .- t, .. ..,,,,„, •-" 11 11111111611111111 - 1,:—- . i •fit ,_ HIE I. - ft i __ t=. r'll "-- ...:ammir- 1 ...,1* -.- 4 ip -----.7er-A----- - -------- . '--- • . // / / r..'• Xs% ••1201:1 .i. . .., .:. ... va, ., il ' am !II • : \ \ \ \\ NI ..___.1 Ill 1-• at i,.. --/:,.. •••• •;*• ....iii4; ,--,..=;.. '. u 41;\‘ •iv4 ?....-• --k • i g F4, ,-, = 1 \\ \ \ \ \ \ ,,,,V,,,_ 14- .. 1 ,-J ; ,s1,r,-;; .mit 01 g ; g -t , 0 -.' icz,r1..J.:,;;O: , • • M ap • - - • "- ffl--11'^ • \ 1 Z Mak ti•-•:". (_,'•,% - Cr> e• 44:*Ai, 4C:) .4i. , 0) - sT;r:4," -.:i.. itilifilh _ . -4 —13 I 1 . i —CI -A i C4 _ r 4 -14.1,41 or-LI ,, .-- ,, 1 I t1 • i 1 . ILt1•II:Or, .. :-i—il. lir MI ° Channel 2 299 South Main Street, 1st Floor Lake Cit,Utah .,,,,1/4.„501. fiBEECHER 1>WALKER & ASSOCIATES ' kl., -lecdarawatnas Salt 1......, REVISIONS -71- 4 • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Questions Pertaining to Request for Zoning Ordinance Text Change CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze,Gary Mumford,Joel Paterson,Janice Jardine ISSUE A company has filed an application with the Salt Lake City Planning Division to change the text of Section 21A.31.020 to include"Department Stores"as a permitted use in the Gateway Mixed-Use District.The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the application August 27. If the Planning Commission adopts a motion to recommend the text change the City Council may wish to include questions and items listed below in its consideration of the application.The questions and items listed are broken down into four categories:Zoning Ordinance,Gateway • Master Plan and Other Plans,Economic Effects,and Policy.They may be considered subsets of one overarching question: What better serves the public interest—to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow "Department Stores"in the Gateway Mixed-Use District or to leave the Zoning Ordinance as is? A copy of the application is attached to this memorandum. ZONING ORDINANCE The application appears to request that the text change allow department stores as a permitted use in the Gateway Mixed Use Zoning District.If the text change is adopted,what effect, if any,would it have on the following sections of 21 A.31.020: 21A.31.020.A Purpose Statement:The G-MU Mixed-Use District is intended to implement the objectives of the adopted Gateway Development Master Plan and encourage the mixture of residential,commercial and industrial assembly uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere. The 200 South corridor is intended to encourage neighborhood commercial and the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North Temple to 400 South. 21A.31.020.0 Planned Development Review:All new construction of principal buildings,uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent(25%)in the G-MU Mixed-Use District may be approved only as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. 1111 21A.31.020.D.2 Residential Units,500 West:Buildings fronting on 500 West shall be required to have residential units occupying a minimum of fifty percent(50%)of the structure's • gross square footage. The Zoning Ordinance allows department stores in the following zoning districts: Community Shopping(CS),Central Business District(D-1),Downtown Support District(D-2), and Sugar House Business District(CSHBD). The Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050 titled Standards for General Amendments, says: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard.However,in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment,the City Council should consider the following factors: A.Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City; B.Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; C.The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties; D.Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards;and E.The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. GATEWAY MASTER PLAN AND OTHER PLANS Council staff has attached a summary of master plans originally prepared for the City Council's discussions during the development of its Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown.The summary contains elements of the Gateway Specific Plan that pertain to the current discussion. ECONOMIC EFFECTS • What effect would the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment have on the traditional Central Business District? • If the text amendment were not adopted,what would be the effect to Gateway area businesses? • What effect might the proposed text amendment have on the Wal-Mart project on 1300 South and 300 West streets? • Would the contemplated department store include a grocery store? • Would traffic generated by the contemplated department store require the reconfiguration of public streets or transportation systems? • If an anchor retail department store moves from the Central Business District to the Gateway Mixed-Use District what would be the economic effect of the move? • If an anchor retail department store left the City completely, how certain is it that another tenant could replace it and how soon could the City expect that tenant to locate in the vacant space? 4111 2 • In an earlier study pertaining to the City Council's consideration a department store's relocation,Rick Giardina&Associates performed an economic study. Due to time limitations, questions the company did not answer in the study were: • Given the experience of other cities,what is the likelihood that another major retail store would move in to replace a departing anchor retail store? • How many tenants in one of the downtown malls have tied their leases to the continued presence of the anchor retail store?What is the potential economic impact of that?Given the experience in other communities,what is the likelihood that other mall tenants would leave and go to the Gateway District if the anchor retail tenant left? • If an anchor retail tenant moved to Gateway,what would be the economic impact on the Gateway retail area?Is it essential for the Gateway retail area to have an anchor retailer to succeed? Would the City Council wish to have Giardina&Associates or another firm answer those questions before making a decision? Policy Questions • Would amending the Zoning Ordinance permit department stores throughout the 650-acre Gateway area,or could it be limited to a single area contained within the Gateway Master Plan? • • Would amending the Zoning Ordinance allow an anchor retail department store to relocate from the Central Business District to the Gateway Mixed-Use District? • What has happened to warrant amending the Zoning Ordinance? • How significant a change could be created if the Zoning Ordinance is amended? • How would amending the Zoning Ordinance relate to the Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown which says in part:"The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our-downtown commercial, tourist,and convention activity.To encourage the relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key"anchors"away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown,including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city." • Is the proposed amendment consistent with adopted master plans? • Can the amendment be viewed as"economic planning"done within the context of existing master plans? • Can the amendment be viewed as permitting a land use at cross-purposes with existing master plans? • According to the Gateway Master Plan and Gateway Specific Plan,the Gateway District is intended to complement the Central Business District.If the Zoning Ordinance is amended,should those plans and the Downtown Master Plan be reviewed and revised to identify goals and land uses in the Central Business District and Gateway Mixed Use District that combine the three plans into a larger whole? • Are there other zoning districts in the City where department stores are not a permitted use now where they could be permitted in the future? 3 • Can the City's utilities and transportation infrastructure absorb new buildings and traffid created by amending the Zoning Ordinance,or will there be a public cost to bear? • • Is there a fiduciary responsibility to Salt Lake City residents and businesses to amend the Zoning Ordinance? • Is there a fiduciary responsibility to Salt Lake City residents and businesses not to amend the Zoning Ordinance? PROCESS City Council Members Eric Jergensen and Nancy Saxton have raised individually ideas regarding the approach the City Council could take to review the issue. Their ideas,and ideas mentioned by others, include but are not limited to: • Review the City's redevelopment efforts to identify the most effective use of funds. Consider options to mitigate downtown construction impacts. • Encourage property owners and developers to meet to establish an approach that maximizes the likelihood that both Main Street and Gateway succeed. • Establish a process with the public and stakeholders to establish an approach that maximizes the likelihood that both Main Street and Gateway succeed. • Obtain additional data regarding economic opportunities including retail,office and residential absorption rates. • Reopen the Downtown Master Plan. • Focus on the City Council's Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown as a context within which to review this issue. 111) 4 N. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY . v:' "�_ .. ,J a Petition No: = __ .-.SI _.� :.i -_� 1 Zoning Amendment Receipt - 1 ,. P Nor Amafnt Y i I �. ! I Date:Received - ;' -' Revie," aEey== - - ^w.i.„.«v" i `, ,' Address of Subject Property North Temple to 1st South; 4th West to 5th West L Name of Applicant Gateway Associates. Ltd. Phone 521-4781 i Address of Applicant 90 South 400 West, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 E-mail address of Applicant iboyer@boyercompany.com Cell/Fax 244-1261 (c) 366-7176 (f) ; �71 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property Owner fl r Name of Property Owner Salle as Applicant Phone Same as above z tee:.... 1 -``` " County Tax Parcel#(Sidwell#) See Exhibit B Zoning of Property G-NH I Gat-ewa y_Mi xed Use Existing Use of Property Nixed use: coiercial, residential. cultural, and office :• 'Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: (attach map or legal description). } ❑Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: L 21A.31.050 CSC- CIA;b= 'A`) ''s" From a classification to a classification. 1 1 Please include with the application: ," 1.A statement of the text amendment or mapamendment describingthe pu rpose K J; p rpose for the amendment and the -1 exact language,boundaries and zoning district. s ` 41 2.A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 4i t ly f`f � 3.Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. 0,4� 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450)feet of the subject parcel.The .,,' ;_ name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed P- '" mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. The cost of first class s�, ; postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. p 5.Legal description of the property. 7. A signed Ten(10)copies of site plans drawn to scale. 1 �»,,,�;_ �� statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community 1: ,.:.t Council. - supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator.., ''.' 8.Related materials or data Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre is due at the time of application. ' ' If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of =' '. s the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. -,_ ;_�l Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 k4.,_ ,.. Telephone:(801)468-3391 f i'-,. :f File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 1 rt''. T 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake Gty, UT 84111 - Telephone:(801)535-7757 0 7 ih ' : Signature of Applican am 1v10 441 G !a-., .x r:,,., or authorized agent of nt / 05/30(2003 Date to!y i 1 3 EXHIBIT A TO • APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT 1. The Applicant requests that Section 21A.31.050 of the Zoning Ordinance of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Code") be amended to allow "department store" as a Permitted Use. The purpose of the requested amendment is to expand the type of retail establishments allowed in the G-MU Gateway- Mixed Use District (the "GMUD")to include "department store" as defined in Section 21A.62.040 of the Code. The Code defines "department store" as "a store offering a range of goods displayed within separate sections of the store, which are known as departments. The range of goods sold usually includes apparel, appliances, automotive goods, housewares and home furnishings. Department stores also contain not less than one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of floor area." While the Applicant does not agree, the City Zoning Administrator has determined that this definition applies to large retail goods establishments such as Target, Walmart, Shopko and similar "big box" establishments, all of which are consistent with the purpose of the GMUD and Section 21A.31.010 (A) of the Code, which encourages the development of"urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses and high-density residential." Department stores are also consistent with other uses presently allowed in the GMUD as either Permitted or Conditional Uses, including retail goods establishments, retail services establishments, equipment rental, boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor), etc. Moreover, department stores would be supportive of the many residential and office uses allowed in the GMUD. 2. The requested amendment does not pertain to a particular parcel, but the contemplated permitted use would be for a department store containing not less than 100,000 square feet. 3. The present failure of the GMUD to allow "department store" as a permitted use is inconsistent with the GMUD's stated objective of creating a mixed-use zone and the development of"urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses and high-density residential." Department stores are the very type of retail use that is supportive of the high-density residential uses contemplated for the GMUD, in that department stores offer the residents of the GMUD an • , , opportunity to purchase a wide variety of goods from a single • establishment and retail vendor. 4. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and polices of the Gateway Development Master Plan, which is also focused on the development of an urban mixed-use neighborhood. 5. Allowing department stores as a permitted use in the GMUD will not adversely affect the properties within or adjoining the GMUD. The many review processes and design standards established in the GMUD assure the City's opportunity to carefully scrutinize each development application and already impose significant and substantive design, traffic and operational limitations on any application for development within the GMUD. 6. The Applicant is not aware of any limitations imposed by an overlay zone that are inconsistent with the requested amendment. • 7. Public services and facilities, as augmented by any specific project improvements required in construction of a particular use, are sufficient to support the establishment of department stores within the GMUD. • XH1f5 £7 The Boyer Company Gateway Tax Parcels Block A Parcel# Retail Unit 1 15-01-177-002 Retail Unit 2 15-01-177-003 Retail Unit 3 15-01-177-004 Retail Unit 4(Planetarium) 15-01-177-005 Office Unit 1 15-01-177-006 Block B Retail Unit 1 15-01-131-001 Retail Unit 2 15-01-131-002 Retail Unit 3 15-01-131-003 Retail Unit 4(Children's Museum) 15-01-131-004 Office Unit 1 15-01-131-005 Office Unit 2 15-01-131-006 Block C1 Retail Unit 15-01-185-001 Block C2 Retail Unit 1 15-01-130-001 • Block F Retail Space 08-36-376-016 Block F2 Retail Space 08-36-376-015 Lot 5 Vacant Ground 08-36-376-014 Lot 6 Vacant Ground 08-36-376-013 Lot 7 Vacant Ground 08-36-376-012 • Summaries of Downtown Plans Salt Lake City Downtown & Main Street Retail Strategy Study by Thomas Consultants—June 2000 Overview Over the past 30 years,downtown Salt Lake City,which was traditionally very strong, has primarily become a daytime workplace with the majority of retail activity migrating to suburban malls and town centers.Although downtown has strong anchor functions, such as ZCMI Mall, Crossroads Plaza,Temple Square, Salt Palace,Delta Center,civic arts/cultural facilities and hotels,there is no strategy that ties these strong anchors together. (Page 1-1.) Downtown Retail Challenges&Foundation—Throughout the strategy preparation process the following issues,challenges and ideas were identified and form the foundation for the strategy: • To establish a strong Downtown retail structure with linkages between anchor functions. • To incorporate more mixed-use activities, with street front retail at grade and hotels, offices or residential above. • To encourage opportunities for higher density downtown residences. • To reinforce exiting downtown retail business and attract retail activity that doesn't currently exist downtown. • • To encourage a mix of national retailers, restaurants and brand merchandise with local organic retailers and restaurants,to boost product legitimacy,acceptance and perception of value with the intent of improving commercial lease rates and property values. • To understand the role and function of the light rail transit and transportation improvements,and how these improvements could be exploited in creating points of difference for Main Street. • To propose a logical phasing strategy for the revitalization of Main Street that is founded on retail market principles and foster the necessary critical mass and synergy. • To recognize not only local resident and office patronage to Downtown, but also the opportunity to capture tourism/visitor patronage. • To learn from the success and failures experienced elsewhere in similar contexts, particularly downtown areas in transition. (Page 1-3.) Downtown Retail Study Area—Although a strong foundation for re-energization of Downtown retailing, Salt Lake City's features also identify the following challenges: • Light rail and wide streets present a challenge for retailing on both sides of Main Street. • Newer office buildings and banks occupy street front locations, fragmenting a continuous retail pattern. • Wide streets create a challenge for establishing a pedestrian-friendly retail setting. • There is no strong street front focal point or critical mass of activity,particularly along Main Street. (Page 2-3.) Retail Inventory—Excluding office uses (and 1.28 million square feet of retail in the • two malls),there are about 228,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space in the Main Street 1 study area of which about 118,900 square feet are vacant(52%) ... Potential retrofit of this street level frontage to accommodate retail, restaurant and entertainment uses could be important steps • in re-energizing Main Street. Additionally, there are a variety of emerging new retail functions directly west of Main Street along 200 South, 300 South and 400 South,primarily restaurants and bars. (Page 2-3.) Anchors—The distribution of anchor functions ... demonstrates that the majority of anchor functions are situated in the northern portion of Downtown. Other than hotels,there are a lack of sub-anchor components in the south and west portions of Downtown. The challenge for Salt Lake City is to create seamless linkages between these strong,but somewhat disconnected anchor functions. (Page 3-1.) Circulation—Consistent with the distribution of major anchors,the most intense pedestrian mobility routes are concentrated in the northern portion of Main Street.The following observations are: • Long blocks and wide streets create a challenge for achieving pedestrian-friendly linkages throughout Downtown. • Mid-block pedestrian linkages have evolved to provide pedestrian short cuts between blocks.For example,mid-block pedestrian routes are situated between 100 South to 200 South(between Main Street and South Temple.) • Mid-block crossing stimulate pedestrian movement between the two shopping malls and Temple Square. • The new light rail route brings people directly in and out of the Main Street core area.While dissecting Main Street in half,thereby complicating pedestrian mobility, light rail stations have reinforced some of the mid-block pedestrian crossings such as between the two malls and in front of the Wells Fargo Building. • Seamless pedestrian circulation throughout Main Street is complicated by a number of retail vacancies. As well,office uses and banks occupy key corner locations that could potentially accommodate retail anchoring functions. • The historic grid street pattern allows convenient vehicle access to Downtown, particularly from the south or east.North Temple Street,as well as the Interstate 15 on and off ramps are the primary linkages to the regional_transportation routes. • The existing wide road cross sections along Main Street,West Temple, 200 South, 300 South and 400 South pose a challenge for retail street activity on both sides of Main Street. • For many people, parking garages create the primary destination for their circulation pattern. Whether people are going to or from work, shopping, dining out, entertainment, or to one of the anchor facilities,they must park and then walk to their destinations. • Although there is considerable tourist and convention traffic moving between the Salt Palace Convention Center,Temple Square and the various hotels in the south end of Downtown,most of this movement occurs on West Temple Street instead of Main Street. (Page 3-3) • Surface parking lots currently hinder seamless pedestrian circulation Downtown, but present and opportunity for potential infill development with retail at grade and mixed uses on upper floors. • 2 • The greatest opportunity along Main Street is to incorporate retail functions into • vacant street-level spaces,particularly on key corner locations, such as The Walker and Judge Buildings. (Page 3-4.) Activity Areas Contrary to the historic grid street layout,the pattern of land use appears to be on a diagonal orientation. In this regard,the following observations are made: • Temple Square/LDS Church dominates land use on the north end. • Hotels dominate land use on the south/southwest end. • Office uses are located on a diagonal from the Triad Center in the northwest end to the City&County Building in the southeast end. • Emerging mixed-use developments are situated on the west/southwest end. • Retail,restaurant and entertainment uses are situated in an L-shape configuration along Main Street and along 300 South in three distinct precincts: 1. Crossroads Plaza/ZCMI shopping district. 2. Main Street shopping district from 100 South to 300 South. (Key.) 3. Culture, entertainment, and restaurant precinct in the vicinity of 300 South. The various activity areas reflect a specific time orientation,divided between day and evening hours. For example,the Temple Square/LDS Church in the north end are family oriented occurring during the day. Similarly,the business-related office uses,which dominate the east end, also take place during the day. In contrast,the hotel, restaurant,entertainment and culture precincts to the south are primarily associated with evening/night activities.The emerging mixed-use precinct to the west, which has a growing full-time residential population, incorporates both day and evening activities. The Delta Center, representing the sports precinct, is a destination night and/or weekend activity node that is isolated from other downtown activity areas. The challenge for Downtown is to establish a balance of day and nighttime activities throughout all the precincts and to reinforce linkages and circulation between round-the-clock activity areas. (Page 3-7.) , Convergence Nodes Traditionally the optimal location for retail activities is at the intersection of two major streets. (Page 3-9.) Opportunities There are at least sixteen key corner locations within the Main Street study area that would be attractive for retail. Crossroads Plaza.and ZCMI Center combined create an established critical mass of retailing that could be used as the starting point for the re-energization of retail uses along Main Street. Although currently fragmented by street-level vacancies,there is a seamless and continuous building edge along Main Street, from 100 South to 200 South. • 3 There are a variety of existing entertainment venues scattered throughout Downtown. However, most of these are situated away from Main Street,with a concentration close to 300 • South/West Temple. New light rail stations provide the opportunity for clusters of retail activity. (Page 3-12.) Constraints • Many key corner sights along Main Street are currently occupied by office buildings and banks,only some of which may be conducive for converting to retail uses. • There is a lack of critical mass and seamless retail activity along Main Street. • There is a lack of seamless retail activity on both sides of the street along Main Street. • Clusters of retail space are somewhat separated and disconnected.This fragmentation is further amplified by the L-shaped distribution of retail activity between Main Street and 300 South,which does not easily facilitate continuous pedestrian circulation Downtown. • The Little America Hotel,the City&County Building,and the Moss Courthouse are the only anchors on the south end of the Main Street study area. • Existing entertainment venues such as Symphony Hall,the Delta Center,Rose Wagner Theater and the Crossroads Plaza Cinemas are fragmented with no formalized connections. • Wide street cross sections pose a challenge for retail activity on both sides of Main Street. • This circumstance is further amplified by the light rail line,which creates a perceived obstacle separating the two sides of Main Street. Based on the anchors, linkages, activity areas,convergence nodes,and opportunities/constraints,the foundation for a Downtown and Main Street retail plan is already apparent.The challenge is to fill in the gaps of this structure to create a viable and re-energized downtown retail environment, but introducing components and functions that do not currently exist. (Page 3-13.) Key Retail Issues Main Street faces a variety of retail issues that must be addressed to successfully revitalize the street. These issues are: Diverse Ownership—Cooperation and coordination between different owners in achieving common goals becomes more difficult due to a variety of property owner interests. Deep Units— Some street front retail units have larger than normal depths and are thus more difficult or awkward to use given the narrow and deep space configuration, making them less attractive as potential retail or restaurant units. Older Buildings—Many buildings may require façade upgrades or renovation to attract new tenants or owners, which may translate into significant costs to the owner. • 110 Wide Streets and Long Blocks—The wide street cross sections and long blocks further contribute to the difficulty in creating an optimal street with retail on both sides and reduce the level of"intimacy"for shoppers,pedestrians and visitors. Lack of Critical Mass—The absence of significant activities,particularly during evening hours fails to encourage pedestrian traffic or strolling. Fragmented uses such as shopping,restaurants and entertainment also contribute to the lack of a downtown focal point and street front retail critical mass. Low Lease Rates/High Vacancies—These circumstances project a relatively low profile and negative image for Main Street,which can further discourage potential new tenants and investors. Occupied Corner Sites—Office lobbies and banks occupy many key corner locations that could potentially be prime retail sites. However,in light of the noted challenges,the high degree of vacancy presents an opportunity for immediate action to introduce new retail functions that do not currently exist Downtown.In doing so, retail demand that is currently potentially out-flowing away from Downtown could be recaptured to again establish retail critical mass along Main Street. (Page 3- 14.) Retail Market Assessment • Salt Lake City has become one of the fastest growing retail markets in the nation. This market has been stimulated not only by the strong visitor/tourist market,but also by a growing local population.The key challenge for Downtown and Main Street retailing is to position itself to complement, rather than duplicate functions that already exist. (Page 4-1.) Retail Functions Supported by a daytime population of more than 150,000 in a relatively small area, coupled with a strong visitor market,Downtown Salt Lake City has the potential opportunity to create a destination shopping experience not available in the suburban areas:The Downtown area is comprised of the following major retail centers that possess a regional draw: Crossroads Playa, ZCMI Center,and Trolley Square. The centers and other retail/entertainment concentration areas such as 300/400 South in the vicinity of the city's Gateway area have developed a stronger destination appeal for locals and tourists compared to other retail areas located downtown such as Main Street. (Page 4-3.) Given that many tourist/visitor attractions and destinations are located in Downtown Salt Lake City, Downtown retailers are more likely to better accommodate the visitor market segment in comparison to suburban center rivals. (Page 4-3.) Crossroads Plaza and ZCMI Center represent the largest retail centers downtown and are relatively strong performers, achieving up to$350 per square foot. These centers have high national tenant representation, particularly in apparel. (Page 4-3.) Despite the strong presence of national tenants in the malls, Downtown's overall retail • functions are weak compared to their suburban counterparts.With the exceptions of Crossroads 5 Plaza,ZCMI Center, Trolley Square, and the emerging restaurant and entertainment precinct along 300 South/400 South, Downtown possesses no other significant retail and/or entertainment IP focal point or destination. (Page 4-4.) Main Street Retail Downtown's Main Street, characterized by low lease rates and high vacancies, is currently in a transition period. Current lease rates,between$12 and$16 per square foot a year or half the current lease at Crossroads Plaza,and 50 percent vacancy rate for street-level retail, reflects Main Street's overall lower retail site profile. Given this retail environment,higher profile tenants and/or national retailers have bypassed Main Street and have targeted shopping malls or specialty centers for new or alternative locations. Discussions with local commercial real estate brokers/realtors,local Main Street property owners, retailers and other stakeholders have identified the following issues that must be addressed to revitalize Downtown/Main Street: • Fragmented or disconnected retail functions. • Non-pedestrian friendly shopping environment. • Property owners are diverse(i.e. lack of cooperation and synergy in developing vision.) • Large land parcels are controlled by a small group of owners. • High property values Downtown are not balanced by current lease rates. • Poor parking availability. • Limited activity period Downtown,such as 9 a.m.to 5 p.m. (Page 4-4.) Retail Implications of Competitive Facilities •' Downtown Salt Lake City,particularly Main Street is challenged to transform its existing low profile retail image into a vibrant and activity filled shopping and entertainment environment. To successfully compete against regional mall and power center rivals in suburban locations, Downtown/Main Street must create a strong destination appeal for its retail functions,with convenient parking and access and a true Main Street experience that distinguishes it from the traditional regional centers found in suburbs. It is an opportune time for Downtown/Main Street to capitalize on the following: • Growing number of visitors and convention delegates. • Downtown office worker market segment. • Attracting suburban shoppers making downtown trips for reasons other than shopping or dining. In the case of Downtown Salt Lake City,the visitor retail opportunity goes unfulfilled due to the lack in variety of retail,dining and entertainment functions in proximity to the major visitor anchors in Downtown, including Temple Square,the Salt Palace Convention Center and various hotels. The role of the visitor will be of prime importance particularly during the Winter Olympic year,and the visitor legacy that is left by this international event. (4-11.) • 6 Main Street Retail Demand The Primary Trade Area"essentially encompasses Salt Lake City municipality and some of its immediate surrounds to the south."(Page 4-11.) In addition to the Primary Trade Area local population demand, in-flow assumptions were incorporated to recognize the considerable daily in-flow of downtown employees and tourists/visitors,who may not live within the Primary Trade Area. (4-11.) Trade Area Population—The Primary Trade Area represents about one quarter of Salt Lake County's population base. In 2000 there are about 230,000 people living within the Primary Trade Area. By 2010 this number will grow noticeably to almost 265,000,the equivalent of a 2 percent per year growth rate. In 2000,$1.71 billion in retail expenditure potential is generated by Primary Trade Area residents.If an average industry sales productivity figure of$330 square foot per year is applied (for all retail categories),this level of expenditure could potentially support up to 5.2 million square feet of retail. By 2010,Primary Trade Area residents'expenditure potential is projected to grow to an estimated$2.18 billion,an approximate 27 percent increase. If an average industry sales productivity figure of$383 per square foot per year is applied(for all retail categories),then this level of expenditure could potentially support up to 6.6 million square feet of retail. (4-13.) • Available Street Front Retail Space The inventory of available street front retail space within the Main Street concentration area indicates that,excluding the two downtown malls,there is about 109,700 square feet of street front space occupied by retail and restaurant uses. An additional 118,900 square feet is currently vacant and could accommodate new retail uses. Additionally, 163,100 square feet is occupied by ground floor office space, some of which potentially could be converted into retail space. These spaces are vital because they occupy key corner sites,which are optimal for anchor retail functions. (Page 7-1.) There is significant opportunity to infill vacant spaces between existing retailers with additional retail shops and restaurants.There also is a need to introduce new or better retail frontage opportunities on the ground floor of key office buildings, including Gateway East and West,the Utah One Center,the Wells Fargo Building, the Walker Building, and the Judge Building. (Page 7-5.) As indicated,there is a market demand opportunity to have 292,000 square feet of street front retail uses within the Main Street study area.This demand is above and beyond that which is already garnered by Crossroads Plaza and the ZCMI Center,as well as that anticipated to be captured by the proposed Gateway project on the west end of downtown. Recognizing that there is only about 109,700 square feet of occupied street front retail activity along Main Street,there is an opportunity to absorb 183,100 square feet of retail uses • immediately. This effectively could absorb all of the 118,900 square feet of vacant street front space immediately. However, it is more likely that a mix of filling vacant space and absorbing 7 new additional space is preferred to phase the allocation of demand along Main Street to stimulate critical mass. • Additionally, if all of the 118,900 square feet of vacant space were immediately filled, there would still be demand for an additional new 64,200 square feet.This additional space could be absorbed within ground floor space that is currently occupied by banks/offices or in new projects such as development of the southwest corner of 100 South and Main,the Howa parcel or the parcel directly south of the Monaco Hotel. Demand for street front retail space along Main Street could increase to 320,100 square feet by 2010, indicating the need for yet an additional new 27,300 square feet of retail functions. (Page 7-5.) Recommended Phasing Strategy A logical phasing strategy is one that is consistent with retail market demand over time and stimulates the necessary critical mass and synergy for initial stages by focusing activity. ... The phasing strategy exploits existing retail and visitor traffic that already exists at the north end of Main Street from South Temple to 100 South.The phasing then continues south along Main Street to 400 South. Although the retail market analysis ... demonstrates there is sufficient market demand to fill all the vacant retail space along Main Street ..., it is recommended that floor space be filled or added as per the Recommended Phasing Plan.This approach would facilitate the maturing of sales, lease rates, capitalized property value and retail quality over time for subsequent phases. The Phasing Strategy is intended to fill retail space at a rate that is consistent with market S° demands and facilitates: • Growth of potential retail sales. • Growth of potential retail sales tax revenues. • Re-enforcement and growth of Main Street lease rates. • Strengthening of capitalized property value. • Growth of potential Main Street property tax values. Phases • Phase 1: 2000 to 2001, South Temple to 100 South and E&H Property—60,000 square feet. • Phase 2: 2001 to 2002, 100 South to 200 South— 110,000 square feet. • Phase 3: 2002 to 2005,200 South to Market Street and Exchange Place—90,000 square feet. • Phase 4: 2005 to 2010,Market Street to 400 South—60,000 square feet. Each phase should include a mix of local and national branded retailers. Each phase should include at least two major retail or entertainment anchor functions to ensure traffic is generated. Each phase should involve a retail mix that approximately reflects the optimal mix identified in Section 7.4.1. • 8 Section 7.4.1 —Optimal Retail Mix Restaurants—30.9 percent. Entertainment— 15.7 percent. Apparel— 14.3 percent. Housewares/Home Furnishings—9.8 percent. Convenience Grocery—5.6 percent. Toys/Sporting Goods—5.4 percent. Specialty Retail—3.6 percent. Reading Materials—3 percent. Computers/Office Equipment—2.9 percent. Personal Services—2.7 percent. Alcohol&Tobacco—2.2 percent. Home Entertainment Equipment— 1.7 percent. Jewelry— 1.6 percent. Drugstore— 1 percent. Home Hardware—0.6 percent. Appliances&Equipment—0.4 percent. (Page 7-10.) Section 7.4.2—Anchor Retail Anchor is defined as retail stores that have a gross floor area of at least 12,000 square feet but not more than 40,000 square feet. Recommended locations for new Anchor Retail functions: • South Temple and Main Street on the ground floor of the Gateway West and East office • buildings. • 100 South and Main on each of the four corners. • Utah One Center ground floor fronting Main Street. • Wells Fargo Building ground floor fronting Main Street and at the corner of 300 South Main. To create destination appeal to a broad audience including local region-wide population, tourists/visitors and daytime employment,most Anchor Retail functions should be national or strong brand recognized retailers. In all cases, it is strongly recommended that Anchor Retail units must have their doors and window displays oriented to Main Street to facilitate interest and circulation on Main Street. (7-1 l.) Section 7.4.3—Street Front Retail Street Front Retail is defined as retail stores that have a gross floor area of less than 10,000 square feet and occupy the ground floor of buildings fronting onto Main Street. The optimal size for such retailers should be in the range of 2,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. To facilitate the retention and recruitment of smaller local retailers and preserve existing viable retail operations,the City may wish to consider store size limitations that designate some portions of Main Street only for retail units of less than 3,000 square feet. (Page 7-12.) 