Loading...
12/09/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, December 9, 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, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert, Eric Jergensen and Van Turner. Absent: Councilmember Nancy Saxton. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; DJ Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-JenFson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Kim Thomas, Youth Program Manager; Janet Wolf, Director of Youth Programs; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Development Business Services Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Ken Cowley, Chief Information Officer/City Recorder; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Gordon Hoskins, City Controller; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Gwen Springmeyer, Community Affairs Analyst for District 3 & 4; Valda Tarbert, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director; Elizabeth Giraud, Historic Preservation Planner; Steve Whittaker, Technology Consultant; Judge Zane Gill, Justice Court; Simarjit Singh Gill, City Prosecutor; Dennis McKone, Fire Department Administrative Assistant; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:42 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment Cindy Gust-Jenson said Councilmember Saxton would participate in a portion of the regular City Council meeting via telephone. She said the Council had been invited to order jackets with the City logo on back. She said Council Members would need to pay for any jackets on their own. She asked anyone interested to let Council staff know. See File M 03-5 for additional Council announcements. #2. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE OPEN SPACE TRUST FUND AND ADVISORY BOARD. (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. C-4) View Attachment Janice Jardine, Councilmember Love and Councilmember Lambert briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said Council had been provided a copy of the few comments received. She said Council staff was waiting for the majority of the groups to reply. Councilmember Love suggested Council close the public hearing and continue this item until January 2004. She said this would allow Council an opportunity to take into consideration the remainder of the comments when they were received. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 #3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE MOUNTAIR ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-07. (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. C-3) View Attachment Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. He said there had been no new activity on the petition since the September public hearing. Councilmember Christensen asked what legal options were available to the City. Mr. Sears said the Master Annexation Policy Declaration could be used to reaffirm the City' s position favoring the annexation, but the City could not petition or campaign for it. Councilmember Christensen asked if the City could generate pamphlets highlighting the benefits of residing in the City limits. Ms. Gust-Jenson said terminology could be an issue. She said the pamphlets should only be used to provide information. Councilmember Lambert said he did not see any benefit in continuing this issue. He said the residents had been given an opportunity to voice their opinion. He said although he did not agree with their decision, he would support it. #4. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2, INCLUDING UTOPIA. (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. C-2) View Attachment Michael Sears, Gordon Hoskins, Janet Wolf, Kim Thomas, Rick Graham, Rocky Fluhart and Mayor Anderson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Sears reviewed his summary responding to Council' s questions on budget amendment items No. 3, 5, 6 and 28. He advised Council on several motion options for those items. A discussion was held on the results obtained by each option. Refer to the December 9, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting for additional discussion and motions made. Councilmember Buhler said public hearing item No. 4-a, had been presented to Council in the Police Department's proposed budget. Mr. Hoskins said the Police Department had requested a grant award for a victim's advocate position. He said the item before Council now was a clerical position for the Justice Court. He said the purpose of the position was to set up a database to track cases for the Police Department. He said the position would be funded entirely by a one year grant. Councilmember Buhler said he had concerns about creating new positions. He said after grants concluded, the City was left trying to fund the positions. Mr. Fluhart said the administration anticipated grant monies to continue to pay for this position. He said the City would need to apply for funding each year. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the Justice Drug Free Communities Grant, public hearing item No. 4-i, would be duplicating existing programs. Mr. Hoskins said it was a new program and it would establish a coalition to organize the community to take action. He said as with the courts position, the administration anticipated grant monies to continue to pay for this position. Councilmember Lambert said due to issues with his private law practice, he would recuse himself from the UTOPIA vote, budget amendment item No. 28. Councilmember Lambert said he felt the Prosecutor' s Office and Justice Court were in need of additional staff. He said there was no benefit in having them wait and compete with other departments during the regular budget opening. He suggested reducing the requested positions from eight to two clerks for the Justice Court and two for the Prosecutor's Office. He said that cut the requested amount of $190,345 by more than half. A discussion was held on adopting resolutions accepting grant funds and bringing grant funds into the general fund. Council Members said they needed additional information and briefings. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 Ms. Wolf said she could respond to Council' s questions on youth programs within 60 days. She urged Council not to allow lapses between funding periods. Mayor Anderson said the administration was willing to make necessary changes to continue the City's youth programs. He said after reviewing renovation options for the Boxing Building, the administration felt the monies could be better spent on programs rather than a facility for the youth. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REDEFINE THE TERM "DEPARTMENT STORE," AND TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN AND GATEWAY MIXED-USE DISTRICTS TABLES OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, AND TO CREATE A NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT TO DEFINE THE DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET CORE OVERLAY DISTRICT. View Attachment Louis Zunguze, Doug Dansie, Russell Weeks and Joel Paterson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Zunguze said the proposed ordinance would replace the single definition of "department store", with seven definitions and sub-categories to better specify the kinds of "department stores" currently in the City. He said the proposed ordinance would amend the permitted and conditional uses in the Downtown (D-1) and Gateway Mixed Use (G-MU) Districts. He said the proposed ordinance would also create an overlay district for the Main Street Core, defining what kinds of department stores could be located there. Mr. Zunguze said the Planning Commission and staff assessed the issues and concluded: 1) to keep Main Street active and vital, day and evening, it must have a significant retail sector, 2) Main Street needed to be a regional retail destination, and 3) to draw the critical mass required, Main Street retail needed to be anchored by specialty fashion retail stores. Mr. Zunguze said it would be difficult to create synergy and linkage from Main Street to other downtown destinations. He said Main Street needed to remain a regional retail competitor while allowing Gateway to be developed as an important corridor of large scale attractions, housing and entertainment facilities. Mr. Paterson said the Planning Division had redefined the definition of "department store". He said these recommendations had been presented to major stakeholders of the downtown area for review. He said they were in favor of the proposal. He said the seven proposed definitions were: 1) conventional department stores, 2) fashion oriented department stores, 3) specialty fashion department stores, 4) mass merchandising stores, 5) specialty stores, 6) superstores and hypermarkets, and 7) warehouse club stores. He said additionally each definition included a list of store names as examples of the particular type of department store. Mr. Paterson said the boundaries for the proposed downtown Main Street Core Overlay District were South Temple to 500 South and West Temple to State Street. He said high fashion retail, fashion oriented stores and specialty fashion department stores would be limited to this area, consistent with the downtown master plan. He said conventional department stores, mass merchandising stores and specialty stores would be permitted uses in both the Main Street Core and the Gateway Mixed Use Districts. He said the superstores, hypermarkets and warehouse club stores would only be permitted in G-MU Districts. Councilmember Lambert asked if grocery stores were allowed downtown and how they would be categorized. Mr. Paterson said they would be considered a retail merchandising outlet. He said grocery stores would be allowed in the G-MU District. He said the categories being discussed were clarifications of different types of department stores. Councilmember Lambert said he felt Salt Lake City had "over retailed" downtown with 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 the two existing malls and Gateway. He asked if the Planning Commission had considered limiting retail in both districts regardless of the category. He asked if the amount of retail could be limited with zoning ordinances. Mr. Zunguze said those issues were being addressed by looking at the amount of property deemed commercial. Ms. Gust- Jenson said a limit could be placed on the amount of property or parcels that could be zoned in a certain way. She said agreements with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) could also be used to state any requirements. She said such agreements already existed in the Gateway development but not in the downtown area. Councilmember Turner said the west side of the City could use additional retail. He said it would be hard to place large box stores anywhere other than the west side of the City. Councilmember Christensen asked if there had been any discussion about a Target Store locating in the G-MU District. Mr. Dansie said planning concerns dealt more with the size and look of stores rather than the type of retailer. He said the downtown master plan had always considered large scale retailers. Councilmember Jergensen said he supported conditional use permits as a way of controlling zoning and building. He said he did not want it to become such a cumbersome process it would discourage perspective retailers from relocating to Salt Lake. Mr. Zunguze said redefining the general term "department store" would help streamline the process and eliminate unnecessary conditional use requirements. He said another solution would be to establish a conditional use review/site development review singular process. Mr. Dansie said specific criteria had already been included in the zoning development language for most districts. Councilmember Christensen asked why Meier and Frank would have requested the conditional use process for their current location. Mr. Zunguze said it could have been for preservation reasons. He said they might feel that would keep them safe in their current status. He said everyone in the proposed downtown Main Street Core Overlay District, they needed to remain flexible. Councilmember Buhler asked if the plan development stipulation could be removed from the G-MU zoning district. Mr. Dansie said it could be removed by an amendment. He said originally it was added because the City was changing the complete use of the area. Councilmember Buhler said even by redefining the term "department store" it seemed the only retailer not allowed in the Gateway District was Nordstrom. Mr. Zunguze said conventional department stores were becoming obsolete. He said due to extreme competition of mass merchandisers, department stores needed to reinvent themselves. He said the drivers of the retail industry were still the high end fashion retailers. He said they would not be successful if they were diluted around the City. He said it was essential they remained together as viable anchors on Main Street to make Salt Lake City a regional retail contender. He said like uses needed to be located in a concentrated area to remain a draw. He said there were some loose ends that needed to be addressed in all zoning districts. Councilmember Buhler said as stores changed to meet demands they were no longer in the correct zoning. He asked how the City would manage the constant retail reinvention. Mr. Zunguze said other cities were facing these challenges. He said the Planning Commission had anticipated this and language had been put in the proposed ordinance allowing for flexibility. He said as retailers needed to keep abreast of trends, so would the City' s Planning Division. Councilmember Love said the goal was for both areas to be successful and complement each other. She said it might be better to cap the total amount of retail allowed in 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 the City. Mr. Dansie said if a square foot cap were established in a district, one or two retailers might eliminate other interested retailers. Mr. Zunguze said the City did not want to remove themselves from the regional retail market altogether. He said a balance needed to be maintained to keep the City competitive. Councilmember Christensen said this item would be placed on the January 6, 2004, City Council meeting. He said he recommended that two outstanding petitions be addressed at the same time. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council staff would research and advise Council should there be any conflicts. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REVISION TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS ORDINANCE. (NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. E-1) View Attachment Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Weeks said the City Attorney' s Office suggested if the Council adopted the proposed ordinance, they insert the words "commercially related" in their motion. Councilmember Christensen asked for a memo to be drawn with that verbiage prior to the public hearing. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST BY SALT LAKE CITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THE 500 WEST STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND DECLARE AS SURPLUS ADJACENT LAND NORTH OF 200 SOUTH STREET PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-12. View Attachment This item was deferred to a later date. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. pj 03 - 5 • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: December 5,2003 SUBJECT: Update Briefing on UTOPIA and Request for Salt Lake City to Guarantee a Portion of the Bonds AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA)is an interlocal agreement agency formed by 18 founding cities to provide every home and business access to a variety of ultra high-tech telecommunications services provided by private- sector businesses. The project will be funded by the sale of bonds. UTOPIA plans on paying operating costs and debt from fees charged to private service providers that use the network to serve their customers. In order to obtain funding at an affordable rate, UTOPIA is proposing that cities pledge future sales tax revenue to back 45% of the bonds. Under this 45% proposal,the total pledge would be$22,214,000 per year if all 18 cities participate. Salt Lake City's construction costs are 21.25% of the proposed bond,which equates to an annual pledge of $4,719,460 over the 20-year life of the bond. For public agency financing, fees for bond insurance and rating agencies are generally paid from bond proceeds. However, UTOPIA recently found out that the fees will be due in advance since it is being treated as a private party financing. The fees to UTOPIA total $250,000 (i.e. $120,000 for bond insurance, $30,000 for an independent due diligence report for the bond insurer,$50,000 for Standard and Poor's rating, and$50,000 for Moody's rating). Salt Lake City's share of the total amount is$53,114 based on the City's share of total construction costs. UTOPIA commits to reimburse the cities for these fees from bond proceeds. UTOPIA is requesting the financial advance from each member city by February 1,2004 according to a proposed UTOPIA resolution that its board of directors will consider on December 8, 2003. OPTIONS: In March 2003,Salt Lake City paid$187,697 to UTOPIA for studies and other costs to determine whether UTOPIA is feasible. At the budget briefing on December 4, 2003,the Administration explained that the Council has three options at this time: 1. Appropriate$53,114 for UTOPIA's financing costs and guarantee a portion of the bonds with future revenue so that construction of the network in Salt Lake City can begin in the first phase. Salt Lake City will assume the risk that UTOPIA will be successful, but will have the opportunity to share in possible future profits. 2. Don't guarantee the bonds but participate in UTOPIA. Advance the$53,144 to UTOPIA to pay for financing costs that are due in advance. Under this option, the Council may wish to ask whether Salt Lake City will be built out with the bond or whether the City will need to wait until additional financing is available. Salt Lake City will not share in any future UTOPIA profits. 3. Do not participate in UTOPIA at this time. UTOPIA will consider additional member cities in the future. MATTERS AT ISSUE AND QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: UTOPIA will complete construction for the member cities that participate in the guarantee of bonds first. Those charter cities not guaranteeing the bonds will be built out if money is • available from a subsequent bond. As additional cities join UTOPIA,construction will occur as funding becomes available. In some future date,UTOPIA plans to distribute surplus revenue to those cities that guaranteed the bonds. Construction costs within the 18 cities are estimated to cost$470 million. UTOPIA will spend an average of about$1,171 for each home or business to run the fiber network to the boundary of every property in all of the member cities. The average cost in Salt Lake City is projected to be$809 per address,which is less than UTOPIA's average because Salt Lake City has a higher density and more addresses served by above ground lines than most of the other cities. Once the property owner or tenant subscribes to services provided by private sector service providers, UTOPIA will bring fiber from the boundary into the house or business at an average cost of$1,400 for each house or business. Salt Lake City's pledge amount relates to the actual estimated construction costs for Salt Lake City. The cities' pledge would require funding only if the actual system revenues do not cover operational and debt service obligations. In such a case the cities would cover their proportional share of annual debt service in each year that the need existed. The pledge obligation will become a real claim against the City if UTOPIA's network revenues are not sufficient to cover operating expenses and debt service costs. • 2 Some of the areas of risk for UTOPIA include: • • Demand and actual take rates may be less than expectations. • Projected capital costs may be greater than projected. • Technology becomes obsolete sooner than projected. UTOPIA predicts that fiber optic cable will be up to date for at least 20 years and electronic components for at least 7 years. • Comcast and Quest may lower their prices forcing UTOPIA to drop its wholesale rates so that private providers on the network can remain competitive. • UTOPIA is forced to drop wholesale prices to retain private providers as a result of competition of multiple providers on the network. Council Members may wish to ask representatives of UTOPIA for additional information regarding the following concerns that have been expressed by opponents of UTOPIA: 1. UTOPIA will not pay property taxes that are currently paid by private providers. 2. Fiber optics may be obsolete by future advances in wireless technologies. 3. Comcast,Qwest and other telecommunications providers have recently invested hundreds of millions of dollars in local infrastructure upgrades and expansions. 4. UTOPIA is contracting for only one exclusive provider for the first two years in order to attract a provider that is willing to invest in a new system. This may give the original provider an enormous advantage over competitors and keep prices higher to the public during the first two years. 5. Future taxpayers may be required to fund UTOPIA's infrastructure upgrades and replacements. 6. Cities and their residents face an unnecessary high level financial risk. 7. Governments should not be involved in such a fast-changing volatile industry. 8. UTOPIA's tax-exempt activities will crowd out private investment and reduce future tax revenues An appendix to this staff report contains some of the statements made by advocates and promoters of UTOPIA. BACKGROUND: In 1999,the City of Provo acquired fiber optic cable that had been installed in certain neighborhoods of Provo but was not currently in use. Provo began to make plans for operating a fiber optic network to residents and businesses. Complaints from private telecommunications companies resulted in the 2001 Utah Legislature enacted the Utah Municipal Cable Television and Public Telecommunications Services Act,which provides a process for a municipality to follow if it elects to provide cable television and public telecommunication services. 3 Council staff understands that UTOPIA was conceived by Paul T. Morris,the city attorney of West Valley City in 2002. Mr. Morris is the chair of the telecommunications task force 1111 for the Utah League of Cities&Towns and a member of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. On March 20, 2003,the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing Salt Lake City to enter into an interlocal agreement to become a member of the UTOPIA. The Council appropriated$188,000 for initial costs including a study of the feasibility of constructing and operating a fiber optic network that would provide high-speed broadband voice, video, and data access for every residence and business within the City on a wholesale basis. The original charter cities are Salt Lake City, West Valley, Orem, Layton, Taylorville, Murray, Roy South Jordan, Midvale,Riverton, Cedar City,Brigham City, Centerville, Payson, Lindon, Tremonton, Cedar Hills, and Perry. Some of these cities may choose to not guarantee the bonds. There is a minimum of 26,000 subscribers before a private provider becomes attractively profitable according to UTOPIA. It there are not enough cities that pledge to guarantee the bonds, UTOPIA will not be able to attract multiple private providers. At a follow up briefing in January,the Council could be made aware of the status of other cities and whether they have made a formal decision regarding the pledge. The feasibility study was prepared by DynamicCity and included a projected take rate study conducted by Strategy Research Institute of Fullerton California. The study concludes that the proposed UTOPIA fiber optic network is financially feasible. The report states that the system can generate sufficient revenue on its own to cover its costs. A survey of 2000 residences and 700 businesses concluded that UTOPIA will have a minimum take rate of 40% after two years. Dean&Company, a telecommunications consulting firm from Virginia,made an analysis to verify the feasibility study. Dean&Company concluded: "While not without risk, the feasibility of UTOPIA is robust, and the plan is well-structured to create and capture value from the proposed investment" The consultants recommended managing the risk by starting with a small-test cell and expand to a second stage before ramping up to a full- speed build. cc: Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter IP 4 Appendix • WHY UTOPIA? Some Statements Made by Advocates and Promoters of UTOPIA • UTOPIA will provide economic development advantages and quality of life enhancements. • Fiber-optic technology provides transmission of voice,data and video many times faster than existing copper,cable,wireless,T-1, or satellite systems. • The network will be open to a range of private sector providers giving customers greater consumer choice,competitive pricing,and enhanced services. • Cities have always been in the infrastructure business building streets,bridges, airports,water works, and electrical power systems. • Private contractors will construct the network, employing hundreds of local workers during the estimated 3-year build-out period. • Private sector service providers are not building telecommunications infrastructure fast enough to accommodate the current needs to citizens.and businesses. • UTOPIA will invite current service providers to become providers over the IP network. • The UTOPIA network will encourage competition. • The network will provide more advanced options for telecommuting and interactive distance learning. • Doctors can transmit and receive MRIs, CAT scans and large files of medical images and information that are not transmittable with current technology. • The network will enable hearing-impaired customers to hold fluid conversations in American Sign Language using full-motion video phones. • Any family protections available under current entertainment and Internet services, such as filtering and parental controls,will be available. • Salt Lake City will become a more desirable place for people to live or locate their business. S 5 DEC 032@3 SALT LAKE GM GORPORA` 'IOI = ROCKY U. FLU HART RO55 G. ANDERSON •CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR MEMORANDUM FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ` e TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair, and / Members of the Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: December 3, 2003 RE: UTOPIA Financing 41111 Yesterday, Roger Black informed me that UTOPIA's bond insurer and bond rating agencies will require payment of fees for their services in advance of bond sales. These fees are generally paid from bond proceeds in public agency financings. However, UTOPIA is being treated as a private party financing and these fees are generally paid in advance by private entities. The city will be reimbursed the total amount paid for fees from bond proceeds. The fees to UTOPIA total $250,000; $120,000 for bond insurance, $30,000 for an independent due diligence report that will be commissioned by the bond insurer, $50,000 for Standard and Poor's rating, and$50,000 for Moody's rating. Salt Lake City's share of the total amount is $53,114. Salt Lake City's share is based upon Salt Lake City's percentage of total UTOPIA construction costs. The Administration recommends an appropriation of fund balance in the amount of$53,114 to pay this assessment. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-61 9❑ ®Recrc�eo PnPEw • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 40 I Management Services FY 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Bonding expenses for UTOPIA bond(rembursable) Amendment#2, Initiative#28 Initiative Name Initiative Number Rocky Fluhart 535-6426 Prepared By Phone Number New Item N/A Type of Initiative CFDA Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Fund Balance 53,114 Total $53,114 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: • 1. General Fund Bonding expenses for UTOPIA bond(rembursable) 53,114 Total $53,114 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maint. Supply 4. Charges and Services 53,114 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) 0 0 Total $53,114 $0 $0 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#28 03UTOPIA Bond Expenses.xlsl2/3/20032:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount N/A • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#28 03UTOPIA Bond Expenses.xls12/3/20032:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization,or plans. I F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria,It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City has learned that UTOPIA's bond insurer and bond rating agencies will require payment of fees for their services in advance of bond sales. These fees are generally paid from bond proceeds in public agency financings. However,UTOPIA is being treated as a private party financing and these fees are generally paid in advance by are of the total amount is$53,114. Salt Lake City's share is based upon Salt Lake City's percentage of total UTOPIA construction costs. 4110 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 (Requesting that Revenue Collection and Forecast Information be • Provided to the City Council at Least Four Times Each Year) WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has adopted a general budget policy of not using one-time revenues to balance the budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a legislative intent statement in June 2002 that the Administration present a budget that is balanced using one-time funds for one- time expenses, with no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues invested annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund; and WHEREAS, the City's Administration presents budget amendments periodically throughout the year with requests for appropriations of fund balance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a legislative intent statement in June 2002 to maintain a healthy fund balance of at least 10% of General Fund revenue; and WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2002-03,the City Council found itself in a position of funding projects throughout the year only to have to allocate fund balance during the last budget opening of the year to balance the fiscal year budget because of a revenue shortfall; and • WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a legislative intent in June 2003 that the Administration report to the City Council by January 15, 2004 on fiscal year 2003-04 revenue collections; and WHEREAS, the City Council requested budget amendments no more often than quarterly unless there are extenuating circumstances or emergencies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council requests the City's Administration to provide an accounting of general fund revenue collections and a current-year revenue forecast at least four times each fiscal year with one revenue forecast report in conjunction with each quarterly budget amendment request. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office G:\Resoluti\Requestion Revenue Collection&Forecast Information 12-5-03 clean Date /V//� By ��%1� � • MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance:Amending Section 3.50.180 Special Event Permits CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,Rick Graham, David Dobbins,Alison McFarlane,Janice Jardine, Shawn McDonough This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would amend City Code Section 3.50.180 Special Event Permits.The item is listed under New Business on the City Council agenda. Key Points The proposed ordinance would amend City Code Section 3.50.180 Special Event Permits to change criteria in which special event permits are issued. In particular,the proposed ordinance would change Paragraph A.2 to reduce the length of historical usage criterion by a group receiving a special event permit from 15 years to three. Potential Options Adopt the proposed ordinance. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. Potential Motions I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending City Code Section 3.50.180 relating to conflicting applications for special event permits. I move that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance. Issues/Potential Questions for Consideration Is it in the public interest for the City to give priority for locations for special events to groups that have organized and conducted those events for three or more years? Discussion/Background As indicated above,the proposed ordinance would amend City Code Section 3.50.180 relating to conflicting applications. The pertinent section of the current ordinance reads: 1 A. Conflict Priority Evaluation.When one or more applications for a commercially related special event or advanced planned free expression activity are received for the41111 same day and for locations or routes which are conflicting,the events coordinator shall issue a permit,subject to the other provisions of this chapter,based on the following order of priorities: 1.Events planned,organized or presented by state,federal or city governmental entities or their agents if the governmental request is made in good faith and not with the intent or purpose of improperly chilling constitutionally protected rights of competing petitioners; 2.Historic usage commercially related special events or advanced planned free expression activities where the same applicant or sponsor has been granted use of a particular city forum at a particular date,time and place for more than filleen consecutive years; 3.If neither subsections Al or A2 are applicable,priority shall be given to a first-in-time filing. The major change in the proposed ordinance would be to amend Paragraph A.2 to read: "Historic usage commercially related special events or advanced planned free expression activities where the same applicant or sponsor has been granted use of a particular city forum at a particular date,time and place for more than three consecutive years." The Administration is proposing the amendment to recognize that since the original ordinance was adopted a number of special events such as First Night,the Farmers Market and the Salt Lake City Jazz Festival have been organized and held in various locations around the City.However,the events have not reached the 15-year threshold in the current ordinance to receive priority consideration that the current ordinance allows. According to the Administration transmittal, 'The Administration believes that the time • period unfairly works against event planners who invest time, energy and resources into events that contribute to the community,add public value and which establish a base of support so that they occur on an annual basis." Perhaps the other significant under the proposed ordinance occurs in Paragraph A. Under the current ordinance,the paragraph reads: "When one or more applications for a commercially related special event or advanced planned free expression activity are received for the same day and for locations or routes which are conflicting,the events coordinator shall issue a permit, subject to the other provisions of this chapter base on the following order of priorities." Under the proposed ordinance,the paragraph would read: "When more than one application for a special event or advanced planned free expression activity is received for the same day and time and for conflicting locations or routes,the events administrator shall issue a permit,subject to other provisions of this chapter." The proposed ordinance appears to provide wider latitude for groups to hold events the same day at the same location as long as they occur at different times. S 2 DEC 0 . 2i.uvJ RICHARD GRAHAM S� 1 rayCAW C .1�POi ' IONi ui.N - , -, 4„. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON 0 PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rick Graham, Director ' ` • Public Services Department SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 3.50.180 Special Event Permits STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham 535-7774 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council support and approve the amendment eas submitted. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISSCUSSION: The current ordinance, in Section 3.50.180 establishes criteria the Special Events Administrator will follow when one or more applications for a special event or advanced planned free expression activity is received for the same day and time and for conflicting locations. One criteria relates to historical usage where the same applicant has been granted use of a particular City site at a particular day and place for more than 15 consecutive years. The amendment seeks to change the consecutive year period to three (3) years. The Administration believes that the historical criteria is essential to the permit process, but that the 15-year period is to long. The Administration believes that the time period unfairly works against event planners who invest time, energy and resources into events that contribute to the community, add public value and which establish a base of support so that they occur on an annual basis. PUBLIC PROCESS: None S 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 Cry RF. Eo PaPEa L • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending City Code Section 3.50.180 regarding Special Event Permits - Conflicting Applications) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.50.180, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 3.50.180, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to special event permits - conflicting applications be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3.50.180 Permit-Conflicting Applications. A. Conflict Priority Evaluation. When more than one application for a special event or advanced planned free expression activity is received for the same day and time and for • conflicting locations or routes, the events administrator shall issue a permit, subject to the other provisions of this chapter, based on the following order of priorities: 1. Events planned, organized or presented by state, federal or city governmental entities or their agents if the governmental request is made in good faith and not with the intent or purpose of improperly chilling constitutionally protected rights of competing applicants; 2. Historic usage special events or advanced planned free expression activities where the same applicant has been granted use of a particular city forum at a particular date, time, and place for more than three (3) consecutive years; 3. If neither subsection(A)(1)nor(A)(2) is applicable, priority shall be given to a first-in- time filing. B. Consideration for Unsuccessful Applicant. After granting the successful • applicant's request for the time, place, manner and date, the events administrator shall authorize • the unsuccessful applicant to use an appropriate public forum at another suitable time, place, date, and manner. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon 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 • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys° Office (SEAL) Date `-- 2/ - 'r By� La �� Bill No. of 2003. . Published: G;\Ordinance 03\Amending Section 3 50 180 re Special Event Permits-Conflicting Applications 12-3-03 final • 2 g • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending City Code Section 3.50.180 regarding Special Event Permits - Conflicting Applications) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.50.180, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 3.50.180, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to special event permits - conflicting applications be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3.50.180 Permit-Conflicting Aupplications. A. Conflict Priority Evaluation. When one or more than one applications for a commercially related special event or advanced planned free expression activity isare received • for the same day and time and for conflicting locations or routes which are conflicting,the events administratorcoordinator shall issue a permit, subject to the other provisions of this chapter, based on the following order of priorities: 1. Events planned, organized or presented by state, federal or city governmental entities or their agents if the governmental request is made in good faith and not with the intent or purpose of improperly chilling constitutionally protected rights of competing applicantspetitioners; 2. Historic usage commercially related special events or advanced planned free expression activities where the same applicant or sponsor has been granted use of a particular city forum at a particular date, time, and place for more than three (3)fifteen consecutive years; 3. If neither subsections(A)(l)nor(A)(2),isare applicable, priority shall be given to a • first-in-time filing. • B. Consideration for Unsuccessful Applicant. After granting the successful applicant's request for the time, place, manner and date, the events administratorcoordinator shall authorize the unsuccessful applicant to use an appropriate public forum at another suitable time, place, date,and manner. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon 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 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: . ( G;\Ordinance 03\Amending Section 3.50.180 re Special Event Permits-Conflicting Applications 12-3-03 draft#2 2 Attorneys Office Draft S Oct. 14,2003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Enacting Chapter 2%88+of the Salt Lake City Code creating the Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board) 2..`T0 AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 1-8.8-OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CREATING THE OPEN SPACE TRUST FUND AND ADVISORY BOARD. WHEREAS,the City recognizes the need to protect the diminishing open lands within Salt Lake City or its environs; and WHEREAS,the City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan to facilitate the need for management of open spaces; and WHEREAS, the City's zoning ordinance and site development ordinance recognize the need to protect the unique values offered by wetlands, foothills and urban • trails; NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 2.88 Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board 2.88.010 Purpose. The Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board is established to facilitate the City's acquisition,management,promotion,preservation, protection and enhancement of open space lands and to encourage public and private gifts of land,money, securities or other property to be used to preserve the natural, scenic,historic and scientific open space lands. • 2.88.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter the following terms,phrases,words, and their • derivations shall have the meanings given id thj1 section: A. "Open space land"means a parcel of undeveloped real property, (1) within Salt Lake City,or(2)outside Salt Lake City if the Board determines it is in furtherance of the objectives of this Ordinance, and(3)which is provided or preserved for nature parks, neighborhood parks or outdoor recreational purposes;trails; conservation of land, wetlands, or other natural resources; or historic,hydrological, geological, ecological or scenic proposes. As used herein,the term"undeveloped"does not include manmade structures of historical significance. B. "Board"means the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board. C. "Fund"means the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund created by this • Chapter. D. "Open space inventory" means those real properties or interests in real properties held by the City which are identified in the inventory created and established pursuant to this Chapter. 2.88.030 Creation of Fund. There is created a restricted account within the general fund,to be designated as the "Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund." The fund shall be accounted for separately within the general fund, and the fund shall be used exclusively to acquire and maintain open space land. No expenditures shall be made from the fund without approval of the City Council. • 2 A. There shall be deposited into the fund all monies received by the City, regardless of source,which are dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of open space land including,but not limited to,the following: 1. Grant, loan repayments,bonuses,entitlements,mitigation fees, forfeitures, donations,redevelopment tax increment income, and all other monies dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of open space land received by the City from federal, state, or local governments; 2. Real property contributed to or acquired by the City under other ordinances for the purposes of preserving, developing, or restoring open space land; 3. Monies appropriated to the fund by the City Council; 4. Contributions made specifically for this purpose from other public or private sources; and i5. Any amounts in the City's Land-Open Space Matching account or the Open Space Land Trust account. B. The monies in the fund shall be invested by the City Treasurer in accordance with the usual procedures for such special accounts. All interest or other earnings derived from fund monies shall be deposited in the fund. 2.88.040 Creation of Board. A. There is created the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board, which body shall consist of seven appointed and voting members. The members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Each member shall serve for a term of four years and may not serve more than two successive • terms. The terms of the initial members shall be for such periods from one to four years so as to provide that two terms expire each year. • B. The members shall be appointed as follows: 1. Members shall be appointed in a manner to provide balanced City wide geographic distribution and,to the extent possible,members shall be knowledgeable in conservation,environmental,real estate, financial and fund raising matters; and 2. One member shall represent a non-profit outdoor conservation organization. C. Members shall sign the oath of office required by law to be signed by City officials and file the same in the office of the city recorder. Every member who shall fail within ten days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the City Recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully,honestly and impartially the duties of the office,shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person • shall be appointed in the manner prescribed in this Chapter. D. Members shall receive no compensation for serving on the Board but may be reimbursed for costs reasonably incurred. E. The Board shall be provided with direct access to and assistance from the City Attorney's Office and,when needed, shall have the authority to direct legal issues to and to request legal opinions from the City Attorney's Office. 2.88.050 Removal from Office. Any member may be removed from office by the Mayor for cause,prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such member was appointed. Any member • 4 failing to attend three board meetings in one calendar year shall forfeit membership of the • board. 2.88.060 Members' Ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of this Title,or its successor. Any violations of the provisions of said chapter, or its successor, shall be grounds for removal from office. Members shall recuse themselves from voting on any decision to which they are a party or which vote may constitute a violation of the City's conflict of interest ordinance. 2.88.070 Meetings of Board. A. The Board shall meet on as needed basis. All meetings shall be open to the public and shall be subject to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Meetings may be convened by the call of the chair of the Board, a majority of the Board or the Mayor. • B. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the business of the Board. The Board may act at any meeting at which a quorum is present, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. C. The Board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection. The Board shall record the yea and nay votes of any action by it. The City shall make available a secretary to the Board when required. D. The Board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The Board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the Board who are present at the meeting. The Board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. • 5 2.88.080 Election of Officers. Each year the board, at its first regular meeting after the last Monday in • December, shall select one of its members as chairperson and another of its members as vice chairperson,who shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. No member shall serve more than two consecutive t-iins as chairperson. 2.88.090 Powers and Duties of Board. The Board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the Board as the members shall deem advisable;provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this Chapter or its successor, or other City, State or Federal law. B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules,regulations and • ordinances which it shall, from time to time, deem in the public interest and for purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter;provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other City, State or Federal law. C. Consult with experts in areas such as conservation, environmental, real estate, financial and fund raising matters to obtain advice on specific projects. D. Advise and make recommendations to the City Administration and the City Council on open space and preservation issues which may include,but are not limited to the following: • 6 1. Prepare and recommend,to the City Council, a plan for the • preservation and protection of open space lands within the open space inventory. Such recommendation shall, from time to time,be amended as the Board deems appropriate. 2. Recommend acquisition, exchange,and conservation of interests in open space lands and access to open space lands including acquisition of real property which is encumbered with preservation covenants or similar restrictive provisions and, in conjunction with the property owner, identify appropriate restrictive provisions. 3. Make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the proposed expenditure of monies in the fund to acquire,preserve or manage open space land. Such recommendations may include the following: a. Purchasing property to protect sensitive areas,including areas in and around the foothills; • b. Purchase and development of small area neighborhood parks; c. Increasing the amount of open space citywide; or d. Increasing and improving the number of trails. 4. Establish a management program to preserve,protect and enhance open space lands. 5. Encourage the public and private gifts of land,money, securities or other property to be used for nature parks,neighborhood parks,or outdoor recreational purposes; conservation of lands,wetlands,or other natural resources;historic, hydrological,geological, ecological or scenic purposes; and assisting in the shaping of the character of the community. • 6. Recommend the demolition or disposal of any facilities which may be detrimental or inconsistent with the open space lands within the open space inventory. 7. Plan, establish and approve,subject to appropriations, any limited construction or enhancements to open space lands within the open space inventory. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all other approvals required by the City. 8. Identify external funding sources and prepare and recommend an annual budget and periodically review such budget. 9. Prepare, from time to time,but at least annually, an inventory of real property and interests in real property which are subject to this Chapter. 10. Request and obtain staff assistance,review and monitoring from the Parks Division in the City's Public Services Department. 11. Provide recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding • any proposed modifications to or implementation of the City's Open Space Master Plan. 12. Provide reports to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the activities and goals of the Board. 13. Cooperate with and support other entities in the furtherance of the objectives set forth in this Chapter. 14. Submit to the Planning Commission proposals that open space land within the inventory be included within the general master plan of the City. 2.88.100 Board Priorities. In the exercise of its powers and duties, the Board shall observe the following priorities: 8 a. First,establish a process and criteria for identifying and funding • projects,including the development of an objective evaluation format to establish priorities and to evaluate funding requests. b. Second,identify properties within the City which would provide good open space opportunities and that potentially could be acquired for the City's inventory. This would include both public and private properties. c. Third,inventory existing open space land,including both public and private properties. d. Fourth, establish an outreach program through neighborhood community councils or other sources to actively pursue locating potential properties. The Board should actively collaborate with community organizations and private organizations to enhance or maximize funding from all potential sources. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon 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 • 9 Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ID ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: . • G:\Ordinance 03\Enacting Ch 2.88 of SLC Code creating Open Space Trust Fund and Adv Bd-Oct 14.2003.doc Ill 10 t MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Petition No. 400-02-12:Request by Salt Lake City Property Management to close a portion of the 500 West Street right of way and declare as surplus adjacent land north of 200 South Street. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,Dan Mule,Louis Zunguze,DJ Baxter, David Oka,Linda Cordova,Gary Mumford,Valda Tarbet, Mary Guy-Sell,Doug Dansie,Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to Petition No.400-02-12: a request by Salt Lake City Property Management to close a portion of the 500 West Street right of way and declare as surplus adjacent land north of 200 South Street.The City Council is scheduled to hear a briefing on the pelit'on at its December 9 meeting. The petition does not contain an ordinance because the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on November 7,2002,adopted a motion to recommend against closing the portion of 500 West Street requested in the petition. • KEY POINTS • There are two issues involved in the petition. One has a short-term budgetary effect. The other would have a long-term land-use effect. • The first issue involves the transfer of$500,000 in Redevelopment Agency funds to the Municipal Building Authority to help pay the costs of building the 500 West Street park blocks between 200 South and 400 South streets. • The appropriation of the money already has occurred.However,RDA staff has not disbursed the funds until it receives the deeds to the two properties in the petition. • The land-use issue involves whether the intersection of 500 West 200 South should retain its current configuration or be widened in the future in accordance with the Gateway Master Plan. • A City Council decision either way on the petition will affect the future development of the intersection of 500 West 200 South and the entire Gateway district,including, perhaps,the location of a light-rail stop. • If the City Council decides it is in the public interest to vacate the portion of 500 West Street and declare an adjacent property north of 200 South Street surplus,the Administration would have to prepare an ordinance.A public hearing also would have to • 1 be scheduled. In addition,a second public hearing to amend the Gateway Master Plan would have to be scheduled. POTENTIAL OPTIONS • Direct the Administration to prepare an ordinance reflecting the petition's request. • Explore alternatives. ISSUES/POYENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • The City Council—as the Municipal Building Authority and as the RDA Board of Directors—already has authorized the sale of the properties in the petition to the Redevelopment Agency.At some point the Municipal Building Authority will have to receive the appropriated funds.According to an October 10 letter from City Treasurer Dan Mule"there are insufficient funds currently being held"by the Series 1999B bond trustee"to reimburse the City for the entire amount of expenditures that have been incurred"on the park blocks project. • Are there alternative methods to reimburse the Municipal Bond Authority without vacating one property and declaring the other property surplus? • Is it in the public interest to retain options for fulfilling the Gateway Master Plan,or is it in the public interest to amend it to reflect current circumstances? • How long should a master plan be adhered to? • • The issue may be more complex than this memorandum or the Administration transmittal indicates.However,given that there is no ordinance prepared to reflect the petition's request,and there is a four-week advertising requirement for a public hearing,there may be time for all parties to offer more detailed arguments for and against the petition for the City Council to review and reach a reasoned decision. DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND The issue at hand has a fairly long history. The adopted Gateway Master Plan calls for a 500 West Street to be a wide boulevard with"park blocks"in the middle of it.The park blocks were considered key elements to foster housing along 500 West Street.According to the master plan, 500 West Street also is viewed long-term as a street that would connect neighborhoods north and south of the Gateway area. In addition,when the City Council adopted the master plan there was a provision that public utilities would not be placed in the middle of 500 West Street so an underground rail line could be built in the future. When the current Administration took office it reviewed the plan for park blocks and the use of 500 West Street and limited construction of the park blocks to an area from 50 North to 150 South. Because much of the funding for 500 West Street involved a combination of Municipal Building Authority bonds and RDA funds,the City Council as the MBA and RDA boards of directors concurred.However,the RDA Board later reversed its decision and built park blocks between 200 South and 400 South streets to mirror the layout of the park blocks north of 200 South Street. • However,part of the current Administration's original proposal included not widening 500 West Street north of 200 South Street because the project would have entailed reconfiguring an electrical substation—a project the Administration said was too costly to support. Because of the substation's location,the park blocks between 150 South and 200 South were narrowed,and the mirror image of the configuration also was narrowed south of 200 South Street to ease traffic patterns and to give 500 West Street a certain uniformity. Meantime,the City Council authorized the City to sell two land parcels on the northeast corner of the 200 South 500 West intersection to the Redevelopment Agency to pay for construction of the park blocks south of 200 South Street.The Property Management Division then submitted the petition now before the City Council. However,after a November 7,2002,public hearing,the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council not close a portion of 500 West Street. Two of the Commission's findings of fact were: • Closing the subject property is contrary to the Master Plan policies for the areas as identified in the Gateway Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan.A sale of the street would necessitate a change in adopted policy. • Public policy does not support the closure.Any closure should be accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the master plan. On the other side of the argument Redevelopment Agency staff contends that widening 500 West Street still would involve reconfiguring the electrical substation.Transformers have • been added to the substation in connection with the construction of the Gateway mall,increasing the cost of reconfiguring it. It should be noted that the proposed Redevelopment Agency strategic plan for 2004-2008 includes selling the two parcels of land in Petition No.400-02-12,and to"assist in the planning of the light rail extension of the Delta Center to the intermodal hub facility located at 600 West and 200 South including assuring that there is a light rail stop near the intersection of 500 West and 200 South." It should be noted that the RDA committed$200,000 to fund planning for connecting the Delta Center light rail stop to the intermodal hub.However—as Council staff understands the study—it is a precursor to a draft environmental impact study and no formal decision has been reached in the study about locations for light rail stops. • 3 o3 - '� ALISON WEYHER �,� SAHA A i^\'! 