9 Street Front Retail Strategies by Block Main Street from South Temple to 100 South: 41111 • Externalize facades and frontage of Crossroads Plaza and ZCMI Center with various individual boutique store fronts. • Create perception of a"double-loaded"retail street setting. • Incorporate kiosks and vending carts on the sidewalk to fill void space and stimulate activity. • Incorporate outdoor seating for use by passers-by as wells as for adjacent restaurants,cafes and impulse food. 100 South from Main Street to West Temple • Externalize facades and frontage of Crossroads Plaza with various individual boutique store fronts. • Incorporate street front retail shops on the ground floor of the Marriott Hotel. • Incorporate street front shops as part of the ground floor of a potential retail development on the Zions Bank property. • Create perception of a"double-loaded"retail street setting. Main Street from 100 South to 200 South • Introduce a variety of smaller local and national brand retailers and restaurants with elaborate store fronts that spill into the street. • Typical Street Front Retail mix should be 60 percent to 80 percent local tenants • and 20 percent to 40 percent national tenants. • Create perception of a"double-loaded"continuous retail street setting by having shops and restaurants on both sides of the street. • Incorporate outdoor seating for use by adjacent restaurants,cafes and impulse food to create daytime and evening street activity. • Cluster outdoor seating areas and restaurants close to mid-block crossings to stimulate nodes of activity. • Introduce permanent take away coffee/food kiosk on the sidewalk in front of the bank building on the northwest corner of 200 South and Main Street. • Introduce mid-block access throats for entry to parking structure behind Main Street buildings such as the Walker Center Building,and for potential new retail entertainment projects such as within Block 69 (Zion's Bank corner). Main Street from 200 South to 300 South • Introduce a variety of local and national brand retailers and restaurants with elaborate store fronts that spill into the street. • Typical Street Front Retail mix of smaller retailers on the west side of Main Street should be 70 percent to 80 percent local tenants and 20 percent to 30 percent national tenants. • Create perception of a"double-loaded"retail setting by incorporating anchor Retail uses with externalized entrances and facades on east side of Main Street on the ground floor of Utah One Center and the Wells Fargo Building. • 10 • Introduce a permanent kiosk selling flowers and seasonal gifts on the sidewalk in front of the Utah One Center with merchandise spilling out throughout the sidewalk area. • Introduce mid-block access throats for entry to parking structures behind Main Street buildings and to Gallivan Plaza. • Cluster outdoor seating areas and restaurants close to mid-block crossings and at the Clift Building to stimulate nodes of activity. Main Street from 300 South to 400 South • Introduce a variety of smaller local and national brand retailer and restaurants with elaborate storefronts that spill onto the street. • Street Front Retail mix should emphasize local retailers and restaurants. • Restaurants could be used in the short-and long-term to drive activity and traffic in this block of Main Street that is far away from the critical mass to be established at 100 South and Main Street. • Create perception of a"double-loaded"continuous retail street setting by incorporating an anchor restaurant or fresh food market-style grocery store/deli in the Franks Building at Market Street and Main Street. • Alternatively,a larger restaurant/bar/nightclub that provides an anchor and linkage to the emerging Market Street/300 South mixed-use precinct could occupy the Franks Building. • Incorporate outdoor seating for use by adjacent restaurants cafes and impulse food to create daytime and evening street activity. • • Cluster outdoor seating areas and restaurants close to mid-block crossings to stimulate nodes of activity. (Pages 7-12 to 7-14.) Anchor Entertainment/Attractions Almost all the case study examples ... used new generation entertainment as an anchor component for main street retail revitalization programs. Entertainment components from the examples often included a mixture of: • Entertainment anchors including multiplex theater, theme eco/educational interpretive destination attractions such as museums and aquariums and Imax theaters. • Dinner theater and live performance venues. • Virtual reality games centers. • Experiential restaurants and night clubs. • Art gallery studio shops. • Programmed street performances and buskers. A multiplex theater alone has the ability to generate in excess of 1 million patrons a year. Typically a multiplex theater requires 12 to 18 screens,occupying at least 40,000 square feet of gross floor area, in conjunction with other entertainment-retail shops and restaurants.The multiplex has been the single-most new generation anchor function used to revitalize downtown main streets and regional malls. In many respects, it has replaced the department store as the new major destination attraction to a shopping area. • Due to the lack of entertainment offering for all ages in Downtown Salt Lake City,the market demand analysis ... indicated the opportunity for 45,932 square feet of entertainment uses 11 in the Main Street Study area in 2000.This demand would support one new multiplex theater of 10 to 12 screens—in addition to the expanded Cinemark Theater situated at Crossroads Plaza mall. Additionally,there would be demand for other entertainment such as dinner theater,virtual reality games center or a theme destination attraction. By the year 2010 demand for entertainment uses would grow to 50,215 square feet making it the second largest retail category to restaurants.However,since entertainment occupies much larger venues,the floor area may be absorbed in only a small number of large units. Potential site options to consider for the development of major entertainment anchor uses are: • Internal portions of Block 69 behind street front retail which faces the west side of Main Street between 100 South and 200 South. • The southwest corner of 400 South and Main Street on the Sinclair Oil/Little America property. (Page 7-16.) Second Century Plan —September 1962 Overview The Downtown in its 2nd Century is made up of several identifiable areas. The hard core, roughly a block and a half wide centering on Main and State Streets,is made up of the major retail,commercial services,offices,financial,entertainment,restaurants and hotels.The area to the east is becoming increasingly commercial, mixed with residential.To the south of the hard core is a secondary core of retail and commercial,also centering on Main and State Streets. The • area immediately west of the hard core is generally deterioration and badly in need of rehabilitation. (Page 2.) Looking at the other areas surrounding the Downtown,the greenery of Memory Grove comes within two blocks of the north edge of the hard core. Motels are concentrated west along West Temple and south of the core along Main Street. High density residential generally skirts the Downtown on the north and east and extending out to the University. The grand boulevard character of South Temple forms a green link between Temple Square and the University. Industry on the west is concentrated along the railroad tracks. (Page 2.) Access to the Downtown from the entire region will be facilitated by the new interstate freeway system which will deliver people in to the west side of Downtown. Access must be improved for those people living too close in to use the freeways. (Page 2.) Circulation within the Downtown is difficult,especially for the pedestrian. The strung out nature of the hard core and the extremely wide streets make it virtually impossible for people to get everywhere they want within the core without driving. More parking must also be provided for these people in the right places. (Page 3.) Recommendations Downtown must be assured of its rightful place as the retail and business heart of its metropolitan area. (Page 3.) 12 Main Street—It is proposed that Main Street be highly oriented to the pedestrian. In its • final stage, it should be gay and colorful both day and night; it should have greenery and trees; it should have canopies and awnings to protect people from the sun and rain; it should have all kinds of things happening on the sidewalks—kiosks,outdoor cafes,street vendors,displays, flowers, etc;and needless to add,all parking and unnecessary traffic should be eliminated. Main Street,as well as all of Downtown, must be for people—easy to reach,easy to move around in, and attractive. (Page 10.) In the final stage,pedestrians would have complete right-of-way. Main Street would be narrowed to two 10-foot lanes of traffic each way plus right turn lanes at the intersections.At this point,parking should be eliminated,and only necessary vehicles would be permitted—shuttle buses,city buses,taxis,fire and emergency vehicles,and some loading and unloading of passenger cars at the bus bays. (Page 10.) The need for an adequately sized ... building for housing both permanent and traveling art collections has long been recognized as one of the great cultural needs of Salt Lake City. ... Such a comprehensive structure belongs in the Downtown area in connection with other cultural and social activities to help the Downtown fulfill its role as regional center. (Page 15.) When expansion into the block east of the City&County Building is completed,this will be a major employment concentration and anchor on the edge of the hard core. Internal circulation service will tie this complex closely to all other parts of Downtown. Presently planned for early construction are the City Library,District and City Courts Building,and Metropolitan Hall of Justice which will include the City&County Jail. ... Underground parking will be incorporated beneath the new block;a mall will connect the two blocks,with 2nd East depressed under. (Page 16.) Residential—For Downtown to best serve the needs of people,there must be much more intensive development of attractive high-density residential facilities on the east and north edges of Downtown. These areas are within easy walking distance of Downtown's conveniences and attractions,and are ideally suited for the needs of retired people, young working people,and those who no longer have children living at home. In addition to meeting the need for close-in living, residential development of the area east of 2nd East and up into the Avenues is essential in another sense to the future of the entire Downtown area.The success and vitality of any Downtown depends to a great degree on the amount of concentration it is able to achieve within its core. Continued commercialization of this area mentioned can only serve to further dilute and sap the strength of Downtown Salt Lake City. (Page 17.) South End—The Downtown as here proposed would be defined generally by the LDS Church complex on the north, Convention Center and other new activities on the west ... and the City-County complex on the east;on the south end,however,the commercial activities continue on down Main and State Streets with no definition of where the hard core ends and secondary activities begin. People approaching from this direction must be able to sense that they are arriving somewhere—an entry experience,a sense of definition. (Page 17.) • 13 • Regional Urban Design Assistance Team Study— 1988 The community will only succeed in redeveloping downtown if the major stakeholders (including the City,LDS Church, developers,the business community and neighbors)can support a single vision and strategy for downtown and pursue it consistently over a period of time. The community must develop a highly participatory planning process,and then implement the plans that are produced. (Page 5.) The predominant north/south axis along Main and State streets must be re-established. (Page 5.) A judicial/governmental center and large public plaza should be developed to draw activity back into the heart of downtown and to serve as the southern anchor of the CBD. (Page 5.) Firm boundaries should be established on the south and east sides of the CBD to prevent the diffusion of activity and the continued erosion of existing neighborhoods. (Page 5.) Citizen participation in planning and decision-making is growing but is still inadequate. It must be increased. (Page 5.) Additional automobile access to the downtown and university cannot be provided at the expense of otherwise strong residential neighborhoods. (Page 5.) 410 Downtown Salt Lake City possesses a variety of assets and resources despite recent difficulties. A concerted effort can restore its lost vitality. But only a single, coherent vision will succeed. Attempts to implement multiple or fragmented visions will not. (Page 5.) The southern anchor of Main Street was established in 1909 with the erection of the twin 11-story Boston and Newhouse building between 300 and 400 South. (Page 6.) The post-war development of the freeway system has joined the railroad to further harden the western boundary of the central business district while reorienting its traffic patterns. (Page 7.) South of 400 South a secondary core of commercial development continues to exist centering on Main and State streets. (Page 7.) While the tradition of planning in Salt Lake City is well established in the City's history, various pressures in the late 20th century have challenged the historically confirmed city pattern of form and activity.That pattern is still discernable and continues to influence the City's development. At the same time, major changes in the City, such as the removal of retailing from the street,that do not participate in or reinforce the physical and institutional image of the City as an entire unit have occurred. (Page 7.) 14 Urban Design Policy State Street Axis—The entire Salt Lake Valley and the Central Business District of Salt Lake City have developed historically on a north/south axis.The pattern of development in the last two decades has undermined and obscured this axis within the CBD. This axis can be reinforced and formalized by improvements to State Street. An open median will enhance and revive the traditional connection between the State Capitol to the north and the City and County Building to the south. State Street serves as the principal organizing element for the urban design framework of the downtown. (Page 10.) Retail District—The retail district should provide an environment that is the most pedestrian-oriented in the downtown. It should be relatively small in scale and provide clear views of shop windows from the street. Main Street is the retail street. Retail uses not fronting on Main Street are secondary. Main Street merchants should be encouraged to extend activity out beyond the storefront with bay windows,displays,dining areas,awning and signage.A planted median should be developed on Main Street to facilitate pedestrian crossing.Above all,this street must be active. Cars and people on the street provide that activity. (Page 10.) Arts and Entertainment District—A compact Arts and Entertainment District is proposed.The major urban design element of the district is an alley(Pierpont Avenue)that bisects the one-block by three-block area in an east west direction. The alley physically connects the Arts and Entertainment District to the retailing area on Main Street.This district will contain living/working space for artists,a new art museum,art galleries,shops,restaurants and a new 600 to 700-seat theater(Rose Wagner).This district will enhance the unique signature of the downtown. It will concentrate arts and entertainment facilities to promote tourism,provide • entertainment opportunities for local residents and foster the growth of the arts community. (Page 10.) Government District—The development of a major governmental and civic center at the southern end of the north/south axis defined by Main and State streets provides the opportunity for a significant new open-space amenity in downtown. ... The new plaza should serve as a crossroads to the southern end of the CBD as well as a destination in its own right. Its character should be lively and fun and not reflective of the public institutions that frame the space. (Page 11.) Southern Gateways and Boundary—District gateways,open space and strong landscape edges are needed along 500 South and 600 South. Fifth South and 600 South form the southern boundary of the downtown area and serve as the arterial system that brings Interstate 15 travelers into the heart of Salt Lake City. The freeway ramps provide major access points or "gateways"to the city. These gateways should be used to welcome those entering the City and provide a sense of quality and civic pride. Setbacks,landscaping,public art and other civic improvements should be incorporated into the gateways.The heavy formal landscaping and large setback along 500 South and 600 South should continue beyond the ramps to clarify the southern edge of this district. This design treatment provides a sense of"passage"when entering or leaving the downtown on any of the north-south arterials. (Page 11.) Street Form—To concentrate pedestrian activity,the building line should be maintained without setbacks from the street. This design technique will allow the formation of an urban wall that promotes a sense of place and closure in the urban fabric.The corners of blocks should be • anchored with buildings with greater mass than along the block face. (Page 11.) 15 Parking-Parking garages are a necessary evil. The manner in which parking is provided can have a profound impact on the pattern of development in a block and the form of a city over • many blocks. Parking can be provided in a manner that does not destroy the continuity of street fronts or rob the street level of its vitality and appeal. The preferred approach is to provide parking at mid-block and below grade. By doing so, maximum activity can be maintained at the street level. Shared or pooled parking can also eliminate the need for individual buildings to fulfill all of its own parking needs. (Page 11.) Mountain Vistas-Clean mountain vistas in virtually all directions are the distinguishing feature of downtown Salt Lake City. These vistas should be protected and remain unobstructed. Second-level connections that would block mountain views to the north and east should be prohibited. Additionally, development above the base elevation of Capitol Hill and the East Bench should be forbidden.High-rise development in downtown that would penetrate this plane when viewed from the west also should be restricted.The mountain backdrop is the City's signature feature and should not be allowed to be eroded. (Pages 11-12.) Civic Center Plaza-Historically,government has played a major role in downtown in terms of employment, architecture and leadership.A vital,well-designed government district is proposed to recognize these attributes and tie these functions together with new buildings and public open space.The major elements of the district include the newly rehabilitated City and County Building, a new full-block public plaza,a new state office building and a major new facility to house the state judicial system. The open space is designed to be a highly programmed urban plaza that will feature the Utah Arts Festival,possibly a skating rink and other amenities that will serve the users of the state government center and introduce newcomers to the facility. (Page 12.) Urban Design Discussion-The urban design concept provides a clear framework to 411 guide the form and direction of downtown development. Its principal feature is the re- establishment of the historic north/south axis. State Street,connecting the City&County Building with the State Capitol, defines this axis. State Street is a more formal street than Main Street because it connects two historic sites and important civic buildings. (Page 14.) The north/south axis is reinforced by Main Street. Main Street is the heart of the shopping area. It should be the most pedestrian-oriented street in the city.The north/south axis is anchored at the north end by Temple Square, adjacent LDS Church facilities and the Crossroads and ZCMI Center shopping malls. This area currently represents the highest concentration of people and activity in the downtown. The southern portion of the Central Business District currently contains no anchors.The merchants who historically played this role are gone. A new anchor can be provided by creating a new judicial and government center. Major public facilities would surround a substantial plaza immediately west of the City and County Building .This plaza should serve as the focal point for community activities such as the Utah Arts Festival. (Page 14.) ... Boundaries for the Central Business District need to be defined and reinforced. Sixth South should define the southern boundary. Eastern migration of high-density core commercial uses, such as office buildings, should not continue beyond 200 East. (Page 14.) The basic framework can provide a strong sense of direction for future development and over time can produce a downtown area that is vibrant functional and marketable. Future decisions such as parcel development, roadway access and transit alignment should reinforce, • 16 rather than frustrate,these basic objectives. Consistent pursuit of these urban design elements will produce a pattern of development in downtown Salt Lake City that will make maximum use of the assets and opportunities that are present today. (Page 14.)(Overview.) Transportation—A comprehensive parking management strategy must be developed and followed to effectively guide parking development and use within the downtown. Recommendations—In lieu of development of on-site parking spaces,allow payment of fees to a Public Parking Authority for construction of centrally located public parking ... (Page 30.) Investigate and, if appropriate,establish a Public Parking Authority to manage and operate centrally located public garages. (Page 31.) Establish a residential parking zone ordinance to protect residential on-street parking near the downtown fringe and around neighborhood commercial areas. (Page 31.) After the rail yards are abandoned, realign the 500 South and 600 South(freeway)ramps and the 600 North ramp with a north/south circulation road that utilized a portion of the railroad right of way and feeds traffic in and out of the downtown via 200 South. (Page 31.) Culture and Entertainment District—Develop a new fine arts museum downtown near the Salt Palace to serve as the cornerstone of the arts district.The team strongly supports the idea of a nationally acclaimed located as near to the Salt Palace complex as possible. It should be a building of international stature designed by a world-renowned architect. Site for such a complex • could be the corner of West Temple and Pierpont Avenue.We strongly recommend that it be funded through a 50/50 partnership between the public and private sectors so that it can be an institution forged out of this public/private method. (Pages 36 &37.) An arts district is developing along the Pierpont area from east to west. The team strongly recommends developing a connection through the next block to the east between 200 West and 300 West. This would provide a connection to Pierpont Avenue between 300 West and 400 West where an existing arts complex is in place.We believe that the City should provide incentives to push this development. (Page 37.) The team strongly recommends that the Utah Arts Festival occur on Main Street or State Street and be embraced as an incredible resource to the downtown. Streets would have to be closed, but 100,000 visitors over four days should be a great stimulus to downtown merchants. (Page 37.) Any festival ... which can occur downtown is to be encouraged.The Greek Festival should be encouraged to expand. Another festival or celebration which could be started is "First Night."Another activity could be an"Arts Evening"once every two weeks to allow the art galleries to have open houses and exhibition. This would provide night-time stimulation to the downtown which it so sorely needs. (Page 37.) Housing—quality housing in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods is fundamental to the success of the downtown. Housing, retail establishments and the workplace have a symbiotic relationship,the location of each affects the location of the others.Growth that comes at the expense of one of these elements will invariably hurt the other. Housing provides the downtown with shoppers and a nearby labor pool. Close-in living saves energy and use of the 17 existing infrastructure.The surrounding neighborhood forms a protective cocoon around the downtown. If the close-in living becomes blighted,the deterioration will spread to the other downtown uses. Residential uses provide eyes on the street and the critical mass of people needed to sustain an exciting and diverse downtown.The City must protect and enhance the quality of close-in neighborhoods and resist the tendency to allow commercial encroachment. (Page 42.) Housing must take a priority equal to or greater than retail and office uses to maintain a healthy and activity downtown. (Page 42.) The City should conduct an analysis of the housing market to determine the future demand for housing by type,tenure and bedroom size. The analysis should include the whole metropolitan area with specific emphasis on the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Based upon the results of the study, "opportunity areas"for new housing should be identified and specific markets ... should be targeted. (Page 42.) The City offers distinct neighborhoods,not a standard suburban sprawl. The City offers different types of shopping areas such as Main Street and neighborhood stores of unique character.The City offers areas of high density as well as quiet,tree-lined streets. Each must be valued for its own character and for what it brings to the total environment. Each of these is more dramatic and exciting if it rests in close proximity to environments of contrasting character. Unfortunately,each is also delicate and can be quickly lost through seemingly small compromises. Care must constantly be exercised that one zone does not unintentionally creep into the next. Edges must be protected. Only through constant vigilance can the vanety and close proximity of contrasts that signal"this is a City"be protected from becoming yet another suburb and strip development.No one needs to come to or live in a city for those. (Page 43.) Economic Development Policy—High-quality real estate developers and businesses will 4111 welcome,and not be put off by an attitude on the part of the City that requires them to provide high-quality design, public activities and amenities, and an interactive process for conceiving and refining proposals. A city of Salt Lake City's stature does not have to"give away the store"to attract high-quality development. Low standards will in fact be counter-productive with developers of national quality. (Page 44.) General recommendations Rezone the area bounded by 500 East, 700 East, South Temple and 500 South to conserve and encourage medium/high density residential land uses, and to preclude additional commercial uses. (Page 44.) Develop a new"Urban Neighborhood"zoning classification for the area bounded by a mid-block line between 200 East and 300 East; 500 East; South Temple and 500 South.The zoning classification should allow one and two-story commercial buildings, and taller(mid-rise) residential development. (Page 44.) Implement the concept presently being formulated by the Redevelopment Agency staff to use improvement district as a mechanism for creating structured parking within the Central Business District. (Page 44.) Growth policies for Salt Lake City's Central Business District must direct a reasonable share of available office growth to the CBD. This will support improvement of downtown services and create a continuous cycle of improvement and growth that—over time—will M 18 revitalize the whole area. No single project will solve the problems of the CBD, but renewing one • portion of a block at a time is certainly possible, and over time a determined process targeted on the downtown area can work quite well. (Page 46.) City policies should: • Encourage expansion of financial, banking and general office uses in the Main Street and State Street corridors. • Encourage the location of major office uses in mixed-use complexes,with retail uses at street level and pedestrian-oriented open spaces rather than free-standing office structures. • Revise the zoning ordinance to prohibit additional large-scale office uses along the east/west arterial streets and in the neighborhood areas adjacent to the CBD. (Page 46.) Retail policies The whole Central Business District must be considered as a single entity,with various parts working together. (Page 47.) Direct new large-scale commercial retail development into the north/south corridor along Main Street rather than allowing expansion of major retailers to the east along South Temple and 100 South with the resultant adverse residential and transportation impacts. (Page 47.) • Confine neighborhood and convenience retailing activities by zoning to a few well- defined areas along a limited number of arterial streets. Zoning patterns that produce "checkerboard"commercial and residential development in neighborhoods must be prohibited. (Page 47.) Develop a municipal parking authority using assessment district to finance new parking capacity and link them to an overall downtown parking management program involving pricing policy, on-and off-street supply,validation,signage and promotion. (Page 55.) Salt Lake City Downtown Plan —1995 A. Purpose B. Vision C. Policies and Implementation > Commitment and Leadership > Planning and Critical Mass > Public Investment and Infrastructure > People and 24-Hour Population > Activities and Amenities > Built Environment and Development > Natural Environment and Compatibility D. Summary of Major Projects(implementation) • 19 A. Purpose (page I) o The purpose of the Downtown Plan is to articulate the "vision"of Downtown with its • essential goals and objectives to direct the future of Downtown. o The Downtown Plan will: • Formulate public policies • Identify needed public facilities • Involve the necessary public commitment to achieve the vision,goals and objectives • Describe the process for developing a consensus on specific strategies that will put the Plan to work and bring vision to reality. o Downtown Salt Lake City is the"central place"for the Wasatch Front,the State of Utah and the Intermountain West. o The commercial core is generally described as the area extending from South Temple to 400 South and West Temple to 200 East.Downtown Salt Lake City includes a larger area between 1-15 to 700 East and North Temple to 900 South of associated industrial, service, commercial and residential uses that interrelate and support the core. B. Vision (pages 2-3) o Downtown is recognized as one of the great cities of America,providing activities, attractions,and amenities for its 24 hour population,the residents of the region it serves and increasing numbers of visitors who are drawn to Downtown as a destination. Elements and features of a great city are identified and realized through the consensus developed during ongoing Downtown planning processes that stimulate private development and direct investment of public funds. o Downtown is a showplace for Utah's architectural heritage with landmark"signature" buildings.New development of uncompromisingly quality complements preserved historical structures. o Public buildings and places provide exemplary architectural design and are strategically located to stimulate and complement desired private investment. o Open space contributes to a livable environment that is enjoyable and human in scale. Downtown's growth is accomplished in a manner that preserves and enhances its close connection with the natural environment. o People stimulate the activities and vitality of Downtown. People interact, experiencing the social, cultural and commercial interchange that only occurs in a diverse urban setting. Downtown is an urban neighborhood housing a demographically diverse population. o Downtown is the world center for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a world destination for those seeking to experience the unique features of our natural environment. o Downtown is the business and financial employment center for the Intermountain region. Downtown host tourist, retail, entertainment and cultural activities within convenient and concentrated amenities. o Downtown Salt Lake City maintains its prominence as the premier vitality center of the Intermountain West. C. Policies and Implementation: Commitment and Leadership (page 5) o Policy: • 20 • Develop a strong regional consensus and commitment to Downtown and the Downtown Plan and take leadership in the region on those issues of direct impact to Downtown. • Develop consensus among other governmental entities as to the importance and impact of Downtown on the region and obtain their support for the continued development of Downtown. • Advocate the role of Downtown as a regional focus for cultural and economic development. • Retain and assure expansion of State, County and City offices within Downtown. • Take the lead in establishing and implementing economic development strategies. • Publicize Downtown strengths and assets. • Utilize the efforts of private and institutional interests in the promotion of Downtown goals. • Advocate policies on regional issues that will enhance Downtown's image and development. o Implementation: • Increase countywide planning • Guarantee broad community input into public projects • Create Downtown as a transportation hub • Promote Downtown as a cultural focus • Promote the economics of a central government complex • Have government take the lead in concentrating activities to encourage mass transit 1111 • Encourage new business to locate Downtown • Promote transportation as an asset to Downtown • Promote Downtown as a regional center • Include the private sector in transportation solutions • Focus on private solutions • Promote regional focus Planning and Critical Mass (page 6) o Policy: • Plan to develop a critical mass of political commitment,'implementation strategies, public capital investment,private investment and people to establish Downtown as the growth center of the region. • Define and implement ongoing downtown planning, capital investment, economic development and design review processes actively involving the community. • Provide effective channels of influence for an ongoing advocacy group for Downtown interests. • Identify and adopt strategies, zoning and regulation changes to facilitate plan implementation. • Achieve concentration of related uses and activities • Implement processes and make administrative changes necessary to assure timely, effective plan implementation. o Implementation: • StreamIine processes • • Increase citizen participation • Define implementation process 21 • Transportation facilities should reinforce districts • Pedestrian and transit systems should provide connection between • districts such as between office and retail o Establish mid-block walkway system • Office and retail uses should be concentrated to enhance efficiency o Adopt zoning policies that discourage sprawl into adjacent neighborhoods • The retail north-south axis should be reinforced o Mass transit,including light rail or collector system, should follow Main Street alignment • Physically define the boundaries of districts o Place a monument at the south end of the business district o Create a City Creek Parkway through Downtown o Place pylons to define east Downtown residential areas • Use transportation to develop land use o Site light rail alignment to serve existing and desired land use patterns such as promote Main Street with expansion to the south and west • Require new development and redevelopment to provide for its transportation needs and impacts o Establish transportation impact fee o Allow transportation contributions in lieu of parking • Streamline approval process Public Investment and Infrastructure (page 7) o Policies: . • Establish a long-term Downtown public investments plan that will guide public funds into programs and activities to encourage private investment and assure the livability of the community • Direct public funds to those areas that will stimulate private investment and maximize public return. • Invest in those projects,programs and activities that solidify and promote the desirability of Downtown as a place to live,work,shop and play. • Expand available public financing options through partnerships and other governmental interests. • Establish funding priorities in order to implement the Downtown Plan in a logical phased program. • Fund current maintenance of public improvements and create resources to maximize the vitality and minimize the long-term cost of those improvements. • 22 • o Implementation Strategies ■ Stimulate residential growth through public investment • Provide land write down in East Downtown and Pioneer Park neighborhoods to projects that include major residential elements. ■ Use transportation system to stimulate land use and private development. • Provide for light rail o Focus light rail on Main Street in the short run with the potential for expanding to create a lager system from Provo to Ogden using the rail depots as termini. o Access new arena with light rail. o Develop a rail loop to expand area covered by rail and expand potential development area. (not more then 12 block faces) o Traffic improvements to 500, 600 and 900 South off-ramps • Provide street improvements o Discourage traffic in East Downtown residential area, particularly 100,200,and 300 South,through the use of lower speed limits and center medians as defined by the Fast Downtown Master Plan. o Provide traffic improvements to West Downtown area and 400 South corridor. • Provide bicycle improvements o Develop commuter bike routes • Provide pedestrian improvements o Develop mid-block walkways o Encourage safe mid-block crosswalks ■ Provide a central gathering place • Develop a formal Town Square o Develop Block 57 plaza • Advocate the location of major public facilities Downtown o Advocate a sports park and courts complex • Expand housing stock • Promote residential development Downtown o Implement mixed-use zoning in select areas o Adopt a policy of no net loss of housing • Use existing partnerships • Jointly sponsor housing projects o Use NHS (Neighborhood Housing Services)and RDA to improve housing • Jointly promote Downtown o Encourage partnership between business interests and City • Establish funding priorities • Seek public input in establishing funding priorities o Maintain advisory board for RDA • Maintain existing facilities • Insure long-term budget accommodation o Identify funding sources • 23 People and a 24-Hour Population (pg. 8) o Policies • • Establish Downtown as a well-planned, desirable and diverse activity center serving the needs of a sizable 24-hour population. • Create a mix of diverse land uses in Downtown Salt Lake that will serve and attract a variety of users,ensuring an active and productive Downtown at different times of the day and night. • Create a desirable environment and promote opportunities to establish the pedestrian as the primary user of Downtown. • Preserve, strengthen and protect existing residential neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown to provide a base population to use Downtown. • Preserve existing housing and provide additional residential and hotel units along with properly designed neighborhood support services and amenities. • Provide a transportation system that increases accessibility to Downtown from the suburbs,resorts and other outlying areas while minimizing impacts on existing neighborhoods. • Provide a Downtown that is a safe,friendly,convenient and desirable place to be. • Celebrate the cultural,ethnic and religious diversity of Downtown. • Provide a multi-modal system of transportation and movement within Downtown. o Implementation: • Adopt city policy to encourage mixed uses in Downtown • Provide a mix of uses in all RDA projects • Provide zoning modifications and standards • Promote mixed use on Blocks 57 and 49 • Create an aesthetically pleasing environment • Create an atmosphere of safety for the pedestrian • Create an atmosphere of activity and visual interest • Stabilize exiting neighborhoods • Solidify existing housing • Create an atmosphere conducive to residential development • Provide for new housing • Improve overall transportation systems to downtown • Provide safety in numbers • Emphasize the existence of cultural differences and uniqueness • Create a transit center • Develop Main Street as a transit corridor o Focus light rail and transit activity on Main Street, accommodate extensions o Reinforce pedestrian amenities along Main Street • Provide a variety of transportation modes in a coordinate manner • Provide expanded pedestrian access Activities and Amenities (page 9) o Policies: • Concentrate and develop those public facilities and associated cultural, recreational and entertainment activities and opportunities that make Salt Lake one of the greatest of cities. 