1/ ®„ © e 1�® ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON �,��,�lJ elm®` DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer k Date: December 1, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Creation of Central Business Improvement District(DA-CBID-03) and establishment of a board of equalization. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolutions BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for the district will be provided by property owner assessments. The anticipated three-year assessment for the district is approximately$2.15 million. • DISCUSSION: On Nov. 18, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed creation of the Central business Improvement District. There were no comments offered for or against the district by a property owner or tenant of the district. The written protests submitted prior to the hearing amounted to an 11%protest rate. The next step in the process is to legally establish the district,which the Council must do by resolution. The Council must also set the dates for the Board of Equalization, which will hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessment. The dates of the board's meetings will be Jan. 20, Jan. 21 and Jan. 22. Following these meetings, the board will present any recommended changes to the City Council for its consideration, and then the Council will finalize the assessment. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 901-535-6230 FAX: 901-535-6005 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: December 5,2003 Subject: Petition No. 400-03-23: Department Store Definitions,Main Street Core Overlay District Affected Council Districts:District 4 Staff Report By:Russell Weeks Administrative Dept.and Contact Person: Planning Division—Joel Paterson, Senior Planner This staff report addresses issues pertaining to a proposed ordinance that would: redefine the term"department store"in City Code Chapter 21A.62.020;amend sections 21A.30.050 and 21A.31.050 which contain tables of permitted and conditional uses for Downtown and Gateway Districts and enact Chapter 21A.34.110 titled Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on the proposed ordinance at • the City Council's December 9 work session.The proposed ordinance tentatively is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on January 6,2004. Key Elements As indicated above,the proposed ordinance would do three things: • Redefine the term"department store"in City Code Chapter 21A.62.020.The proposed ordinance would replace the current single definition of"department store"with seven definitions that would create sub-categories of department stores in an effort to better specify the kinds of department stores that currently exist. • Amend the tables of permitted and conditional uses in the Downtown(D-1)and Gateway districts in the Zoning Ordinance to clarify what kinds of department stores are appropriate uses in the two districts. • Create an overlay district for the Downtown Main Street Core.The overlay district would define where particular kinds of department stores should locate in what is known as the Central Business District. The proposed ordinance is one of two that the City Council can expect to see.The Planning Division intends to submit another ordinance to address the extent to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores—presently allowed in the Central Business,Downtown Support,Sugar House Business and Community Shopping districts—are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores. The second ordinance would deal with the argument that the Zoning Ordinance currently allows department stores to locate on 47 downtown blocks,but not in the Gateway Mixed-Use District. 1 • The Planning Commission initiated a petition to address the issue at the Commission's meeting August 27. III Table of Definitions Council staff has prepared the following table in an attempt to highlight the major points of the department store sub-category definitions: Department Store Definitions Title Merchandise Price Range Square Kinds of Lines Footage Stores Conventional Broad range, Moderate More than Kohl's, J.C. Department mainly apparel, 100,000 square Penney, Mervyns Store home goods feet Fashion- Nationally Not listed in More than Meier&Frank, Oriented advertised ordinance 100,000 square Bloomindales, Department brands;40 feet Macy's, Dillards, Store percent sales area Marshall Fields, for apparel, Bon Marche, shoes,cosmetics, Broadway, accessories; Broadway some appliances; Southwest, some seasonal or Robinsons-May special catalogs Specialty Apparel,fashion High-end 80,000 to Lord&Taylor, • Fashion accessories, 130,000 square Nieman Marcus, Department jewelry,limited feet Nordstrom, Saks Store items for home Fifth Avenue and housewares —often exclusive offerings Mass High-volume, Generally lower More than Wal-Mart,K- Merchandising fast turnover, prices 80,000 square Mart,Target, Store variety of feet Fred Meyer, merchandise Shopko including apparel and home goods Specialty Store Broad range of Competitive 20,000 to Home Depot, single category prices 100,000 square Toys "R"Us, of goods feet Petsmart, Michaels, Barnes &Noble, Circuit City, Galyan's, Pep Boys, CompUSA Superstore & General line of Discount prices 120,000 to Wal-Mart Hypermarket groceries with 180,000 square Supercenter; general lines of feet Meijer's;Fred apparel, Meyer's (with • 2 furniture, grocery; Super . appliances Target Warehouse General Not listed in 120,000 to B.J.'s Wholesale Club Store merchandise, ordinance—paid 150,000 square Club; COSTCO; packaged and membership feet Sam's Club bulk foods, required restricted lines of popular merchandise The Planning Division prepared the following table to indicate the permitted uses for department stores and other kinds of stores in the proposed ordinance's overlay district and the Gateway Mixed Use District. Zoning Districts Department Store Downtown Main Street Gateway Mixed-Use Classification Core Overlay District District Conventional Department P P Store Fashion Oriented P Department Store Specialty Fashion P Department Store Mass Merchandising Store P P Specialty Store P P Superstore&Hypermarket P Warehouse Club Store Potential Options • Forward the proposed ordinance for a public hearing and formal City Council consideration. • Refer the proposed ordinance back to the Administration for revision based on the December 9 briefing. • Do not forward the proposed ordinance for a public hearing and formal City Council consideration and retain the current ordinance. Potential Motions If the City Council indicates at its December 9 briefing that it will forward the proposed ordinance for a public hearing and formal consideration,Council staff will prepare potential motions. Matters at Issue/Potential Questions for Consideration Questions in this section are in italics to differentiate them from the expository text and to break up the monotony of type. It should be noted that according to the Administration transmittal, "representatives of • major stakeholders such as Property Reserve Inc.,the May Company and the Boyer Company 3 voiced general support for the proposed defmitions and the distribution of the different types of department stores in the GMU and the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District."(Page 2) The transmittal went on to say, "The only exception to this was a concern raised by the May Company about allowing conventional department store in the GMU District. However, correspondence provided to the Planning Commission from a May Company representative on November 10, 2003,indicated support for allowing conventional department stores in the GMU District,if allowed as a conditional use."(Page 2.) It should be noted that the Planning Commission recommended allowing conventional department stores as a permitted use. Department Store Definitions The proposed ordinance is the Administration's attempt to address three items contained in a City Council motion adopted October 14.The items are: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store definition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub-categories of department stores—other than large-scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the G-MU District;and 3. Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. (Please see Attachment • No. 1) Does the proposed ordinance address the three items? The City Council also adopted eight legislative intents as part of its October 14 motion. Two of the legislative intents read: • The City Council urges the Planning Commission that in its evaluation of the term"department store"that the Commission examine the terms"fashion retail," "large-scale fashion retail,""value retail,"and other terms used in the retail industry as possible sub-categories of the term"department store." • The City Council urges the Planning Commission that in its review of zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores to examine the enactment of specific zones for fashion retail stores based upon criteria such as a store's square-foot capacity,merchandise, and retail type,and a location's compatibility with City policies and master plans. Does the proposed ordinance address the two legislative intents? Other potential questions the City Council may wish to consider: • How did the Planning Division arrive at the definitions of department store sub- categories? • Are the sub-categories used in the retail industry, or do they correspond with retail industry definitions so they would be understandable to retailers and retail developers? 4 • Are the sub-category definitions clear enough so that one department store or • retail store would not fit into two or more definitions?Is it necessary that the definitions be that clear? • Is it necessary to have a targeted price range in each definition? Overlay District According to the Administration's transmittal,the overlay district in the proposed ordinance would overlay an area bordered by"the centerlines of the following streets: South Temple, State, 500 South and West Temple." According to the transmittal,conventional department stores,fashion-oriented department stores,and specialty fashion department stores would be permitted uses in the overlay district. Mass merchandising and specialty stores also would be permitted. Conversely,the Planning Commission has recommended that conventional department stores and mass merchandising and specialty stores be allowed in the Gateway Mixed-Use District. Superstores and hypermarkets also would be permitted in the Gateway Mixed-Use District. At the Planning Commission's public hearing on the proposed ordinance,a representative of the May Company"expressed concern that if conventional department stores were ... allowed in the GMU District it would(should?)be as a conditional use."(Administration Transmittal, Page 7.) According to the Administration transmittal,the Planning Division contended"that to restrict conventional,fashion and specialty fashion department stores solely to the proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District"could create"a significant number of non- conforming uses,given that there are a number of conventional department stores currently outside"the proposed overlay district.The Planning Division also contended that restricting conventional department stores to the overlay district could create a perception"of singling out the GMU District for unfair treatment given that other areas within the Downtown ... are allowed to have conventional department stores." The issue and response leads,perhaps,to one point and one question: • According to an August 22 Planning Division staff report,three department stores in Salt Lake City are located outside the proposed ordinance's overlay district. One is located at 754 South State Street. The other two are located in the Brickyard Plaza mall. • Wouldn't the Planning Commission's second petition—to address the extent to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores—address the Planning Division's concerns about other areas within the downtown that are allowed to have conventional department stores? Other Issues Page 7 of the Administration's transmittal contains the following sentence, "If a retail establishment that is classified as a permitted type of department store in the GMU district were to locate in an existing structure,the permitted use designation would streamline the permitting process by avoiding the need for a hearing before the Planning Commission." What is the likelihood that a department store would locate in an existing structure in the • GMU District? 5 Pages 8 and 9 contain a number of excerpts from the Gateway Development Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Downtown Plan. Council Members may wish to consider how the proposed ordinance meets the goals and principles outlined in the excerpts,particularly: Relevant excerpts from the Creating an Urban Neighborhood outlining the guiding development principles: New Land Use Patterns • Civic,Cultural,Community: Large-scale facilities include a variety of museums,arts and cultural uses that are local and regional attractions. These include a children's museum,planetarium,art and history center, natural history museum,galleries and exhibits,performing arts facilities, ethnic cultural halls and exhibits,an educational campus or complex and a theme retail shopping center. (page 6) • Retail: Retail and other small commercial uses reinforce the street life of neighborhoods and provide essential services and conveniences to people. (page 6) • Commercial: These are larger scale uses,such as retail uses that are part of a center or complex.(page 6) Union Pacific Sub-district • The focus will be on visitor attractions,museums,educational facilities, shopping,theme entertainment/retail,open space,major employment, residential,and hotel and cultural uses. It is essential that housing become part of a mixed-use urban neighborhood with a large component of high density and varied housing types. Together,these uses will provide a 24- hour population in the area. (page 8) • Relevant excerpts from the Gateway Specific Plan outlining the objectives and policies to implement the urban neighborhood: Guiding Principles: • Create a positive and clear identity for Salt Lake City and the Gateway District. • Encourage development which strengthens and compliments the Central Business District. Land Use: 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. Policy 4.4—Create a special zoning district,or approval process,which encourages and compliments the Central Business District. Objective 5—Provide opportunities for housing within the Gateway District to reinforce downtown as a place to live,work,and shop.(Page 21) Commercial: Objective 1—Strengthen the downtown Central Business District as the region's principal employment center. (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. 1111 Policy 1.4—provide a strong residential component to support development in the • Gateway District as well as the CBD. The Salt Lake City Downtown Plan(1995): 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. This plan defines the downtown core as the area extending from South Temple to 400 South from West Temple to 200 Fast. Furthermore,the Plan defines"downtown"to include a larger area located between North Temple and 900 South from I-15 to 700 Fast.(Page 1) Relevant excerpts from the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan: Retail—Diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas. (Page 9) • Develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street that can successfully draw and compete with other commercial areas in the region. • Foster and reinforce existing business along Main Street. • Establish a large retail anchor at the southern end of Downtown. • Reinforce the southern end of the business district. • Encourage a compact Downtown • Discourage large retail centers outside the Downtown area. A few potential questions the City Council may wish to consider: • Would the proposed ordinance alter the "theme"of the Gateway shopping center? • • How would the proposed ordinance reinforce the objective that "housing become part of a mixed-use urban neighborhood with a large component of high density and varied housing types"in the Union Pacific Sub-district? • How would the proposed ordinance reinforce creating "a different appeal and character"for the Gateway district? • How would the proposed ordinance "diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas,"and "discourage large retail centers outside the Downtown area." Discussion/Background One might see from the Zoning Districts table in the Key Points sections that,under the proposed ordinance,the two districts would share the potential for locating conventional department stores,mass merchandising stores and specialty stores. The proposed overlay district would be the sole location for fashion oriented and specialty fashion department stores. The Gateway Mixed-Use District would have the potential to locate a superstore and hypermarket within its borders. The proposed ordinance is the result of comment and action by the City Council and the Planning Commission. Both bodies indicated that although what was termed"large-scale high fashion retail"department stores was an inappropriate land use in the Gateway Mixed-Use District,there may be some large-scale retail uses that could locate in that district. In particular, part of the City Council's October 14 motion reads that the Planning Commission in its • evaluation of department store definitions"Recognize that refining the existing definition of 7 department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is 4111 desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown." The central issue before the City Council,then,may be:Do the proposed ordinance's definitions meet the City Council's intent? It should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce/Downtown Alliance's Downtown Development Committee adopted a motion November 19 to support the proposed ordinance's definitions. The definitions also were submitted to the Downtown Merchants Association for review earlier in November. Planning Commission Hearing and Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on November 12. (Council Members may wish to refer to the complete Planning Commission draft minutes contained in the Administration transmittal.) According to the draft minutes of the hearing and meeting,the Commission adopted a motion 5-4 to forward a positive recommendation to: 1. Create new definitions of the term"department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions. 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown and Gateway districts by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses. 110 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed. 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. An earlier motion that contained a fifth item, "add mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core to the table of permitted and conditional uses in the Zoning Ordinance,"was defeated 5-4. Before that vote a motion that contained a different fifth item, "Amend the table of permitted uses to allow only mass merchandising, specialty store, super store,hypermarket department stores in the Gateway Mixed-Use District,"was defeated 5-3. In the first two votes on motions the Commission Chair had to vote to break 4-4 ties. Some issues raised in the hearing and discussed by the Commission in speaking to the motions included: • The need for greater clarity between the defmitions of"conventional"and "fashion oriented"department stores to eliminate perceived overlaps and ambiguity between the two definitions. II) • An argument that conventional department stores should be allowed in the 411 Gateway Mixed-Use District as a conditional use instead of a permitted use to ensure that the Planning Commission retain flexibility in reviewing proposals. • An argument to allow mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the proposed overlay district and the Gateway Mixed-Use District. • An argument to"strike a definitive line"between the Main Street core and the Gateway Mixed-Use District by restricting conventional,fashion retail and specialty department stores to the proposed overlay district and permitting mass merchandising, specialty store, super store,hypermarket department stores only in the Gateway Mixed-Use District. • An argument that allowing a conventional department store in the Gateway Mixed-Use District would not meet Gateway Master Plan policies to: A.) Strengthen Main Street a the primary retail core with the Gateway District as a secondary retail area having different appeal and character. B.) "Larger-scale uses such as retail uses that are part of a center or complex,an example of which is a moderately sized neighborhood center with a supermarket,hardware and garden store." • An argument that the overlay zone ought to require department stores to front on Main Street"only or principally"instead of allowing them to face West Temple or State Street. -• Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze, Gary Mumford, Joel Paterson File Location:Downtown,Gateway • 9 SALT r�� a.A Cr TYi eent ° i, iION ROCKY J. FLU HART ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR . CITY RECORDER October 15, 2003 TO: Louis Zunguze City Planning Director Joel Paterson Planning Division Special Planner FROM: Pam Johnson cw Deputy Recorder RE: Petition No. 400-03-20 A motion was made in the CityCouncil meeting of Tuesday, October 14, 2003, • addressing the Gateway petition requesting a zoning change. In the motion the Council Member Buhler asked for the Planning Commission to reevaluate several issues. I have attached the memorandum from Council Staff outlining the legislative intents that were made in the motion. Should you have any questions, please call me at 6224. Thank you. - cc: Rocky Flu hart Edwin Rutan Alison Weyher Cindy Gust-Jenson Russell Weeks File . 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 415, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 1301-535-7671 FAX: 601-535-7651 6 Would Allow Certain Categories of Department Stores in Gateway Mixed-Use • District— But Not Allow Large-Scale High-Fashion Retail Department Stores (The following motion is designed to leave I'etirion No. 400-03-20 open until the Planning Commission adopts recommendations pertaining to the definition of"department store.) 1 move that the City Council specify that it will not amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for large-scale high-fashion retail uses of over 100,000 square feel -- such as Nordstrom, Meier and Frank,Dillards or Saks—to locate in the Gateway Mixed- Use Zone, and that the Council table Petition 400-03-20 until it receives the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding its petition relating to the department store definition(s). I further move that we request that the Planning Commission, in its evaluation: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store definition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub-categories of department . stores—other than large-scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the Gateway Mixed-Use Zone; 3, Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the Gateway Mixed-Use District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic • Development of Downtown. ha addition,I move that the City Council adopt the following legislative intents: 1. After the City Council acts on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the definition of"department stores"that the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopt Option No.4 Resolution 572.01 which would rescind the Third Amendmentto the Participation and Reimbursement Agreement between the Agency and Gateway Associates,based on RDA staff's recommendation. 2. The City Council urges the Planning Commission that in its evaluation of the term "department store"that the Commission examine the terms "fashion retail,""large-scale fashion retail,""value retail,"and other terms used in the retail industry as possible sub- categories of the term"depa,intent store." 3. The City Council urges the Planning Commission that in its review of zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores to examine the enactment of specific zones for fashion retail stores based upon criteria such as a store's square-foot capacity, merchandise, and retail type, and a location's compatibility with City policies and master plans. 4. It is the City Council's intent that the Downtown, Gateway, and Central City master plans be reviewed and updated to insure that the master plans are in harmony with each other so they may provide clear guidelines for land use and economic development throughout a greater downtown. • 5. It is the City Council's intent that the City facilitate collaboration among downtown stakeholders, organizations representing downtown businesses,property owners and . residents, and City officials to develop a downtown action plan with timelines and definition of roles and responsibilities to guide future economic development,including retail,in the downtown defined in the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. 6. The City Council considers Gateway's success to be important to the success of the overall downtown. The Council urges the Redevelopment Agency and City Administrative staffs to continue to review ways to provide more flexibility for Gateway, such as evaluating the language in the Zoning Ordinance's text of the Gateway Mixed- Use District relating the current regulation requiring 50 percent residential use in all buildings along 500 West Street and weighing that regulation against requiring mixed uses among buildings rather than mixed uses within buildings. 7. The Council wishes to make clear that it has no intention to adopt a zoning change that would allow stores such as Nordstrom to relocate to the Gateway Mixed-Use District. However,the Council expresses its gratitude to Nordstrom for the contributions it has made to Salt Lake City and, again,urges Nordstrom to seriously consider remaining in the City—but within the Main Street area. 8. It is the City Council's intent that the Administration evaluate opportunities to work with the Utah Transit Authority and other entities to foster mass transit connections between the Gateway area and the Main Street corridor and that the Redevelopment Agency examine ways to help fund the mass transit connection. The connection may be a precursor to a finished light-rail loop addressed in environmental impact statements for the intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South and the Airport to University light rail line. 410 • RPOALISON WEYHER � ,�, 43 My( `tjG.,j ° I, NIROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON 4111 DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chef Administrative Officer Dat : November 24, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher/ -- RE: Petition 400-03-23: A Petition by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments to redefine the term "depaitiuent store," amend the Downtown and Gateway Mixed-Use districts tables of permitted and conditional uses, and to create a new overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141) e-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None 11111 DISCUSSION: Petition 400-03-23 was initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments to redefine the term "depai tiuent store," amend the Downtown and Gateway Mixed-Use (G-MU)districts tables of permitted and conditional uses and to create a new overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District(DMSCO). ISSUE ORIGIN: After considering the petition to allow department stores as a permitted land use in the Gateway Mixed-Use District,the City Council voted not to allow large-scale high-fashion retail uses of over 100,000 square feet to locate in the G-MU. The City Council also removed the 45,000 square foot limitation on retail facilities at the Gateway from the RDA participation agreement. Furthermore, the Council requested that the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store definition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub-categories of department stores—other than large-scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the G-MU District; and 3. Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. 110 —J TH STATE STREET, RQOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 Transmittal of Petition 44 TELEPHONE:B01-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 �� neceeo rnren To address the recommendation of the City Council, Petition 400-03-23 requests that the Planning Commission: • 1. Create new defmitions for the term "department store" 2. Amend the text of the Downtown and Gateway Districts 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Councils and Business Organizations: Community Council chairs,the Downtown Alliance/Chamber Bureau, Downtown Merchants Association, Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory Committee were provided copies of the proposed depaitinent store defmitions and invited to an open house held on November 6, 2003, to provide input. No comments were submitted at the open house. Planning Staff presented the proposed department store definitions to the Retail Merchants Association on November 4, 2003. Following a presentation, the Downtown Alliance's Downtown Development Committee voted on November 19,2003, to forward a recommendation of support for the proposed definitions to the Board of the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce. PLANNING COMMISSION: On November 12, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Petition 400-03-23. During the hearing, Planning Staff clearly indicated that it had taken a two-phase approach. First,under this petition,the Planning Staff proposed department store definitions and considered what types of depai inent stores are appropriate for • the proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District and the G-MU District. A subsequent petition will address the potential of locating department stores in various zoning district throughout the rest of the City and recommend appropriate master plan amendments to attain consistency with current policy. During the hearing, representatives of the major stakeholders such as Property Reserve Inc., the May Company and the Boyer Company voiced general support for the proposed definitions and the distribution of the different types of department stores in the G-MU and the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. The only exception to this was a concern raised by the May Company about allowing conventional department stores in the G-MU District. However, correspondence provided to the Planning Commission from a May Company representative on November 10, 2003, indicated support for allowing conventional department stores in the G-MU District, if allowed as a conditional use(see the e-mail from David Jordan in Exhibit 7,Public Comment). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission forwarded the following recommendation to the City Council: Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —2— Based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report and discussion this 411 evening, the Planning Commission hereby forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050)and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of depai tijient stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. 5. And add mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District to the table of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning ordinance. • The Planning Commission has not yet adopted the minutes attached in Exhibit 5c. Planning Staff will forward the official minutes to the City Council following Planning Commission approval. The following is a discussion concerning the proposed department store definitions, the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District and the proposed amendments to the tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway and Downtown zoning districts. Department Store Definitions: The Planning Staff researched zoning ordinances from around the country,consulted with the retail industry and utilized a consulting firm to assist in the development of definitions for different types of department stores. The objective was to maintain the current focus on the City's existing land use and planning policies regarding the development/redevelopment of Main Street and Gateway. The primary goal of these policies is the recognition that Main Street, is the primary retail core of the City, anchored by large-scale high-fashion department stores. The Planning Commission is mindful of the direction provided by the City Council that certain types of department stores may appropriately locate outside of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in places such as the G-MU District, other locations within downtown, and even other commercial areas of the City. The Planning Commission recommended an overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core where fashion-oriented department stores will be concentrated. A subsequent petition will • address the potential of locating department stores in various zoning district throughout the rest Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —3— of the City and recommend appropriate master plan amendments to attain consistency with current policy. Ill The definitions(listed below) attempt to provide a description of functions,product types and services offered by each type of department store. To help clarify difference between types of department stores, a typical size range is offered,not as an absolute standard as found in the current definition of"department store". Rather,the size range identifies what is typically found throughout the country for each different type of department store and allows for variation outside of the stated size range. Additionally,to add clarity, each definition includes a list of store names that are examples of the particular type of department store. Major stakeholders, including, Gateway Associates,Property Reserve, Inc.,the May Company, and the Taubman Company have reviewed the definitions. These parties have reached a general consensus and support the definitions as proposed. The proposed definitions are listed below. Conventional Department Store: means a retail business which offers a broad range of merchandise lines at moderate level price points,consisting of primarily apparel and home goods. No merchandise line predominates and goods are displayed in a departmentalized format. Customer assistance is provided in each department,but checkout facilities can be either departmentalized or centralized. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Kohls,J.C. Penney and Mervyns,as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. 0 Fashion Oriented Department Store: means a retail business which offers more specialized lines of merchandise than Conventional Department Stores,with an emphasis on apparel merchandise. The merchandise is displayed in separate departments,with over forty percent (40%) of sales area devoted to the sale of apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories related to personal care and appearance. Fashion Oriented Department Stores sell goods which are primarily nationally advertised brands,they may sell appliances which are usually serviced by other companies,and often offer limited lines of merchandise through seasonal or special catalogs. These stores provide checkout service and customer assistance(salespersons) within each department. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Meier& Frank,Bloomingdales, Macy's,Dillards, Marshall Fields,Bon Marche,Broadway,Broadway Southwest,Robinsons/May,as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Specialty Fashion Department Store: means a retail business which specializes in high-end merchandise in the categories of apparel, fashion accessories,jewelry,and limited items for the home and housewares. These stores feature exclusive offerings of merchandise,high levels of customer service and amenities,and higher price points. Specialty Fashion Department Stores provide checkout service and customer assistance(salespersons)within each department and often offer specialized customer services such as valet parking, exclusive dressing rooms and personal shoppers. These stores typically range from 80,000 to 130,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Lord&Taylor, II/ Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —4— Neiman Marcus,Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, as such stores are typically configured as of • the date of adoption of this definition. Mass Merchandising Store: means a retail business selling a variety of merchandise, including apparel and home goods, at generally lower price points. Mass Merchandising Stores have fast turnover and high volume retailing with centralized check out stations. Generally, shopping carts are available to customers and there is reduced customer assistance within each department but customer assistance may occur in departments for special promotions or where appropriate for product demonstration, legal compliance or security purposes. These stores typically exceed 80,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Wal-Mart,K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyer and Shopko, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Specialty Store: means a retail business specializing in a broad range of a single category of goods at competitive prices. The categories usually included are home improvement, consumer music and electronics, office supply, auto aftermarket, computers,toys,books, home/bed/bath,pet supply, craft/hobby, or sporting goods. They often have departments, centralized and/or exit check out stations and operate in various physical formats. These stores typically range from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Home Depot, OfficeMax, Toys "R"Us, PetsMart,Michaels, Bed Bath & Beyond, Borders Books, Barnes &Noble, Circuit City, Galyan's, Sports Authority, Pep Boys, and CompUSA, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. • Superstore & Hypermarket: means a retail business primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, and appliances, sold at discount prices. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 180,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Wal-Mart Supercenter,Meijer's, Fred Meyer's (with grocery) and Super Target,as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Warehouse Club Store: means a retail business requiring patron membership, and selling packaged and bulk foods and general merchandise. They are characterized by high volume and a restricted line of popular merchandise in a no-frills environment. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 150,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, BJ's Wholesale Club, COSTCO, and Sam's Club, as such stores are typically configured as the date of adoption of this definition. Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District: Based on the recommendations of the City Council to maintain Main Street as the retail center in Salt Lake City,the Planning Commission is proposing the creation of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. This overlay district will define the area within the Central Business District where higher-end fashion oriented department stores will be allowed to locate. This is being done to support and reinforce • Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —5— the City Council's policy stated in the Salt Lake City Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown which states: • 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. The Planning Commission is proposing that the Main Street Core Overlay District include the area bounded by the centerlines of the following streets: South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple. Conversely, in order to effectively implement the Gateway Development Master Plan,particularly its reference to encouraging the development of large-scale retail uses, the Planning Commission and Planning Staff are of the view that there are a number of large retail uses which could enhance the function of the Gateway as a place and as an economic enterprise. However, given the definition of lifestyle centers—types of shopping centers that are not built around traditional mall anchor stores. Instead, the properties specialize in multi-family housing in addition to high-end specialty retailers, trendy restaurant chains, and movie theaters,usually in an open-air promenade(Poag and McEwen)—any large retail uses must incorporate an"urban (walkable)store"model. The Planning Commission's opinion is that such retail uses would be appropriate in both the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay and G-MU districts. The following table summarizes the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District (within the D-1 District) and the G-MU Districts. Zoning Districts Department Store Downtown Main Street Core Gateway Mixed-Use District Classification Overlay District Conventional Department P P Store Fashion Oriented Department P Store Specialty Fashion Department P Store Mass Merchandising Store P P Specialty Store P P Superstore&Hypermarket P Warehouse Club Store The Planning Commission further recommends that the types of department stores proposed for the G-MU District should appropriately be listed as"permitted"uses. These uses are consistent with the Gateway Development Master which states that the focus of the Union Pacific Sub- district,which includes the Gateway development: Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —6— 1111 will be on visitor attractions, museums, educational facilities, shopping, theme entertainment/retail, open space, major employment, residential and hotel and cultural uses (Creating an Urban Neighborhood,p.8). Furthermore,the Planning Commission continues to support the position that the G-MU District regulations should require all new development to be reviewed as a Planned Development by the Planning Commission. The G-MU District regulations also include urban design guidelines to promote compatible development within the G-MU District. If a retail establishment that is classified as a permitted type of department store in the G-MU District were to locate in an existing structure,the permitted use designation would streamline the permitting process by avoiding the need for a hearing before the Planning Commission. The major stakeholders testified at the hearing held by the Planning Commission and generally supported the proposed department store classifications. The May Company, owners of Meier and Frank, expressed concern that if conventional department stores were to be allowed in the G- MU District it would be as a conditional uses. In response,Planning Staff noted that to restrict conventional, fashion and specialty fashion department stores solely to the proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District will raise two concerns. First, there is a concern about the potential for creating a significant number of non-conforming uses, given that there are a number of conventional department stores currently existing outside of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. Furthermore, there is a • danger of creating a perception of singling out the G-MU district for unfair treatment given that other areas within the Downtown Area are allowed to have conventional department stores. The Planning Commission is of the view that this recommendation is consistent with the stated City policies. CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: While considering this petition, the Planning Commission considered the City Council's Salt Lake City Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown,the Gateway Development Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. The following discussion summarizes relevant information from each of these documents. City Council Policy: In January 2003,the Council released the Salt Lake City Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. The policy states: 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. Master Plan Considerations: The adopted land use policy documents that guide new development in the areas affected by this petition are the Gateway Development Master Plan II Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —7— adopted in August 1998; and the Salt Lake City Downtown Plan adopted in 1995. A • description of the pertinent information in each plan is provided below. The Gateway Development Master Plan: The Gateway Development Master Plan was developed for the area located between North Temple and 1000 South from 300 West to I-15. The purpose of this plan is to give direction and provide a framework for guiding future decisions regarding growth and development in the Gateway District. The Gateway Development Master Plan consists of two documents, Creating an Urban Neighborhood and the Gateway Specific Plan. Creating an Urban Neighborhood provides the vision for the Gateway District by identifying guiding principles and setting a framework for implementation. The Gateway Specific Plan provides the objectives,policies and tools to achieve the guiding principles and implementation identified in Creating an Urban Neighborhood. Relevant excerpts from the Creating an Urban Neighborhood outlining the guiding development principles: New Land Use Patterns • Civic,Cultural,Community: Large-scale facilities include a variety of museums, arts and cultural uses that are local and regional attractions. These include a children's museum,planetarium, art and history center, natural history museum, galleries and exhibits,performing arts facilities, ethnic cultural halls and exhibits, an educational campus or complex and a theme retail shopping center. (page 6) • Retail: Retail and other small commercial uses reinforce the street life of neighborhoods and provide essential services and conveniences to people. (page 6) • Commercial: These are larger scale uses, such as retail uses that are part of a center or complex. (page 6) Union Pacific Sub-district • The focus will be on visitor attractions, museums, educational facilities, shopping, theme entertainment/retail, open space, major employment, residential, and hotel and cultural uses. It is essential that housing become part of a mixed-use urban neighborhood with a large component of high density and varied housing types. Together,these uses will provide a 24-hour population in the area. (page 8) Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —8— Relevant excerpts from the Gateway Specific Plan outlining the objectives and policies to implement the urban neighborhood: Guiding Principles: • Create a positive and clear identity for Salt Lake City and the Gateway District. • Encourage development which strengthens and compliments the Central Business District. Land Use: 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. Policy 4.4—Create a special zoning district, or approval process,which encourages and compliments the Central Business District. Objective 5—Provide opportunities for housing within the Gateway District to reinforce downtown as a place to live, work, and shop. (page 21) Commercial: Objective 1 —Strengthen the downtown Central Business District as the region's principal • employment center. (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. Policy 1.4—provide a strong residential component to support development in the Gateway District as well as the CBD. The Salt Lake City Downtown Plan (1995): 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. This plan defines the downtown core as the area extending from South Temple to 400 South from West Temple to 200 East. Furthermore, the Plan defines "downtown"to include a larger area located between North Temple and 900 South from I-15 to 700 East. (Page 1) Relevant excerpts from the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan: Retail—Diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas. (page 9) • Develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street that can successfully draw and compete with other commercial areas in the region. o Foster and reinforce existing business along Main Street. o Establish a large retail anchor at the southern end of Downtown. • o Reinforce the southern end of the business district. Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —9— • Encourage a compact Downtown o Discourage large retail centers outside the Downtown area. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments (see Exhibit 5B, Planning Commission staff report to review the relevant findings). • 111 • Transmittal of Petition 400-02-23 —10— TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Hearing Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agendas/Draft Minutes 6. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION 7. PUBLIC COMMENT 8. ORIGINAL PETITION • • • • Exhibit 1 • CHRONOLOGY • CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-03-23 Department Store Definitions August 27, 2003 Planning Commission initiates petitions to refine or revise the current definition of"department store" found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; and to clarify the intent and application of the term "large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex" found in the Gateway Development Master Plan. Furthermore, the Commission initiated a petition to review the extend to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores. October 14, 2003 City Council requests that the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store defmition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub- categories of depaitiuent stores—other than large- scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the G-MU District; and 3. Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. October 28, 2003 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed October 29, 2003 Draft definitions mailed to Community Council Chairs. The Chairs are invited to an open house and encouraged to submit comments regarding the proposed definitions of. department stores November 4,2003 Presentation made to the Downtown Retail Merchants • Association November 6,2003 A public open house is held in the City and County Building. No comments submitted November 12, 2003 Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and • 500 South from West Temple to State Street. 5. And add mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District to the table of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning ordinance. November 17, 2003 A request for an ordinance submitted to the City Attorney's Office November 19, 2003 Presentation made to the Downtown Alliance Downtown Development Committee. The committee voted to forward a recommendation of support to the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. S • • Exhibit 2 • PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE illNo. of (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding the definition and location of Department Stores) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING THE DEFINITION AND LOCATION OF DEPARTMENT STORES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-23. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains one definition for the term "Department Store," which definition does not provide the ability to distinguish between various types of large commercial facilities; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,the City Council has determined that the definition of Department Stores should be amended to reflect the variety of large commercial uses which exist in the community, ill and that the zoning code should be amended to reflect where such uses are allowed within the City; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined 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. The "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts" located at Chapter 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. The "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway Districts" located at Section 21A.31.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. • SECTION 3. Chapter 21A.34.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and • hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.34.110 DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is to encourage the concentration of large-scale fashion retailing along the City's Main Street corridor within the boundaries of the district as described in subsection B of this section. B. District Location: The DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is the area bounded by the centerlines of South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple streets. C. Permitted and Conditional Uses: The uses specified as permitted or conditional uses in the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the underlying zoning district as set forth in Part III of this title. SECTION 4. Chapter 21A.62.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to delete the term "Department Store." • b ge of goof s s9� indIu e7, • „1• r[rtomotiye SECTION 5. Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in alphabetical order: Store, Conventional Department Store, Fashion Oriented Department Store, Mass Merchandising Store, Specialty Store, Specialty Fashion Department Store, Superstore and Hypermarket • 2 • Store, Warehouse Club SECTION 6. Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to delete the definition of"Department Store" in its entirety. SECTION 7. Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions in alphabetical order: Store, Conventional Department: means a retail business which offers a broad range of merchandise lines at moderate level price points, consisting of primarily apparel and home goods. No merchandise line predominates and goods are displayed in a departmentalized format. Customer assistance is provided in each department,but checkout facilities can be either departmentalized or centralized. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include, but are not limited to, Kohls, J.C. Penney and Mervyns, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Fashion Oriented Department: means a retail business which offers more specialized lines of merchandise than Conventional Department Stores, with an emphasis on apparel merchandise. The merchandise is displayed in separate departments,with over 40%of sales area devoted to the sale of apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories related to personal care and appearance. Fashion Oriented Department Stores sell goods which are primarily nationally advertised brands, they may sell appliances which are usually serviced by other companies, and often offer limited lines of merchandise through seasonal or special catalogs. These stores provide checkout service and customer assistance(salespersons)within each department. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Meier&Frank, Bloomingdales, Macy's, Dillards, Marshall Fields, Bon Marche, Broadway, Broadway Southwest,Robinsons/May, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Mass Merchandising: means a retail business selling a variety of merchandise, including apparel and home goods, at generally lower price points. Mass Merchandising Stores have fast turnover and high volume retailing with centralized check out stations. Generally, shopping carts are available to customers and there is reduced customer assistance within each department but customer assistance may occur in departments for special promotions or where appropriate for product demonstration, legal compliance or security purposes. These stores typically exceed 80,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Wal-Mart,K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyer and Shopko, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Specialty: means a retail business specializing in a broad range of a single category of goods at competitive prices. The categories usually included are home • improvement, consumer music and electronics, office supply, auto aftermarket, 3 computers, toys, books, home/bed/bath,pet supply, craft/hobby, or sporting goods. They often have departments, centralized and/or exit check out stations and operate in various physical formats. These stores typically range from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include, but are not limited to, Home Depot, OfficeMax, Toys "R"Us, PetsMart,Michaels, Bed Bath&Beyond, Borders Books, Barnes &Noble, Circuit City, Galyan's, Sports Authority, Pep Boys, and CompUSA, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Specialty Fashion Department: means a retail business which specializes in high-end merchandise in the categories of apparel, fashion accessories,jewelry, and limited items for the home and housewares. These stores feature exclusive offerings of merchandise, high levels of customer service and amenities, and higher price points. Specialty Fashion Department Stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons)within each department and often offer specialized customer services such as valet parking, exclusive dressing rooms and personal shoppers. These stores typically range from 80,000 to 130,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to Lord &Taylor,Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Superstore & Hypermarket: means a retail business primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, and appliances, sold at discount prices. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 180,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but • are not limited to, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Meijer's, Fred Meyer's (with grocery) and Super Target, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store,Warehouse Club: means a retail business requiring patron membership, and selling packaged and bulk foods and general merchandise. They are characterized by high volume and a restricted line of popular merchandise in a no-frills environment. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 150,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, BJ's Wholesale Club, COSTCO, and Sam's Club, as such stores are typically configured as the date of adoption of this definition. SECTION 8. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended to add the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple Streets. • 4 SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date II of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 4111 ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of . Published: . • G:\Ordinance 03\Amending the Code re the definition and location of Department Stores-Nov 21,2003.doc 5 EXHIBIT A • 21A.30.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown Districts Use D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Retail Sales and Services Conventional Department Store P3 Fashion Oriented Department Store P3 Mass Merchandising Store P3 Specialty Fashion Department Store P3 Specialty Store P3 Qualifying Provisions: 3. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District(21A.34.110) • 11 • EXHIBIT B 21A.31.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District Retail Sales and Services G-MU Conventional Department Store P Mass Merchandising Store P Specialty Store P Superstore and Hypermarket P • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding the definition and location of Department Stores) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING THE DEFINITION AND LOCATION OF DEPARTMENT STORES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-23. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains one definition for the term "Department Store," which definition does not provide the ability to distinguish between various types of large commercial facilities; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,the City Council has determined that the definition of Department Stores should be amended to reflect the variety of large commercial uses which exist in the community, IIIand that the zoning code should be amended to reflect where such uses are allowed within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined 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. The "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts" located at Chapter 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. The "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway Districts" located at Section 21A.31.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. • SECTION 3. Chapter 21A.34.