24 • Reinforce the street as the center of Downtown activity and movement. • • Design Downtown to be the gathering place for festivals, parades, street life and activity. • Diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas. • Expand sports and recreational opportunities that are appropriate for residents, visitors and businesses. • Establish Downtown as a recognized destination for tourism and a convention center. • Expand Downtown arts,cultural and entertainment activities. • Promote and sponsor Downtown events and celebrations. o Implementation: • Define the purpose and hierarchy of street use • Identify streets for transit, parking,access,walking o Emphasize State Street,West Temple, 300 West and 400 South primarily for autos o Emphasize Main Street,200 East and 200 West primarily for pedestrians • Design for festivals • Provide infrastructure o Include power and other amenities in Special Improvement Districts and in Pioneer Park • Develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street the can successfully draw and compete with other commercial areas in the region • Foster and reinforce existing business along Main Street . o Discourage retail sprawl into peripheral areas by modifying zoning, particularly in East Downtown o Develop a management organization for Main Street similar to the malls o Encourage expansion of the retail areas that are primarily accessed by foot o Schedule street improvements around business schedules o Do street sweeping and other maintenance at night • Encourage businesses that are not in the Salt Lake market to develop their flagship store downtown o Add additional department stores that have outlets in the Salt Lake market but not Downtown o Add at least two department stores that do not have outlets in the Salt Lake area • Reestablish pedestrian traffic along Main Street o Establish a large retail anchor at the southern end of Downtown • Preserve and establish a residential population Downtown to use retail facilities o Encourage residential preservation of adjacent neighborhoods • Develop an expanded evening market o Encourage more theaters, concerts and other evening uses . • Reinforce the southern end of the business district 25 o Develop a parking program in the south end of the business district • • Improve signage o Reevaluate fees for awnings and other encroachments • Discourage incompatible uses in the retail zone o Eliminate manufacturing uses in the C-4 zone • Encourage a compact Downtown o Discourage surface parking as an acceptable use in the C-4 zone o Discourage large retail centers outside the Downtown area o Discourage private single use parking lots as opposed to public lots • Provide for expanded Salt palace Arena • Provide for professional football and baseball • Focus hotel rooms and convention facilities Downtown • Create easy access links from Downtown to tourist facilities • Concentrate new tourist facilities Downtown • Promote festival marketplace/fanners market o Establish farmers market in Pioneer Park • Support existing art groups • Establish a world class art museum • Establish an arts and entertainment district • Create a theater district • Use the occasion of Utah's Centennial and Salt Lake's 150th Birthday as a catalyst for celebration • Create festivals in the off-peak times ID • Establish park for art/open space/town square • Develop Block 57 Plaza as an arts space/park Built Environment and Development (page 10) o Policies: • Preserve and reuse our existing physical environment while providing for the orderly transition of certain land uses and creating a new expectation of uncompromising quality for future Downtown developments. • Reinforce specific physical qualities and historical development patterns that establish Downtown Salt Lake's unique urban character. • Preserve historically significant buildings and districts while accommodating new development and renovation that is sensitive to Downtown's existing character. • Solidify and promote specialized districts,each with its own identity based on scale of buildings,intensity of activity and mix of uses. • Reuse existing structures while weaving new projects into the urban fabric. • Develop and implement physical design guidelines and review processes that will assure development of the highest quality. • Provide an efficient streamlined review and approval process that maximizes public goals while encouraging development. • Use appropriately designed and located open space within the built environment as a catalyst for Downtown investment. • 26 • • Resolve conflicting issues regarding parking. o Implementation: • Develop a theme unique to Salt Lake City • Preserve area surrounding Pioneer Park and Rio Grande Depot • Emphasize historic buildings and sites • Develop non-exclusive districts with a dominant theme or activity • Infill housing in urban neighborhoods • Design guidelines to enhance Downtown • Streamline approval process • Highlight key open space • Resolve parking issues Natural Environment and Compatibility (page 11) o Policies: • Promote the physical connection and compatibility of the built environment with the natural environment and maximize the opportunities created by Downtown's unique proximity to nature. • Create a major public open space to function as a catalyst for Downtown development and an attraction for cultural,recreational, retail and development opportunities. • Improve design and upkeep of public spaces. • Promote the maintenance of clean air. • Preserve vistas and physical connections to our unique mountain setting. o Implementation: • Establish a major Downtown recreational focus • • Create a central park similar to ones in Vancouver, San Francisco, San Diego and New York o Create a central park between 500 West and the I-15 freeway on obsolete rail yards o Use State Centennial as impetus for funding and construction of park facilities o Consolidate rail lines onto 500 West • Integrate natural amenities into urban center • Connect Memory Grove and City Creek to Downtown as called for in the 1962 Second Century Plan • Encourage well designed public space • Integrate design controls and/or review into the zoning ordinance • Encourage mass transit to improve air quality • Encourage densely developed Downtown easily accessible by transit • Maintain vistas,streets and views • Prohibit skywalks and overhead intrusions on key streets o Incorporate restrictions into zoning ordinance • Prohibit the blockage of view of significant buildings o Incorporate height restrictions into zoning ordinance D. Summary of Major Projects (page 12) (The following is a summary of projects identified in the Master Plan to implement the goals and objectives.) • 27 PEOPLE ORIENTED AMENITIES • Provide a friendly and distinctive pedestrian environment for the user. • o Street trees o Standard paving patterns o Street lighting o Public art o Ground level glass o Retail activity o Coordinated parking entries o Police patrol o Cleanliness o On-street ambiance o Mid-block walkways BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM o Provide ongoing access to and within downtown to maintain growth and stability. o Protect residential neighborhoods adjacent to traffic corridors. o Mass transit/light rail and bus o 1-15 improvements o Street system enhancements o Parking improvements Salt Palace Expansion and Update ■ Provide ongoing tourist and convention facilities. • Maintain downtown as a community focus o Convention center o Delta center o Science center o Museums o Performing arts complex Consolidated Courts Complex and Civic Center ■ Provide an anchor to the southern end of the business district. • Provide for government support and investment in downtown. TOWN SQUARE IN BLOCK 57 • Provide an activity center in the central core • Provide a community focal point MEMORY GROVE EXTENSION ■ Define northern edge of the Central Business District ■ Stabilize adjacent neighborhoods DOWNTOWN ZONING MODIFICATIONS • Provide for flexibility of zoning to accomplish a variety of goals • Accentuate unique qualities of downtown ■ Provide a distinct eastern boundary for the Central Business District • Provide housing opportunities for a stabilized population ■ Maintain downtown as the cultural center of the intermountain west40 28 o West Downtown Master Plan considerations • o East Downtown Master Plan implementation o Height regulations o East Downtown mixed-use zoning o Pioneer Park mixed-use zoning o Warehouse historic district o LDS Temple, City and County Building, Cathedral of the Madeleine and State Capitol view corridors o Retail overlay o Parking requirements o Theater and Art districts Theme Monument • Provide a southern anchor to the Central Business District. • Provide a monument to the commitment of Salt Lake to be an international city Gateway Redevelopment Area • Provide a western edge to the Central Business District. • Major reuse of the rail yards. • Create an activity center and human element to the city. • Provide for increased housing opportunities and neighborhood stabilization. 4110 Sports Park or Stadium • Provide a long-term southern anchor for downtown. • Maintain downtown as a community focus. • Provide a major activity center. Housing • Maintain a twenty-four hour population. • Insure a ready workforce and consumers. • Create a diverse and exciting neighborhood. ■ Increase housing stock. Creatinj' an Urban Nei'liborliood: Gateway District Land Use & Development Master Plan —adopted August 11, 1998. Public Transportation—the north/south light rail line will terminate in front of the Union-Pacific Depot on South Temple. The east/west line, an integral part of Gateway,will link with the north/south line via 400 West and 400 South. Light rail and east/west buses also will connect the Gateway to downtown Salt Lake City,the airport and the University of Utah. (Page 23.) Community Building-Residential Density—Over the entire project area of about 650 acres,an average density of 16 units per acre is recommended, which is roughly equivalent to the residential density in the East Downtown neighborhood. Recommended densities result in a total population of nearly 13,000 residents upon implementation of the plan. (Page 25.) • 29 Urban Design-Great Streets—Festival and gatherings of many types will be part of the Gateway.Adequate electrical and water service should be provided in areas where these events • are likely to take place such as: • 500 West Boulevard Linear Park. • 300 South between the intermodal area and the Rio Grande depot. • The large plaza behind the Union Pacific depot. • Any other developed public spaces. (Page 25.) The Gateway Specific Plan —adopted August 11, 1998 Overview The Gateway District is comprised of about 650 acres of land located three blocks west of Main Street and between Interstate 15 on the west, 300 West on the east,North Temple on the north and 1000 South on the southern end. ... As the gateway to Salt Lake City,the Wasatch Front, and Utah,this area has the potential to play a variety of different roles: • As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City from the regional highway system and the Salt Lake City International Airport. • As an orientation point and initial image of the downtown for visitors arriving by car or transit as they pass through a new mixed-use urban district. • As a transportation hub serving buses,trains, commuter rail,pedestrian and bicycle networks through the district that provide connections to regional and city open space amenities and trails. • As a downtown presence that is an edge or extension of the downtown. An area that provides for large floor-plate business, start-up business seeking"unique"spaces and expansion locations for a mix of supportive urban uses that differ from and compliment the Central Business District. • As a truly mixed-use urban neighborhood that provides for residential/work opportunities,transit-related development opportunities,and distinctive streets and open space networks where none exist today. (Page 5) • The goal of the Gateway Development Master Plan is to create an opportunity for residents of Salt Lake City to have a place to work, live, learn, and relax in close proximity to downtown. (Page 5.) Guiding Principles • Create a positive and clear identity for Salt Lake City and the Gateway District. • Encourage development which strengthens and complements the Central Business District. • 30 • Maintain, enhance, and create connections to neighborhoods surrounding the Gateway • District,neighborhoods within the Gateway District,and downtown Salt Lake City. (Page 7.) Land Use A number of factors and trends have arisen that provide a strong impetus for change in the Gateway. These factors include: • The consolidation of the railroad tracks. • The shortening of the 400, 500,and 600 South street viaducts by two blocks. • The relocation of Amtrak and the designation of 600 West Street and 200 South Street as the location of a transportation hub. • Current land use trends and pressures along the Wasatch Range. • The lack of land to develop east of the Central Business District. • The hosting of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Objective 4—Provide for the development of a diverse mixture of uses that complement downtown, encourage a variety of housing opportunities,and facilitate the enhancement and revitalization of the Gateway District. Discussion—The principal objective and opportunity presented by the redevelopment of the Gateway District is the creation of mixed-use office,residential and commercial uses oriented to mass transit. (Page 20.) • The types of land uses in the Gateway District will be: Civic, Cultural Community— large-scale facilities such as museums (e.g. art,children, and natural history), art and history centers,galleries and exhibits,performing art facilities, educational campuses or complexes, facilities for ethnic studies, a planetarium, and a cohesive retail shopping center. Residential—housing opportunities ranging from high density structures to non- traditional single-family residences and providing for the housing needs of singles, families, elderly, and those with special needs. Commercial—large scale uses such as retail that are part of a center or complex,or special campus-style uses such as a medical center,clinic or neighborhood hospital, law school, training center or other educational facilities, hotels,civic buildings,or an office complex. Retail—small commercial uses such as grocery store, day care, dry cleaner, hardware stores, banking,medical and dental facilities, restaurants,copying and printing shops, veterinarian, and specialty shops that are oriented toward neighborhood services. Secondary/Support Commercial—small to moderate scale uses that provide support services to the Central Business District(e.g. caterers, food and materials distribution, designer showrooms, office supplies,and display and exhibit equipment,one-of-a-kind shops, and incubator space for small and growing businesses. (Page 21.) • 31 Policy 4.4—Create a special zoning district, or approval process, which encourages commercial and retail uses that strengthen and complement the Central Business District. (Page • 21.) Objective 5—Provide opportunities for housing within the Gateway District to reinforce downtown as a place to live, work, and shop. (Page 21.) Discussion—The Gateway District has the opportunity to provide non-traditional housing for residents who desire to live in an urban neighborhood,but with all the comforts of living in a suburban atmosphere. (Page 21.) Policy 5.1 —Identify areas for future housing. (Page 21.) Objective 6—Maintain and improve retail services in the Gateway District. Discussion—At present,highway service activities are centered on the 400,500,and 600 South interchanges where visitor-serving lodging and restaurants have developed. In the future, there may be opportunities for a variety of retail uses along the 400 West Street corridor,due to its high visibility,and light rail access.As new offices and housing are established in the area, smaller and larger scale retail services that serve the needs of workers and residents should also be encouraged to locate with this area. With the introduction of office workers and residents into the Gateway District,there will be a demand for a greater number of retail uses that serve the convenience and entertainment needs of workers and residents. The uses add significantly to the vitality and livability of the Gateway District and should be encouraged. Certain uses, such as nightclubs,art galleries, and cafes can make a significant contribution to the revitalization of the area through their ability to 1111/ assist in the transformation from a predominantly daytime, light industrial character into a more lively atmosphere at all times of the day. (Page 22.) Commercial Objective 1 —Strengthen the downtown Central Business District as the region's principal employment center. (Page 29.) Discussion—Historically,downtown has served as the center of commerce and industry for the region. Over the years,with advances in technology and the availability of low cost land, suburban areas in the valley have experienced tremendous growth in jobs as well as housing. This trend toward decentralization is common throughout metropolitan areas and has given rise to issues of transportation congestion, air quality, and economic decline in the core area.With the redevelopment of the Gateway district,the City has the opportunity to provide additional support to the CBD by encouraging housing and place of employment accessible by public transportation near to the downtown area. (Page 29.) Policy 1.2— Strengthen Main Street as the primary retail core with the Gateway District as a secondary retail area having a different appeal and character. (Page 29.) Policy 1.4—Provide a strong residential component to support development in the Gateway District as well as the Central Business District. (Page 29.) • 32 • Community Facilities Objective 5: Parks and Open Spaces—Encourage the use of Pioneer Park as a focal point in the Gateway District. (Page 32.) Policy 5.1 —Enhance, maintain and expand the opportunities for daily programming, festivals, and community events at Pioneer Park. (Page 32.) • • 33 •.v i A • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5,2003 SUBJECT: Railyard Special Improvement District Assessment Ordinance and Bond Sale AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Department of Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Dan Mule,City Treasurer KEY ELEMENTS: The Council previously created the Railyard special improvement district at approximately 100 South and 400 West. The final Council actions relating to this district is to adopt the assessment ordinance and a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds. The Council may wish to consider these actions at its August 12th meeting. • RECOMMENDED MOTION: Council staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance and resolution. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the assessment ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties and related matters. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution finalizing the terms and conditions of the issuance and sale of adjustable rate demand assessment bonds,series 2003,in the aggregate principal amount of$17,600,000;awarding and confirming the sale of the bonds;and related matters. BACKGROUND: In 1999,the Boyer Company requested that the City create a special improvement district for public improvements in the Gateway project area that qualified for this type of financing. The improvements consisted of sidewalks,crosswalks,storm drainage systems,landscaping,curb and gutter,irrigations systems,utility lines,paving of roads,and other public related improvements. The property owner constructed and installed the improvements with the understanding that the City would issue bonds to finance the improvements. This special improvement district differs substantially from the City's traditional special improvement districts because of the large dollar amount,the longer repayment period,and • because there is only one property owner. The district and the related bonding were structured to shift legal and economic risks from the City to the property owner. The bonds are special limited obligations of the City,payable solely from assessments levied against the property owner. A direct-pay letter of credit provided by Citibank,N.A.will secure the payment of principal and interest. • CHRONOLOGY: • November 16,1999-The Council adopted a resolution declaring the intention of the City to create the Railyard special improvement district • December 16,1999-The Council adopted a resolution creating the Railyard special improvement district cc Rocky Fluhart,Dan Mule,JD Baxter • i • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-03-07—Amending the Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts CC: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Roger Evans,Enzo Calfa,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,Lehua Weaver, Gwen Springmeyer,Annette Daley POTENTIAL OPTIONS: 1. Close the public hearing. 2. Close the public hearing and continue Council action to a future date. • 3. Continue the public hearing and Council action to a future date. 4. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 5. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. 6. Request that the Administration provide additional analysis of issues identified by Council Members and identify options for Council consideration. 7. Hire outside counsel and/or consultant with land use/foothill development expertise to work with the Administration and Council office to provide an analysis of the issues and identify an array of options for Council consideration. 8. Create a Council subcommittee to review the issues and make a recommendation to the full Council. 9. Any combination of the above. 10. Adopt a motion requesting that the Planning Commission process an amendment that would consolidate the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development Ordinance to eliminate inconsistencies. 11. Other options as identified by Council Members. If the Council does not act on the ordinance on August 7th and does not anticipate acting in the near future,the Council could clarify for the Administration whether it anticipates that the case that is currently pending will be processed by the Administration prior to the Council's formal vote. III I The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference. • Given limited time for Council staff review on this issue a staff report was not prepared. The following includes a brief summary of key issues relating to the proposed amendment and questions Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration. KEY ELEMENTS: A. This action is intended to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. The Administration notes this issue was raised by the City Attorney's office during a review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. B. The Administration's transmittal notes "The discrepancy must be corrected to reasonably limit a potential takings claim exposure for the City." A letter dated January 15,2003 from the City Attorney's office to the Acting Planning Director notes that based on the existing requirements in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances"...foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, 505 U.S. 1003(1992)." Please see the attached letter from the City Attorney's office for additional details. Attachment A C. The Site Development Ordinance states "Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." (Sec. 18.28.30.B.11.c.) The planned development conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is 5-acres. (Table 21A.54.150.E.2.) D. The Administration has provided the following example,a lot in the FR-2 zone may have the zone required lot area of 21,780 square feet,but in order to enter the Planned Development review process to count slopes over 30%toward the lot minimum, 5 acres are required. E. In a related matter, on January 22,2003,the Planning Commission granted preliminary subdivision approval of a one lot.35-acre foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. On April 2,2003,the Land Use Appeals Board approved a motion to the overturn the Planning Commission decision recommending that the subdivision request be remanded back to the Planning Commission until such time that the City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. Please refer to the attached Land Use Appeals Board minutes for additional details. Attachment B F. Options presented to the planning Commission by Planning staff developed over several meetings included: 1. Follow the City Attorney's recommendation to remove language from the Site Development • Ordinance that refers to the planned development process. 2 2. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that requires the planned development review process and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration. 3. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that specifies slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property to require larger lot minimums,if appropriate. 4. Require the City Attorney's office to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum planned development size based on a determination of a substantial risk of successful taking claim and based on the Attorney's determination the application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission under one of the following options: a. Zoning district and subdivision regulations,or b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance minimum planned development size to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. 6. Not amend the existing language in the Site Development Ordinance,but add a new section that would create a process that allows the Planning Commission the discretion to review parcels: a. that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,and b. to include slopes over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone based on specific minimum criteria. (Please refer item G.below for the specific criteria.) G. The Planning Commission is recommending Option 6 above with the following additional criteria. 1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. • 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,the Planning Commission may count sloped over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the planning commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street. b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30%or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly for the street. d. The applicant must present a construction plan,acceptable to the Planning Director,which demonstrates the ability to manage staging from construction in manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas. e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A. The proposal would amend the text of the Site Development Ordinance only. Because the issue is a result of a conflict between the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances, Council Members may wish to consider: • 1. Amending the Zoning Ordinance Planned Development and Foothill Residential zoning districts sections to include reference to the new requirements in the Site Development Ordinance. 3 2. Current practices used by the Administration to ensure review of existing ordinances,building and • fire codes for compatibility with proposed amendments. a. The Planning staff report notes: o As the proposed revisions do not impact city infrastructure or operations, review by other City departments is not necessary. o New foothill development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The amended site development and zoning ordinances will not affect roadways,parks,and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. b. It is Council staffs understanding that Public Utilities has current data regarding a foothill development boundary in which Utilities can reasonably provide services for water and sewer. Council Members may wish to ask whether this has been addressed in this process and, if not, whether it could add value to the review process. c. Is it anticipated that the City's watershed could be impacted? If so, were the City Boards or Commissions such as the Public Utilities Advisory Committee or Metropolitan Water Board involved in the review process? What type of comments or input was received? B. Due to the significant interest and concern about foothill development, Council Members may wish to discuss whether or not current minimum notification requirements are adequate to ensure broad public participation or whether any additional notification or follow-up is desirable. 1. Community Council Chairs were notified as required,but no Community Council presentations were requested or conducted. The Planning staff report notes that notices were mailed to all Community Council chairpersons requesting input on the City Attorney's recommendation. Staff • received no comments. Following the comment period,staff developed a second option but since it had not been included with the original notice to Community Councils,the City Council staff recommended that an open house be held to gather input. Following that recommendation, an open house was held on April 29,2003. The proposed ordinance changes were discussed at length. The options are derived from comments brought up at the open house and discussions with the City Attorney's Office. 2. Prior to the Planning Commission meetings and after the open house meeting, Planning staff developed additional options that were presented to the Planning Commission. Planning staff indicated to Council staff that additional input from Community Councils and other interested parties was not requested after the open house. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was mailed to Community Council Chairs and people attending the open house. 3. The Planning staff report notes the Liberty Wells Community Council is concerned that the notification and meeting schedules for the comment period and open house did not coincide with their regularly scheduled meetings. Section 21 A.10.020.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,however, only requires a 14 day notification period for ordinance amendments. Nothing specific towards this issue was mentioned in the letter. 4. The Administration's transmittal letter notes: a. The Planning Commission first reviewed this petition on May 28,2003.The Planning Commission heard comments from the public,closed the public hearing and continued the item until June 11, 2003 to allow the Planning Staff time to prepare revised language as directed by the Planning Commission. Several concerns were raised by adjoining neighbors as indicated in the attached Planning Commission minutes,e-mails and letters. • 4 b. Given concerns raised after the June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and a request from • a concerned neighboring property owner to re-open the hearing, staff inquired whether the Planning Commission would consider re-opening the public hearing process at its June 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission,by a majority vote,decided not to re-open Petition No. 400-03-07 pertaining to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance. It was the Commission's view that there were no procedural or substantive missteps made in its review of said Petition. The Commission felt that it had given adequate opportunity for public comment and that it gave due consideration to all view points presented. The Planning Commission directed staff to forward its recommendation to the City Council for review and action. C. The proposed text change contains specific criteria that require a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director,which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas. Given the controversial nature of foothill developments,Council Members may wish to consider requesting that additional criteria be added that addresses the minimum requirements for construction staging. For example, Council Members may wish to clarify whether the Administration would intend to allow staging on adjacent private or public property or adjacent 30%slopes with a revegetation commitment or in the public right of way(street, sidewalk,park strip). Further, Council Members may wish to consider whether it would be prudent to include criteria in the ordinance. This would provide advanced notice to property owners,contractors and the public of what the minimum standards are. D. The Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes discuss Planning staff research relating to standards for establishing minimum planned development project sizes. (This was an issue raised at the Planning open house. Please see the attached meeting notes for details. Attachment C) The Planning Commission minutes note that Planning staff received information from the American Planning Association's Planners Advisory Service. The minutes state"...research found about 12 zoning ordinances that had some restriction on entering a planned development process that was based on a project size. This would suggest that it is a relatively uncommon practice." Council Members may wish to consider initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration reevaluate the minimum project size for planned developments specified in the Zoning Ordinance and provide options for Council consideration. E. Council Members Jergensen and Lambert received a briefing from Planning staff and the City Attorney's office on Monday,June 23t. As a result of the briefing with Administrative staff,Council Members Jergensen and Lambert requested that additional language be drafted for Council consideration that would reference the"current development limit in the foothills"as an item to be considered by the Planning Commission under"the net cumulative impact"condition in the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney's office indicated to Council staff that they will provide alternative ordinance language for Council consideration prior to the Council's briefing on this issue. (Please see the attached ordinances, Attachment D—Planning Commission Recommendation and Attachment E—Alternative ordinance language requested by Council Members Jergensen and Lambert) F. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration steps taken to address issues that continue to be raised relating to the proposed text change. Please see the attached letter from Dona and James DiSario and Dennis L. and Dianne R.Nielson to Mayor Anderson and Council Member Jergensen(Attachment F)and the Planning staff report,Section 8—"Materials Distributed to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff"for details. Ms. DiSario has indicated that she would like a written response to many questions she and others have raised. 5 ATTACHMENT A smillimmiwyr R099 C. "ROCKY^ANDER9ON qpN N. PACE YNT(.r'A,,Ow..(♦ LAW DEPARTMENT EDWIN P. RUTAN, U C.r..fOn»n • January 15,2003 Brent Wilde, Acting Planning Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Salt Lake City Foothill Development Ordinances Dear Brent: The purpose of this letter is to address a legal issue in the City's site development and zoning ordinances. As you are aware,the City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since 1994,that site development ordinance has prohibited construction in foothill areas on property which has a slope in excess of 30 percent. The site development ordinance refers to this steep slope property as"undevelopable area." In March 2001, the City amended the site development ordinance to make various changes_ One of the changes provided that "undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development reviewprocess." (See section 18.28.30.B.I l.c, emphasis added.) The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. (See Table at section 21A.54.150.E.2_ The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a.slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a • minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval_ As you are aware,the Salt Lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes,but it would be very unusual to find a five-acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas_ As you are also aware,there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build,but which are significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development_ Thus,the application of these two ordinances, in their present form,could deny a property owner the • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET.ROOM SOS,SALT LAKE CITY. UT Hof 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8O1-535-7708 FAX: BO►-535-764O 4 ability to develop foothill properly,not because•it is too steep or too small to build upon,but because the City ordinances refine to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas,unless t� owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approva Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property_ It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the properly for which compensation would be required_ See Lucas v. { South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). • This issue was discussed with the Planning Commission in November 2002_ In response to that discussion,the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances. While that petition is being processed,1 strongly recommend that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 18.28.30.B.1 l.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval,as follows: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission.4J ougl In this manner,the development of foothill properties will still be reviewed and approval by the Planning Commission,but would not be prohibited by the requirements for planned developments. By so doing,the City can still maintain appropriate review of foothill • development,without creating a risk of an unconstitutional taking. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please let me know_ Sincerely yours, ynn H. ace ‘1& LHP/ns cc: Cindy Gust-Jensen • ATTACHMENT B SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS BOARD City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 April 2,2003 The meeting of the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board was held on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. at the City and County Building,451 South State Street, in Room 315. Board Members present were Chairperson Denise Dragoo,Mark Hafey, and Mary Woodhead. Staff Members present were David Dobbins, Administrator for the Land Use Appeals Board and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board become effective on the date the vote is taken. Any person adversely affected by any final decision by the Land Use Appeals Board may file a petition for review with the District Court within 30 days after the decision is rendered. Mr.Dobbins called the meeting to order and explained the procedures for the meeting. The Board approved the minutes of March 10, 2003 as presented. NEW CASES • Case No. 03-006 -David Deisley, representing neighborhood residents, idents,appealing the Planning Commission's preliminary subdivision approval of a one lot.35-acre foothill subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr.David Deisly was in attendance and presented the appeal. Mr.Deisly reviewed his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in FR-3 zoning district. Mr.Deisley stated that there is clearly a prejudicial procedural error as well as failure of findings of fact applicable to the standards by the PC's decision.Mr.Deisley said the property approved for development disputes the applicable zoning restrictions in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr. Deisley explained that the ordinance states property must have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and the undevelopable area should not be used to determine the minimum lot size and steep slopes are designated as undevelopable area requiring the slope to be less than 30%for the 12,000 square feet. Mr.Deisley stated that the area of the lot with steep slopes was not excluded as mandated by the slope restriction ordinance,and with the proposed structure of 1,700 square feet in size,it would consume all of the buildable area on the lot thus contrary to the stated purpose of the FR-3/12,000 Foothills District. Mr. Deisley said in the findings of fact presented at the January 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting where it%tates the zoning ordinance • and the site development ordinance were in compliance are inclusive and not supported by 1 Land Use Appeals Board April 2,2003 • fact. Mr. Deisley believes that City Staff and PC attempted to get around the site development ordinance requirement. Mr. Deisley stated that the section of the ordinance that is applicable states that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." Mr. Deisley said that in their decision,the PC decided to strike through the planned development review process to obtain the language in the ordinance in order for the property to qualify for consideration under the planned development review process. Mr. Deisley said that in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district, a planned development requires a minimum 5-acre lot and this lot is only 0.35 acres not qualifying for the planned development review process. Mr. Deisley stated that the PC does not have the authority or discretion to amend the statute or the ordinance in that way. Mr. Deisley said that the ordinance states that it is the discretion, power and authority of the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance and thus restricts the authority of the PC to initiate amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Deisley stated that at the meeting in January, the PC usurped the authority expressly granted to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance and that the PC exceeded its authority and failed to apply the appropriate standards to the facts as set forth on the record. Mr. Deisley stated that the decision on this matter should have been deferred until the City Council exercised its authority to amend or not amend the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Doug Wheelwright, City Deputy Planning Director and Jackie Gasparik,City Planner • were present representing City Staff and Planning Commission positions. Staff advised that there were three ordinances considered in the approval and that the Planning Commission is the approval body for both Foothill subdivisions and planned development. Staff contends the PC does have the authority to make decisions regarding the conflict of the ordinances. Staff said the zoning ordinance states that the minimum lot size in the district is 12,000 square feet and the lot is 12,000 square feet. Staff advised that in 2001 the City amended the site development ordinance creating a conflict with the zoning ordinance. Staff asked City Attorney's Office for an interpretation on how to proceed. Staff said the PC exercised its discretion to accept the recommendation from the Attorney's Office that the ordinance be interpreted to require PC approval without requiring the 5 acre minimum planned development size. Staff said by this recommendation,the PC considered all the facts based on the staff report and public testimony to make their decision. Mr. Bruce Baird,Attorney, representing Mr.Amir Cornell approached the table and stated that the Planning Commission did not have to follow staff recommendation. Mr.Baird said the PC determined it was the appropriate decision at the time with the ordinance pending, and that the City Attorney advised the PC correctly. Mr. Baird said the conflict was created after Mr. Cornell purchased the property. Mr.Baird said Mr. Cornell purchased the property before he was suddenly told that 90%of the property didn't count. Mr. Baird advised that in regard to the conflict in statutes,the rule in Utah is that any ambiguity in the statutes are construed in favor of the private property owner because zoning statutes are in • derogation of long standing private property rights. Mr. Baird stated that by definition, 2 Land Use Appeals Board April 2,2003 • there is one ordinance making it perfectly developable and the other ordinance making it undevelopable, so there is the necessity to agree with the PC and that the findings are adequate. Mr. Baird believes the PC made a rational decision in light of the ordinance conflict. Mr. David Deisley reapproached the table and stated that the amended site development ordinance was adopted in March 2001 and the initial preliminary subdivision filing of the property did not incur until September 2001 after the adoption of this rule. Mr.Deisley said that the deed for the purchase of the property was not recorded until August 2002, a year and a half later. Mr. Deisley stated he disputes the idea that there is a conflict with the ordinances. Mr. Deisley said it is clear the planned development process creates a special mechanism to allow the development of property. Mr. Deisley said it is intentional on the part of the City Council that they would not allow the PC to waive the requirements of the zoning ordinance undevelopable area—steep slopes to not be included to determine the minimum lot size except through the planned development process. Mr. Deisley stated that the record shows the developable area for the property is 1700 square feet and that all the buildable area is consumed by the structure, consequently, ending up with a house jammed between a road and a hill and this is not consistent with the purpose of protection by the Foothills requirements. • Mr. Lynn Pace,Deputy City Attorney,was present and stated that the site development ordinance deletion of the requirement for the planned development process approval was interpreted in a short-hand way to make reference to the entire planned development section of the code which includes minimum acreage. A discussion followed by the Board and Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms_Dragoo and Mr. Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances, the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the planned development process requires a 5 acre lot and does not see any way around what the ordinance states without an amendment to the ordinance. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the PC could have delayed the decision until the City Council had an amendment of the ordinance, and the Board did not feel the PC findings were reasonable. Ms. Woodhead indicated that she believed the PC decision was supported by the ordinances and that only the process of the planned development ordinance applied to the property. THEREFORE, Mr. Hafey made a motion for the Board to overturn the Planning Commission decision with the Board-recommending that it be remanded back to the PC until such time City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. All voted Aye except for Ms. Woodhead who opposed. Two to overturn,the motion passes. • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. 3 ATTACHMENT C • April 29,2003—Planning Open House Foothill Development-Site Development/Zoning Ordinance changes Council staff summary A. Background information: 1. The Site Development Ordinance does not allow un-developable property(property with 30% slope or more)to be used as part of the minimum lot size required in a zoning district unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 5-acres for planned developments in foothill districts. 3. Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office has indicated the net effect of the two existing provisions is that: • Foothill property with a slope in excess of 30%may not be used to calculate minimum lot size unless the property owner owns enough property to meet the minimum 5-acre requirement for planned developments. • The application of the two ordinances would deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property because they may not have the 5-acre minimum. • This conflict creates the potential for a takings claim against the City. B. Additional information attached: 1. Information from the Planning staff mailed prior to the meeting 2. A list of meeting participants C. Open house discussion items focused on: • 1. Site specific issues relating the property in District 3 located at 1085 E.North Bonneville Drive owned by Amir Cornell. 2. Legal implications regarding the conflict between existing language in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances relating to foothill developments. 3. The need to provide property owners an escape or opportunity for relief from the City's requirements. 4. The need to identify the number and location of properties affected by existing ordinance requirements. • Evaluate the potential cost to the City relating to legal and/or acquisition costs. • It may not be necessary to change the ordinances because the Cornell property may be the only property that is affected by the existing ordinance language. • The City could consider acquiring the properties through assistance from non-profit conservation groups such as the Trust for Public Lands or Audubon Society and state or federal government funding sources. 5. Options discussed: • City attorney's recommendation (see attached document) o Allow un-developable property to be included in lot size calculation based on approval by the Planning Commission. (Removes language requiring the planned development process.) • Planning staff recommendation (see attached document) o Reduce the minimum lot area for a planned development to match the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts. (For example, in the FR-3/12,000 district the minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. With this proposal,the planned development size would be reduced from 5 • acres to 12,000 sq. ft.) • Add standards/criteria to the attorney's recommendation that would provide the 411 Planning Commission objective criteria on which to base their decision. • Provide a rational,objective basis for reducing the planned development minimum acreage recommended by Planning staff or any future adjustment of the staff s recommendation. o It was noted that there may be a need to adjust the required planned development size but,there should be an objective evaluation and rational basis to support whatever that figure may be. • Need to reevaluate the planned develop acreage requirements comprehensively for all other zoning districts. o It was noted that it does not appear equitable to address only the foothill zones and not the other residential, commercial, institutional zones, etc. • Research 'best practices',other cities requirements and professional planning literature for models or alternative processes for dealing with slope and planned development issues. • Do not change the existing ordinance language and create a process to deal with exceptions. Depending upon the results of an inventory and evaluation of properties affected by the existing ordinance requirements: o Consider not changing the existing ordinances. o Notify affected property owners that development potential would be eliminated. o Establish a process for a case-by-case evaluation and exemption. The affected property owners could present information and identify reasons why their property should be exempt from the existing requirements and allowed to be developed. • • SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OPTIONS: Option 1 -City Attorney's Office Recommendation Amend Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Site Development Ordinance as Follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through .:. planned de . Approval shall only be allowed under the following conditions. The buildable area is on a slope less than 30% and within the required setbacks of the zoning district. • Option 2-Planning Staff Alternative Amend Table 21A.54.150E2. of the Zoning Ordinance so that the minimum lot area for a planned development matches the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts as follows: Table 21A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential 5 acres 43,560 sq. ft. District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 21,780 sq.ft. FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 12,000 sq. ft. FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres 16 acres • Open House— Site Development Ordinance April 29, 2003 III Name Address Phone Number 1. Ray McCandless 451 South State Street(Planning staff) 535-7282 Doug Wheelwright " 535-6178 Jackie Gasparik " 535-6354 2. Dona Disario 1099 East North Bonneville Drive 359-6941 3. Wayne Martinson 549 Cortez 364-2971 4. Deb Sawyer 549 Cortez 364-2971 5. Dave Mortensen 2278 Signal Point Circle 581-4719 6. Shawn McMillen 1855 South 2600 East 359-8862 x114 7. Jerry Bergosh 1961 Scenic Drive 486-4000 8. Gwen Springmeyer Mayor's Office 535-6338 9. Cindy Cromer 816 East 100 South 355-4115 10. Dianne R. Nielson 1096 East North Bonneville Drive 359-3155 11. Janice Jardine Council Staff 535-7614 12. James Disario 1099 North Bonneville Drive 359-6941 13. Andrea Barrows 2119 Lakeline 486-7154 S • ATTACHMENT D • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning • Districts; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that under certain circumstances, the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning • Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER . 2 ATTACHMENT E Alternative Ordinance language requested by Council Members Jergensen and Lambert (see item c.2.e on page 2) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning • Districts; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that under certain circumstances, the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • • c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as • required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant has presented a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative • adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. For the purposes of this section, any proposal which, if approved, would result in additional development beyond the perimeter of existing foothill development, as opposed to infill development, shall be deemed to have a material net cumulative adverse impact upon the City as a whole. 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 ,2003. CHAIRPERSON • 2 • ATTACHMENT F June 16, 2003 • To: Mayor Rocky Anderson Salt Lake City, Utah Councilman Eric Jergensen Salt Lake City Council CC: Gwen Springmeyer Mayor's Office From: Dona and James DiSario 1099 E. North Bonneville, Salt Lake City 359-6941 donadisario@hotmail.com Dennis L. and Dianne R. Nielson 1096 E. North Bonneville, Salt Lake City 359-3155 drnielso@msn.com Re: Salt Lake Planning Commission Petition No. 400-03-07 Procedural and Substantive Problems • The purpose of the memorandum is to request your assistance in addressing problems concerning the above-referenced petition to amend the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance, as well as actions of the Planning Commission regarding the Petition. 1. No opportunity was provided for public comment regarding the proposed option prior to action by the Planning Commission on 06/11/03 to accept the option and submit it by petition to the Salt Lake City Council. On May 28, 2003,the Planning Commission considered three options for changing the ordinance and provided a severely limited opportunity for public comment with only three minutes per presentation. The issues are far too complex to be adequately addressed by the public within the three-minute limit. The Planning Commission should have continued the hearing to allow a complete discussion of the issues of their sponsored petition. After a motion to accept one of the options failed, the Planning Division agreed to analyze further options, and the matter was continued to the June 11, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Division recommended a new option for revising the Site Development Ordinance. No opportunity was provided for review by Community Councils, and no opportunity was provided for public comment at the • Planning Commission meeting. Instead,the Planning Commission discussed and revised the option, and approved it to be submitted to the City Council as Petition No. 400-03-07. 4111 Since this petition was initiated by the Planning Commission at the request of the City Attorney, it is vital to an effective planning process to seek public input to their recommendation to the City Council prior to making their decision. Without a complete public discussion on this issue, it appears that the Planning Commission had predetermined their decision when they sponsored Petition Number 400-03-07. The impact of their recommendation will have a significant change in the method that Salt Lake City uses to regulate foothill development. We ask that before this Planning Commission recommendation is presented to the City Council, the Anderson Administration determine if the process that led to the Planning Commission recommendation was"fair"with full disclosure to the public. We believe that the facts will show that the public was deliberately excluded from comment. This petition should either be remanded to the Planning Commission for a full public hearing process(as required by law)or rescinded by the Planning Commission enabling existing laws regulating foothill development to be enforced. 2. The Petition will have the effect of creating a single-lot subdivision with a "usable area" of as little as 4500 square feet(approximately 1/10th of an acre), which is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Under current site development and zoning ordinances, the minimum lot sizes in the three Foothills Residential Districts are 43,560 square feet (FRO), 21,780 square feet (FR2), and 12,000 square feet (FR3). Land with 30% or steeper slope cannot be counted toward the minimum lot size. Under the existing ordinance, a lot's minimum "useable area" (footprint of the house, plus required setbacks or yard area of 20/20/40 feet(front/side/rear)for the FR1 and FR2 zones or 20/10/20 feet for the FR3 zone, plus area of the property with less than 30% slope,i.e., the area where construction and landscaping can occur)would be 12,000 square feet or 0.275 acre(FR3). Under the Petition option approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, the minimum lot size remains the same, but land with slopes steeper than 30% can be counted toward the minimum lot size so long as certain other conditions are satisfied. One of these conditions establishes a minimum footprint for the home of 1500 square feet. Under this option, a lot's minimum"usable area" is required to be only 4500 square feet or 0.103 acre(minimum house footprint of 1500 square feet, plus setbacks or yard area). The remaining portion of the lot can be entirely comprised of land with slopes greater than 30%. Because these steep slopes cannot be disturbed or landscaped, the apparent lot size will be that of the"useable area." The visual effect created by building on such a small lot is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, because of the small size of the"useable area," it will be very difficult to construct a home on such a lot without disturbing the adjacent steep slopes, 2 • adjacent lots, or the adjacent street. Establishing a staging area on a nearby lot will serve only to establish an equipment storage area, also not consistent with the surrounding residential area. This is a substantial change in public policy regarding foothill regulations that is being directed by the City Attorney because of a fear of a"takings" challenge. The case that has provoked this change in the ordinances of Salt Lake City is not a case worthy of such change. Some foothill properties will simply never be able to comply with laws that were adopted to balance private property rights with public good. Again, we ask that Mayor Anderson receive a full briefing from the staff and the interested public and read the Planning Commission minutes prior to submitting Petition 400-03-007 to the City Council. We believe that the facts will justify the Administration to intervene in this matter and study its worthiness and desired affects on the residents of Salt Lake City living in the foothills. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these significant planning issues for Salt Lake City with the Administration and Council member Jergensen before the full City Council receives the Petition for consideration. Please contact one of us to schedule a meeting convenient to all of us. Thank you for your consideration. • 411 • • • � . veg i.ti 4:•:•:•:. ..... .:.:•:: ::•:.: . . •• ••••••.•• •••••• . 120 ft .. •...•.•.•.•.•...•..•.•.•.•.•...• .•..•... • Figure l A Figure IA and 1B • Under the current Ordinance for the FR3 zone,the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet or 0.275 acre. Land with slopes steeper than 30%is not included in the minimum lot size. Useable area Figure 2 (yard area including house footprint and setbacks)equals 12,000 .• . . .'........•.•..••....•..•..... ...•....•...........•.•.•.•..•....•...•..• square feet or 0.275 acre. 70 ft 70 ft Figure 1B Figure 2 COMPARISON OF USEABLE LOT SIZES UNDER CURRENT SALT Under Petition No.400-03-04,the minimum LAKE CITY ORDINANCE AND Useable Area lot size is also 12,000 square feet,but land with slopes steeper than 30%is included in UNDER PETITION NO. 400-03-04 Area to include footprint of house the minimum lot size. The minimum FOR THE FOOTHILLS footprint for a house is 1500 square feet Setbacks ) Useable area(yard area including house RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FR3 (FR3 20/10/2o footprint and setbacks)can equal as little as Steep Slope Area 4500 square feet or 0.103 acre. Because the steep slope area is not Greater than 30%slope,no disturbance landscaped,the visual effect is a lot size of Prepared by DR Nielson,6/30/03 allowed 4500 square feet. • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-02-23—Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance Sec. 21A.38 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Structures to provide legal conforming status for single-family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes AFFECTED COUNCIL If the ordinance is adopted,the amendment will be DISTRICTS: applicable citywide. STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Research and Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine,Planning and Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning AND CONTACT PERSON: Division,Marilyn Lewis,Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: • 1. The Administration's transmittal notes that the ro os p p ed text amendment would allow owners of single-family detached dwellings to gain financing for repairs that will help maintain the structures in a manner that is not only helpful in maintaining a quality housing stock in the City,but allows the properties to contribute to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Currently, 583 existing properties with single-family detached dwellings have been identified in a variety of commercial,mixed-use, special purpose and industrial zones. 3. The Zoning Ordinance defines a non-conforming use as any building or land legally occupied by a use at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance which does not conform with the use regulations of the district in which it is located. 4. The Administration's transmittal explains that the purpose of the zoning text amendment is to allow single-family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes that are currently considered non-conforming uses to be legally reconstructed if they suffer major structural damage. The text amendment would authorize alterations,extensions/additions,and replacement of any single-family detached dwelling,two-family dwelling or twin home(except those located in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts), subject to complying with all other current, local or state development standards. The reconstruction of homes in the M-1 and M-2 zones would require a conditional use. 5. The purpose of the Non-Conforming Use/Non-Complying Structure section of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 21A.38)is to provide regulations and standards that regulate the continued existence of: A. Principal and accessory uses established prior to April 12, 1995 that do not conform to the use • regulations in the zoning districts in which the uses are located. Page 1 B. Buildings, structures and property improvements constructed prior to April 12, 1995 that do not comply with the applicable bulk and/or yard area regulations in the zoning districts in which the • buildings or structures are located. C. Current requirements and standards provide for: • Continuation of use • Repair,maintenance and structural safety • Abandonment or loss of the use or structure • Moving,enlarging or altering non-conforming uses or non-complying structures 6. The proposed amendment would refine and expand current provisions that address single-family and two-family non-conforming uses. Currently,the Zoning Ordinance provides legal conforming status for single-family dwellings within the CN,CB,G-MU or D-3 districts and for two-family dwellings or twin homes in any zoning classification. There are no restrictions on the square footage of the replacement structures other than compliance with required yard area setbacks and height specified in the zoning district. Parking is required to be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. 7. The proposed text amendment includes the following requirements: A. In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, (which do not allow residential uses)the replacement structure may exceed the original footprint of the existing structure by twenty-five percent if the structure has been destroyed by fire,voluntary demolition or natural calamity. B. Replacement structures which exceed twenty-five percent of the original footprint, or the replacement of a single-family detached dwelling,two-family dwelling or twin home in an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use. C. Replacement structures shall not project into a required yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. D. The number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or greater than the number of parking stalls being replaced. 8. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a detailed discussion of the proposed text amendment. The Planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.50.050—Standards for General Zoning Amendments. (Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for additional details.) Key elements include: A. Most of the residential uses in industrial zones mainly exist in the Swedetown Neighborhood of Capitol Hill(west of Beck Street at approximately 1400 North.) B. Owners of homes in industrial zones will be allowed to request the reconstruction of their homes, as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these zoning districts. C. Many lenders refuse to lend on properties that cannot be rebuilt in their present location and zone. D. Often, lots located in commercial zoning districts cannot be resold as commercially usable property because they are too small to accommodate such a use. Until assemblage of properties takes place for redevelopment to a conforming use,the existing non-conforming use remains. E. The City should take a careful look at allowing homes to be rebuilt in areas of intense industry, where there could potentially be exposure to certain byproducts of that industry(vapors,dust,or contaminants). Since industrial zoned areas are scarce,the industrial land owners should have some protection from complaints by residential land owners of land use conflicts. F. The City should be aware of issues related to rebuilding structures within the 100 year floodplain and on extremely steep slopes. 9. On January 8, 2003,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive 4110 recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Issues discussed during the Planning Commission public hearing included: Page 2 A. Actions taken by the Planning Commission and City Council during the 1995 Zoning rewrite project relating to nonconforming existing duplexes,tri-plexes and four-plexes. • B. One Planning Commissioner noted that tri-plexes and four-plexes are not addressed in the proposed text amendment,though they were financially impacted by the(1995)down zoning. Planning staff noted that when the City Council was approached regarding the rebuild provision for duplexes in 1995,the issue of three-and four-family dwellings was also discussed. It was decided that two-family dwellings would receive legal conforming status. At the time, single- family dwellings in commercial districts were not an issue. (Please note: Planning staff indicated to Council staff that the Zoning Administrator has been asked to study the issues generated by tri-plexes and four-plexes.) C. Two City residents noted that in their attempts to sell their property,they lost perspective buyers or could not obtain a rebuild letter because of the zoning and non-conforming status of their homes. D. Two Planning Commissioners expressed reservations about allowing residential improvements in a general commercial zone, stating that approving this text change would impede good commercial development in commercial zones. 10. The public process included an open house conducted by the Planning Staff on December 9,2002. Comments from those in attendance included concerns relating to: A. Refinancing, mortgages,reconstruction fmancing, and insurance"reactions"to current zoning. B. Parking requirements and neighborhood compatibility issues. C. Potential increase in housing unit legalizations. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR • ADMINISTRATION: 1. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration how the proposed text amendment relates to the Legislative Action regarding non-conforming uses adopted by the Council earlier this year.(Please refer to the attached Legislative Action for details.) By way of background, on April 15, 2003,the City Council adopted a legislative action item sponsored by Council Member Carlton Christensen requesting the Administration to reevaluate the regulations relating to non-conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance and provide the Council with ordinance language options to include: A. Eliminating the current percentage limitations for reconstruction,improvement or expansion of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures. B. Establishing refined standards, public notification and review process that include: 1. Replacement,reconstruction,improvement or expansion of certain types of non- conforming uses and non-complying structures. 2. Establishing categories of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures with a different level of review and public notification depending upon the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Council Members may wish to request an update from the Administration regarding compatibility and design review issues that continue to be raised regarding new or replacement construction in the community. For example: A. The proposed text change allows,(in zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do not allow residential uses),the replacement structure to exceed the original footprint of the existing structure by twenty-five percent if the structure has been destroyed by fire, voluntary demolition or natural calamity. Replacement structures shall not project into a required yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. Page 3 B. Council Members continue to receive constituent calls regarding neighborhood compatibility issues relating to new or replacement construction in their neighborhoods. (Recent examples include 1788 Hudson Avenue(approx 2960 South 1700 East), 1877 South 2600 East, 684 • North H Street.) C. Past Council discussions relating to various zoning text amendments and rezoning requests have included compatibility and design related issues. The Council's recent discussions with Frank Gray focused on walkable community concepts,design guidelines,and neighborhood compatibility. 3. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration whether it may be appropriate to include the following in the ordinance: A. Reference to any applicable overlay zones or additional requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. This would provide upfront notification of all zoning requirements prior to application submission. B. Reference to the ordinance adoption date so that the public is aware of when the change became effective. The current non-conforming provisions and other sections of the Zoning Ordinance contain language that refers to uses,buildings, structures and property improvements established prior to April 12, 1995 which is the adoption date of the zoning rewrite. C. Reference to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts (Sec.21A.28.040)in the M-1 and M-2 industrial districts that indicate non-conforming single- family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes may be allowed as a conditional use. MASTER PLAN & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (FOR PLANNING • ISSUES): 1. According to the Planning Staff report,the zoning text amendment will not accommodate any new structures unless they are replacing an existing single-family home,duplex or twin home. Property owners will be able to maintain homes,but this proposed amendment does not preclude redevelopment or change to a commercial use. The Planning staff report states that in certain geographic areas of the City,legally conforming existing single-family and duplex dwellings will not necessarily comply with master plan policies that identify the areas for more intensive use. Some immediate impacts may occur with regards to master plans due to the continued maintenance of existing homes,but not to the extent that it would negate the direction of the master plan. The Planning staff report concludes that the significance would not warrant any type of master plan amendment. The Planning staff report points out that if this issue is not addressed,property deterioration will continue and become a negative factor to neighborhoods. Therefore,low density residential uses will not interfere with the long range future land use plans,or prevent the policies of the master plans from being implemented. 2. The Council has adopted housing policy statements that support creating a wide variety of housing types citywide. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community Housing Plan. The policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. • Page 4 3. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and • economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: A. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. B. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. C. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. D. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. E. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. F. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. 4. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. 5. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: A. Is aesthetically pleasing; • B. Contributes to a livable community environment; C. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and D. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. CHRONOLOGY: • October 7, 2002. Memo and draft language was sent to City Departments,Community Council Chairs, and other interested parties for their comments and to determine interest in holding a public hearing. • November 27,2002. Open house notices were mailed. • December 9,2002. Planning Staff held an open house. • December 20, 2002. Notices for the Planning Commission public hearing were mailed. • January 8, 2003. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the rezoning of the properties. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,D.J.Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze,Craig Spangenberg,Brent Wilde,Enzo Calfa,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Marilynn Lewis and Janice Jardine File location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,Non-conforming Uses/Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings S Page 5 MEMORANDUM 4111 DATE: April 11, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Council Member Carlton Christensen SUBJECT: Legislative Action— request to reevaluate the Zoning Ordinance relating to the nonconforming use regulations CC: Rocky Fluhart, Dave Nimkin, DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Roger Evans, Brent Wilde, Harvey Boyd, Craig Spangenberg, Enzo Calfa, Jan Aramaki, Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Janne Neilson,Annette Daley, Bany Esham, Gwen Springmeyer I would appreciate the Council's support for a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration reevaluate the non-conforming use and non-complying structure regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.38. I am aware that in the past several years other Council Members have been contacted by constituents and property owners who have experienced difficulty in selling their properties or securing financing and insurance for their properties and buildings at a competitive-rate. In following up on this with the Administration,Planning staff indicated that it would be • appropriate to update the current non-conforming use and non-complying structure requirements to allow a case by case evaluation of uses and provide options for reconstruction in certain instances. I would appreciate the support of Council Members in asking the Administration to reevaluate the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and provide the Council with options. The result I would like to see is Zoning Ordinance language that would: • Eliminate the current percentage limitations for reconstruction,improvement or expansion of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures. • Establish refined standards,public notification and review processes that include: o Replacement,reconstruction,improvement or expansion of certain types of non- conforming uses and non-complying structures. o Establish categories of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures with a different level of review and public notification depending upon the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. • Other options that may be identified by the Administration. • Legislative Action sponsored by Council Member Carlton Christensen relating-to non- conforming use and non-complying structure regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. • • Council Members discussed this item with the Announcements on March 4, 2003. • A majority of Council Members were comfortable with placing this on the Council's agenda for formal action. S • 2 0 2ai3 ALISON WEYHER . ` . (A\i r`CITY r e, IPA ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative O ficer D E: June 11, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition No. 400-02-23: Legal conforming single-family detached, two-family and twin homes. STAFF CONTACT: Marilynn Lewis 535-6409 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing regarding amendments to 21A.38.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance • BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: In 1995, one of the goals of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite was to make land use options narrower, in order to avoid land use conflicts. Much of the low-density residentially zoned property in the City was rezoned from R-2 zoning to R-1 zoning at that time. As a result,many uses became non-conforming,which limits the potential to replace structures. This situation created an immediate problem for two-family dwelling units in R-1 zoning districts during the rezone, and thus they were given legal conforming status. Legal conforming status authorizes alterations, extensions/additions, and the replacement of existing structures. More recently,problems with single-family dwellings in commercial districts have been raised. The purpose of this petition is to provide the same legal conforming status for single- family dwellings in nonresidential districts where they are nonconforming, as was given two- family and twin homes in 1995. Analysis: 1.)Legally Conforming Issues Duplex and twin-home dwelling units were made legally conforming in zones where they would have otherwise been non-conforming, due to down zoning, as part of the 1995 Zoning Ordinance rewrite. However, existing single-family detached, dwelling units were not given legal conforming status, and therefore many became non-conforming in districts where they had been legal. Non-conforming status, in general, does not allow the existing structures to be restored if • damaged to the extent of 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure. Prior to 1995, much of the City's lower density neighborhoods were zoned R-2. Therefore, when these 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX; B01-535.6005 ®nccrceu Pnnen neighborhoods were zoned R-1 in the Zoning Rewrite Project,the decision makers found it important to legally conform existing duplex and twin home dwellings as there were so many two-family dwellings located within the new R-1 zoned areas, that would be deemed as legal non-conforming. This has resulted in an ordinance that allows the total replacement of existing two-family and twin homes in R-1 districts. The purpose of this petition is to provide the same legal conforming status to single-family detached dwellings in nonresidential districts where they are non-conforming. 2.)Financing Issues Issues related to the refinancing of existing non-conforming single-family detached homes throughout the City include: • Many lenders, specializing in residential properties are refusing to lend on properties that cannot be rebuilt in their present location and zone. The reasons for this are varied ranging from; the loan would now be considered a commercial loan (due to the zoning) and resale of the property is the only way they may recoup the loss from destruction. • Owners of existing non-conforming single-family detached homes are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain refinancing or to sell their homes, even though the property may be zoned commercial. Many homeowners in older neighborhoods cannot afford the higher interest rates of the commercial loans,but also cannot afford to move. Therefore, they cannot make improvements or maintain their homes because they cannot get home equity loans to fix up their homes, or refinance. • • Often, lots in commercial zoning districts cannot be resold as commercially usable property,because they are too small to accommodate such a use. Therefore,until assemblage of properties takes place for redevelopment to a conforming use,the existing non-conforming use remains. Master Plan: Legally conforming single-family detached, duplex and twin homes will only apply to those units that currently exist. This zoning text amendment will not accommodate any new structures unless they are replacing an existing single-family home. Property owners will be able to maintain homes,but this proposed amendment does not preclude redevelopment or change to a commercial use. Some immediate impacts may occur with regards to master plans, due to the continued maintenance of existing homes,but not to the extent that it would negate the direction of the master plan. The significance would not warrant any type of master plan amendment. If this issue is not addressed, property deterioration will continue and become a negative factor to neighborhoods. Therefore, low density residential uses will not interfere with the long range future land use plans, or prevent the policies of the master plans from being implemented. • • Public Process: This proposed text amendment will affect applicable properties citywide. All Community Council Chairs were notified of the petition and the draft ordinance language, and asked to comment on whether they were interested in having a presentation made to their particular community. The Council Chairs were asked to submit their preference by October 16`h, 2002. Only two Community Councils responded. On December 9, 2002 an open house was held in room 326 of the City and County Building to inform interested persons and organizations of the proposed amendment, as well as receive their comments. At the request of East Central and Liberty Wells Community Councils,notices were sent to all of the citizens on their community council lists, as well as all of the community council chairs, housing advocacy groups, lending institution representatives and interested individuals. Fifteen citizens attended the open house, of which only twelve provided written comment. The comments from City residents range from not wanting additional housing unit legalizations to empathy for homeowners caught in an unfriendly financial climate. Real estate brokers expressed frustration in trying to sell homes in commercially zoned districts. They were unlikely to seek these types of properties, especially if the lot is not large enough to actually change to a commercial use if the property is in a commercial zone. • Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to the Zoning Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. As detailed in Section 21A.50.050, "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Based on these five factors, staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity, impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones, the adequacy of existing services and facilities. Based on this analysis,the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. TABLE OF CONTENTS i 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Original Notice and Postmark December 20, 2002 b. Staff Report January 8, 2003 c. Agenda/Minutes January 8, 2003 6. ORIGINAL PETITION 0 Petition 400-02-23 • 1. CHRONOLOGY • PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July10, 2002. CED Director originally initiated petition. • October 7, 2002. A memo and copy of the draft language was sent out to City Departments for comment. A letter and copy of the draft language were sent to all Community Council Chairs, and other interested parties to see if they are interested in a formal presentation. • November 27, 2002. Notices for the open house were sent. • December 9, 2002. Planning Staff held an open house to gather input from the general public, as well as the real estate and banking industries. • December 20, 2002. Sent notices for the Planning Commission's public hearing. • January 8, 2003. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the rezoning of the properties. • February 28, 2003. Requested draft ordinance from City Attorney's Office. • • April 3, 2003. Received ordinance from Attorney's Office. • June 5, 2003. Final changes have been made from Planning Director's review. • 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code Regarding Legal Conforming Uses) AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE PROVIDING LEGAL CONFORMING STATUS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TWIN HOMES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-23. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides for certain limited legal conforming status for single family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, it has been determined that it would be in the best interest of the City to provide • legal conforming status for all legal existing single family detached dwellings, two- family dwellings and twin homes in most zoning districts; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.38.120 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.38.120 Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings And Twin Homes: Any single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home, except those located in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts, that is in legal existence prior to April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming. Subject to complying with all other current, local or state development standards, biegal conforming status shall authorize alterations, extensions/additions, and replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home. In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do not allow detached • single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units and twin homes, the replacement structure may exceed the original footprint of the existing structure by twenty-five percent 25%when the structure has been destroyed by fire, voluntary demolition or natural calamity. Replacement structures which exceed twenty-five percent 25% of the original footprint, or the replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. When replacing a legal conforming two fa ily dwelling or twin h^ The replacement structure shall not project into a required yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. When replacing a legal conforming single family detached dwelling, two- family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. SECTION 2. Section 21A.38.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is deleted in it's entirely. • l=`_l3 f`_ MU And it 3 Zoni g Dist-' t . Any single family dwelling located in a CV, CB, G MU or D 3 District that was in legal existence prior to April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize alterations, extensions, additions and replacement of the single family home. When replacing a legal conforming single family home, there shall not be a square footage limitation on the replacement structure. The replacement structure shall notrequired yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. When r.".N au..ui� u ivsu. vviiiviiuui� .Tni , parking stalls being replaced. 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Amending SLC zoning code to provide greater latitute for legal conform uses-Apr 2,2003..doc • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code Regarding Legal Conforming Uses) AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE PROVIDING LEGAL CONFORMING STATUS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS,TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TWIN HOMES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO.400-02-23. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides for certain limited legal conforming status for single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes;and WHEREAS,after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City . Council,it has been determined that it would be in the best interest of the City to provide legal conforming status for all legal existing single family detached dwellings,two- family dwellings and twin homes in most zoning districts; NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21 A.38.120 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.38.120 Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings,Two- Family Dwellings And Twin Homes: Any single-family detached dwelling,two-family dwelling or twin home, except those located in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts,that is in legal existence shall be considered legal conforming. Subject to complying with all other current,local or state development • standards,legal conforming status shall authorize alterations, extensions/additions, and replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home. • In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units and twin homes, the replacement structure may exceed the original footprint of the existing structure by twenty-five percent 25%when the structure has been destroyed by fire, voluntary demolition or natural calamity. Replacement structures which exceed twenty-five percent 25%of the original footprint, or the replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The replacement structure shall not project into a required yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. When replacing a legal conforming single family detached dwelling, two- family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. SECTION 2. Section 21A.38.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is deleted in it's entirely. • 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 , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on • Mayor's Action: Approved. _ Vetoed. ROSS C.ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: .• �f 3-03 , _/��w� • • C:\Ordinance 03\Amending SLC zoning code to provide greater latitute for legal conform uses.Clean.Apr 2,2003.doe • • 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING w • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition 400-02-23,to amend to the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to existing non-conforming detached single-family,two-family dwellings,and twin homes throughout the City.The purpose of the text amendment is to provide legally conforming status to existing single-family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts,except the Light Industrial(M-1)and Heavy Industrial(M2)zones. In the M-1 and M-2 zones these uses may be allowed as a conditional use. The petition was initiated to address the issue of continual citizen requests for rebuild letters from the Zoning Administrator, stating that owners can reconstruct their homes contrary to the underlying zoning provisions. Without rebuild letters it is difficult for owners to obtain financing from lending institutions. As part of their study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing,the Planning staff may present • information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines.Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon with 24 hours advance request. If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please attend the meeting or call Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 between the hours of 7:30 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. • 4. MAILING LABELS Wynn Johnson Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY • 852 Northcliffe Drive 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Catherine New Samantha Francis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O. Box# 521744 70 W. Van Buren Ave. 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah84101-2201 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick Jim Byrne ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave 1966 East 900 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 841108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee ST.MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S. Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • Beth Bowman Kenneth L. Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E. Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Carol Goode Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 823 South 1000 East 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 John Storrs Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1028 West 500 South 846 W 400 N. 1410 N.Baroness Place. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Helen Peters Erin Willson SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE 2803 Beverly Street 1303 South Stewart Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 • David Sucec Robert F. Abrey Suzanne Hata 832 Sego Avenue 566 Emerson Avenue 1420 South 200 East Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 • Mark Maxfield Julie Swaner Mike Gabel 547 South 1200 East Street 649 South 800 East Street 1235 East Stratford Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Dwane B. Dowden Robert Hartinger Camille Luce 764 South 200 West Street 1620 South Park Street 723 East 1300 South Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Leslie Jo Abplanap Sandi Roundy David D. White 320 East Cleveland Avenue 1123 East Milton Avenue 1070 East 300 South #410 Salt Lake City, 84115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 William R. Grua John Steel Brian Watkins 208 Douglas Street 841 South 200 West Street 1744 South 600 East Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 • • 6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Open House labels (Nonconforming uses) • Gina Jensen Gerri Bowman Cindy Badger Bonneville Mortgage Republic Mortgage Badger Realty 111 East Broadway, Suite 1250 4516 South 700 East, Suite 190 2955 South Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Tracy Burton Collin Van Kleeck Jennifer Bass Coldwell Banker First American Title Insurance Agency Countrywide Home Loans 2733 East Parleys Way, Suite 202 (Commercial Real Estate) 560 South 300 East 3981 South 700 East, Suite 5 Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 Salt Lake Board of Realtors Beth James John Steel 2970 East 3300 South 862 South 200 West 841 South 200 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Glen Stratton Duane Dowden Marilynn Lewis 57 South 800 West Salt Lake Community Action Program 451 South State Street, RM 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 764 South 200 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • • a AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Original Notice and Postmark December 20, 2002 STE PHEN A.GOLDSMITII SALT'Ill 1 WH��eH-'�CORPORATION). ) RD55 C.AN DERSON vi<vvi.r.ovE c,oF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT mwoK P1nN viNu Dlvisiury NT • oc BEp O„coeDc Eoa DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL The Sall Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-02-23,initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to existing non-conforming detached single-family, two-family dwellings, and twin homes throughout the City. The purpose of the text amendment relates to legally conform existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except the M-1 and M2 zones. In the M-1 and M-2 zones these uses could be allowed as a conditional use. The petition was initiated to address the issue of continual citizen requests for rebuild letters from the Zoning Administrator, stating that owners can reconstruct their homes contrary to the underlying zoning provisions. Without rebuild letters it is difficult for owners to obtain financing from lending institutions. As part of their review regarding the petition, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission concerning this petition will be • given the opportunity_ You are invited to the public hearing to he held: WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8,2003 6:30 P.M. ROOM 315 SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE,CITY,UTAII Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request,we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you are an owner of rental property,please notify your tenants of this meeting. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon with 24 hours advance request. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis(a,ci.slc.ut.us. The petition file is available for review in the Salt Lake City Planning Division Office located at 451 South State Street,Room 406.Copies of the staff report are available the Friday before the public hearing at 5:00 pm. # • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 04111 TELEPHONE:001-535-7757 FAX:001-535-6174 • YtF 11168 IML1'duJ a$L I tleS U 0tI Jlel$qutoS 156 uotCint0:Lonna:id r()!J a}IE'I INS 1_ Fill out registration r,rd and iodic to if you wish to spook and which agenda item you will address. 2. Alter the staff and petitioner presentations.hearings will be opened for public convnenl. Community Councils wilt present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. Speakers wilt be called by the Chair. 4. Please slate your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent al tire beginning of your comments. 5. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. G. A time limit may be placed on speakers to ensure everyone has a chance to comment Tire Chair will make that determination upon reviewing the number of people wishing to speak 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda ileac Extraneous and repetitive connrrents should be avoided. 8, Alter those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this lime. 9. Alter the hearing is dosed,the rl cirssion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Start.linter unique 1/10 rircrn nstances,the Planning Commission may choose to nvdn n the hearing to obtain atlrfrtional information 10_Meeting notices are made available 14 days in advance. If persons wish to submit written convnents,they should be directed to 0he Planning Division al least 7 days in advance to enable Planning Commissioners to consider those written comments. Contents should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 4(16 SLC,UT 84111 Note:We comply with all ADA guidelines.Assistive listening devices&Interpreter services provided upon 24 hoer advance cc-quest �a��ii rirr r rlr nana('f'mrrr rr�+nrltirml rrmiirtrmiimlj E.9 a01.etr'1 c%to@ ON1HW:_iIH AO IOLLOM 111178 111 111 ,)'A a)Ie'1 117'•S • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION b. Staff Report January 8, 2003 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • STAFF REPORT Request to amend Zoning Text Amendment, Creating Legal Conforming Status for Existing Single-Family detached, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes Petition #400-02-23 January 8, 2003 REQUEST Petition #400-02-23 is a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, for an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to existing legally non- conforming single-family detached,two-family dwellings and twin homes in zoning districts where these uses are otherwise not permitted. The request was initiated to address the issue of continual requests for letters from the Zoning Administrator(rebuild letters) stating that owners can rebuild their homes in case of Destruction, contrary to the underlying zoning provisions. Without these letters it can be difficult for owners to obtain financing from lending institutions. Because the properties are non-conforming, the Zoning Administrator cannot write rebuild letters that permit 100%restoration of the structures and use. • In 1995, one of the goals of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite was to make land use options more narrow, in order to avoid land use conflicts. Much of the low density zoned property in the City was rezoned from R-2 zoning to R-1 zoning. As a result many uses became non-conforming, which limits the potential to replace structures in certain zones. • This situation created an immediate problem for two-family dwelling units in R-1 Zoning districts during the rezone, and thus they were given legal conforming status. More recently, problems with single-family dwellings in commercial districts have been raised. The intention of this petition is to provide the same legal conforming status for single family dwellings, as was given two-family and twin homes in 1995. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL (S) REVIEW: This proposed text amendment would relate to applicable properties City-wide. All Community Council leaders were notified of the petition and the draft ordinance language, and asked to comment on whether they were interested in having a presentation made to their particular community. The Council leaders were asked to submit their preference by October l6th, 2002. Only two Community Councils responded. • On December 9, 2002 an open house was held in room 326 of the City and County Building to inform interested persons and organizations of the proposed amendment, as Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 1 Date January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division well as receive their comments. At the request of East Central and Liberty Wells Community Councils, notices were sent to all of the citizens on their community council • lists, as well as all of the community council chairs, housing advocacy groups, lending institution representatives and interested individuals. The comments from City residents range from; not wanting additional housing unit legalizations to empathy for homeowners caught in an unfriendly financial climate. Real estate brokers expressed frustration in trying to sell homes in commercially zoned districts. They were unlikely to seek these types of properties, especially if the lot is not large enough to actually change to a commercial use if the property is in a commercial zone. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Purpose of proposal and Proposed amendment: The purpose of the zoning text amendment request is to allow single-family detached, two-family dwellings and twin homes that suffer major structural damage, regardless of zone, to be legally reconstructed. The only exception would be that of homes in the M-1 and M-2 zones. The • reconstruction of homes in the M-1 and M-2 zones would require a conditional use. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: All existing non-confoiniing single-family detached, two- family dwellings and twin home properties City-wide are being considered as part of this amendment. Therefore, it is possible that all zones and overlay districts could apply in cases where these uses are currently prohibited. Existing Master Plan Policies: The Futures Commission and the Strategic Plan encourage mixed use neighborhoods. Both documents further encourage responsibility of property owners in keeping structures from falling into a deteriorated state, thereby maintaining and even potentially raising neighborhood wide property values. Affected areas and . Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 2 Date January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Parcel numbers: This amendment proposal could affect numerous parcels 411 throughout the City. Currently, 583 existing properties with single-family detached dwellings have been identified. These properties are in the following zoning districts BP, C-SHBD, CB, CC, CG, CN, CS, D-2, D-3, GMU, I, M-1, M-2, MU, OS, and PL. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. 1.) Legally Conforming Duplex and Twin Homes Duplex dwelling units were made legally confoiining in zones where they had not been allowed, as part of the 1995 Zoning Ordinance rewrite. However, existing single-family detached, dwelling units were not. The existing structures could not be restored if damaged to the extent of 50%or more. This creates a discrepancy between the restoration allowance granted to existing single-family and existing duplex structures, in zones where single-family detached dwellings are not allowed. Prior to 1995, much of the City's lower density neighborhoods were zoned R-2. Therefore,when these neighborhoods were zoned R-1 in the Zoning Rewrite Project, the decision makers found it important to legally conform existing duplex and twin home dwellings as there were so many two-family • dwellings located within the new R-1 zoned areas, that would be deemed as legal non- conforming. This has resulted in an ordinance that allows the total replacement of existing two-family and twin homes but not single-family detached dwellings where they are non-conforming. 2.) Financing Issues related to the refinancing of existing non-conforming existing single-family detached homes throughout the City include: • Many lenders, specializing in residential properties are refusing to lend on properties that can't be rebuilt in their present location and zone. The reasons for this are varied ranging from; the loan would now be considered a commercial loan (due to the zoning), resale of the property is the only way they may recoup the loss from destruction, and if the property is small in size the value may not cover the investment the lender would have in the structure. • Different types of loans are made available, but the rates differ from residential ones. Sometimes the loans are not even considered, based on comments and questions that are periodically brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator. • Owners of existing non-conforming single family detached homes are finding • it increasingly difficult to obtain refinancing or to sell their homes, even- Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 3 Date January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division though the property may be zoned commercial. Many homeowners in older neighborhoods cannot afford the higher interest rates of the commercial loans, • but also cannot afford to move. Therefore, they can't make improvements or maintain their homes because they can't get home equity loans to fix up their homes, or refinance. • Often lots in commercial zoning districts can't be resold as commercially usable property, because they are too small to accommodate such a use. 3.) Master Plan Compliance Legally conforming existing single-family and duplex dwellings, in certain geographic areas of the City, will not necessarily comply with master plan policies that identify the areas for more intensive uses. However, these units do exist and have so for many years. With the continuation of these uses, if we do not make efforts now, deterioration may continue and become a far more negative factor. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. III Discussion: The amendment is consistent with some the goals defined in the Futures Commission Report and the Strategic Plan. Both of these documents encourage mixed uses in neighborhoods. Many of the homes are in established neighborhood settings that offer"walkable" and short car trip services to residents. The mix of uses is not necessarily tied by facade or planned development, but have occurred over time as the neighborhoods have grown. Therefore, the existing homes and businesses have created the character of the neighborhood in conjunction with one another. Mother goal that these two documents identify is for property owners to be more responsible for the maintenance of existing housing stock. Legal conforming status will decrease problems with owners obtaining financing for equity and home repair loans, which may entice owners to better maintain these residential structures. By keeping structures from falling into a deteriorated state, the character of a neighborhood is again retained through aesthetics and property values. Although low density residential uses may not be consistent with the long range future land use map, the policies of the master plan will be implemented, when • the property becomes more valuable based on the underlying zoning, than the Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 4 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division structure and may entice, in the future, the assemblage of property for a use that is • consistent with the intensity/density identified in the master plans. Findings: The adoption of this amendment fosters the concept of allowing residents to live within close proximity to the basic goods and services that communities need. Neighborhoods become more pedestrian friendly. This amendment works to protect the tax base by allowing homeowners the opportunity to rebuild, or bring a structure up to the current codes making them more likely to stay in their communities and within the City. Maintaining the housing stock helps neighborhoods retain and potentially increase property values, until the property is redeveloped into a use consistent with the master plan. Lastly, this amendment would make it possible for neighborhoods to upgrade their appearance, thereby reducing blight and maintaining favorable elements that are harmonious with the overall character. Affording legal conforming status for some of the low -density residential uses may help implement historic preservation and mixed use policies identified in the master plans. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 111 Discussion: The proposed amendment is not site specific. However, the existing character of a neighborhood is directly defined by the homes and structures that comprise it. In the case of single-family detached, two-family dwellings and twin homes, most of these dwelling units were built many years prior to the Zoning Rewrite of 1995. Adoption of the amendments will help owners gain financing for repairs that will help maintain the structures in a manner that is not only helpful in maintaining a quality housing stock in the City, but allows them to contribute to the character of the neighborhood. In instances where existing single-family dwellings are located in commercially zoned areas, the amendment will afford the home owner the ability to refinance their homes so they can better maintain the structures until some future date, when a commercial development may occur. Due to incompatible use issues, for existing single-family, two-family and twin home dwellings in industrial zoning districts, the amendment allows owners to rebuild their homes only as a conditional use. This allows special analysis to ensure conformity with master plan policies, specific site review including environmental factors that may be inconsistent with residential living and a public hearing before the Planning Commission in order to determine the appropriateness of rebuilding the residential use in an industrial area. Residential uses in industrial zones mainly exist in the Swedetown Neighborhood of Capitol Hill (west of Beck 110 Street at approximately 1400 North Street). Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 5 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Findings: Allowing the rebuilding of single-family detached, two-family dwellings and twin homes, neighborhoods will in fact be able to retain elements • that are unique, harmonious and characteristic. The amendments will allow owners to more easily refinance their homes, and obtain home improvement loans to keep their homes in line with health safety standards and contribute to an improved City housing stock. Owners of homes in industrial zones,will be allowed to request the reconstruction of their homes, as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these zoning districts. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: In most zones,the dwelling units are existing. Since the zoning districts where single- family dwellings are proposed for legal conforming status are higher intensity zones, even rebuilt single- family structures should not adversely affect the adjacent properties. Many dwelling units are located in zones that are intensely business oriented, industrial or contain environmental situations. Industrial zones allowing uses that may not be compatible with residential uses, single-family, two-family and twin homes should only be allowed through a review process that ensures not only the appropriateness of residential use in the vicinity,but protects the industrial land owners from complaints by residential property owners of land use conflicts. 11/ Findings: The City should take a careful look at allowing homes to be rebuilt in areas of intense industry, where there could potentially be exposure to certain by- products of that industry(vapors, dust, or contaminants). The City should be equally concerned with issues related to rebuilding structures within the 100 year floodplain and on extremely steep slopes. Since industrial zoned areas are more scarce, the industrial land owners should have some protection from complaints by residential land owners of land use conflicts. Therefore,rebuilding residential in M-land M-2 zones should be reviewed as conditional uses. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional standards. Discussion: This is a text amendment and is not site specific. There are many overlay districts in the City that currently impose additional standards on structures that are considered legal and conforming. The overlay districts are in place to provide supplemental regulations or standards for specific geographic areas or land uses. Although the text amendment itself will not automatically require compliance with the overlays, as owners request building permits for modifications to their structures,they will be required to comply with overlay regulations. In areas • where the historic preservation overlay exists, these amendments may help Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 6 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division 4110 implement the purpose of this overlay by allowing owners of historic properties the incentive to invest in the structure. Findings: Structures being brought into legal confoiniity will be subject to the guiding principals set forth by all overlay districts for that location. Whenever a conflict occurs between the regulations of a zoning district and the imposing overlay district...the overlay district, according to the zoning ordinance,will provide the controlling influence. This amendment may increase the incentive for owners of historic homes to reinvest in their properties because it will alleviate financing issues that currently exist. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City Departments and/or Divisions: the Fire Depai tment, Public Utilities, Police,Permits, the Redevelopment Agency, City Attorney, Zoning Enforcement and Housing and Neighborhood Development. The comments are attached to this staff report. (Exhibit 2) • Findings: The amendments are not site specific. Adequacy of public facilities will be determined as owners request permits. The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request. Comments were only received from Zoning Enforcement and the Fire Depai talent, neither of which found that the amendment would have an impact on their efforts. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council, to approve the proposed zoning text amendment to Section 21.A38.120 to legally conform existing single-family detached, two-family dwellings and twin home structures. Marilynn Lewis, Planning Division Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Planning Commission Memo Requesting Petition Initiation. Exhibit 2—Comments from Depai tnients. • Exhibit 3—Original Ordinance with Draft changes. Exhibit 4—Open House Letters to Community Councils,Responses and Notification. Exhibit 5—Citizen Comments from Open House. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-23 7 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division . • Exhibit 1 Planning Commission Memo • Requesting Petition Initiation. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 8 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 2 • Comments from Departments. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 9 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division SALT' I AN 1 °' ITY�GORPORMI,N �STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH _® � 1 - � - �� - ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR . DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Larson,Fire Brad Stewart,Public Utilities Alicia Orgill,Police-(CPTED) Roger Evans,Permits Enzo Calfa,Permits David Oka,Redevelopment Agency Lynn Pace, City Attorney Marion Barnhill,HAND Craig Spangenberg,Zoning Enforcement FROM: Marilynn Lewis,Planning Division („,j DATE: October 04, 2002 ill RE: Petition 400-02-23, 21.A.38.120 Legally Conform Single-family detached, Two-family Dwellings and Twin homes. In light of the on-going issues relating to refinancing of existing non-conforming single-family dwellings throughout the City, the Director of Community and Economic Development has requested a petition to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment will relate to Section 21.A38.120 to legally conform single-family detached dwellings in all zoning districts,except M-1 and M2. In M-1 and M-2 zones they can be allowed as a conditional use. There is no site plan included with the rezoning request. The request does not include a specific development proposal for these properties. The Planning Staff must make a finding relating to the adequacy of various 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. Please let me know whether you believe adequate services and/or facilities are provided. Also let me know whether you believe the proposed text will be a positive step,regarding your specific expertise, in ensuring adequate services are provided. I would appreciate receiving your written comments by Wednesday October 16,2002. If you have any questions,please call me(x6409)or send e-mail. Thank you. IP 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 :: RECYCLED PAPER Lewis, Marilynn From: Spangenberg, Craig Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:43 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn Subject: Legally conforming Single Family detached, two family dwellings Marilynn: I do not think that the changes will cause any impact for my group. Thanks, Craig • • i Lewis, Marilynn �From: Larson, Bradley ent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:52 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn Subject: Petition 400-02-23,21.A38120 Legally conform Single-family detached two-family dwellings and twin homes Marilynn, Please consider this note as Fire Department approval for the above mentioned petition draft. Please feel free to contact me should you require further assistance or have any questions. Thank you, Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal • 1 • • Exhibit 3 Original Ordinance with Draft Changes. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 10 January S,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division ORIGINAL with DRAFT Changes • 21A.38.120 Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached,Two-Family Dwellings And Twin Homes: Any single-family detached,two-family dwelling or twin home that is in legal existence prior to April 12, 1995,shall be considered legal conforming. Subject to complying with all other current,local or state development standards,blegal conforming status shall authorize alterations,extensions/additions,and replacement of the single- family detached,two-family dwelling or twin home. In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2,which do not allow detached single-family,two-family dwelling units and twin homes,the replacement structure may exceed the original fooprint of the existing structure by twenty-five percent 25% when the structure has been destroyed by tire,voluntary demolition or natural calamity.Replacement structures which exceed twenty-five percent 25%of the original footprint,or the replacement of a single-family detached,two-family dwelling or twin home in an iM-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this Title.When replacing a legal conforming two family dwelling or tss in home there shall not be a zquarc footage It+>si4atirm-on the replacement structure. The replacement structure shall not project into a required yard area beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. When replacing a legal conforming single family detached,-two- family dwelling or twin home,the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. S • Exhibit 4 Open House Letter to Community Councils, Notification and 0 Responses. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 11 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division SALT' r e CPO ° ,. tiosti STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH �� ,�' � ROSS C.ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR October 3, 2002 Dear Community Council Chairperson In light of the on-going issues relating to refinancing of existing non-conforming single- family dwellings throughout the City, the Director of Community and Economic Development has requested a petition to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment will relate to Section 21.A38.120 to legally conform single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M2. In M-1 and M-2 zones they can be allowed as a conditional use. • We are requesting input to determine if you are interested in a formal presentation on the aforementioned subject for your community. Please respond by October 16, 2002. You can reach me at 535-6409, or by e-mail marilynn.lewis@ci.slc.ut.us. Thank you. Sincerely, Marilynn Lewis,Principal Planner i 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7757 FAX:SO1-535-6174 �� nccrcco n.Pcr. Lewis, Marilynn From: Lewis, Marilynn Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:40 AM To: 'Dennis Guy-Sell' • Cc: Coffey, Cheri Subject: RE: East Central Exec Board Meeting Hi Dennis, I really appreciate your quick response and the interest for your community. My supervisor wants me to give more communities time respond. At this point that means a group or individual meetings would occur in November. Once I have more information I will get back in touch with you. Thanks you so much for your cooperation and patience. Marilynn Lewis Original Message From: Dennis Guy-Sell [mailto:DGuy-Sell@edoceramic.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:51 PM To: 'marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com' Subject: East Central Exec Board Meeting Marilynn, East Central Community Council will hold its October meeting on Oct 16 at 1085 E 700 S (Rectory behind Lady of Lourdes Chapel) . I can put you on the agenda for 7: 45 or 8 :00. I can be contacted at: •dguy-sell@edoceramic.com and 486-7481 Ext 219 (work) dadufo@aol.com and 673-7378 (home) I hope you can attend. Thanks, Dennis i 1 Lewis, Marilynn • From: Lewis, Marilynn Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:07 AM To: 'ToCANew@aol.com' Cc: Coffey, Cheri Subject: RE: Nonconfirming single-family dwellings ordinance Just to get back to you...we will be utilizing the open house format. Notification will be sent out with a date, time and location. Thank you. Original Message From: ToCANew@aol.com [mailto:ToCANew@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:29 AM To: marilynn.lewis@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: Cheri.Coffey@ci.slc.ut.us; anaarchuleta@hotmail.com; sjfrancis@mstar2.net Subject: Nonconfirming single-family dwellings ordinance Marilynn- As we discussed on the telephone yesterday, Liberty Wells Community Council requests forrnal presentation on issues and proposed revisions for ordinance(s)pertinent to nonconforming single-family dwellings;further, we respectfully request participation of the Director of Community & Economic • Development in that formal presentation. I will appreciate your sending hardcopy of the ordinance text to our Council address below. Liberty Wells Community Council meets 7:00 p.m. the second Wednesdays of each month and our agenda is finalized two-and-a-half weeks in advance for mailing by SLC; hence our agenda will be finalized 25 October for 13 November, and 22 November for 11 December. If rather than presenting at our Council meeting, SLC elects to hold a separate meeting on this topic, we request written notice of that meeting to individuals on Liberty Wells Community Council mailing list maintained by the Mayor's Office of Community Affairs. Thank you for your assistance. Catherine New, Chairperson 2002-2003 canew@post.harvard.edu LIBERTY WELLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL Box #521744, SLC 84 1 52-2 744 A Utah Nonprofit Organization of residents, businesses &property owners • within the Salt Lake City area of 900 South to 2100 South; State Street to 700 East 10/25/2002 • NOTICE OF OPEN:HOUSE SALT LAKE4.CITY PLANNING. In light of the on-going issues relating to refinancing and the resale of existing non-conforming detached single-family, two-family dwellings, and twin homes throughout the City, the Planning Commission has requested staff analyze whether to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. The proposed text amendment relates to Section 21.A38.120 to legally conform single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M2. In M-1 and M-2 zones they would be allowed as a conditional use. The Planning Division is requesting your input at this informal presentation on the aforementioned subject. As part of our review regarding this petition, we will hold a public open house to describe the proposed amendment and take your comments. Your comments will be presented to the Planning Commission at a latter date. You are invited to the public open house to be held: MONDAY DECEMBER 9, 2002 FROM 4:30 to 6:30 P.M. ROOM 326 SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the meeting. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon request 24 hours advance. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409, or by e-mail marilynn.lewis`.ci.slc.ut.us. Thank you. • • • Exhibit 5 Citizen Comments from Open House. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 12 January 8,2003 By Salt Lake City Planning Division OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 11110 On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name AltkP 6arlc Address ! Z � Jive _ s mot- Phone OW -- 1. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: Property owner X Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes \�( No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No____x__ 4_ Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction? Briefly describe your experience. 111\-e r/91): 7/0A-e,4 r\A ovviledvileki rjk/et tw r \I ('tAX - k\ . �°�ne — � n k. 4 • n `,,\ vt ( over C S t s 4i +i �,,,,�!! Afied- page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. • • page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS • On a ZoningAmendment ment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: / Name ►�e , lC Mc K "Cie( C Address Li 7 Y - I Zc- <'c 5 rt C t � t ( o Phone 3 - I. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner V Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No 3_ Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No // 4_ Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction? Briefly describe your experience. • over page 1 5_ Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. / 7"1Q t }��Z c4-u-o c.2" lJ��i t�t1 C�Lvr� E a2= eET S (4^ 4' Cl' , t La- C T v,e,--A 4-(1-t-`AtN-"r‘' t/L' Q cam . stt� Z�� � �� � Akr3g--JK c - c pa e 2 �' 0 } OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 1110 On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following infot'nation, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name 6 Address e 7 L ; I -7i1f--- 7U)( • , Phone — U.4/4/ - 2 \''? . What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes X No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 2- 4. Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. it_6-6-e- CA-t _ • over page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial 411/ zone? Briefly describe your experience. __.-- 7.-- 6. Other comments. ,-, ...- ilf --: : 7,,4 i77 ..•-.,.-e.,-_, ,C7 ---6-- (J , . ---) - • •U LA d 4.- -(e.--c-4 .312‘ 1. -e---t, . („/ 1-- -TA--; 4----- ---d--x--(- ---' , - /-1 I 1 I t ' 2-44-1.,i.4,i -4.-)-(-----9 0_471 CI 4471. ti-- -. ( :...) /1 18N-(- - 64„. /7 i9,, 4. bi_ i..a.,......_- - s • „le...1_41 _ (......,Hif_i_... ,, Y / ii • page 2 • OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name elt �4ta b re/ Address , '/s C q _ `f/a Phone g6' 71-{- - 4762 `7"Q4-f -1 gS R 1. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: Property owner X Realtor )(1 Lender Other 2_ Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No X 4. Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. • over page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial zone? Briefly describe your experience. c_S Q br E r S 0 4- S�`t a O- 16wS f y�-sS S (CA- 4ttp -iv 6. Other comments. SD/7('O4e) /V 40 Ore) ?IS (0./1 � (' �30� S � f . Lp 71 page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS • On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following infoimation, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name O tri b t L-t f t •Address / v , I � ` - V-11105 Phone : ' & ) i f 1. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner t'V Realtor Lender Other 2_ Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No 3_ Do you Iive in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4_ Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. 1111 over page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. • • page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS • On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name f�t� t -;- t Address t\)?o o c y r Phone l. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Properly owner Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No� 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No ems`. 4. Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. sl c V i 777 f S ! i+ t c ,• i U L-1^- 1 __ _ � ? rev _ i_ i_c ;: ;,j�,� G i� t!.1f,- r _ C). %€+ram . t C Fit F e e- el Pc FA l?C C c c '. „r7 ��L v"1 ( c S l t` ),/ vc_ cf r,f C (17/. 1i J-7c rk/.) • over ce ve �Z e c i m(� 7/s�Zt-c ram' P-6.e,cc )-tl (,1 i 171 t .S page i SCc .7e; 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. • • page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS • On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name R.Lb44- p Address l VZI3 cM 1 0A Phone 1. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4. Nave you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. • over page I 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial 110 zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. kL V K., tAluei 1 proCtS finf 1,ovi Coyi ovrvt.i►ac m-v 1 H -Gutt-t VVLi S i Y1 g ' I airt S Yt i'YI.rnV Ybfe iv, ( tAtt cia-4/AjeAc ate/A .trt-FeA4- fitte- • g- . TE-+ St✓<,v►A 3 -[40 -i-I,u � vow I -6u,{ uvets We. r vv " 9. ►Z �, Sk to dc.a ,t -Cold d b -- off --VtAro-Vf\, urt.1-1-- 40,1i rIrd-ki, 4)6 ercji • page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS 110 On a Z on>tng Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential • Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name LP [\ mvt "S Address ( 7 4 S_ Coo C .S t- C v T (-4/0 c� Phone 1 q _ What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner Realtor Lender Other 2_ Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No SOM�r�^1r5. 3_ Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No X_ 4_ Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience_ kJ o. • over page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. NO . 6. Other comments. ! pM co cr`2rJe f} fecS)6(14I o(` Pr f�t. 1tUf(4L /UE(6f/t.V?-tOoi\ i-l/T t` (dtitca /AC(tIM 2c-Ct-__-SS Of ( (ri Lt?,j(dM oil recr,,,st, ucr/oti fir,.) I-rc ( P:c/ ttY Mut,T/-urJ l7= r-(nu St NG> Aims.IA K due • EO O3 TTC T roILL-colt r � 02 1 N0,04 6 c po\)G E S DF Sri\ • page 2 • OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name !j L / C L Address -3 2,- 0 (` / CL i/ EA)/ UC `a Phone S0A- 6 `-30kA2_ I. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: Property owner Realtor Lender ther ✓ \ t V-e © n Q\Q ).k6bAco ) 2_ Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No pc 3_ Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4_Have you everr tried to get a loan for reconstruction? Briefly describe your experience_ No over page 1 5_ Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial I zone? Briefly describe your experience. IFTCADD • `-� k due 1002AI i cicyr ttc± epp } aa- o w,n s yn e. -C ;-y-vI V houses 1© - i h Co`Y\Y \eAra a --,r t livius-h c- QtIQ,Na o 60-NDAA vr-ote}r-VIA \A"e3k.seA, Y'nyneAr ,O o--4- Aks ) `+l /vc - t wuse U,� d 6. Other comments. OAS O-- Y-12- fd-ity;--?GL-Q 1 4 �--� C ems- v\ ►. I , A , 3 W a 1 • e_t-y\mv tpR ezyvvVk v\a}kr 0 e9 Ai)LA Z 121,t 0-{ eJ4(4-(2-6 VpAiAcji v\„0 OyviL '�` VCRX rr S --Q N cQ,2_ 11 +? lab \OA\A_ VAL o lL(A) C4\ 4 1 ti� �I rr° IN\a n eY\TC) S-MneAr -WS Stt-o page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS On a Z oning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name Address Phone <<, i i„ + 4 5 I. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4. Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction?Briefly describe your experience. • over page 1 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments. • page 2 OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS • On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name (.-16b Address 3 2,0 Cr`t�l e L i /U U Phone 1 Li 3 o 2 — l. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family s uctures in commercial or industrial zones: • Property owner Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? / Yes t No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4. Nave you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction? Briefly describe your experience. \tDo___A___. 411 over page l 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. T. i 6. Other comments. A �� P) \A Yy\__0:9__\"\-- (A---t-\_ CO-,r V\ --P\--1 0 ___\__„„\n t p © o, 5 \a_o_ A `� �}-� \(), ,Qs2A--1 0 f _ cv1L0 .- C ),_:°, \0 , wa_Qs) 03_01 . \v\ 0-- 03 -T A--G\ Cam`\ , A,-,,,,_Q__ ' \ivatx)-Q-- ro- 0 c,___ yvty-y-, _ cA)_,(\_-c-D-Thf \AAA' K-5\ 6:,(c_e„.0_,ya- A Lv-v\ vo_. it_ 0 \ i , 63 ) 0 ok a. c cu e teV_-e- ) -c '‘ Kir-c' V-Q {A -e,s -\) NiN_\ - ) 7 vim . a VYN VM/ V \ � ,_,LL -\' :\ -LOA_-- Y \-P‘3\40 - 1. 0/\ U‘ t FIQ___S-vvr U- ( 1 im V V a" -e.A, \10,,s , i` �1, s - \`60R-t 17\9\ iii C� �7)Nr S� © K --Q c� \ o page 2 • OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS On a Zoning Amendment to Legally conform Single-Family Residential Please provide us with the following infoimation, so that we may contact you for further comment: Name ;-E Address r`(// S` 2 7(—) C� Phone al./ Y- 'f 5 1j 7 e JS( i l. What is your interest in legally conforming single-family structures in commercial or • industrial zones: Property owner V Realtor Lender Other 2. Do you think single-family residential structures should be rebuilt in non-residential zones? Yes) ( No 3. Do you live in a commercial or industrial zone? Yes No 4. Have you ever tried to get a loan for reconstruction? Briefly describe your experience. ?e, ec C-70 � ;r77 j f{ ArCA 3 Oover page I 5. Have you ever tried to sell a residential property located in a commercial or industrial • zone? Briefly describe your experience. 6. Other comments_ • • page 2 • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION c. Agendas/Minutes January 8, 2003 40 AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 315 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street 110 Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 118. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, December 5, 2002 &Thursday, December 12, 2002. 2. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: (See attached list) 3. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:40 p.m. - Petition No.410-621 &410-622, by Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, requesting a conditional use approval for the construction of two Public Utility Buildings that will contain water fluoridation equipment. These new buildings are proposed at the existing water well sites located at 1285 East 2700 South, in a R-1-5,000 Single Family Residential District, & 1907 East 2700 South in an R-1-7,000 Single Family Residential District. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.— Petition No. 400-02-17, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting reevaluation of the Temporary Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21A.42), in relation to seasonal items sales. (Staff— Doug Dansie at 535-6182) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.— Petition No. 400-02-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, • requesting to amend the text of Section 21A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide legal conforming status for existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M-2. (In M-1 and M-2 zones they would be allowed as a conditional use.) (Staff— Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:45 p.m.— Petition No. 410-617, by Matt Swain of Johansen Thackeray Commercial Real Estate Services, requesting a conditional use and planned development to construct a new commercial building at approximately 1140 East 3300 South within the Brickyard Shopping Center. (Staff— Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. Request to reopen View City Plat A Amendment, by The Highland Park Plaza Condominium Association, requesting to modify the property lines of Lots 8, 9, & 10 of Block 2 of View City Plat B located at 1955 and 1977 South 1300 East. The properties are zoned Residential/Office RO. The existing duplex at 1977 South 1300 East will have a reduction in lot size, and the Highland Dental Center Building will gain the area currently used as a parking lot. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) b. Request from the Planning Division staff to initiate a petition to study the time requirement for written notice of decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission. (Staff—Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. • PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting to amend the text of Section 21A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide • legal conforming status for existing single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and twin homes in all zoning districts, except M-1 and M-2. (In M-1 and M-2 zones they would be allowed as a conditional use.) Planner Marilynn Lewis stated that this petition addresses continual letters to the zoning administrator. She explained that single-family homeowners are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining financing from lending institutions. Many lenders who specialize in residential properties refuse or are reluctant to lend on properties that cannot be rebuilt in their present location in Commercial zone. Homeowners are unable to make home improvements or maintain their homes because they cannot obtain home equity loans. She noted that in certain geographic areas of the City, this would not comply with some master plan policies. With the continuation of these uses, if the City does not make efforts now, deterioration may continue and became a far greater impact than not complying with the master plans. This amendment would work to protect the tax base by allowing homeowners an opportunity to rebuild or bring current structures up to code, making it more likely that residents will stay within their communities and within Salt Lake City. Maintaining housing stock helps neighborhoods retain • and/or potentially increase property values. The amendments will allow owners to more easily refinance their homes and obtain home improvement loans. Homeowners in industrial zones will be allowed to request reconstruction of their homes as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these districts. Any building in the M-1 and M-2 industrial zones should be reviewed as conditional uses. When a conflict occurs between the regulations of the zoning district and the imposing overlay district, the overlay district and all other local and state laws would override those regulations and be the controlling influence. Ms. Lewis stated that an ordinance currently exists for two-family and duplex homes, and they are looking to include single-family homes into the ordinance. Ms. Arnold asked if there was a future prospect for triplexes or fourplexes. Ms Lewis replied that triplexes and fourplexes were not addressed. Ms. Arnold commented that these structures have been down zoned, and many are financially impacted from down zoning. Mr. Wilde explained that the City does not have a rebuild provision. When the ordinance was written in 1995, they kept single-family homes out of commercial districts and down zoned a number of two-, three-, and four-family dwellings. They realized at that time that there was an • issue with duplexes in the newly created R-1 districts. In 1995 they created a rebuild provision Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 8,2003 for duplexes and took the issue of three- and four-family dwellings to the City Council. The decision was made to give the status of legal conforming to duplexes to allow them to be rebuilt. 0 There was concern about going that far with three- and four-family dwellings or apartments in this single-family setting in terms of compatibility. In 1995, they did not anticipate the issue of single-family homes in commercial districts. Ms. Lewis stated that, based on the findings of fact, the staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. David Nyhoff, a resident at 57 South 800 West, stated that he has lived in his single-family home built in 1896 for the past eight years and recently tried to sell his property to relocate but could not obtain a rebuild letter. The lenders reject financing when commercial zoning is shown, and nobody wants to buy a house if something goes wrong and they cannot rebuild it. Mr. Nyhoff stated that he is surrounded by housing but is stuck until something can be done. It is necessary that he sell his property and move, and he urged the Planning Commission to do something to help him. Ms. Arnold asked about current zoning at his home. Mr. Nyhoff replied that his realtor informed him that the zone was general commercial, but he has never received a SO zoning notice. Mr. Wilde explained that this ordinance is intended to address the CG zone and resolve the problems expressed by Mr. Nyhoff. Chair Jonas asked why the City would spend money on residential improvements in a general commercial zone. He had concerns about allowing this in areas that should naturally migrate into commercial zones and promote good commercial development and believed this amendment could preclude that goal. Ms. Coffey explained that this is the Euclid neighborhood, which is part of the West Salt Lake master plan. Part of the vision for the Euclid neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood. There are substantial streets with historic homes in that neighborhood as well as warehousing and light manufacturing uses. The master plan sees this as a mixed use area, but they would not want to preclude single- family homes. Grazela Zamora, a resident at 59 South 800 West, stated that she had the same problem as Mr. Nyhoff. She moved in 10 years ago, and four years ago decided to sell her property. Last year she found a buyer but lost the sale because of the zoning. She stated that she needs to sell her property and needs a solution to her problem. Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 8,2003 Brad Olsen, Ms. Zamora's realtor, felt that her problem would not be addressed with this IIIamendment. Her property is a duplex with a house in back, and this amendment would not address her triplex or solve her problem. He requested that the Planning Commission add triplexes to the amendment. Ms. Zamora's duplex is legal conforming, but the house is legal non-conforming, and she has lost two or three sales because of this. Ms. Funk stated that she did not understand why this amendment would not help Ms. Zamora if they were to add single- family homes. Mr. Olsen explained that although they are separate structures, this is considered a triplex because they are all on one lot. Mr. Wilde stated that, by definition, this is not a triplex. He did not think Ms. Zamora would have a problem with the proposed amendment but offered to check with the Zoning Administrator to be sure. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Chair Jonas asked if the staff was concerned with the issue of single-family homes impeding better commercial development. Mr. Wilde replied that issue was the basis for the decisions in 1995. As a practical matter, few homes are destroyed, and rarely is a fire so significant that a home cannot be rebuilt. It becomes a theoretical problem, but the ability to issue a rebuild letter solves the property owner's problem. 1111 Mr. Muir asked how many structures would be involved. He felt this situation was a similar to the non-conforming commercial properties which they decided to address on an individual basis. Ms. Lewis stated that there are more than 580 structures throughout the City in all zones. Mr. Muir felt it would be difficult to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. He shared Chair Jonas's concern and agreed that it would be difficult from a developer's perspective to aggregate property. However, he acknowledged the need for housing and that it is important to preserve existing housing stock. He stated that he was prepared to move forward with the staff recommendation. Mr. Diamond asked if it would be possible to make an exception and allow someone the benefit of commercial status and use their house. Mr. Wilde explained that the proposed amendment provides more legitimacy for single-family homes but does not do away with any commercial rights. Homes would still be entitled to the benefit of being in a commercial district so long as they meet all the requirements for a conversion. • Motion for Petition 400-02-23 Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 8,2003 Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report and the testimony heard, Aria Funk M moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the zoning text amendment to Section 21A.38.120 to legally conform existing single family detached, two-family dwellings, and twin home structures. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Findings of Fact • 41 Planning Commission Meeting 4 January 8,2003 A. The adoption of this amendment fosters the concept of allowing residents to live • within close proximity to the basic goods and services that communities need. Neighborhoods become more pedestrian friendly. This amendment works to protect the tax base by allowing homeowners the opportunity to rebuild or bring a structure up to the current codes, making them more likely to stay in their communities and within the City. Maintaining the housing stock helps neighborhoods retain and potentially increase property values until the property is redeveloped into a use consistent with the master plan. Lastly, this amendment would make it possible for neighborhoods to upgrade their appearance, thereby reducing blight and maintaining favorable elements that are harmonious with the overall character. Affording legal conforming status for some of the low-density residential uses may help implement historic preservation and mixed use policies identified in the master plans. B. Allowing the rebuilding of single-family, detached, two-family dwellings and twin homes, neighborhoods will, in fact, be able to retain elements that are unique, harmonious and characteristic. The amendments will allow owners to more easily refinance their homes and obtain home improvement loans to keep their IDhomes in line with health safety standards and contribute to an improved City housing stock. Owners of homes in industrial zones will be allowed to request the reconstruction of their homes as a conditional use to ensure appropriateness of residential uses in these zoning districts. C. The City should take a careful look at allowing homes to be rebuilt in areas of intense industry where there could potentially be exposure to certain by-products of that industry (vapors, dust, or contaminants). The City should be equally concerned with issues related to rebuilding structures within the 100-year flood plain and on extremely steep slopes. Since industrial zoned areas are more scarce, the industrial land owners should have some protection from complaints by residential land owners of land use conflicts. Therefore, rebuilding residential in M-1 and M-2 zones should be reviewed as conditional uses. D. Structures being brought into legal conformity will be subject to the guiding principles set forth by all overlay districts for that location. Whenever a conflict occurs between the regulations of a zoning district and the imposing overlay district, the overlay district, according to the zoning ordinance, will provide the controlling influence. This amendment may increase the incentive for owners of IIIhistoric homes to reinvest in their properties because it will alleviate financing Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 8,2003 issues that currently exist. E. The amendments are not site specific. Adequacy of public facilities will be • determined as owners request permits. The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request. Comments were only received from Zoning Enforcement and the Fire Department, neither of which found that the amendment would have an impact on their efforts. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. McDonough left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 40 III Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 8,2003 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. y4z - 3 0 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required � a9— Petition delivered to Planning _ 9 22 L' --" Petition assigned to: par iL1fl1 . j 1i,t__Y Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 4)0 3 D3 w-- Chronology c Property Description (marked with a post it note) 710" OA/ Affected Sidwell Numbers Included • 5/0 3 Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils uel-- i/Z2%03 1/4i Mailing Postmark Date Verification i ' l i/V`-' Planning Commission Minutes ' 1 JD°S Planning Staff Report 1 ZZ 6 3 VA---- Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. 4/3 03 lam Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office I L t( Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. TM144AkA IA LA- r tS Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition • Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH `=A11H \a �"' TiY C0RPO 1=;. I,DNt . -�� ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION • DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Cheri Coffey, Planning Staff DATE: November 21, 2002 RE: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment regarding legally conforming single-family dwellings. Prior to 1995, most of the low-density residential neighborhoods in the City were zoned R-2. As part of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project,much of the City was rezoned from R-2 to an R-1 classification. In order to decrease the number of non-conforming uses, duplex and two family • dwellings were made legally conforming. This same status was not granted to single-family detached dwellings where they were made non-conforming. In light of the ongoing issues relating to refinancing of existing non-conforming single-family dwellings throughout the City, the Planning Staff requests a Planning Commissioner initiate a petition to have staff analyze this issue. The purpose of the petition is to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to Section 21A.38.130 to legally conform single family detached dwellings in all zoning districts except the manufacturing districts (M-1 and M-2). Thank you. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 �� necrceo PnPew SAL' ?' A\ �ZTY` MARGARET HUNTS ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR July 10, 2002 Stephen A. Goldsmith, Director Planning Division BUILDING Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment regarding legally confoiining single-family dwellings. Dear Stephen, In light of the ongoing issues relating to refinancing of existing non-conforming single-family dwellings throughout the City, I request that you create a petition and have your staff analyze this issue. The purpose of the petition is to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to Section 21A.38.130 to legally conform single family detached dwellings in all zoning districts • except the manufacturing districts (M-1 and M-2). Please assign one of your staff members to work on this project. Sincerely, ifiktelf‘"- Margaret Hunt, Director Community and Economic Development Department cc: file • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 11 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ®wec.cco PaPcrx REMARKS Petition No. 400-02-23 By CED Director Is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment regarding legally conforming single-family dwellings I � Date Filed Address — • • ,►, • • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Process for Creating a New Central Business Improvement District CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,Alison McFarlane,Gary Mumford This memorandum contains background pertaining to the Administration's briefing on the process to consider renewal of the Central Business Improvement District. This year will mark the fifth time that the City Council has considered either creating or renewing the Central Business Improvement District.As the Administration's transmittal indicates,part of the renewal process involves approving a contractor to manage the district.The Administration issued a request for proposals in July,and two proposals were received—one • from the current district manager and the other from a consortium of economic development strategists, an architectural firm and a public relations firm. The transmittal indicates that a selection committee is prepared to issue a recommendation about which group should manage the district. It should be noted that the current manager,the Downtown Alliance, has merged with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.Because the Downtown Alliance has been the only manager of the Central Business Improvement District since the district was created in 1991 much of this background employs the Alliance's name. The Alliance was formed in 1988 by downtown property owners and businesses and is one of about 400 similar organizations in the United States.The late John Schumann and others, including attorney John Gates of Snow,Christensen and Martineau,sought to establish a broad- based organization to address downtown issues and"to strengthen our Downtown area by promoting growth,fostering development,encouraging activities,and improving the general environment of the downtown area through open communication between property owners, business owners,tenants,residents,and governmental agencies involved in the downtown district." The 1988 Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team study noted that an"unfortunate combination of factors"in years previous to 1988 had"discouraged"the construction of new office and mixed use buildings in the city's core. One of the factors the study listed was, "The lack of an organized constituency that promotes continuous and serious renewal in the downtown in a determined and unrelenting way." The R/UDAT study proposed that,"A committee representing major downtown stakeholders should serve as an advisory committee for all RDA implementation efforts.This committee should also provide a continuing voice for downtown in all planning and development 1 activities.The City Council should establish broad policy.The advisory committee should assist the RDA director and staff in implementing specific projects consistent with the overall • downtown development strategy." When The Downtown Alliance was created it was patterned after national models and sought to consolidate the efforts of several organizations that represented downtown business interests. The organizations included the Central Business Improvement District,the Downtown Merchants Association,the Capital City Committee,and to some extent the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Association did not dissolve.However,before the Alliance merged with the Chamber of Commerce the chair of the Retail Merchants Association,and the president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce were voting trustees of the Alliance,as was the Mayor of Salt Lake City.(Under the merger,the Chamber's president and CEO is one of six Downtown Alliance trustees within a larger Chamber Board of Directors.) The Capital City Committee, which was formed to build consensus to develop the Gallivan Center Block,disbanded in favor of the Alliance.The same thing happened with the Central Business Improvement District whose eight board members were appointed by the Mayor.The latter organization was a non-profit that performed several functions that were undertaken by the Alliance.Unlike the Alliance,the CBID was funded voluntarily by downtown businesses and raised about$125,000 a year,according to a 1997 City Council staff report. When the CBID disbanded businesses discontinued donations. As the Administration's transmittal indicates,the existing district is a special improvement district created by City Council action.In 1991 the Legislature amended Utah law 17A-3-304,governing municipal improvement districts,to allow cities to: "... conduct economic promotion activities. (2)In a district created for economic promotion activities,the governing body of the municipality shall:(a)spend at least 70 percent of any funds generated on economic promotion activities;and(b)spend no more than 30 percent of any funds generated on administrative costs, including salaries,benefits,rent,travel,and costs incidental to publications." Other sections pertinent to the renewal and proposed expansion of the district appear in Utah law 17A-3-307.They are: "The governing body may:(i)make deletions and changes in the proposed improvements; and(ii)make deletions and changes in the area to be included in the special improvement district as desirable or necessary to assure adequate benefits to the property in the district. "... After this consideration and determination,the governing body shall adopt a resolution either abandoning the district or creating the district either as described in the notice of intention or with deletions and changes made as authorized in this section." As the Administration's transmittal indicates,the current Central Business Improvement District expires on December 31,2003.The transmittal includes a map showing the district's borders.The current property assessment rate is .001425.In 2001,the assessment rate was expected to generate about$2 million total over three years. In 1997,the assessment rate was .0016.In 1994,the assessment rate was .0017031,and in 1991,the assessment rate was .0017842. In general, assessment rates fell as property values within the district increased.Money generated by the district in 1991-1994 was about$410,000 a year.Money generated by the district in 1994- O 2 • 1997 was about$460,000 a year. Money generated by the district between 1997 and 2000 was about$585,000 a year,and money generated in the current district was about$666,666 a year. There has been some confusion about how the special improvement district would be processed. Given that State Code outlines the process for special improvement district processing and that process includes a vote by the Council to select the bidder,the Council has previously indicated its intent to follow that process. • • 3 JUL 3 0 2003 • ALISON WEYHER y `ltiliiB �} 1i CORNY lx\E t "w �'- R O S S" C. "ROCKY" A N D E R S O N DIRECTOR y COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: July 30, 2003 FROM: David Dobbins `�i�. 't%l7 RE: Briefing on upcoming process for creating a new Central Business Improvement District. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None. This is only a briefing. However, if a new district is approved, a budget will need to be created that matches the revenue generated from the assessment. • DISCUSSION: The current Central Business Improvement District(DA-CBID-00) expires December 31, 2003. The Administration is proposing to create a new district. Special improvement districts (SID) for economic development purposes are allowed under the state statute that governs SID's, and is therefore subject to a specific approval process. This briefing will outline that process and the decisions that need to be made. Step 1 —Approve a Notice of Intent: The first step in the approval process is to issue a Notice of Intent that will be used to notify all property owners in the proposed district that the Council is considering approval of an economic development improvement district. The notice needs to state the proposed district boundaries, assessment rate, use of the funds, and the scheduled protest hearing date. Boundaries: The current district boundaries: • North Temple, from State Street to 500 West • 500 West, from North Temple to 400 South • 400 South, from 500 West to 200 East • 200 East, from 400 South to 100 South • 100 South, from 200 East to State Street • • State Street, from 100 South to North Temple • 200 South, east from 200 East to 300 East -151 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 301-S35-6230 FAX: SO1-535-6005 Parcels on the south side of 400 South, the north side of North Temple and the west side of 500 • West are not included. A map of the district is included. According to the state statute, properties cannot be added to the district if they were not included in the initial Notice of Intent. However, properties can be deleted from the district at the Council's discretion. The Administration is recommending that the boundaries of the new district match the current boundaries. The Downtown Alliance is recommending that the easterly boundary be extended to 300 East from 400 South to 100 South. Rate: The Notice of Intent must include a proposed rate that will be assessed against the properties in the district(the assessment is against the value of the property). The 2000 district assessment rate was set at .001425. The taxable value of the district in 2000 was approximately $1.37 billion, so about$1.95 million in revenue was generated. The 2002 taxable value of the district is approximately$1.5 billion. Assuming the same assessment rate, revenue of $2,150,000 would be generated. The proposed rate can be changed(increased or decreased) by the Council when it finalizes the district's creation. Use of Funds: The general use of the funds generated from the district will be the following: • Advising the City regarding the effects of long-range and short-term planning issues in the downtown area. 111 • Promoting and marketing the downtown area as a place to work, shop, do business, and live. • Advising the City on planning efforts to improve parking and transportation within the downtown district. • Assisting businesses currently operating downtown and bringing other businesses downtown. • Increasing public awareness of the vitality and attractiveness of downtown through the use of advertising. • Acquiring,placing and maintaining banners. • Hosting and sponsoring special events and festivals. • Editing and publishing newsletters. • Maintaining and installing Christmas lighting. • Generally promoting the area within the boundaries of the District. Protest Hearing Date: The notice must include the date that a public hearing will be held to consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed special improvement district. The Administration is recommending a hearing date of November 10, 2003. Step 2 —Approve a Contractor for Managing the District: By state statute, the City Council has the authority to choose a contractor for improvements that are made in an SID. Typically, the awarding of such a contract is made to the "lowest responsible bidder." In this particular case, 411 r • however, because the improvements that are being made are professional services, the awarding of the contract should be based on experience and expertise, not on cost. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in July 2003. Two proposals were received; one from the Downtown Alliance and one from an organization called The Economic Development Team. A selection committee comprised of city staff reviewed the two proposals and is ready to issue a recommendation to the Council. Another option would be for the Council itself to review both proposals, and then award the contract. It has been suggested by the Downtown Alliance that the contractor be selected prior to issuing the Notice of Intent so the property owners in the district will know who will be managing the funds. Step 3 —Hold a protest hearing: State statute requires the City Council to hold a public hearing to receive comments regarding the creation of the district. The hearing date will be part of the Notice of Intent and will state that at the hearing, the Council will consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed special improvement district. Property owners wishing to protest the district need not attend the hearing, but they must at least file a written protest prior to the hearing date to have their protest included in the overall protest rate. According to state statute, if owners representing 50% of the property value in the proposed • district protest its creation, then the City Council must abandon the district. If less than 50% of the property value protests the district's creation, then the Council may proceed with the process. Step 4—Create Special Improvement District Step 5—Create a Board of Equalization: State statute also requires a board of equalization to be appointed to hear arguments from any person who believes himself to be aggrieved, including arguments relating to the benefits accruing to any tract, block, lot, or parcel of property in the district or relating to the amount of the proposed assessment against that tract, block, lot, or parcel. The Council may appoint three of its members to act as the board, or it has the option of appointing the following City staff(or their designee): City Recorder, City Engineer or Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. The findings of the board will then be given to the full Council. Step 6—Create District: Once the findings of the board are approved, then the Council may proceed with the levying of assessments. • • S ` Central Business Improvement District , . . • . , , . , . .. , _ . , ." • ,__: . . . , , 1 : . .,. . , : . , , • . , . . .. • 3RD AVE 1 • , NORTH!TEMPLE ST ` , 'I 2ND AVE !Illyillitli. -if- -- - - - -_ i- i- - - - 1ST AVE 1 L �`L I- C7j 0 --i / - - SOUTH TEMPLE ST - l �_ ,-� -=j J I ](l ❑ L 1 , 0 ❑ 0 I I1 . 0 El CD g r {--- - _ _il LI: I 6 f. nr-rar - 3 - ioo s - — -- cf.) ioo s__ I o c) 0 3 N�— 3 -- L-3 a�1 I - lF 1 fi a�1 AV , r,- � -_W. --- I—�"-- ''I qoq ___ T -- __ ----_ _ L E"). _xl ---� —__ 5� 1.___ ___ to 1 . . 1 if I'i -7 � il E.„) : 1 200 s w 11311_13 r Ii . — - -1 -----7 _ I c 7 7 __ p — '" _ — w ri- ----nor-- y - ) 1 _ i1 ri ' -El 1- . , v,1 V -- 300 S SIT L— LI I _ __„.„,j1----- il - ii j - ((1 ii�� il L j 0 'I ' 5005 • i '' jI I1 ---- --------- - ---------- - .- --� 1 JUL 3 1 2003 • S=o- i ' .g ., TYOOI�PO 10NI DANIEL A. MULE" .- 3 - -. �=` J ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart, DATE: July 31, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Railyard Special Improvement District (Railyard SID)—Assessment Ordinance and Bond Sale STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, 535- 6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion,with the expectation that III an assessment ordinance be adopted, and a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds be approved, for the Railyard Special Improvement District. BUDGET IMPACT: None. Assessment revenue received from the property owner will be sufficient to cover debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council was first briefed regarding the proposed Gateway area special improvement district, the Railyard SID, on March 2, 1999. A follow up briefing was held on May 13, 1999. The Notice of Intention was adopted on November 16, 1999, followed by the adoption of the Notice of Creation on December 16, 1999. The property owner, under the supervision of the City, has acquired, constructed and installed the improvements within the District for and on behalf of the City. Acquisition and construction of all of the improvements has been completed. The property owner undertook such work with the understanding that the City would issue the Series 2003 Bonds to permanently finance the improvements. Proceeds of the Series 2003 Bonds are being applied to reimburse the costs of the improvements. These bonds are special limited obligations of the City, payable solely from assessments levied against the properties benefited by the improvements. The Railyard District is located at approximately 100 South and 400 West. The improvements consist of various infrastructure improvements including sidewalks, crosswalks, storm drainage systems, landscaping, beautification of recreation and public area facilities, curb and gutter, • irrigation systems, utility lines, paving of roads and other miscellaneous work, which was necessary to complete the aforementioned improvements. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 is b«" QE . Eo P.PEa The Railyard District differs from our traditional SID's in scope and size. The typical SID spans • a five or ten year period,has many property owners, and an assessed amount usually under $1 million. The Railyard SID is a twenty year district with a single property owner, Gateway Associates, Ltd., and an assessed amount of approximately$17.6 million. Unlike other SID bonds, these bonds will not be secured by the City's Guaranty Fund. Instead, the amount bonded for will include the funding of a reserve fund. Also, a direct-pay letter of credit provided by Citibank, N.A. will secure the payment of principal and interest. The bonds will be issued as variable rate demand bonds swapped to a fixed rate. This financing mechanism is more efficient and will provide a lower cost of borrowing to Gateway Associates than if a traditional fixed rate structure were employed. • • • Salt Lake City, Utah August 12, 2003 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, was held on August 12, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at which meeting there were present and answering to roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Carlton Christensen Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Nancy Saxton Councilmember Van Blair Turner Councilmember Eric Jergensen Councilmember David L. Buhler Councilmember Dale Lambert Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan II City Attorney • Chris Meeker Deputy City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the Deputy City Recorder presented to the City Council a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this August 12, 2003, meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The following assessment ordinance (the "Assessment Ordinance") was then introduced in writing, was fully discussed, and pursuant to motion duly made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , was adopted by the following vote: YEA: NAY: III UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 7/31/2003 The Assessment Ordinance was then signed by the Mayor in open meeting and 41111 recorded by the Deputy City Recorder in the official records of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Assessment Ordinance is as follows: I • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 2 7/31/2003 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE NO. AN ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH RAILYARD SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ("THE DISTRICT"), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS ON CERTAIN STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND COMPLETING ANY MISCELLANEOUS WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPER AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER; ESTABLISHING THE METHOD AND RATE OF ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, DETERMINING THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON ALL UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; ESTABLISHING A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE; AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, (the "City") as follows: Section 1. Determination of Costs; Definition of Terms. All costs of acquisition and construction of the completed Improvements within the District generally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto (the "Improvements") have been determined including overhead costs and costs of funding a reserve fund. The City has prepared an assessment list in which said total costs have been assessed to the properties within the District benefited by said Improvements. All capitalized terms that are used but not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Indenture as hereinafter defined. Section 2. Approval of Assessment List; Findings. The City hereby confirms the assessment list for the District, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C"and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assessment List"), and hereby finds and confirms that the Assessment List is just and equitable; that in the aggregate the property to be assessed within the District will be benefited in an amount not less than the total assessment to be levied against said property; and that each separate parcel of property listed in the Assessment Allocation Schedule described in Section 5 herein will not bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements as set forth in said Assessment Allocation Schedule. Pursuant to an Acknowledgment Waiver and Consent dated as of August 1, 2003, between the property owner of the property to be assessed and the City (the "Acknowledgment Waiver and Consent") the property owner has, among other things, acknowledged and agreed that in the aggregate the property described in the Assessment List has been benefited by the Improvements in an amount not less than the total assessment to be levied against said property, that it is fair and equitable to assess all property benefited by means of a single assessment to be levied • against all of said property as further described herein, and that each separate parcel of UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 3 7/31/2003 property listed in the Assessment Allocation Schedule will not bear more than its • proportionate share of the total assessment as set forth in said Assessment Allocation Schedule. Section 3. Levy of Assessments. The City does hereby levy an assessment to be assessed upon the real property identified in the Assessment List. The assessments levied upon said property therein described shall be in the amount set forth in the Assessment List. The assessment is hereby levied and assessed upon all of the real property described in the Assessment List according to the extent it is specially benefited by the Improvements acquired or constructed within the District. Section 4. Cost of Improvements; Amount of Total Assessments. The total cost of the Improvements in the District, including overhead costs and the costs of funding a reserve fund is $19,147,223, of which $1,547,223 has been paid by the current property owner with respect to those properties within the District that will be benefited but not assessed (the "Nonassessed Properties"). The amount to be assessed against property affected or benefited by the Improvements in the District is $17,600,000 which amount does not exceed in the aggregate the sum of: (a) the total contract price or prices for the Improvements, including the costs of engineering, designing, and inspection; (b) the reasonable cost of utility services, maintenance, labor, materials or equipment supplied by the City, if any; (c) the property price, if any; (d) connection fees, if any; (e) overhead costs not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the sum of(a), (b), (c) and(d); and41111 (f) an amount sufficient to fund a reserve fund. Section 5. Method and Rate. The total assessment for the District is levied as a single assessment against all of the property described in the assessment list to the extent said property is specially benefited by the Improvements. For purposes of releasing property from the lien of the assessment, however, the City has prepared, and does hereby approve, an Assessment Allocation Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "D" (the "Assessment Allocation Schedule") wherein certain parcels of the assessed property have been assigned an assessment allocation amount (the "Allocated Assessment Amount") which must be paid in full (less any principal assessment payments attributed to said parcel) to release said parcel from the lien of the assessment as more particularly described herein. The Allocated Assessment Amount assigned to each parcel is based on area (retail square footage and vacant land square footage) adjusted for undeveloped land which will not receive an immediate benefit from the Improvements and for proximity to the Improvements as calculated in the Assessment Allocation Schedule. Section 6. Payment of Assessments. Payments toward the cost of acquisition and construction of the Improvements in the amount of$1,547,223 have already been paid by the property owner with respect to the Nonassessed Properties. The property owners of the remaining benefited properties within the District, less the Nonassessed Properties, have, pursuant to the Acknowledgment Waiver and Consent, waived the right to pay the assessments during a cash prepayment period. The remaining assessments shall be payable over a period of twenty (20) years in semi-annual principal payments • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 4 7/31/2003 • beginning and on each March 1 and September 1 thereafter until paid in full and monthly interest payments beginning August 25, 2003, and on the twenty-fifth day of each month thereafter until paid in full. The City hereby finds that the Improvements in the aggregate have a useful life of not less than twenty (20)years based upon a certificate prepared and submitted to the City by the City Engineer. Semi-annual principal assessment payments shall be due and payable in accordance with the Principal Assessment Payment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "E". Section 7. Interest Payable on Assessments. To permanently finance the costs of the Improvements, the City anticipates issuing its Adjustable Rate Demand Assessment Bonds (Gateway Project) Series 2003 (the `Bonds") under a Trust Indenture dated as of August 1, 2003 (the "Indenture"), by and between the City and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), which Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the assessments levied hereunder and other security described in the Indenture. The Bonds shall initially be issued as variable rate bonds bearing interest at a weekly rate, but may be converted to fixed rate Bonds as provided in the Indenture. The City anticipates arranging for an irrevocable direct pay letter of credit (the "Credit Facility") to secure payment of the Bonds when bearing a variable rate of interest against which may be drawn sufficient moneys to pay debt service on the Bonds as the same come due, and the purchase price of the Bonds delivered for purchase as provided in the Indenture. In addition, the City anticipates entering into an interest rate swap to [exchange the interest payable on the Bonds from a variable rate of interest to a fixed rate of interest] (the "SWAP"). The Trustee shall calculate the interest payable monthly on all unpaid assessments hereunder beginning August 15, 2003, and on the fifteenth day of each month thereafter until the assessments have been paid in full, which shall equal: (a) (i) if the Bonds are variable rate bonds, the amount of unpaid interest on the Bonds accrued as of the calculation date plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the remaining period from the calculation date to the next succeeding interest payment date, less all amounts on deposit with the Trustee in the Bond Fund and the Stabilization Account herein described which are available to pay interest on the Bonds or (ii) if the Bonds are fixed rate Bonds, an amount equal to one-sixth of the interest payable on the Bonds on the next interest payment date of the Bonds, less all amounts on deposit with the Trustee in the Bond Fund and the Stabilization Account which are available to pay interest on the Bonds;plus (b) the total monthly Transaction Costs as defined in the Indenture; plus (c) any other payment obligations of the City due under the Reimbursement Agreement as defined in the Indenture, plus (d) the amount necessary to replenish the Stabilization Account to the Stabilization Account Requirement herein described;plus UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 5 7/31/2003 (e) any estimated swap payments, if any, payable to the swap III counterparty, including any swap termination fees. The Trustee shall calculate the interest payable on the unpaid assessments and shall give immediate written notice to the property owners, the City and the Credit Facility Provider of the total monthly assessment payment which shall be due and payable on the next succeeding twenty-fifth day of the month. Section 8. Allocation of Assessment. In the event the property owner of a parcel now being assessed (the "Assessed Parcel") desires to allocate the assessment levied against the Assessed Parcel to one or more smaller parcels (each a "Development Parcel"), said owner may request that the City make such allocation upon compliance with the following: (a) The property owner shill submit to the City the legal description and tax identification number of the Development Parcel or Parcels, together with the Allocated Assessment Amount assigned to said parcel in accordance with the Assessment Allocation Schedule. (b) Based upon the information provided in (a), the City shall adopt a supplemental assessment ordinance to divide the assessment between the Development Parcel or Parcels and the remaining Assessed Parcel or Parcels, which supplemental assessment ordinance shall be filed of record in the office of the Salt Lake City Recorder. The assessment assessed against the Development 4111 Parcel or Parcels and the remaining Assessed Parcel shall equal the original assessment assessed against the Assessed Parcel, less any regularly scheduled principal payments previously paid with respect to said Assessed Parcel. Section 9. Prepayments of Assessments. (A) To reduce the administrative costs of the District, the City hereby determines that in the event legal title to a portion of an assessed property is transferred to another person or entity, the seller of said assessed property shall be required to prepay in full the assessment applicable to said property prior to the transfer of legal title. The prepayment price shall be determined as follows: (i) The property owner shall submit to the City the legal description and tax identification number of said parcel, together with the Allocated Assessment Amount assigned to said parcel in accordance with the Assessment Allocation Schedule. The prepayment price for the parcel shall equal 115% of the difference between the Allocated Assessment Amount and any regularly scheduled principal payments previously paid with respect to said parcel,plus (ii) (1) an additional amount equal to the interest which would accrue on the prepaid principal assessment to the next succeeding date on which interest is payable on any Bonds; (2) such additional amount as the • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 6 7/31/2003 IDTrustee on behalf of the City shall determine is necessary to assure the availability of money to pay interest on the Bonds corresponding to the prepaid principal assessment as interest becomes due and payable; (3) any premiums which may be charged and become payable on the Bonds corresponding to the prepaid principal assessment which may be called on a redemption date in order to utilize the assessments paid in advance and (4) any termination fees or penalties payable by the City under the SWAP. The Trustee, on behalf of the City, shall calculate and deliver written notice of the total prepayment price to the property owner upon the property owner's written request. (B) Upon payment of the prepayment price of a parcel of property in accordance with this Section 9, the City shall file a release of lien with the Salt Lake County Recorder releasing the lien of assessment on said parcel. (C) The remaining assessed property of a property owner who makes a prepayment as described in (A)(i) above shall be given a credit for the 15% excess prepayment amount paid by said property owner such that the assessment of said remaining assessed property shall be reduced by such 15% principal prepayment amount. Section 10. Default in Payment of Assessment. If a default occurs in the • payment of any installment of principal or interest on the assessment, when due, the Trustee, on behalf of the City, shall immediately give written notice of such default to the City and the Credit Facility provider, should the Credit Facility then be in effect, and shall accelerate payment of the total unpaid balance of the assessment and declare the whole of the unpaid principal and interest to be immediately due and payable and subject to collection as provided herein. Interest shall accrue and be paid on all accelerated amounts and shall accrue from the date of acceleration at the same rate or rates of interest as are applied to delinquent real property taxes for the year in which the assessment payment became delinquent (the "Delinquent Rate"). In addition to interest charges at the Delinquent Rate, costs of collection, as approved by the City Treasurer on behalf of the City and the Trustee, including, without limitation, Transaction Costs as defined in the Indenture, attorneys' fees, trustee's fees and court costs, incurred by the City and the Trustee or required by law shall be charged and paid on all amounts declared to be accelerated and immediately due and payable. The Trustee, on behalf of the City, shall then give immediate notice in writing of the default to the owner of the property in default, as shown by the last available equalized assessment rolls of Salt Lake County. Notice shall be effective upon deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls of Salt Lake County. The notice shall provide for a period of thirty (30) days in which the owner shall pay the installments then due and owing, after which, if the amounts have not been paid in full, and the Credit Facility reinstated, the Trustee, at the direction of the City, shall immediately initiate a sale of the property provided in Title 59, Chapter 2, Part 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended or a I, summary sale pursuant to Section 17A 3-324(2) and related pertinent provisions of the UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 7 7/31/2003 Act, in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgages or trust deeds. The City hereby designates the Trustee to carry out such foreclosure, and the Trustee shall be deemed to have a power of sale and all other rights, power and authority necessary to legally and lawfully foreclose the lien for delinquent assessments. If for any reason, the Trustee cannot perform the powers and responsibilities herein provided, it may appoint, with the consent of the City, a qualified trustee to serve as trustee. If at the sale no person or entity shall bid and pay the City the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, including Transaction Costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the City for these amounts. The City shall be permitted to bid at the sale. So long as the City retains ownership of the property, it shall pay all assessment installments that become due, including the interest on them. So long as a Credit Facility is in effect, the City may at its discretion, elect to transfer ownership of the property to the Credit Facility provider in full satisfaction of all outstanding assessment obligations hereunder and any payment obligations of the City to the Credit Facility provider. The remedies provided herein for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the City or the Trustee on behalf of the City, of the use of any other method or means. The amounts of accrued interest and all costs of collection, including Transaction Costs, trustee's fees, attorneys' fees and costs, shall be added to the amount of the assessment up to, and including, the date of foreclosure sale. Section 11. Remedy of Default. If prior to the fmal date upon which payment 4110 may be legally made under a fmal sale or foreclosure of property to collect delinquent assessment installments, the property owner pays the full amount of all unpaid installments of principal and interest which are past due and delinquent with interest on such installments at the rate or rates set forth in Section 10 herein to the payment date, plus all Transaction Costs, trustee's fees, attorneys' fees and other costs of collection, the assessment of said owner shall be restored and the default removed, and thereafter the owner shall have the right to make the payments in installments as if the default had not occurred. Any payment made to cure a default shall be applied, first, to the payment of trustee's fees, attorneys' fees and other costs incurred as a result of such default; second, to interest charged on past due installments, as set forth above; third, to the interest portion of all past due assessments; and last, to the principal portion of all past due assessments. Section 12. Lien of Assessment. An assessment or any part or installment of it, any interest accruing and the penalties, trustee's fees, attorneys' fees and other costs of collection shall constitute a lien against the property upon which the assessment is levied on the effective date of this Assessment Ordinance. As provided in Section 17A-3-323 of the Act, said lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic's or materialman's lien or other encumbrance and shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes and the lien of any other assessments on the property. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest, penalties and costs on it are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a delinquent general UT DOCS_A#1130220 v5 8 7/31/2003 property tax, special tax or other assessment or the issuance of tax deed, an assignment of interest by the governing entity or a sheriff's certificate of sale or deed. Section 13. Reserve Fund. The City does hereby establish a reserve fund (the "Reserve Fund") in lieu of funding a special improvement guaranty fund, as additional security for payment of the Bonds. The Reserve Fund shall consist of a debt service reserve account (the "Debt Service Reserve Account") and a stabilization account (the "Stabilization Account"). The Debt Service Reserve Account shall be initially funded from proceeds of the Bonds in an amount equal to $1,335,000 (the "Debt Service Reserve Requirement"). The Stabilization Account shall be initially funded from proceeds of the Bonds in an amount equal to $120,000 (the "Stabilization Account Requirement"). The cost of initially funding the Reserve Fund is included in the assessments of the property owners. The moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Account and the Stabilization Account shall, upon the final payment of the Bonds, be applied to the final assessment payment obligation of the assessed properties. If the amounts on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Account and the Stabilization Account exceed the fmal assessment obligation, any excess amounts shall be paid by the Trustee, at the written direction of the City, to the owners whose properties were subject to the final assessment payment obligation, as the return of an excess assessment payment. In the event insufficient assessments are collected by the City to make the debt service payments on the Bonds, or to reimburse the Credit Facility provider, the Trustee shall draw on the Debt Service Reserve Account to make up such deficiency. In the event the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Account is less than the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, the City will replenish the Debt Service Reserve Account as provided in the Indenture. If the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Account exceeds the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, excess moneys shall be transferred by the Trustee first to the City to reimburse the City for any costs incurred by the City in administering the District and second to the Assessment Account within the Bond Fund established under the Indenture to be applied as a credit toward the next assessment payment obligation coming due. Moneys on deposit in the Stabilization Account shall be used to make up any deficiency in the Assessment Account, all as provided in the Indenture. The Stabilization Account shall thereafter be replenished from the next succeeding assessment payment received by the Trustee as provided in the Indenture. Section 14. Contestability. No assessment shall be declared void or set aside in whole or in part in consequence of any error or irregularity which does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. Any party who has not waived his objections to same as provided by statute may commence a civil action against the City to enjoin the levy or collection of the assessment or to set aside and declare unlawful this Assessment Ordinance. As provided by Section 17A 3-330 of the Act, such action must be commenced and summons must be served on the City not later than 30 days after the effective date of 41111 this Assessment Ordinance. This action shall be the exclusive remedy of any aggrieved UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 9 7/31/2003 party. No court shall entertain any complaint which the party was authorized to make by • statute but did not timely make or any complaint that does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. After the expiration of the 30-day period provided in this section: (A) The Bonds to be issued against the District and the assessments levied in the District shall become incontestable as to all persons who have not commenced the action provided for in this section; and (B) No suit to enjoin the issuance or payment of the Bonds, the levy, collection or enforcement of the assessment, or in any other manner attacking or questioning the legality of the Bonds or assessments may be instituted in this state, and no court shall have authority to inquire into these matters. Section 15. Notice to Property Owners. The Trustee, on behalf of the City, is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of assessment by mail to the property owners in the District. Said notice shall, among other things, state the amount of the assessment and the terms of payment. A copy of the form of notice of assessment is available for examination upon request at the office of the City Recorder. Section 16. All Necessary Action Approved. The officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Assessment Ordinance. 11111 Section 17. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with this Assessment Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 18. Publication of Ordinances. Immediately after its adoption, this Assessment Ordinance shall be signed by the Mayor and Deputy City Recorder and shall be recorded in the ordinance book kept for that purpose. This Assessment Ordinance shall be published once in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper having general circulation within the boundaries of the City, and shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval and publication as required by law. Section 19. Notice of Assessment Interest. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to file with the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, a"notice of assessment interest" in substantially the form as attached hereto as Exhibit "F"for the purpose of giving notice to any interested party of the lien of the assessment levied pursuant to this Assessment Ordinance on the properties described in the Assessment List. • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 10 7/31/2003 0 PASSED AND APPROVED bythe CityCouncil of Salt Lake City, Utah, ty, this August 12, 2003. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( SEAL) 0 • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 11 7/31/2003 After the transaction of other business not pertinent to the foregoing matter, the 0 meeting was on motion duly made, seconded and carried, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) 0 4110 UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 12 7/31/2003 • PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing ordinance was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on , 2003. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved , 2003. Ross C. Anderson Mayor 110 UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 13 7/31/2003 STATE OF UTAH ) • : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Chris Meeker, the duly appointed and qualified Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah, at its meeting held on August 12, 2003, insofar as the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Utah Railyard Special Improvement District as the same appears of record in my office. I further certify that the Ordinance levying the special assessments was recorded by me in the official records of Salt Lake City on , 2003. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City this , 2003. Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) • • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 14 7/31/2003 • PROOF OF PUBLICATION Attached to this page is the Proof of Publication, indicating by the affidavit of the publisher that the said Ordinance levying the special assessments which was contained in the Ordinance adopted by the City Council on , 2003, was published one time in the Deseret Morning News. • • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 15 7/31/2003 EXHIBIT"A" • CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Chris Meeker, the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public mtice of the agenda, date, time and place of the August 12, 2003, public meeting held by the City as follows: (f) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the City's offices at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah on , 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (g) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this , 2003. • Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL ) • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 A-1 7/31/2003 • SCHEDULE"1" NOTICE OF MEETING • • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 A-2 7/31/2003 EXHIBIT"B" • DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The Improvements consist of various infrastructure improvements constructed and installed within the Gateway Project, including sidewalks, crosswalks, storm drainage systems, landscaping, beautification of recreation and public area facilities, curb and gutter, irrigation systems, utility lines,paving of roads and other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the aforementioned Improvements. • • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 B-1 7/31/2003 • EXHIBIT"C" ASSESSMENT LIST • • UT_DOCS_A#1130220 v5 C-1 7/31/2003 EXHIBIT"D" • ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE • • UT DOCS A#1130220 v5 D-1 7/31/2003 • EXHIBIT "B" PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT PAYMENT SCHEDULE • • UT DOCS A#1130220 v5 E-1 7/31/2003 EXHIBIT "F" 0 NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT INTEREST • • i August 12, 2003 The City Council (the "Council") of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County., Utah, (the "Issuer") met in regular session on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. The following members of the Council were present: Carlton Christensen Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Nancy Saxton Councilmember Van Blair Turner Councilmember K. Eric Jergensen Councilmember David L. Buhler Councilmember Dale Lambert Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan, II City Attorney • Deputy City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and the minutes of the preceding meeting approved, and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the Deputy City Recorder confirmed compliance with applicable law as evidenced by a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this August 12, 2003, meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Whereupon the following Resolution was introduced in written form and pursuant to motion made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember was fully discussed and adopted by the following vote: AYE: 1110 NAY: UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH (THE "ISSUER") FINALIZING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE ISSUER OF ITS ADJUSTABLE RATE DEMAND ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 2003, (GATEWAY PROJECT) ( THE `BONDS") IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $17,600,000 (THE "SERIES 2003 BONDS"); AWARDING AND CONFIRMING THE SALE OF SAID SERIES 2003 BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE ISSUER OF A TRUST INDENTURE, REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, REMARKETING AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; RATIFYING THE PREPARATION, DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the City is authorized under the Municipal Improvement District Act, Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended(the "Act"), to fmance the costs of various publicly owned improvements through the creation of special improvement districts, to levy assessments against properties to be benefited by said improvements, and to issue assessment bonds to fmance the acquisition, construction and installation of said improvements, the repayment of which is secured by assessments levied against said benefited properties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, on November 16, 1999, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City adopted a notice of intention to construct certain improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, crosswalks, storm drainage systems, water channels, landscaping, beautification of recreation and public area facilities, curb and gutter, irrigation systems, utility lines, paving of roads; and other miscellaneous work which is necessary to complete the above improvements (collectively the "Improvements") and to create a special improvement district to be known as the Salt Lake City, Utah Railyard Special Improvement District (the "District") for the purpose of fmancing said Improvements; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999, the City Council held a protest hearing to receive public comment with respect to the acquisition and construction of the Improvements and the creation of the District to fmance the Improvements; and on December 16, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 103 creating the District, 111111 UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 2 • the City Council having determined that there were no protests submitted to the City Council against the construction of the Improvements and the creation of the District; and WHEREAS, under the supervision of the City, Gateway Associates, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership and developer of the properties to be assessed within the District ("Gateway Associates, Ltd.") has acquired, constructed and installed the Improvements within the District for and on behalf of the City with the understanding that the City would issue assessment bonds to finance permanently said Improvements after the completion of the acquisition, construction and installation of the Improvements; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined the final costs of the Improvements, including overhead and fmancing costs and has approved an assessment list wherein the City Council has assessed the fmal costs of the Improvements to the properties benefited by said Improvements; and WHEREAS, Gateway Associates, Ltd. has executed and delivered to the City an Acknowledgment Waiver and Consent dated as of August 1, 2003, wherein Gateway Associates, Ltd. has, among other things (A) acknowledged (i) that the Improvements benefit the properties to be assessed within the District in an amount not less than the assessments to be levied against said properties, and (ii) that assessments against said properties are fair and equitable; (B) waived (m) any irregularities in the creation of the District and the manner in which the Improvements were constructed, (n) the requirement • under the Act to call a board of equalization and review, (o) certain assessment repayment requirements set forth in the Act, (p) the 15-day prepayment period as provided in Section 17A 3-321 of the Act and (q) the right to contest the assessment levied against the properties benefited by the Improvements; and (C) consented to (x)the creation of the District and construction and installation of the Improvements (y) the levy of the assessments in the manner and amounts set forth in the Assessment Ordinance herein defined, and (z)the issuance of the Assessment Bonds herein defined; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2003, the City Council adopted Assessment Ordinance No. (the "Assessment Ordinance") wherein the City Council approved the final costs of the Improvements and assessed the properties benefited by said Improvements within the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to authorize the issuance and sale of its Adjustable Rate Demand Assessment Bonds (Gateway Project), Series 2003 (the "Series 2003 Bonds") in the total principal amount of $17,600,000 to (A) finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and installing the Improvements, (B) fund a debt service reserve fund, and (C) pay costs of issuance of the Series 2003 Bonds including certain overhead costs of the City; and WHEREAS, as security for the payment of the Series 2003 Bonds in a Weekly Rate Mode, the City will deliver to the Trustee on the date of initial delivery of the Series 2003 Bonds an irrevocable transferable direct pay letter of credit (the "Initial Credit Facility") issued by Citibank N.A. (the "Credit Provider"), against which the Trustee 11110 shall be entitled to draw, in accordance with the terms thereof, up to (a) an aggregate UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 3 amount sufficient to pay (i)the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2003 Bonds then II outstanding, or (ii) the purchase price or a portion of the purchase price equal to the aggregate principal amount of Series 2003 Bonds delivered for purchase pursuant to the Trust Indenture dated as of August 1, 2003 (the "Indenture"), plus (b)an amount equal to 59 days' accrued interest on the Series 2003 Bonds, calculated at an assumed rate of ten percent(10%)per annum; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to ratify the preparation, distribution and use of the Preliminary Official Statement dated , 2003, relating to the Series 2003 Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), and to authorize and approve the final Official Statement dated , 2003, relating to the Series 2003 Bonds (the "Official Statement"), copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and Exhibit "F", respectively; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of August 12, 2003, (the "Purchase Agreement") between Banc One Capital Markets, Inc.. (the "Underwriter") and the Issuer for the purchase of the Series 2003 Bonds is acceptable and in the best interest of the Issuer, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "G"; and WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to sell the Series 2003 Bonds to the Underwriter upon the terms set forth in said Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Series 2003 Bonds shall be payable solely from the special • assessments and other moneys pledged therefor in the Indenture and shall not constitute or give rise to a general obligation or liability of the Issuer or constitute a charge against its general credit or taxing powers: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The terms defined or described in the recitals hereto shall have the same meanings when used in the body of this Resolution. Section 2. All actions heretofore taken (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution), by the Council and by the officers of the Issuer directed toward the issuance and sale of the Series 2003 Bonds, are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 3. The Indenture in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is in all respects hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the same on behalf of the Issuer. Section 4. The Reimbursement Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is in all respects hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the same on behalf of the Issuer. • UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 4 • Section 5. The Remarketing Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is in all respects hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the same on behalf of the Issuer. Section 6. For the purpose of (i) acquiring and constructing the Improvements, and (ii) paying issuance expenses to be incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Series 2003 Bonds, the Issuer hereby authorizes the issuance of the Series 2003 Bonds which shall be designated "Salt Lake City, Utah, Adjustable Rate Demand Assessment Bonds (Gateway Project) Series 2003". Section 7. The Issuer hereby authorizes the issuance of the Series 2003 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $17,600,000. The Series 2003 Bonds shall bear interest, shall be dated, shall be issued as fully registered bonds, and shall mature as provided in the Indentwe. Section 8. The form, terms and provisions of the Series 2003 Bonds and the provisions for the signatures, authentication, payment, registration, transfer, exchange, redemption and number shall be as set forth in the Indenture. The Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and seal the Series 2003 Bonds and to deliver said Series 2003 Bonds to the Trustee for authentication. The signatures of the Mayor and the City Recorder may be by facsimile or manual execution. • Section 9. The appropriate officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Trustee the written order of the Issuer for authentication and delivery of the Series 2003 Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture. Section 10. The Series 2003 Bonds shall be sold to the Underwriter in accordance with the Purchase Agreement presented to the Issuer. Said Purchase Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "G" is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor and City Recorder are hereby authorized to execute said Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Issuer. Section 11. The Issuer hereby ratifies the preparation, distribution and use of the Preliminary Official Statement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "F" in the marketing of the Series 2003 Bonds and hereby authorizes and approves the Official Statement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "G". The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the final Official Statement evidencing its acceptance by the Issuer. Section 12. Upon their issuance, the Series 2003 Bonds will constitute special limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from and to the extent of the sources set forth in the Series 2003 Bonds and the Indenture. No provision of this Resolution, the Indenture, the Series 2003 Bonds, or any other instrument, shall be construed as creating a general obligation of the Issuer, or of creating a general obligation of the State of Utah or any political subdivision thereof, or as incurring or creating a charge upon the general • credit of the Issuer or its taxing powers. UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 5 Section 13. The appropriate officials of the Issuer, and each of them, are • hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the Issuer any or all additional certificates, documents and other papers and to perform all other acts they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to implement and carry out the matters authorized in this Resolution and the documents authorized and approved herein. Section 14. After the Series 2003 Bonds are delivered by the Trustee to the Underwriter, and upon receipt of payment therefor, this Resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2003 Bonds are deemed to have been duly discharged in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Indenture. Section 15. The form of Indenture, Reimbursement Agreement, Remarketing Agreement, Official Statement, and Purchase Agreement authorized and approved hereby is authorized and approved with such additions, modifications, deletions and changes thereto as may be deemed necessary or appropriate and approved by the Mayor, whose execution thereof on behalf of the Issuer shall conclusively establish such necessity, appropriateness and approval with respect to all such additions, modifications, deletions and changes incorporated therein. Section 16. The Issuer hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, a copy of which is attached to the Official Statement as Appendix "D"thereto. In the event the • Issuer fails to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, any Bondholder may take the remedial actions set forth therein. Section 17. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Resolution are severable, and if any section, clause or provision of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections, clauses or provisions of this Resolution. Section 18. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof heretofore adopted or passed which are in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. This repealer shall not be construed so as to revive any resolution, order, regulation or part thereof heretofore repealed. Section 19. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption. 11110 UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 6 • ADOPTED AND APPROVED this August 12, 2003. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) • • UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 7 (Other business not pertinent to the foregoing appears in the minutes of the • meeting.) The meeting was then adjourned. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder {SEAL) • • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 8 • PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on August , 2003 Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this August , 2003. Mayor • • UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 9 STATE OF UTAH ) • ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer"). I further certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on August 12, 2003, including a resolution adopted at said meeting as said minutes and resolution are officially of record and in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of the Issuer this August 12, 2003. Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) • • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 10 • EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, , the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Issuer"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the Issuer in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the August 12, 2003, public meeting held by the Issuer as follows: 1. By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the Issuer's offices at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on August , 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and 2. By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on August , 2003, at least twenty- four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this • August 12, 2003. Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) 1 1111 UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 A-1 SCHEDULE "1" • NOTICE OF MEETING • • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 A-2 • EXHIBIT "B" TRUST INDENTURE (See Transcript Document No. ) . 111 UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 B-1 EXHIBIT "C" • REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT [See Transcript Document No. ] I i UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 C-1 • EXHIBIT "D" REMARKETING AGREEMENT [See Transcript Document No. ] . • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 D-1 EXHIBIT "E" • PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT (See Transcript Document No. _) • • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 E-1 0 EXHIBIT "F" OFFICIAL STATEMENT (See Transcript Document No. _) • • UT DOCS A#1136462 v2 F-I EXHIBIT "G" • BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (See Transcript Document No._) • 0 UT_DOCS_A#1136462 v2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5,2003 SUBJECT: General Obligation Bond Election Procedures AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEFT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Management Services Department,Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: The Administration is proposing that the City Council call and hold an election for the approval of general obligation bonds.The bonds would be used for City projects such as renovation of existing City buildings and construction of new recreation facilities.The Administration recently commissioned a survey of City residents to gauge the potential support of the • proposed general obligation bond election.The survey and responses are attached.The Council will discuss the specifics of each of the proposed projects during the August 12 or September 2, 2003 Council work session. The Council has the authority to call a special bond election.This report details the major steps involved in holding a general obligation bond election and the necessary resolutions to make the election valid and the bonds tax-exempt. > ELECTION PROCEDURES The following are the procedures necessary to call and hold a general obligation bond election and the federal requirements the City would have to follow with regard to the issuance of the bonds. Step 1-Choose an Election Date.Under Section 20A-1-204 of the Utah Code,local special elections to authorize issuance of bonds(indebtedness)are limited to five dates.They are: 1. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in February; 2. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in May; • 3. The forth Tuesday in June in even-numbered years; 4. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in August;or 5. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The only available date in calendar year 2003 is November 4,2003. Step 2-Adopt a resolution regarding the election.The City Council must adopt a resolution that provides for holding the bond issuance election.The Council should adopt the resolution at Page 1 least 30 days (preferably 45 to 90 days)before the date of election. There are a number of items such as purpose,maximum principal,maximum bond maturity,identification of voting precincts, etc that should be included in the resolution. • Step 3-The City Recorder becomes involved in the process and furnishes copies of the resolution to the County Clerk for preparation that takes place in the County Clerk's office.The Recorder then coordinates the printing of ballots and other special bond election forms and advertises the election and provides sample ballots etc. as required by law. Because the only available date this year is same as a regular general election the City does not have to send special notifications by mail. Step 4-The City then holds the special bond election on November 4, 2003. Step 5-The City Council and Mayor must then convene as the Board of Canvassers within ten days after the election to canvass the election and declare the results. The election may be challenged or contested within 40 days of the meeting of the Board of Canvassers. No other contests on the validity of the election are allowed after the 40 day period. > REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION The City Council must adopt a reimbursement resolution in order for the bonds to be tax- exempt.This resolution should be adopted as soon as possible and if necessary the resolutions for the holding the special bond election and reimbursement of the bonds may be combined. The reimbursement resolution must contain items such as maximum principal amount of the bonds,descriptions of the projects, and language saying that the City intends to issue bonds for the project expenditures.The timing of the reimbursement resolution is important because expenditures made more than 60 days before adoption cannot be financed with proceeds from • the bonds. > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS The City Council has several policy questions related to the issuance of bonds. Because the proposed projects relate to several of the policy questions the Council may have,the survey that was conducted for the City is attached. Further discussion of the specific projects will occur during a briefing at the August 12 or September 2,2003 Council work Session. Questions relating to policy concerns could include: Will the issuance of general obligation bonds for the proposed projects affect the bond rating of the City? Are recreation related projects suitable for bond financing? What is the acceptable debt per capita of the residents and businesses of the City and what is the current debt per capita ratio? Will this bond issuance inhibit new construction or population growth in the City? Will companies choose to locate outside of the City because of this additional tax obligation? Will the proposed projects fulfill Master Plan objectives and recommendations? Would the City Council be fulfilling it fiduciary responsibilities by supporting or not supporting a special bond election and general obligation bond issuance? 411 How will the City finance the operations and maintenance of any new facilities or expanded programs? Page 2 Are the programs and facilities being suggested by the bond the Council's top policy priorities • for which the Council wishes to exercise taxing authority? Are there other projects that the City Council considers funding priorities,for example projects that have been identified on the City's COP list? How do the proposed projects compare to the other projects? Would bonding for the proposed projects be consistent with the City's current focus and policy direction,or would bonding move the City into programs beyond the City's traditional scope? ➢ BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed projects will be funded by the general obligation bonds.The bonds will cover only the construction and installation costs associated with the project. Project operating and maintenance costs will not be funded with general obligation bond revenue and will need to be appropriated in future year budgets.Some of the operating costs associated with the proposed project may be covered by contributions from Salt Lake County,the Hogle Zoo and other municipalities or private groups. When the City Council authorized the City Library general obligation bonds they also decided to identify the potential operating and maintenance costs of the new facility and implement a property tax increase to cover the costs.The goal was to give the public a complete understanding of the financial impact of the project and to ensure that operating funds were available once the project was built.The Council may wish to carefully identify any of the proposed projects that may have on-going expenses and identify the funding mechanisms • for those costs prior to the bond election. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Dan Mule',Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Rick Graham,Alison Weyher,Kevin Bergstrom,David Dobbins,David Nimkin and DJ Baxter File location: Michael\Staff Reports • • Page 3