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: • 21A.34.110 DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is to encourage the concentration of large-scale fashion retailing along the City's Main Street corridor within the boundaries of the district as described in subsection B of this section. B. District Location: The DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is the area bounded by the centerlines of South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple streets. C. Permitted and Conditional Uses: The uses specified as permitted or conditional uses in the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the underlying zoning district as set forth in Part III of this title. SECTION 4. Chapter 21A.62.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to delete the term "Department Store." • SECTION 5. Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in alphabetical order: Store, Conventional Department Store, Fashion Oriented Department Store, Mass Merchandising Store, Specialty Store, Specialty Fashion Department Store, Superstore and Hypermarket Store, Warehouse Club • 2 SECTION 6. Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and • hereby is amended to delete the definition of"Department Store" in its entirety. SECTION 7. Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions in alphabetical order: Store, Conventional Department: means a retail business which offers a broad range of merchandise lines at moderate level price points, consisting of primarily apparel and home goods. No merchandise line predominates and goods are displayed in a departmentalized format. Customer assistance is provided in each department,but checkout facilities can be either departmentalized or centralized. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Kohls, J.C. Penney and Mervyns, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Fashion Oriented Department: means a retail business which offers more specialized lines of merchandise than Conventional Department Stores, with an emphasis on apparel merchandise. The merchandise is displayed in separate departments,with over 40%of sales area devoted to the sale of apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories related to personal care and appearance. Fashion Oriented Department Stores sell goods which are primarily nationally advertised brands, they may sell appliances which are • usually serviced by other companies, and often offer limited lines of merchandise through seasonal or special catalogs. These stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons) within each depaitiiient. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Meier&Frank, Bloomingdales, Macy's, Dillards, Marshall Fields, Bon Marche, Broadway, Broadway Southwest, Robinsons/May, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store,Mass Merchandising: means a retail business selling a variety of merchandise, including apparel and home goods, at generally lower price points. Mass Merchandising Stores have fast turnover and high volume retailing with centralized check out stations. Generally, shopping carts are available to customers and there is reduced customer assistance within each depai liiient but customer assistance may occur in departments for special promotions or where appropriate for product demonstration, legal compliance or security purposes. These stores typically exceed 80,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Fred Meyer and Shopko, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Specialty: means a retail business specializing in a broad range of a single category of goods at competitive prices. The categories usually included are home improvement, consumer music and electronics, office supply, auto aftermarket, computers,toys,books,home/bed/bath,pet supply, craft/hobby, or sporting goods. They • often have departments, centralized and/or exit check out stations and operate in various 3 physical formats. These stores typically range from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Home Depot, OfficeMax, Toys "R"Us, Ill PetsMart, Michaels, Bed Bath & Beyond, Borders Books, Barnes &Noble, Circuit City, Galyan's, Sports Authority,Pep Boys, and CompUSA, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Specialty Fashion Department: means a retail business which specializes in high-end merchandise in the categories of apparel, fashion accessories,jewelry, and limited items for the home and housewares. These stores feature exclusive offerings of merchandise,high levels of customer service and amenities, and higher price points. Specialty Fashion Department Stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons)within each department and often offer specialized customer services such as valet parking, exclusive dressing rooms and personal shoppers. These stores typically range from 80,000 to 130,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Lord& Taylor,Neiman Marcus,Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Store, Superstore & Hypermarket: means a retail business primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, and appliances, sold at discount prices. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 180,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Wal-Mart Supercenter, Meijer's,Fred Meyer's (with grocery) and Super Target, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this • definition. Store, Warehouse Club: means a retail business requiring patron membership, and selling packaged and bulk foods and general merchandise. They are characterized by high volume and a restricted line of popular merchandise in a no-frills environment. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 150,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,BJ's Wholesale Club, COSTCO, and Sam's Club, as such stores are typically configured as the date of adoption of this definition. SECTION 8. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended to add the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple Streets. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. • 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of 0 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 0 ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) /(- z y— 0 3 �:: �r;� Bill No. of . . r L � Published: . , i 0 G:\Ordinance 03\Amending the Code re the definition and location of Department Stores-Clean-Nov 21,2003.doc 5 EXHIBIT A • 21A.30.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown Districts Use D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Retail Sales and Services Conventional Department Store P3 Fashion Oriented Department Store P3 Mass Merchandising Store P3 Specialty Fashion Department Store P3 Specialty Store P3 Qualifying Provisions: 3. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District(21A.34.110) ID 411 S EXHIBIT B 21A.31.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District Retail Sales and Services G-MU Conventional Department Store P Mass Merchandising Store P Specialty Store P Superstore and Hypermarket P • 0 • • Exhibit 3 CITY COUNCIL 0 HEARING NOTICE • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and • 500 South from West Temple to State Street. The City Council will hold a public hearing: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *Please enter the building from the east side* You are invited to attend this hearing, ask questions or provide input concerning the topic listed above. If you have any questions, contact Joel Paterson at 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com We comply with all ADA guidelines. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the east side of the building. Hearing impaired who wish to attend the above meeting should contact Salt Lake City's TDD service number at 535-6021, a minimum of four days in advance so that an interpreter can be provided. • • • Exhibit 4 • MAILING LABELS siagei ssaippy @ AU3AV la 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 Jeff Davis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O.Box#521744 1407 South Richards Street 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City,Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah84101-2201 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave Vacant Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 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 Ilene 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 Jesse Draper SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE 2803 Beverly Street 863 Fremont Ave. Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 • Updated September 25,2003 KDC ®09t5 Jo}aleldwal ash W jslaays paaj yloowg W10965 Jasel slagel ssaippv ®AU3Av l Joel Paterson Joel Paterson David Gee 2450 E. Lamboume Avenue 451 S. State Street,Rm.406 Parr ouch St Brown Salt Lake City,UT 84109 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 185 South State Street,Ste. 1300 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-1537, James Garder Matthew Stark Property Reserve Inc. Snell&Wilmer Stoel Rives 10 East South Temple,#1500 15 West South Temple, Ste. 1200 201 S. Main Street, Ste. 1100 Salt Lake City,UT 84133 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Jacob Boyer Peter Corroon Robert Farrington y CO park@a,gateway Gateway Associates, Ltd. 14 South 400 West Chamber Alliance 90 South 400 West, Ste. 200 SLC,UT 84101 175 East 400 South Ste. 600 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Tony Caputo Mary Corporon Gregory Gruber Tony Caputo Market and Deli Corporon and Williams McDonalds Restaurants 308 West 300 South 1 808 E South Temple 8318 S Ridge Point Road Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Sandy,Utah 84093 Rebecca Guevara Peter Caroon Peggy Lander O Art House Graphic Studio Vest Pocket Business Coalition Richter 7 182 South 600 East 444 South 700 East 280 South 400 West#200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Ylanda Sanchez Carol Diblee Arts Place Downtown Merchants Association do 553 Gam Way 9 E Exchange Place, 9th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 • ®09i5 aoj a;eidwai as ruslaagS Peal yloows • Exhibit 5 • PLANNING COMMISSION • Exhibit 5a PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE • AND POSTMARK A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE Val �a� `jYi OM° BOSS C. ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR October 28, 2003 DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider Petition 400-03-23, initiated by the Planning Commission to consider zoning amendments to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State IStreet. The Planning Commission will hold a hearing to accept public comment and consider making a recommendation on this petition. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission concerning this petition will be given the opportunity to speak. The public hearing will be held: November 12, 2003 7:00 P.M.** Room 326 Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street **After 5:00 p.m. please use the east entrance of the building. Because it is difficult to notify all interested parties,please share this notice with others . If you have any questions or comments concerning this petition, please contact Joel Paterson at (801) 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the east side of the City and County Building. Hearing impaired who wish to attend the above meeting should contact Salt Lake City's TDD service number at 535-6021, a minimum of four days in advance of the public hearing so that an interpreter can be provided. Thank you, 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:B01-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 is �� ececo awaee A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE . ,11 j ON v,,,���� +;v i ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION • DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR October 28,2003 DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider Petition 400-03-23,initiated by the Planning Commission to consider zoning amendments to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62,Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050)and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. The Planning Commission will hold a hearing to accept public comment and consider making a • recommendation on this petition. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission concerning this petition will be given the opportunity to speak. The public hearing will be held: November 12, 2003 7:00 P.M.** Room 326 Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street **After 5:00 p.m.please use the east entrance of the building. Because it is difficult to notify all interested parties,please share this notice with others. If you have any questions or comments concerning this petition, please contact Joel Paterson at (801) 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the east side of the City and County Building. Hearing impaired who wish to attend the above meeting should contact Salt Lake City's TDD service number at 535-6021, a minimum of four days in advance of the public hearing so that an interpreter can be provided. Thank you, • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKES CITY,UTAH 8411 1 TELEPHONE:801-535.7757 FAX:801-535-6774 :: wcc.cieo.w.cw • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 Salt Lake City Planning Division Attn: Joel Paterson 451 S. State Street,Room 406 A \-A k< a,13.PM-UAW: Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ,;-4 =1 .-- 7 \........„..)--,-• 1.1 T I-1 METEF 71P 913 7 • Joel Paterson 0 • Exhibit 5b PLANNING COMMISSION • STAFF REPORT DATE: November 7, 2003 • TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Joel G. Paterson,AICP Senior Planner Telephone: 535-6141 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com RE: Staff Report for the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting CASE NUMBER: 400-03-23 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission • STATUS OF APPLICANT: The Planning Commission is authorized to initiate amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance and the zoning map under section 21A.06.030.B.3 of the Zoning Ordinance PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed text and zoning map amendments will affect the placement of certain types of retail/department stores in the Central Business District(D-1) and the Gateway Mixed-Use District(G-MU). COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3, Council Member Jergensen District 4, Council Member Saxton REQUESTED ACTION: This petition is requesting Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments to redefine the term "department store,"amend the Downtown and Gateway Mixed-Use districts tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses and to create a new overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core Area. Zoning text and map amendment petitions require the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council,which has final approval authority. • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —1— PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS: After considering the petition to allow department stores as a permitted land use in the Gateway Mixed-Use District,the City Council voted not to allow large-scale high-fashion retail uses of over 100,000 square feet to locate in the G-MU. The City Council also removed the 45,000 square foot limitation on retail facilities at the Gateway from the RDA participation agreement. Furthermore, the Council requested that the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store definition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub-categories of department stores —other than large-scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the G-MU District; and 3. Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate large retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. To address the recommendation of the City Council,Petition 400-03-23 requests that the Planning Commission: 1. Create new definitions for the term "department store": Staff is proposing to replace the current definition of department store with a list of seven new terms that better reflect retail industry standards. The definitions are listed on pages 8 and 9 of this staff report. • 2. Amend the text of the Downtown and Gateway Districts: Staff is proposing that the Planning Commission recommend amendments to the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses found in the Downtown(21A.30.050) and Gateway (21A.31.050) districts to allow certain types of retail/department stores; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district: Staff is proposing that a new overlay zone be created to define the core area of the Central Business District where large-scale, high-fashion department stores will be allowed. Implementation of this proposal requires amendments of the Zoning Ordinance (21A.34) and the Zoning Map. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 21A.30.020 D-1 Central Business District Purpose: to foster an environment consistent with the area's function as the business,retail and cultural center of the community and the region. Inherent in this purpose is the need for careful review of proposed development in order to achieve established objectives for urban design,pedestrian amenities and land use control,particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —2— • Section 21A.31.020 G-MU Gateway Mixed Use District Purpose: 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. Section 21A.34.010 Overlay Districts Statement of Intent: An overlay district is intended to provide supplemental regulations or standards pertaining to specific geographic features or land uses, wherever these are located, in addition to"base"or underlying zoning district regulations applicable within a designated area. Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district,the overlay district regulations shall control. Section 21A.62.040 Definitions "Department Store"means 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. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The adopted land use policy documents that guide new development in the areas affected by this petition are the Gateway Development Master Plan adopted in August 1998; and the Salt Lake City Downtown Plan adopted in 1995. A description of the pertinent information in each plan is provided below. The Gateway Development Master Plan: The Gateway Development Master Plan was developed for the area located between North Temple and 1000 South from 300 West to I-15. The purpose of this plan is to give direction and provide a framework for guiding future decisions regarding growth and development in the Gateway District. The Gateway Development Master Plan consists of two documents, Creating an Urban Neighborhood and the Gateway Specific Plan. Creating an Urban Neighborhood provides the vision for the Gateway District by identifying guiding principles and setting a framework for implementation. The Gateway Specific Plan provides the objectives, policies and tools to achieve the guiding principles and implementation identified in Creating an Urban Neighborhood. • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —3— Relevant excerpts from the Creating an Urban Neighborhood outlining the guiding development principles: New Land Use Patterns • Civic, Cultural, Community: Large-scale facilities include a variety of museums, arts and cultural uses that are local and regional attractions. These include a children's museum,planetarium, art and history center,natural history museum, galleries and exhibits,performing arts facilities, ethnic cultural halls and exhibits, an educational campus or complex and a theme retail shopping center. (page 6) • Retail: Retail and other small commercial uses reinforce the street life of neighborhoods and provide essential services and conveniences to people. (page 6) • Commercial: These are larger scale uses, such as retail uses that are part of a center or complex. (page 6) - Union Pacific Sub-district • The focus will be on visitor attractions,museums, educational facilities, shopping, theme entertainment/retail, open space,major employment,residential, and hotel and cultural uses. It is essential that housing become part of a mixed-use urban neighborhood with a large component of high density and varied housing types. Together,these uses will provide a 24-hour population in the area. (page 8) Relevant excerpts from the Gateway Specific Plan outlining the objectives and policies to implement the urban neighborhood: Guiding Principles: • Create a positive and clear identity for Salt Lake City and the Gateway District. • Encourage development which strengthens and compliments the Central Business District. Land Use: 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. Policy 4.4—Create a special zoning district, or approval process,which encourages and compliments the Central Business District. Objective 5—Provide opportunities for housing within the Gateway District to reinforce downtown as a place to live, work, and shop. (page 21) Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —4— • Commercial: Objective 1 —Strengthen the downtown Central Business District as the region's principal employment center. (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. Policy 1.4—provide a strong residential component to support development in the Gateway District as well as the CBD. The Salt Lake City Downtown Plan (1995): 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. This plan defines the downtown core as the area extending from South Temple to 400 South from West Temple to 200 East. Furthermore,the Plan defines"downtown"to include a larger area located between North Temple and 900 South from I-15 to 700 East. (Page 1) Relevant excerpts from the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan: Retail—Diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas. (page 9) • • Develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street that can successfully draw and compete with other commercial areas in the region. o Foster and reinforce existing business along Main Street. o Establish a large retail anchor at the southern end of Downtown. o Reinforce the southern end of the business district. • Encourage a compact Downtown o Discourage large retail centers outside the Downtown area. SUBJECT HISTORY: • June 19,2003, the Zoning Administrator determined that Nordstrom and Target are,by definition, department stores,not retail goods establishments, and therefore not allowed in the G-MU District. • July 14, 2003, Gateway Associates submitted a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to allow department stores in the G-MU District. • August 18,2003,the Board of Adjustment denied Gateway Associates' appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination that Nordstrom is a department store. • August 27,2003,the Planning Commission recommended denial of Gateway Associates' petition(400-03-20)to amend the text of the zoning ordinance to allow department stores in the G-MU District. The Commission found the • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —5— proposed text amendment was not consistent with applicable current Master Plan and City Council policies. The Planning Commission also initiated petitions to: • 1. a. Refine or revise the current definition of"department store" found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; and b. Clarify the intent and application of the term"large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex" found in the Gateway Development Master Plan. 2. Review the extent to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores as presently allowed in the D-1 (Central Business District), D-2 (Downtown Support), C-SHBD (Sugar House Business District) and CS (Community Shopping)zoning districts are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores. • October 14, 2003,the City Council adopted a motion specifying that it will not amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow large-scale high-fashion retail uses of over 100,000 square feet to locate in the G-MU District. The Council also requested that the Planning Commission, in its evaluation: 1. Recommend sub-categories to the department store definition to include terms used in the retail industry; 2. Express its recommendation regarding which sub-categories of department stores—other than large-scale high-fashion retail uses of greater than 100,000 square feet—would be appropriate for inclusion in the G-MU District; and • 3. Recognize that refining the existing definition of department store to permit other appropriate larges retail goods establishments which may constitute department stores under the existing zoning law to locate within the G-MU District is desirable for the benefit of downtown and is consistent with the January 2003 City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS: a) Community Councils and Business Organizations: Community Council chairs,the Downtown Alliance/Chamber Bureau,Downtown Merchants Association, Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory Committee were provided copies of the proposed department store definitions and invited to an open house held on November 6,2003 to provide input. No comments were submitted at the open house. Staff also presented the proposed department store definitions to the Retail Merchants Association on November 4, 2003. • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —6— Planning Division: Department Store Definitions: The Planning Staff researched zoning ordinances from around the country, consulted with the retail industry and utilized a consulting firm to assist in the development of definitions for different types of department stores. The emphasis of the Staffs efforts was to maintain the current focus on the City's existing land use and planning policies regarding the development/redevelopment of Main Street and Gateway. The primary goal of these policies is the recognition that the downtown retail core, centered on Main Street, is the primary retail core of the City, anchored by large-scale high-fashion department stores. Staff is mindful of the direction provided by the Planning Commission and the City Council that certain types of department stores may appropriately locate outside of the Downtown Main Street Core Area in places such as the Gateway, other locations within the downtown, and even commercial areas of the City. Under this petition, the Planning Commission will review the proposed department store definitions and consider what types of department stores are appropriate for the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District and the G-MU District. Staff is proposing an overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core where fashion-oriented department stores will be concentrated. A subsequent 110 petition will address the potential of locating department stores in various zoning district throughout the rest of the City and recommend appropriate master plan amendments to attain consistency with current policy. The definitions (listed below) attempt to provide a description of functions, product types and services offered by each type of depaitnnent store. To help clarify difference between types of department stores, a typical size range is offered, not as an absolute standard as found in the current definition of "department store". Rather, the size range identifies what is typically found throughout the country for each different type of depaitnnent store and allows for variation outside of the stated size range. Additionally,to add clarity, each definition includes a list of store names that are examples of the particular type of department store. Major stakeholders, including, Gateway Associates,Property Reserve,Inc., the May Company, and the Taubman Company have reviewed the definitions. These parties have reached a general consensus and support the definitions as proposed. The definitions were sent to the Community Council chairs, Downtown Alliance/Chamber Bureau, Downtown Merchants Association,Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory Committee for comment. The proposed definitions are listed below. 411/ Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —7— Conventional Department Store: means a retail business which offers a broad range of merchandise lines at moderate level price points, consisting of primarily apparel and home goods. No merchandise line predominates and goods are displayed in a departmentalized format. Customer assistance is provided in each department,but checkout facilities can be either departmentalized or centralized. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Kohls, J.C. Penney and Mervyns, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Fashion Oriented Department Store: means a retail business which offers more specialized lines of merchandise than Conventional Department Stores, with an emphasis on apparel merchandise. The merchandise is displayed in separate departments,with over forty percent (40%) of sales area devoted to the sale of apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories related to personal care and appearance. Fashion Oriented Department Stores sell goods which are primarily nationally advertised brands,they may sell appliances which are usually serviced by other companies, and often offer limited lines of merchandise through seasonal or special catalogs. These stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons)within each department. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Meier&Frank, Bloomingdales, Macy's, Dillards,Marshall Fields, Bon Marche, Broadway,Broadway Southwest, Robinsons/May, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. • Specialty Fashion Department Store: means a retail business which specializes in high-end merchandise in the categories of apparel, fashion accessories,jewelry, and limited items for the home and housewares. These stores feature exclusive offerings of merchandise,high levels of customer service and amenities, and higher price points. Specialty Fashion Department Stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons) within each department and often offer specialized customer services such as valet parking, exclusive dressing rooms and personal shoppers. These stores typically range from 80,000 to 130,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Lord &Taylor,Neiman Marcus,Nordstrom,Saks Fifth Avenue, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Mass Merchandising Store: means a retail business selling a variety of merchandise,including apparel and home goods, at generally lower price points. Mass Merchandising Stores have fast turnover and high volume retailing with centralized check out stations. Generally, shopping carts are available to customers and there is reduced customer assistance within each department but customer assistance may occur in departments for special promotions or where appropriate for product demonstration,legal compliance Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —8— or security purposes. These stores typically exceed 80,000 square feet in size. • Examples include,but are not limited to, Wal-Mart,K-Mart, Target,Fred Meyer and Shopko, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Specialty Store: means a retail business specializing in a broad range of a single category of goods("category killers") at competitive prices. The categories usually included are home improvement,consumer music and electronics, office supply, auto aftermarket,computers,toys,books, home/bed/bath,pet supply, craft/hobby,or sporting goods. They often have departments,centralized and/or exit check out stations and operate in various physical formats. These stores typically range from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,Home Depot, OfficeMax,Toys "R"Us, PetsMart,Michaels,Bed Bath &Beyond,Borders Books,Barnes &Noble, Circuit City,Galyan's, Sports Authority,Pep Boys, and CompUSA, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Superstore & Hypermarket:means a retail business primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture,and appliances, sold at discount prices. They have centralized exit check out stations,and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 180,000 • square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to, Wal-Mart Supercenter,Meijer's, Fred Meyer's (with grocery) and Super Target, as such stores are typically configured as of the date of adoption of this definition. Warehouse Club Store: means a retail business requiring patron membership, and selling packaged and bulk foods and general merchandise. They are characterized by high volume and a restricted line of popular merchandise in a no-frills environment. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. These stores typically range from 120,000 to 150,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to,BJ's Wholesale Club, COSTCO, and Sam's Club, as such stores are typically configured as the date of adoption of this definition. Downtown Main Street Core Overlay: Based on the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and the City Council to maintain Main Street as the core retail center in Salt Lake City, Staff is proposing the creation of the Downtown Main Street Core Area Overlay District. This overlay district will define the area within the Central Business District where higher-end fashion oriented department stores will be allowed to locate. This is being done to support and reinforce the City Council's policy stated in the Salt Lake City Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown which states: • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —9— 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. Staff is proposing that the Main Street Core Overlay include the area bounded by the centerlines of the following streets: South Temple, State Street, 500 South and West Temple. See the Map in Attachment 1. Conversely, in order to effectively implement the Gateway Development Master Plan, particularly its reference to encouraging the development of large-scale retail uses,staff is of the view that there are a number of large retail uses which could enhance the function of the Gateway as a place and as an economic enterprise. However, given the definition of lifestyle centers as: Types of shopping centers that are not built around traditional mall anchor stores. Instead, the properties specialize in multi-family housing in addition to high-end specialty retailers,trendy restaurant chains, and movie theaters, usually in an open-air promenade. Furthermore, any large retail uses must incorporate an"urban store"model. In our opinion, such retail uses would be appropriate in both the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay and G-MU districts. • The following table summarizes the Staff recommendation to amend the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Downtown Main Street Core(within the D-1 District) and the G-MU District. DEPARTMENT STORE ZONING DISTRICTS CLASSIFICATION DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET GATEWAY MIXED-USE CORE DISTRICT Conventional Department Store P P Fashion Oriented Department Store P Specialty Fashion Department Store P Mass Merchandising Store P Specialty Store P P Superstore&Hypermarket P Warehouse Club Store S Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 — 10— Staff believes that the types of department stores proposed for the G-MU District • should appropriately be listed as "permitted"uses. These uses are consistent with the Gateway Development Master which states that the focus of the Union Pacific Sub-district, which includes the Gateway development: will be on visitor attractions, museums, educational facilities, shopping, theme entertainment/retail, open space, major employment, residential and hotel and cultural uses. Creating an Urban Neighborhood, p.8. Furthermore, the G-MU District regulations require all new development to be reviewed as a Planned Development by the Planning Commission. The G-MU District regulations also include urban design guidelines to promote compatible development within the G-MU District. If a retail establishment that is classified as a permitted type of department store in the G-MU District were to locate in an existing structure, the permitted use designation would streamline the permitting process by avoiding the need for Planning Commission review. The major stakeholders consulted by Staff generally agree with this classification. The May Company, owners of Meier and Frank, expressed concern that conventional department stores may be allowed in the G-MU District (see e-mail from David Jordan in Attachment 5). Staff is of the strong view that this recommendation is consistent with the stated City policies. Staff is also concerned about the potential for creating a significant number of non-conforming uses, given that there are a number of conventional department stores currently • existing outside of the Downtown Main Street Core Area. Furthermore,there is a danger of creating a perception of singling out the G-MU district for unfair treatment given that other areas within the Downtown Area are allowed to have conventional department stores. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether or not conventional department stores are appropriate in the G- MU District. During the review of Petition 400-03-20, Gateway Associate's request to allow department stores in the G-MU District, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the apparent inequity of the existing zoning in the downtown which allows department stores in the D-1 and D-2 districts but not in the G-MU District. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map 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 Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 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. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 -1 I- Discussion: Relevant provisions of the Gateway Development Master Plan and • the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan are highlighted in the Master Plan Specification section on pages 3-5 of this staff report. The following statements from the Gateway Development Master Plan,in conjunction with City Council policy statements, supports the proposed text and map amendments: The Gateway Development Master Plan includes the following specific policy statements: • Commercial uses: These are larger scale uses, such as retail uses that are part of a center or complex. • Encourage development which strengthens and compliments the Central Business District; • Strengthen Main Street as the primary retail core with the Gateway District as a secondary retail area having a different appeal and character The Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan includes the following relevant policy statements (page 9): • Diversify Downtown retail and broaden its market to include goods and services not normally sold in regional malls and suburban areas. • Develop a critical mass of retail along Main Street that can successfully draw and compete with other commercial areas in the region. • Foster and reinforce existing business along Main Street. • • Establish a large retail anchor at the southern end of Downtown • Reinforce the southern end of the business district The City Council expressed its policy regarding the redevelopment of Main Street in a letter to Blake Nordstrom which states: We have reviewed our policies in view of your concerns and have unanimously concluded that we remain committed to these policies for the long-term good of downtown Salt Lake City, of which Main Street is the heart. To do otherwise would undermine over twenty years of planning and effort, as well over$100 million in pubic investments in just the past ten years. Therefore, we are not in favor of changing zoning or previous agreements between Salt Lake City s Redevelopment Agency and Gateway Associates. Furth-iinore,the City Council developed a policy statement in January 2003, regarding the future economic development of downtown that states: 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 • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —12— vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our • great city. These policy statements establish a basis for the proposed definitions and zoning map amendment. The Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District creates a focal point for large-scale fashion retailers in downtown Salt Lake City but the proposed text amendments will also allow other type of department stores to locate at the Gateway, further strengthening the retail base of the greater downtown . Findings: Based on these expressions of City policy in the Gateway Development Master Plan, the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan and policy statements made by the City Council regarding the commitment to protect the long-term planning and development of both Main Street and the Gateway,the proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments are supportive of the overall character of downtown and clarify what types of land uses are appropriate in the Downtown Main Street Core and in the G-MU District. • The proposed amendments support the City Council's policies calling for the continued vitality of Main Street as the core of downtown commercial, tourist, and convention activity. The Gateway Development Master Plan envisions that the area zoned G-MU will be: an important corridor of large-scale attractions, employment and entertainment facilities and that large-scale public and private buildings and developments will complement the activities occurring along North and South Temple streets (Creating an Urban Neighborhood, page 8). This implies that the development of certain types of department stores in the G- MU, such as mass merchandising, specialty and superstore and hypermarket stores,may be harmonious with the character of existing development in the immediate vicinity. This is further supported by the urban design standards included in the G-MU regulations. Section 21A.31.010.P states, in part that all general development and site plans shall be designed to complement the surrounding development. Findings: Based on City Council policies,the Downtown Master Plan and the Gateway Development Master Plan,the proposed text and map amendments are harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate • vicinity of the G-MU zoning district and the proposed Downtown Main Street Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —13— Core Overlay. The amendments are further supported by the design standards found in the D-1 and G-MU districts. • C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendments are intended to implement City Council and master plan policies calling for the strengthening of the greater downtown and the Main Street Core area by creating the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District to limit the area where large-scale fashion oriented department stores may locate and to better define the type of department stores that are permissible in the G-MU. The proposed amendments will keep stores such as Nordstrom, Meier and Frank or Saks in the Main Street Core area while allowing a greater range of land uses to locate at the Gateway. Findings: The proposed zoning text and map amendments were developed in response to requests by the Planning Commission and the City Council and are intended to implement City Council and Master Plan policies to strengthen the entire downtown area and the Main Street Core area. The proposed amendments will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: There are existing overlay districts within the areas affected by the S proposed text and map amendments, such as the Historic Preservation,Airport Flight Path Protection and Groundwater Source Protection overlay districts. The proposed text amendments will have no effect on the administration of existing overlay districts that exist in the G-MU or which overlap the proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District. Findings: The proposed text and map amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Historic Preservation,Airport Flight Path Protection and Groundwater Source Protection 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: Both the Downtown and Gateway Development master plans envision large-scale developments and recognize that improvements to the public utilities systems may be needed as new development occurred. When the Gateway was constructed,many of the public utilities in the vicinity were upgraded to meet the expected demand from redevelopment in the vicinity. Any new development that occurs within the G-MU district requires Planned • Development Approval and must meet City standards. Roads in the area Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 —14— currently have adequate capacity and the area is served by the light rail system. • As the intermodal hub develops,the TRAX system may be extended from its current terminus on South Temple at 400 West to 200 South and 600 West. Police and fire protection will be provided as needed. Findings: The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the G- MU zoning district and the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay are adequate to serve existing development. Any new development that does not conform to City Standards for public utility service will be required to do so as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of • department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. Attachments: 1. Proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District—Map 2. Proposed Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District—Regulations 3. Proposed Amendments to the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts 4. Proposed Amendments to the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway Districts 5. Public Comment • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 — 15— • i ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET CORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - MAP • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 11110 -'J, L 1 SOLTH TEMPLE ST I- 1--- u l ACHALL AVE w ftw' T Er 1 ' 2 100 S Cotu ill ! ��_Pj UM{AVEI �� =-17 - __I �— _=.� � = F °ao ffiiIti -d it II n F .: I Tr— r 200 S - rill" Lllil L r J. 04,t I•I� l w z ail. I I r - r p -- - 1I11Wi ■ a -� '- 1-3• f - Mal it I i { 300 S 4 I] i UL � !lid1 N c A 1 411qa:1 -- 1171 l 1 , rr 1- IIIII _ . I 400 S J F P ___.._ _____ i____ f__ I- TV 4.., _J .--- 12 W*E I 1 CoIr s 1 500 S LrLAI -a I l hi— -- Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District IIII Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 0 ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET CORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - REGULATIONS • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 21A.34.110 DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District: 4111 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is to encourage the concentration of large-scale fashion retailing along the City's Main Street corridor within the boundaries of the district as described in subsection B of this section. B. District Location: The DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District is the area bounded by the centerlines of South Temple, 200 East, 500 South and West Temple streets. C. Permitted and Conditional Uses: The uses specified as permitted or conditional uses in the Tables of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the underlying zoning district as set forth in Part III of this title. S 4111 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 • II ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TABLES OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 • 21A.30.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown Districts Use D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Retail Sales and Services Conventional Department Store P' Department Stores l? Fashion Oriented Department Store P' Specialty Fashion Department Store P' Specialty Store P' Qualifying Provisions: 3. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay(21A.34.110) • • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 9 0 ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TABLES OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR GATEWAY DISTRICTS 0 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 21A.31.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District 41111 Retail Sales and Services G-MU Conventional Department Store P Mass Merchandising Store P Specialty Store P Superstore and Hypermarket P Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 • • ATTACHMENT 5 PUBLIC COMMENT • PIanning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-03-23 rage i of t Paterson, Joel From: Jordan, David J.[DJJORDAN@stoel.com] • Sent: Friday, November 07,2003 3:12 PM To: Paterson,Joel;Jacob Boyer;rboyer@BOYERCOMPANY.com; asullivan@swlaw.com;Jones, Cary; bheckman@taubman.com;deg@pwlaw.com Cc: Zunguze, Louis;Wilde, Brent; Dansie,Doug; Butcher, Larry Subject: RE: Revised Department Store Definitions Joel, On behalf of May Co., I make the following comments to the latest round of proposed definitions, particularly the most recent submittal from David Gee. If you compare his description of the price point for both Conventional and Fashion Oriented Department Stores,you will note that he describes both as"moderate".This is not consistent with our discussion at our meeting this week at which it was stated that the price point for stores qualifying as Conventional would be lower than Fashion Oriented stores.This highlights a fundamental problem.There is currently a very blurry,if any, distinction between the Conventional and the Fashion Oriented categories. For example, Mervyns devotes more than 40%of its sales floor to apparel, shoes, etc., sells national brands, and has a moderate price point. Mervyns meets the definition of Fashion Oriented stores. It also meets the definition of Conventional stores and and is expressly included within that category.The same could be said of Kohls. May Co. does not believe this kind of ambiguity is helpful and can only lead to confusion down the road.We think that the touchstone of any revised ordinance ought to be the City's Master Plan which specifically precludes direct competition between Gateway and the core of Main Street's business—large apparel stores. Department stores likes Mervyns and Kohls compete head to head.The spirit and language of the existing ordinance,which has been upheld by the City Council, is to preclude that kind of dilution in the Downtown district. Ultimately,we believe that the best solution is to preclude any kind of department store in the Downtown district outside of Main Street that devotes more than a specified percentage of its floor space to apparel,shoes,cosmetics, accessories and personal care items.Thank you for the opportunity to comment.---David 1111 • r 0 Exhibit Sc PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDAS/DRAFT MINUTES NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. 111 The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Planning Commission Chair elections for 2004. 4. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: (See attached list) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No.410-647, by Dr. Nancy C. Larsen requesting a conditional use permit to utilize an existing unit of the Vintage Square retail building, located at 1760 South 1100 East Street, for the operation of veterinary clinic that specializes in feline health. The property is zoned RB Residential Business. Veterinary Clinics may be allowed as a conditional use in this zone. (Staff- Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis a(�ci.slc.ut.us.) THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN CANCELLED b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:15 p.m.—Petition No. 400-03-19, by Great Basin Engineering, representing Burbs LLC requesting a street closure of a portion of 700 South Street between Bellflower Street and Fulton Street,and a portion of Bellflower Street between the railroad right-of-way and 700 South. The proposed street closures are to facilitate further development of the BFI recycling facility. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) c. ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m.—Geoff Smart is requesting preliminary condominium approval for the Parley's Corporate Center Condominiums;the proposed conversion of an eight(8)unit, retail/office use to condominium ownership located at 2545 East Parleys Way(2235 South)in a Community Business"CB"Zoning District. No decision will be made by the Planning Commission at this meeting. (Staff—Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-23, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to consider amendments to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050)and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding the Downtown Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson(c slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building • 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah Wednesday, November 12,2003, 5:45 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Vice-Chair Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless,Bip Daniels, Babs Delay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli and Peggy McDonough were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze;Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde,Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright;Principal Planner Doug Dansie,Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis,Principal Planner Greg Mikolash, Senior Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:48 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. Petition No. 400-03-23,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to consider amendments to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter • 21A.62,Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding the Downtown Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. This hearing began at 7:26 p.m. Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He noted that in October 2003, the City Council considered a petition by the Gateway Associates requesting that department stores such as Nordstrom and Target be allowed to locate in the Gateway Mixed-Use"G-MU"zoning district. The City Council clearly stated that large-scale high fashion department stores should remain on Main Street. The City Council also suggested that there is potential for certain types of large-scale retailers to locate at the Gateway, and remain consistent with the City Council policy statement regarding the future economic development of Downtown. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission review and recommend new department store definitions • SLC Planning Commission 1 November 12, 2003 DRAFT to the City Council, which would be in accordance with industry standards. He stated • that Staff is presenting seven new department store definitions to the Planning Commission. Staff is also suggesting that the Planning Commission support amendments to the Central Business District or"D-1" and the Gateway Mixed-Use or"G-MU"zoning districts, to allow certain types of department stores in those zones. Staff is recommending an amendment to the governing zoning map to create a"Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District"which would define where certain large-scale high fashion department stores would be allowed along Main Street. Staff will come back to the Commission with a subsequent petition to consider where else in the City department stores should be allowed and what other Master Plan amendments are required to promote consistency with the City Council policies and the Master Plans. Mr. Zunguze added that Staff decided to take a two staged approach because there is a sense of urgency from the Gateway Associates and Property Reserve Inc. to receive clarity from the City, and move on with their projects. He said that the current proposal, which is phase one of this two staged approach, is intended to apply specifically to the Gateway and Main Street areas. As Mr.Paterson noted Staff will be coming back shortly to the Planning Commission to address phase two of this work. Mr. Paterson continued to say that Staff has received input from many stakeholders during this process and they came to an agreement with the exception of the May Company who believes that conventional department stores should be allowed as conditional use rather than permitted use. Mr. Paterson said that during this process the • Staff focus has been on the current City land use policies and the City Council policies regarding the revitalization of Downtown. Mr. Paterson outlined the proposed definitions of department stores and offered examples of specific department stores. He also summarized the proposed amendments and described the area included in the current proposal. Staff is recommending based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store" under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. Chair Jonas noted that Mr. Paterson mentioned Sears as an example of a conventional department store and asked why it is not listed in the staff report. • SLC Planning Commission 2 November 12, 2003 DRAFT Mr. Paterson answered that Sears was removed from the list because Sears is currently morphing into a smaller scale department store and there are divergent examples within • the Salt Lake metro area. Chair Jonas clarified that the proposed amendments will only affect the"D-1"and G-MU zoning district. Mr. Paterson said that that is correct. Mr. Zunguze added that currently any projects proposed for Gateway go through a two step reviewing process, a planned development and a conditional use review. Staff is proposing to remove the conditional use element of this process;however, the Commission would still review projects through the planned development process. The reason for doing this is the need to streamline the review process, for projects that are consistent with the Master Plan and table of uses envisioned for the Gateway District. Mr. Pace clarified that the area outside of the Central Business District will not be affected by this proposal. Commissioner DeLay agreed with Commissioner McDonough's written comments that suggest that there should be a more definitive line drawn to prohibit conventional department stores in the Gateway zoning district. Commissioner Muir suggested that Main Street and Gateway are both a part of the Downtown District and should be referred to as such, or the reference of Downtown should be eliminated. Commissioner Muir noted that the Downtown Main Street Core • Overlay Map as shown in the staff report has different boundaries than the current Master Plan Map. Commissioner Muir asked Staff why they did not refer to the current Master Plan Map for those boundaries. Mr. Doug Dansie answered that the map in the staff report was intended to focus on Main Street. It is consistent with the retail core outlined in the Downtown Master Plan. Chair Jonas added that the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay map is in concurrence with the City Council directive in reviewing this petition. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. Mr. Matthew Stark spoke to the Commission representing the May Company. He stated that the May Company generally agrees with the petition presented this evening with the exception of a few items. The first is that there is a great deal of overlap between the definitions of a conventional department store and a fashion oriented department store. He referred to Mervyn's and Kohl's and stated that they both would easily fit into the conventional and fashion department store categories. He referred to the City Council policy statement regarding this petition and said that Main Street retail is not to be impeded by retail at Gateway. He summarize by saying that the May Company believes that there is ambiguity that needs to be clarified in regard to the proposed definitions of conventional and fashion oriented department stores. The May Company also believesIII SLC Planning Commission 3 November 12, 2003 DRAFT that conventional department stores should be allowed in the "G-MU"zoning district as a • conditional rather than a permitted use to ensure that the Planning Commission retain flexibility in reviewing proposals. Chair Jonas asked Mr. Stark if the statement that all of the parties involved agree on the proposal is untrue. Mr. Stark answered that the two items that he mentioned are the issues that the May Company does not agree with. Mr. David Gee an Attorney representing the Gateway Associates spoke to the Commission to say that they are in complete support of the Staff proposal. He urged the Planning Commission to adopt the proposal as is. Chair Jonas reminded the Commission that the directive from the City Council is that the size limitation that defines department stores in the zoning ordinance should be removed. Mr. Rodger Boyer representing the Boyer Company spoke to the Commission to say that the Boyer Company fully supports the proposal. He said that he thought all of the stakeholders were in agreement with the proposal, and is surprised to hear that the May Company disagrees. Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Boyer what department stores are envisioned for Gateway. He also asked what Mr. Boyer hopes will go into Gateway. Mr. Boyer referred to Kohl's as a possibility for Gateway, and he added that the Boyer Company is • not currently in negotiations with any conventional department store. He worried that restriction would be attached to the Gateway which may make future development difficult. Mr. Alan Sullivan spoke to the Commission representing Property Reserve. He stated that they support the current proposal with one minor caveat. They support the proposed definitions;however,he suggested that the Planning Commission allow mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in both"D-1" and the "G-MU" zoning districts. They feel that the"Target type stores"would compliment the core of the Downtown retail on Main Street. Mr. Douglas Cotant, a resident of 400 South and Main Street asked if the Kohl's Department store is not going to locate in the Downtown area because they are not interested. Chair Jonas clarified that the reference to the Kohl's department store was to say that they do not generally locate in the Downtown area of a city they are usually in the suburbs. Commissioner Muir asked if a representative from the Boyer Company would respond to Mr. Sullivan's suggestion. Mr. Roger Boyer stated that they would support Mr. Sullivan's request. • Mr. Gee stated that it would be somewhat an anomaly to allow mass merchandisers on SLC Planning Commission 4 November 12, 2003 DRAFT Main Street and deny a store like Kohl's to go into Gateway. He said that because this proposal is a continuum, it is fair to allow mass merchandisers on Main Street and allow11111 a store like Kohl's to go to Gateway. He said that that would allow Downtown Salt Lake to compete with the suburbs. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Chair Jonas thanked Staff for their hard work. Commissioner DeLay agreed that Staff has done well developing the definitions. Commissioner Daniels complimented Staff as well and said that the item that helped clarify the definitions for him was the suggested names of stores as examples for the numerous department store categories. Motion Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding petition number 400-03-23 based on the analysis and findings of fact in the staff report based also on Staff recommendation, Staff comment, and public comment this evening to forward a positive recommendation to the City council to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of • department stores will be allowed; and 3. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. 4. Amend the table of permitted and conditional uses to allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown District (21A.30.050) as set forth in the staff report. 5. Amend the table of permitted uses to allow only mass merchandising, specialty store,super store, hypermarket department stores in the Gateway "G-MU"district(21A.31.050). Based on analysis and comment particularly pertaining to 21A 50.050 standards for general amendment and particularly to where Standard A notes that the amendment be consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Salt Lake City plans, in this case the Gateway specific plan policy 1.2 which reads "Strengthen Main Street as the primary retail core with the Gateway District as a secondary retail area having different appeal and character." Allowing conventional department stores in the Gateway area and Main Street would not do this. In light of the document "Creating an Urban Neighborhood" page 6 the paragraph on commercial development which reads"Larger-scale uses such as retail uses that are a part of the center or complex, an example is a moderately sized neighborhood center with a supermarket,hardware and garden store." A conventional department store does not fall into this category either. 411 SLC Planning Commission 5 November 12, 2003 DRAFT Chair Jonas clarified that the motion excludes conventional department store as a 111111 permitted use in the Gateway Mixed use. He asked Commissioner Scott if she is adding mass merchandising as a permitted use in the Downtown Core district. Commissioner Scott replied no. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Chair Jonas felt that the motion was unfair based on the work and attempts that Staff and the stakeholders have made to reach a compromise. Commissioner Noda explained that the she acknowledged efforts by Staff and said that she appreciates the work that Staff has done. She said that when she saw Commissioner McDonough's comments she was persuaded that drawing a more definitive line by not allowing conventional department stores in the "G-MU"zoning district makes sense. She felt that it is a possibility that the two areas of the City, Gateway and Main Street could raid each other and she did not want to see that happen. Commissioner Noda was unsure if allowing a mass merchandising department store like "Target"on Main Street would have a positive affect. She said that she would agree to allow a store like "Target" to go into the Gateway as a conditional use. She added that she would be persuaded to allow conventional dep.'lment stores as a conditional use at the Gateway. Chair Jonas stated that he is persuaded that the Staff recommendation is the best solution. He added that it is difficult for the developers on both sides of this issue to accomplish • either project. He felt that they need all of the flexibility possible. He said that for the Planning Commission to impose additional restrictions on both Property Reserve Inc. and The Boyer Company,by eliminating mass merchandising department stores and eliminating conventional department stores will make their projects more difficult if not impossible. He said that the Planning Commission should not be obstruction for developers and push many of them to the suburbs where they can carry out projects. Commissioner Diamond asked Chair Jonas if allowing conventional depai liuent stores as a conditional use at the Gateway would allow flexibility. Chair Jonas felt that that would create more issues. The parties are in agreement and they can coexist under the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Diamond felt that the benefit of the conditional use process is that it requires those involved in the approval process to think about what is appropriate for the area. A conditional use for conventional department stores at Gateway may deter the issue of raiding Main Street. Chair Jonas felt that under that rationale the conventional department stores should be conditional uses at both the Gateway and on Main Street. The City Council directive is to attract people to the Downtown area. Commissioner Diamond asked the Commission if a conventional department store rather SLC Planning Commission 6 November 12,2003 DRAFT than Nordstrom were proposed for Gateway during the August 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting would that have changed how the Commission voted. w Commissioner Scott stated that reviewing the public comment from the August 27, 2003 Planning Commission minutes is what swayed her. She noted that the resident's comments were clear in their need for a place to shop for everyday needs. The concept of Gateway was to be an urban neighborhood that entailed retail,residential and entertainment. She is not convinced that a conventional department store would attract more residents to that area. She is confident that a"Target type store"which would be a mass merchandising store would achieve the City Council objective and is something wanted by the people who live there. Commissioner Muir stated that no one on the Planning Commission was a part of the delicate negotiations which took place to reach an agreement between inherent competing entities. He said that he would defer to the wisdom of Staff and respect the process that the Planning Commission asked those parties to go through. He disagreed with allowing conventional department stores as a conditional use because the governing Master Plan is vague in giving the Planning Commission guidance in dealing with conditional use petitions. He said that he would vote against the motion. Chair Jonas said that there are constant comments that Gateway has morphed into something that it was never intended to be. He said that the only thing that has changed from the original concept of Gateway was that a hotel was never built because there is no market for a hotel. The Gateway is what it was projected to be when the development • began. Mr. Zunguze stated that as Staff was reviewing this task they noted that the Gateway Master Plan references large-scale retail uses, in addition to the small-scale retail uses. Staff could not reconcile these two references by excluding all potential large-scale retail uses out of the Gateway District unless one took the position that the large-scale retail uses meant an agglomeration or an aggregation of small scale-retail uses. Staff does not believe that there is any competition between conventional department stores and the high fashion end department stores because they are distinct entities. As such, Staff does not believe that allowing conventional department stores at Gateway will jeopardize Main Street. To that end,he said that Staff does not see contradiction between City Council policies and the proposed amendments. Mr. Zunguze reminded the Commission that they as a Commission had asked Staff to define and indicate what department stores would be appropriate in the Gateway to implement the term"large-scale uses." From Staffs perspective having conventional department stores and other large-scale retail uses in the Gateway District is both a logical interpretation of the Master Plan and supports the City Council's policy to allow certain types of large-scale retailers to locate in the Gateway District so as to add to the vitality of the entire Downtown. Chair Jonas referred to the concept of allowing mass merchandising depaxtiuent stores on Main Street, noting that according to the Property Reserve Inc. there will be more housing along the Downtown Core. The argument of needing a mass merchandising • SLC Planning Commission 7 November 12,2003 DRAFT department store in Gateway now may be a similar argument in the future for Main • Street. Only the market will tell and Property Reserve Inc. should have the same allowances as Gateway to attract such department stores. Chair Jonas called for the question. Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Seelig voted"Nay". Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted"Aye". Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted against, three Commissioners voted in favor and, therefore the motion failed. Motion Commissioner DeLay made a motion based on the analysis and the findings presented in the staff report and discussion this evening,that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding Petition 400-03-23 to: 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District under Chapter 21A.34 that • defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of depai tuient stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. 5. And add mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core to the table of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Muir voted"Aye". Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott voted"Nay". Chair Jonas asked Commissioner Seelig if she is opposed to the motion. Commissioner Seelig asked if the Commission could discuss the motion. She was concerned with the portion that allows mass merchandising depai ti,ient stores to be a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core area. Commissioner Seelig vote"Nay". • Chair Jonas stated that the vote is four Commissioners in favor and four Commissioners SLC Planning Commission 8 November 12,2003 DRAFT against. Chair Jonas said that he would vote to break the tie. Commissioner DeLay offered to amend the motion to remove the mass merchandising department stores as a permitted use in the Downtown Main Street Core area. Chair Jonas voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried. Chair Jonas commended Staff and all of the parties involved. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There being no other unfinished business to discuss,the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. • • SLC Planning Commission 9 November 12, 2003 0 • Exhibit 6 RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION OEM EMI rals Downtown Alliance ' 4 P� �..Radii ma SALT LAKE CITY IN 238 South Main Street SSalt Lake City,Utah 84101 359.5 r � a_ rr�= f:801.359.5136 www.downtownslc.org AGENDA DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 19, 2003 7:30 AM DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE CONFERENCE ROOM Presiding: Bruce Bingham(Hamilton Partners) 1. Welcome and Introductions (Bingham) 2. Purpose of the Committee (Bingham/Farrington) ▪ Past Efforts ▪ Current Alliance/Chamber organization ▪ Downtown Alliance Work Plan and Budget i3. Recommendations of Downtown Priority Issues and Actions ▪ Mayor Rocky Anderson • Committee Members 4. Proposed Action Items for Downtown Development Committee (Bingham/Committee) 5. Proposed Downtown Retail Zoning Changes (Planning Dept. Staff) ▪ Recommendation by Downtown Development Committee 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment business vision community #9 EXCHANGE PLACE, 9TH FLOOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 801-355-5430 FAX:801-534-0515 DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION • DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, November 4- , 2003 BROWN CONFERENCE ROOM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SUITE 600 175 East 400 South 8:00 a.m. AGENDA WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS DAVID WRIGHT HOLIDAY ACTIVIES TRACY von HARTEN, C of C CHERILYN MEGILL, GATEWAY KATHY CAMPBELL,ZCMI CENTER KAREN MILLER,CROSSROADS 111 PAUL CHUNG,GALLIVAN CENTER JUDY REESE, LIFESTYLE MAYOR' S OFFICE GWEN SPRINGMEYER , DAVID NIMKIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ALISON McFARLANE SLC COUNCIL RUSSELL WEEKS SLC PLANNING DOUG DANSIE RDA DAVID OKA • SLCPD CHRIS BURBANK SOUTH TEMPLE UPDATE CRAIG SMITH ASSOCIATE REPORTS NOTE: There will be no meeting in December. The next DMA meeting will be in January 2004. The Agenda will be a comprehensive report on construction plans by Mark Gibbons of the LDS Church Planning. 410 VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVO A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE IA1T e Mat C•,�O `.t.►�a® ! ROSS C. ANDERSON 1111 PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTDR DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTDR MEMORANDUM TO: COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHAIRS FROM: JOEL PATERSON, SENIOR PLANNE SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT STORE DEFINITIONS DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2003 • On October 14,2003, the City Council considered a petition by Gateway Associates to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow department stores to locate in the Gateway Mixed-use zoning district. The Council voted to adopt a motion that read, in part: That the City Council specify that it will not amend the text of the Zoning Ordiannce to allow for large-scale high fashion retail uses over 100,00 square feet—such as Nordstrom, Meier and Frank, Dillards or Saks—to locate in the Gateway Mixed-Use Zone, and that the Council table and continue Petition 400-03-20 until it receives the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding its petition relating to department store definitions. In response to this motion, the Planning Staff has developed definitions for seven types of department stores (the definitions are attached)to replace the current definition found in the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore,the Staff is preparing zoning amendments to define which types of depailiiient stores would be allowed to locate in the Gateway Mixed-Use district and those that would be restricted to the Downtown Main Street Core. A Planning Commission public hearing is set for 7:00 pm on November 12, 2003 to discuss these issues. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will be asked to: ID 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801.535-61 74 is �� wecrcco rnrew 1. Create new definitions of the term "department store"under Chapter 21A.62, Definitions; • 2. Allow certain types of department stores in the Downtown Districts (21A.30.050) and Gateway Districts (21A.31.050)by amending the tables of permitted and conditional uses; 3. Create a Downtown Main Street Core Overlay zoning district under Chapter 21 A.34 that defines the geography within the Central Business District where certain types of department stores will be allowed; and 4. Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by adding the Main Street Core Overlay in the area generally located between South Temple and 500 South from West Temple to State Street. We would appreciate receiving your comments prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Staff invites you to attend an open house to discuss this issue. The open house will be held: November 6, 2003 6:00 to 7:00 P.M.** Room 118 Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street • If you have any questions,please call me at 535-6141 or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Attachments: Depaitnient Store Definitions • 2 DEPARTMENT STORE DEFINITIONS Conventional Department Store: means a retail business which offers a broad range of competitively priced items,primarily apparel and home goods. No one merchandise line predominates and goods are displayed in a departmentalized format. Customer assistance is provided in each department,but checkout facilities can be either departmentalized or centralized. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to: Kohl's, Sears, JC Penney and Montgomery Ward. Fashion Oriented Department Store: means a retail business which offers more specialized lines of merchandise than Conventional Department Stores, with an emphasis on apparel merchandise. The merchandise is displayed in separate departments, with over forty percent(40%) of sales area devoted to the sale of apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories related to personal care and appearance. Fashion Oriented Department Stores sell goods which are primarily nationally advertised brands, they sell appliances which are usually serviced by other companies, and often offer limited lines of merchandise through seasonal or special catalogs. These stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons) within each department. These stores are typically over 100,000 square feet in size. Examples include,but are not limited to: Meier&Frank, Bloomingdales,Macy's, Dillards, Marshall Fields,Mervyns, Bon Marche, Weinstock, Broadway, Broadway Southwest,Robinsons/May. • Specialty Fashion Department Store: means a retail business which specializes in high- end merchandise in the categories of apparel, fashion accessories,jewelry, and limited items for the home and housewares. They feature exclusive offerings of merchandise, high levels of customer service and amenities, and higher price points. Specialty Fashion Department Stores provide checkout service and customer assistance (salespersons)within each department and often offer specialized customer services such as valet parking, exclusive dressing rooms and personal shoppers. These stores typically range from 80,000 to 130,000 square feet in size. Examples include, but are not limited to: Lord &Taylor,Neiman Marcus,Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue . Mass Merchandising Store: means a retail business selling a variety of merchandise, primarily apparel and home goods, for less than manufacturer list prices. Mass Merchandising Stores have fast turnover and high volume retailing with centralized, usually exit, check out stations. Customers generally use shopping carts, and there is minimal customer assistance within each department. Examples include,but are not limited to: Wal-Mart,K-Mart, Target,Fred Meyer and Shopko. Draft 10.29.03 Specialty Store: means a retail business specializing in a broad range of a single category of goods ("category killers") at competitive prices. The categories usually • included are home improvement, consumer music and electronics, office supply, auto aftermarket, computers,toys,books, home/bed/bath,pet supply, craft/hobby, or sporting goods. They often have departments, centralized and/or exit check out stations and operate in various physical formats. Examples include,but are not limited to: Home Depot, OfficeMax,Toys "R"Us,PetsMart, Michaels,Bed Bath &Beyond, Borders Books, Barnes &Noble, Circuit City, Galyan's, Sports Authority,Pep Boys, and CompUSA. Superstore & Hypermarket: means a retail business primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, and appliances, sold at discount prices. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. Examples include,but are not limited to: Wal-Mart Supercenter, Meijer's, Fred Meyer's (with grocery) and Super Target. Warehouse Club Store: means a retail business requiring patron membership, and selling packaged and bulk foods and general merchandise. They are characterized by high volume and a restricted line of popular merchandise in a no-frills environment. They have centralized exit check out stations, and utilize shopping carts for customers. Examples include,but are not limited to: BJ's Wholesale Club, COSTCO, and Sam's • Club. i Draft 10.29.03 • • Exhibit 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS • Page 1 of 1 • Paterson, Joel From: Jordan, David J. [DJJORDAN@stoel.com] . Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:31 PM To: Paterson,Joel; Jacob Boyer; rboyer@BOYERCOMPANY.com; asullivan@swlaw.com; Jones,Cary; bheckman@taubman.com;deg@pwlaw.com Cc: Zunguze, Louis;vincent_corno@may-co.com Subject: RE: Department Store Definitions Staff Report Joel, I have a suggestion which might allay many of the concerns that May Co. has about the inherent ambiguity and overlapping character of the definitions. If conventional department stores were made a conditional rather than a permitted use, then the City could look to each specific proposal on a case by case basis and measure it against the master plan's direction that retail in the Gateway should compliment and not compete with Main Street.--David • • • 11,111 People's Freeway Community Council ■ Jeffery L. Davis, Chair 11 November 2003 1407 South Richards Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 111 801.483.2868 jlloyddavis@yahoo.com Community Council Joel Paterson Senior Planner Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Joel, I apologize for the late response as I write this letter in response to your letter concerning the department store definitions. The definitions appear to be in order both categorically and in content. I understand that the need for separating out the definition of department store into these categories is to better define the master plan and for the proper development of Salt Lake City. I would like to know how we are going to define these categorized department store definitions to the areas that are designated under Amok the old definition of department store. Also,does the current plan have other wording that already dictates the appropriate zoning for these new definitions and if so how does that wording differ from these definitions and how do these new definitions change the current zoning plan. I believe that the careful placement of such stores in Salt Lake City and around down town will have a great impact in the vitality and future of our city. Sincere! , azie avis,Chair People's eeway Community Council . .... • • Exhibit 8 • ORIGINAL PETITION Mr. Zunguze asked how the Commission would like to arrange the petition and what • should it carry. Chair Jonas responded that it clearly has to deal with two issues. One is the Master Plan. There is language in the Master Plan that seems somewhat inconsistent. Mr. Zunguze made reference to the 47 blocks and asked if the Commission wanted that to be apart of the petition. Chair Jonas replied yes, and if it does not include the provision that department stores become a conditional use then he thinks we have made a mistake. Ms. Weyher stated that the Planning Commission is initiating a petition to revisit the definition of department stores; land uses as defined in the Master Plan in the Gateway area, and to look at the applicability of department stores, in other zones. She asked when the Commission would expect to have these petitions back before the Commission. Chair Jonas responded that they would like to have them back on the agenda for the second meeting in September. Commissioner Muir stated that another petition that the Planning Commission should initiate is one requesting that the Planning Staff look at the different zones that allow department stores such as: "D-1", "D-2", and "CS". Commissioner DeLay said that that may not be possible to accomplish within the next month or two. Chair Jonas felt that the thing that can be done immediately is to initiate a zoning ordinance change that allows department store conditional uses no matter what the zone. • Amended Motion Commissioner Noda made a motion to deny the current petition based upon the Staff recommendation, as listed in the staff report, that the proposed text amendment is not consistent with the applicable current Master Plan and City Council policies and therefore recommended that the City Council not approve this petition to allow department stores in the G-MU district. r Furthermore, the Planning Commission: 1. Initiated a petition to: a. Refine or revise the current definition of"department store" found in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; and b. Clarify the intent and application of the term "large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex" found in the Gateway Development Master Plan. 2. Initiated a petition to review the extend to which current zoning regulations relating to the location of department stores are consistent with current policy of making Main Street the primary location of department stores. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 August 27,2003 Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". Jeff Jonas, as Chair did • not vote. The motion carries. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There being no unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:46 p.m. • S Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 August 27,2003 PETITION NO. 1/ 0 3` Z3 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required *VI° Petition delivered to Planning ` d3 Petition assigned to: de( ,, Ser-2-1 //103 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date l Z Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover fifirk Chronology A.0— 9g Property Description (marked with a post it note) 44( G Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 117-*� Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils /0/7pW, Mailing Postmark Date Verification //4 %/ Planning Commission Minutes ' _ a3 Planning Staff Report '`` Z Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. etc(k 5 - Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office t 5 SA Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. J&e I g4S Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition S3s--1ert I JOef t-e-y-sel, 0 sic gok1.Gc • Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office --r 02MA RKS Petition NO 400-03-23 • By Salt Lake City Planning CommisSr To clarify the intent and applicatio of the term "large scale uses, such as retail uses that are a part of a center or complex" found in the Gate ay Development Master Plan; and, to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by refining or revi=ing the current definition related to th! defined term "department store". 1 1 • Date Filed Addrem ALISON WEYHER2 r� a�t`Jji�0ll1? e��L'aTl`®NI d ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL„ TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: March 20, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-02-12: A request by Salt Lake City Property Management, (represented by Linda Cordova, Property Manager)to close a portion of the 500 West right-of-way, and declare as surplus adjacent land north of 200 South. This action would require an amendment to Gateway Master Plans (`Creating an Urban Neighborhood' and Gateway Specific Plan). STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner 535-6182 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a public hearing regarding the proposed street closure. The Planning Commission does not support this petition. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance . BUDGET IMPACT: There are budget impacts associated with the proposed action. The Municipal Building Authority holds title to this property. They intended to sell the land to the Redevelopment Agency,which in turn intended to sell the parcel to private interests, in order to recoup money spent on building the 500 West Park(see attached Budget Information). DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Property Management Division,represented by Linda Cordova, Property Manager,requested that Salt Lake City close a portion of the 500 West right-of-way,and declare surplus adjacent land,north of 200 South, in order to recoup the funding used to develop the 500 West park Blocks (from 200 to 400 South). All street closures must be approved by the City Council. One of the parcels was specifically purchased to widen 500 West. The other parcel was specifically purchased to trade with PacifiCorp,to realign the power substation,to widen 500 West.While this portion of the right-of-way has never been used for street purposes, it was originally purchased specifically for a widened 500 West Street,as outlined in the Gateway Master Plan. Analysis: A portion of land proposed for sale was originally purchased as part of the property to widen 500 West to construct a linear park. The original 500 West right-of-way was 132 feet wide. The new right of way is 198 feet wide(from South Temple to 900 South). A linear park is within the center of the street. There are two adjacent parcels. One parcel of land was to provide for the reconfiguration of a power substation that protrudes into 457 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 807-535-6230 FAX: 807-535-6005 ®RECYCLED PAPER the right-of-way. The substation was to be reoriented to the south and the right-of way was to be"straightened out." The other parcel was to be part of the right-of-way. However,when the street was constructed,the substation issue was not resolved. • Therefore the street was reconfigured at the 200 South intersection by narrowing the park blocks. The applicant contends that because of this configuration and the fact that there are no existing discussions with the power company to reconfigure the substation, the opportunity to do so has been lost. Therefore they would like to sell the property in order to gain funds to pay for the development of the park block between 200 and 400 South. The Planning Commission decision was based upon long term planning policy and did not take financial issues into account. They decided that the long term goal of the City was still to reconfigure the substation and realign the street at a future date; therefore they recommended denial of the petition. The policy discussion the Council needs to have is whether they intend to abandon the park block concept, as outlined in master plans, or whether they wish to find funds elsewhere to make the Municipal Building Authority whole and maintain options for reconfiguring the substation and street at a future date. The details of the budget issue should be discussed with the Treasurer's Office and the Redevelopment Agency. If the right-of-way is sold, and the concept of a widened 500 West is abandoned,the master plan needs to be adjusted accordingly,which also requires Council action. Master Plan: Sale of this land would permanently eliminate the long term potential for reconfiguration of the power substation. The sale would also permanently eliminate the potential to • complete the park as outlined in the Gateway Master Plan. The sale would also impact long-term flexibility regarding the potential for underground rail or other transportation corridors. The proposed land sale conflicts with the Gateway Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. Approval of the petition to close the street right-of-way would require amendments to these adopted Master Plans. Public Process: Although surplus property requests are not legally required to be presented to the community council, in this case the proposal was presented to the Peoples Freeway and Rio Grande Community Councils. The Peoples Freeway Community Council reviewed the concept on August 7,2002. General concern was expressed that the site should not be sold because of its long-term impact on the 500 West linear park and reconfiguration of the power substation. The council voted to oppose the sale(no letter provided by the community council). The concept was presented to the Rio Grande Community Council on July 17, 2002. General concern was expressed regarding the disposal of the land and its impact on long- term alternatives. The council voted to oppose the sale(letter attached). The Planning Commission held a hearing on November 7 2002. • The Planning Commission recommends not declaring public property adjacent to the power substation(parcel number 15-01-176-009) as surplus,nor closing a portion of the 500 West right-of-way(parcel number 15-01-176-008) located near 200 South and 500 West. Relevant Ordinances: Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58 and Utah Code, Title 10-9- 305 II SAT,L 0;111f G�,;RPO, ; I ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON DANIEL A. MULE' - �� CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER October 10, 2003 Rocky J. Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer City & County Building, Room 238 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Rocky: Subject: Request to Transfer Interest in Certain Properties from the Municipal Building Authority to the Redevelopment Agency Attached for your review is an analysis of the Municipal Building Authority's Series 1999 B Gateway Parks Block Project. As noted, there are insufficient funds currently being held by the trustee to reimburse the City for the entire amount of expenditures that have been incurred for this project. In anticipation of this shortfall, the City Council amended the Municipal Building Authority's budget (see attached Council Staff Report and Budget Amendment MBABA#'l 01 for FY 02-03) to allow for the sale of the two McDonald properties located on the northeast corner of 200 South and 500 West. The Redevelopment Agency Board also approved the purchase of these two parcels from the Municipal Building Authority at that time. The budget amendment was for $500,000, but the actual cost of the two parcels is $490,593.82. Sincerely, ,z e a. e44.-eL Daniel A. Mule City Treasurer DAM/Ic Attachments cc: Linda Cordova Doug Dansie Steve Fawcett Randy Hillier Valda Tarbet S N:\DAN\FIuhart Gateway.doc 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 22B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:BO1-535-7946 FAX:BO1-535-6082 �� Qecveco n.nEn Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City Gateway Parks Block Project • Series 1999 B As of September 30,2003 Investment Position: Initial Bond Proceeds $4,000,000.00 Excess funds transferred from MBA Ice Arena Project 1,000,000.00 Additional funds transferred from MBA Ice Arena Project 9,041.48 Interest on bond proceeds- inception-to-date 539,829.28 Available Bond Proceeds Held By Trustee as of 9/30/03 $5,548,870.76 Cash Position: Less: 66-00040 Gateway Infrastructure Cash (5,410,724.25) Less: 66-02010 500 West 2nd-4th So. Bond Proceeds Cash 3,000.00 fill Less: 66-02020 500 West 2nd-4th So. RDA Land Sale Cash (356,644.87) Cash Position To Be Reimbursed By Trustee As Of 9/30/03 (5,764,369.12) ** Over/Short ** The cash position does not reflect the receipt of proceeds from the sale of the McDonald property, and it does not reflect the final payment for legal fees to bond counsel. • H:\TREAS\ MBA Gateway Project Status.xis 10/10/2003 4:03 PM SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MBA BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, 2002-03 • DATE: August 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Municipal Building Authority Budget Amendment #4 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Ordinance The proposed budget amendment The ordinance is By law, appropriations for the Municipal Building presented to amend for the Municipal Authority increases the MBA Fund the 2001-2002, Building Authority by$7,266,437. This amendment 2002-2003 biennial lapse at year-end. provides for the appropriation of budget of the Traditionally, the carryover amounts necessary to Municipal Building Board re-appropriates complete the MBA projects in Authority. unexpended progress. appropriations for unfinished construction projects. The briefing and discussion of the fourth Municipal Building Authority budget amendment of fiscal year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for September 3, • 2002. A public hearing will be held at a later date to accept public comment and take formal Council action on this item. MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Carryover of unspent prior appropriations ($7,266,437—MBA Fund) - Housekeeping The Administration has requested that the Council re-appropriate the end of year remaining budgets for the unfinished Municipal Building Authority construction projects. In fiscal year 2002, the City Council acting as the Municipal Building Authority Board of Directors budgeted for the construction of Gateway Area improvements, a building called Plaza 349, and improvements on 400 West. The projects were not all completed at the end of the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2002. The appropriations of funds for these unfinished projects lapsed on June 30, 2002. The Administration recommends that the Board of Directors of the Municipal Building Authority (City Council) re-appropriate the remaining balances plus interest income earned during fiscal year 2002. The Gateway Area Parks Block project will also be reimbursed $500,000 for land ' =. acquired adjacent to the 500 West Electrical Substation. Because the substation was not reconfigured the Gateway Area Parks Block project does not need the acquired Page 1 gvA land. As such, there is a proposal that the Redevelop -nt Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) reimburse the MBA for this property. Since the •riginal construction allocation for the Parks Block project does not change, the in Board of Directors does not • ;y need to appropriate the RDA reimbursement to the Parks Block project. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Dan Mule, Elwin Heilmann, Dave Oka, Valda Tarbet, Shannon Ashby, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen • • Page 2 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services = • FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Municipal Building Authority Carryover MBABA#4 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Elwin Hellmann - 535-6424 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change • 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 500 W. 2nd-5th S. Land Sales 66-02020 1840 500,000 Proceeds not yet received Total $500,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund MBA Carryover 7,266,437.15 Total $7,266,437.15 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 7,266,437.15 6. Other(Specify) Total 7,266,437.15 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • . . • - - • - _ Cost I Q•' Co• • A • Gateway Infrastructure 66-00040 2700 $267,511.34 Plaza 349 Improvements 66-66112 272040 $763,503.53 Justice Court Building 66-01010 2700 $855,074.20 Police Precinct 66-01035 2700 $4,188,937.08 500 W. 2nd-4th S. Bonds 66-02010 2700 $700,145.00 500 W. 2nd-4th S. Land Sales 66-02020 2700 $491,266.00 Total $7,266,437.15 411 CONTENTS • 1. Budget Infoiiiiation 2. Chronology 3. Ordinance 4. City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list 5. Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice, Postmark and Newspaper Notice Staff report Agenda and Minutes 6. Original Petition 0 0 1. Budget Information • interoffice MEMORANDUM To: Dan Mule From: Valda E. Tarbeteiefr Subject: Reimbursement from MBA for land acquisition Date: September 15, 2000 Attached is the information concerning the McDonald property acquisition for the Municipal Building Authority. Two of the four parcels were deeded directly to the MBA at the time of the closing as shown by the Title Insurance Policy prepared by Metro National Title Company. The spreadsheet shows the distribution of costs and who was paying for each of the parcels. As part • of the original plan for financing of the 500 West Park Blocks,the Agency had agreed to pay for and deed Parcel #4 to the MBA as part of their collateral for the bond issue. With the redesign and scaling back of the Park Blocks, the budget was also revised which requires that the Agency pay for b ying Union Pacific signalization lines along 500 West and allow the MBA to purchase the property. In order for the Agency to meet its obligation to bury the signalization,we need to be reimbursed for the land acquisition. Let me know if you need additional information. CC: Larry Catten • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT • MBA BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, 2002-03 DATE: December 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Municipal Building Authority Budget Amendment #2 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Ordinance The proposed budget amendment The ordinance is By law, appropriations for the Municipal Building presented to amend for the Municipal Authority increases the budget by the 2001-2002, Building Authority $8,324,722. This amendment 2002-2003 biennial lapse at year-end. provides for the appropriation of budget of the Traditionally, the carryover amounts to complete Municipal Building Board re-appropriates the MBA projects in progress. Authority. unexpended appropriations for unfinished construction projects. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: • 1. ["I move that the Council acting as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority") Adopt a resolution amending the fiscal year 2001-2002 and fiscal year 2002-2003 Municipal Building Authority budget as proposed. 2. ["I move that the Council acting as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority"] Not adopt a resolution amending the fiscal year 2001- 2002 and fiscal year 2002-2003 Municipal Building Authority budget as proposed. SUMMARY OF BRIEFING The City Council held a briefing on November 13, 2001 regarding the proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2001-2002 and fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. Some Council Members had concern regarding the scale of remodeling occurring at the Justice Court building. Council Member Saxton asked for additional information from the Administration regarding the Justice Court project. The Adminstration provided additional information to the Council on November 16 by email. Attached is another copy of this information for your reference. • Page 1 Note: The following information was provided to the Council for the 11/13/01 briefing. It is provided again for your reference. • MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Carryover of unspent prior appropriations ($8,324,722 —MBA Fund) The Administration has requested that the Council re-appropriate the end of year remaining budgets for the unfinished Municipal Building Authority construction projects. In fiscal year 1999-2000, the City Council acting as the Municipal Building Authority Board of Directors budgeted for the construction and improvement of a Fire Training Facility, the Ice Sheet, Gateway Area Parks Block project and the purchase of the Plaza 349 building. The encumbrances were carried over in fiscal year 2000-2001 because the projects were not complete. In fiscal year 2000-2001 the MBA Board of Directors budgeted for the construction of the Justice Court. The Fire Training Facility and the Ice Sheet were substantially completed by June 30, 2001. The other projects were not complete at the end of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The appropriations of funds for these unfinished projects lapsed on June 30, 2001. The Administration recommends that the Board of Directors of the Municipal Building Authority (City Council) re-appropriate the remaining balances plus interest income earned during fiscal year 2000-2001. The Administration's transmittal also to updates the Municipal Building Authority Board of Directors on the Fire Training Facility, the Ice Sheet, and Gateway Area • Parks Block projects. The total MBA budget has not changed for these projects. The Ice Sheet was completed for less than the allocated amount. The Administration will be reallocating this excess funding to the Fire Training Facility and Gateway Area Parks Block projects. The MBA bond that funded these projects allows for the transfer of bond proceeds and interest earned to any of the project eec fied,.in the bond _ - - a;�.0 Kai_ -- - -- _:a- --�.,�f=•'s„�-�.,T,:��_;�;�:-;_ti _..�`c=,_.... - - -. ... ..<F-,r•.. _ , document s ,. :_ _§ ;°;: d. ::.. "<-,>`"r�`.` `::. y ..-� �:'`<-`>te£�� ''.u'=.rr`�e�'s�'': "rs:,:e, o-... 'The Gateway Area Parks Block project will also be reimbursed $500,000 for land • acquired adjacent to the 500 West Electrical Substation. Because the substation was not reconfigured the Gateway Area Parks Block project does not need the acquired land. As such, there is a proposal that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) reimburse the MBA for this property. Since the original construction allocation for the Parks Block project does not change, the MBA Board of Directors does not need to appropriate the RDA reimbursement to the Parks Block project. The RDA Board would need to take action. ` ram- � .. nfi 4`�'� j�snC�„�-N� I+ y�''`� �% s �s.' `��k�'s.'�S,:, '- "t, .+.ram'i'.i: cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Dan Mule, Elwin Heilmann, Dick Turpin, Valda Tarbet, Randy Hillier, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen • Page 2 V f�lb s_,na.s. \Jlb♦ tJ V1 VVI MFJVIJ Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services Engineering FY.01-02 Department For Fiscal Year 500 W from 200 to 400 South MBABA#2 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund pvenfrefro., x>rAlmortz Prop a 5 00 Total $500,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0- 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund (Cost Center 66-00040) 5th West-2nd to 4th 1,500,000 South (Cost Center 66-00030)Steiner Ice Arena (1,000,000) Total $500,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 500,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $500,000 $0 $0 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Redevelopment Agency Board has given approval to proceed with the design and construction of 5th West Street from 2nd to 4th South. A portion of the funding was approved in an MBA bond issue, and must be expensed in the areas the funding was approved for: the 5th West Park Blocks, and the Ice Arena and Fire Training Facility. However, the Fire Training Facility and the Ice Arena are complete and the excess funding from the Ice Arena is available for 5th West. • 2. Chronology Chronology 0 April 25, 2002 The Salt Lake City Property Management Division, represented by Linda Cordova,Property Manager, requested that Salt Lake City close a portion of the 500 West right-of- way, north of 200 South, and also declare adjacent land as surplus. June—August 2002 Requested department input(Engineering, Fire,Police, Property Management,Public Utilities, Transportation, Redevelopment Agency) July 17, 2002 The concept was presented to the Rio Grande Community Council. General concern was expressed regarding the disposal of the land and its impact on long-term alternatives. The Council voted to oppose the sale. August 7, 2002 The Peoples Freeway Community Council reviewed the concept. General concern was expressed that the site should not be sold because of its long-term impact on the 500 West Park and reconfiguration of the power substation. The Council • voted to oppose the sale. October 23,2002 Notices sent to adjacent property owners October 24, 2002 Notice printed in both major daily newspapers. November 7, 2002 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council not declare public property adjacent to the power substation (parcel number 15- 01-176-009) as surplus, nor close a portion of the 500 West right-of-way(parcel number 15-01-176-008) located near 200 South and 500 West. II 3. Ordinance • This transmittal reflects the Planning Commission action.The Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition.An ordinance is not necessary to support a negative recommendation,therefore an ordinance was not prepared by the Attorneys Office.If the City Council makes a differing decision,an ordinance will be prepared by the Attorneys office to reflect the specific details of their decision. • • • DOUb U 5e- Valk(' aebot- 527 Al MA-It0 451 s°sk7- 51L- f t fi /03 SAC cAr-15t-t11 t "\- 0-frAW-15 Chris kilo-van-1- Do, M.vle 70 W r3ure • Van " lac, VA 5 g015 -45 51-t- (41- 1(5 � i'r 16"-U 0 C u lIk 5. Planning Commission Hearing • Original Notice, Postmark and Newspaper Notice Staff Report Agenda and Minutes 0 Original Notice, Postmark and Newspaper Notice 143 SOUTH MAIN ST. _ -. � � �� _�__ t., V.va vii SALT LAKE CITY 4 636 84145 Vibe*It gat t°ibunt 'cA DESERET NEWS CUSTOMER'S FED.TAX I.D.# 67-0217663 -""` COPY PROOF OF PUBLICATION • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI S5356182L-07 10/24/02 451 S. STATE STREET RM 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ..... ...............................................: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI 801-535-6182 TL8201SHEC1 START 10/24/02 END 10/24/02 Salt Lake City Master Plan SALT LAKE CITY MASTER PLAN AME Americknent Pubnc Hearing: ->....>..-:-:>-: :.....;;.......;;.....:.....:;....:.....;...;....».....--»--..:...:....>.. 'SV& ' ;...- '3z ' 34' _ aE- i : _s ;E :: '.' O:n4No eS a aM Planning Commission will hold a-public hearing to 34 LINES 1.00 COLUMN consider making recom m Oncil re to the Crty :::<::?':::::::::>::;::;i::::::;:::::::;.:». .:::::;.::::::::-:;.::. ::.:::.:;•;::.;.�::::::::::::::-.�:.................. .: 4000l.regaA re Petition A r b uest G ro e Management represented 411 by Linda Cordova, Prop- 1.64 portion n of theo5001 Westt right of way,and adjocent of . ]hrough a sale.;This action. will require an amendment to Gateway •00 55.76 Master Plans('Creating an 0 ban NeighborhficoPlan od' and ��r{+ atew a S eci Y P 1 iliublic hCSeokt ne a'ti gg 55.76 .tur7 ur BuSien e gw o ifl OlS tabhteet "rsOeraf-Wwn or for rs more pedal Dansiie at 53g 61 B2_ Doug AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 8201SHEC - AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY MASTER PLAN AME FOR SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. PUBLISHED ON S 10/24/02 END 10/24/02 SIA r °"Ae Notary Public a a . MERRILYN D.ORRE !! �v B24 Wast Big Mountain Drive DATE 10/24/02 1 :i � rayb iiie.uian iZ `°. "� My Commission Expires rss••'� January23,2006 .. State of Utah THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" 40 PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT. 14 P O BOX 45838 TVAX v NAa DESERET CUSTOMER S SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84145t� 1'1I11Ytlt .C NEWS t FED.TAX I.D.# 87-0217663 COPY PROOF OF PUBLICATION SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI S5356182L-07 10/24/02 451 S. STATE STREET RM 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI 801-535-6182 TL8201SHEC1 START 10/24/02 END 10/24/02 Soh Lake City Master Plan Amendment Public Hearing. SALT LAKE CITY MASTER PLAN AME On Noyeinber 7 2007 at 5:40 P the Sa •take �r xryrtC - g h. fanning Commissigrt will hold.a public hearing to consider= making recom- mendations to ,the- City 34 LINES 1.00 COLUMN council re arding Petltion _ 400;02 } : Aregoast try Sa& L 'aka Ci 'Pro tY Pe►tY ............................................::::.::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::-::::-:::::::::::-:::::.�::.::::::-:::::.:::..�...:,:..::..::::;:;:-:;-;:-;:-;:,::-:;-;:-:;-;:;;::;:.:;-;:-;::.;;s:>.-:>r: ManayemeM _represented by 1 1.64 right-of-way,- nd°dj .,----;.,::...-; -..;.::.:.....>:.>:;>:«<;e:::;>.>:::>:;>:?::;:.;;>::::;::=:::;:........ :,..-;..:.....;:. . .:.: :::::;.;:::._:_:: ;. ;;:- :.::. an surplus and di spose rspose of tAr ort to 1 a he. This d rn SFr � � action: will• requ7e 'an amendment'. to Gateway Master Plans,('Creating,an. .00 55.76 Urban- Neighborhood' and .Gateway Specific,Plan). "obiic hearingwill tie het- -in room 12 of the Ci CouMy Building, 45} Soot)j..State, Street. Salt 55.76 hake '_Eii -more Di. For more -lnfornation or for special arrhrlrgements call. Doug Dansie at 535 6182. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 8201SHEC, AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY MASTER PLAN AME FOR SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMI WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. PUBLISHED ON START /24/02 END 10/24/02 r Notary Public SIGNATUFtEC/).4/4—t-f:pj20 ?' <<_:. MERRILYN D.DDRE h ' 827ay►ors i a Utah 84123 DATE 10/24/02 ' 'S`• I *Commission Expires t January 23,2008 $tStte of Utah THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT. • • Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • Street closure and declaration of surplus property at 500 West and 200 South 400-02-12 November 7, 2002 REQUEST Petition 400-02-12: A request by Salt Lake City Property Management,represented by Linda Cordova, Property Manager, to declare a portion of the 500 West right-of-way,and adjacent land, surplus and to dispose of it through a sale. Land may be declared surplus and disposed of by the city after following proper procedure as outlined in Section 2.58 of City Code. The Planning Commission reviews the request and decides whether the property should be declared surplus. The mayor, or his designee, will be responsible for the actual sale. If a City Council member requests, an administrative hearing will be held prior to the disposition of non-street right-of-way land. However,the City Council reviews all street closures. Because this portion of the 500 West right-of-way was purchased for transportation purposes, it is being routed through the street closure process. COMMUNITYINEIGHBOROOD COUNCILS) REVIEW: Although surplus property requests are not legally required to be presented to the community council, in this case the proposal was presented to the Peoples Freeway and Rio Grande Community Councils. The Peoples Freeway Community Council reviewed the concept on August 7, 2002. General concern was expressed that the site should not be sold because of its long-term impact on the 500 West Park and reconfiguration of the power substation. The Council voted to oppose the sale. The concept was presented to the Rio Grande Community Council on'July 17,2002. General concern was expressed regarding the disposal of the land and its impact on long- term alternatives. The Council voted to oppose the sale(Ietter attached). • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-12 1 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division p ___ E-----= \ `,„ 4 0 `\1---,,,,I1 1 ! 100 S f IS c o o! 2 i Power Surplus _ y --------- =sobstat on k Property : m i .i': 9 R.O.W. / `Street Closure I 200 S III Ijf(, # so �: L- - A t aoao:I€ GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Property Owner Name And Applicant: Owner/Applicant: Salt Lake City Corporation Purpose of proposal: The purpose of this petition is to declare land previously designated for the 500 West right-of-way, and a parcel0 intended to be used as power substation reconfiguration, as surplus. Affected Parcel Number(s): Parcel/Sidwell Numbers 15-01-176-008 and 15-01-176- 009 Previous Case Files: None Lot Size/Lot Area of subject property: Two parcels; 0.25 and 0.23 acres. Existing Land Use: Vacant Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: The land is zoned Gateway Mixed-Use. Existing Master Plan Policies: The Gateway Master Plan calls for the creation of a boulevard street along 500 West. The Capitol Hill Master Plan calls for the extension of 500 West to the north, as a commuter route. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-12 2 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. A portion of land proposed for sale was originally purchased as part of the property to widen 500 West to construct a linear park. The original 500 West right-of-way was 132 feet wide. The new right of way is 198 feet wide (from South Temple to 900 South). A linear park is within the center of the street There are two adjacent parcels. One parcel of land was to provide for the reconfiguration of a power substation that protrudes into the right-of-way. The substation was to be reoriented to the south and the right-of way was to be "straightened out." The other parcel was to be part of the right-of-way. This property is proposed for sale to generate revenue to complete the 500 West linear park between 200 and 400 South. DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Master Plan Gateway Master Plan The GATEWAY MASTER PLAN envisioned a new mixed-use residential area focused along the 500 West corridor. The GMU zoning district was written to require housing along 500 West. The intent was to use the parkway as the open space for the residential area. This petition would provide funds to complete the remaining two blocks (between 200 and 400 South) of the park blocks. The GATEWAY MASTER PLAN (including the SPECIFIC PLAN)was supported by the Planning Commission July 9,1998 and adopted by the City Council August 11, 1998. Policies of the plan include: "Reserve the broadened right-of-way and protect subsurface rights for possible f tture commuter rail alignment on 500 West."(Page 9) "500 West becomes a pedestrian- friendly boulevard with a median park, wide sidewalks and street furniture."(Page 9 illustration) "The 500 West right-of-way(both above and below ground)should be preserved,free of utilities, to accommodate a potential future subterranean commuter rail system."(Page 26) The following concepts are from the GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN: Housing Objective 3 "Maximize housing opportunities for residents who desire an urban neighborhood environment."(Page 26) Policy 3.4"Encourage housing next to amenities or open spaces" Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-12 3 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Objective 4 "Provide on-site common areas and private open space and/or non- traditional open space facilities to meet the need of residents. " (Page 27) Policy 4.1 "Promote urban design features that will create a neighborhood atmosphere. " Community facilities • Objective 4 "Parks and Open Spaces: Establish a greenway on 500 West that will provide an area for enjoyment for all people within the Gateway_ "(Page 32) Policy 4.3 "Acquire additional land on the east side of the 500 West right-of-way to accommodate the development of the greenway. " Transportation Objective] "Public Transit:Reinforce downtown as the regional transportation hub with light rail, commuter rail, inter city and local bus service. "(Page 35) Policy 1.3 "Reserve adequate right-of-way on 500 West that allows for a future underground transit corridor. " Objective 4 "Collector Roadway System: Complete the collector street system in a fashion that relieves congestion and serves residents in the Gateway District. "(Page 36) Policy 4.4"Maintain 500 West as a north-south through street." Objective 5 "Local Roadway System: Complete the local street system in a manner that is pedestrian friendly and encourages slower traffic speeds. "(Page 37) Policy 5.4"Establish a new Boulevard along 500 West which connects to neighborhoods to the north and south of the Gateway District. " Illustration: Greenway proposed for 500 West street. (Page 38) . Urban Design Objective 3 "Design 500 West as a "greenway"through the Gateway District."(Page 42) Policy 3.1 "Create a linear greenway which runs down the center of 500 West from North Temple to 900 South, as a landmark and physical element which will connect the neighborhoods in the Gateway District. Design the 500 West greenway to accommodate recreational activities and festivals. - Policy 3.3 "Bury the utility lines along 500 West. Design the utility corridor in a manner that will allow for a future underground transit system. " Policy 3.4"Require a pedestrian corridor from 500 West to 300 West between 100 South and North Temple." Finding: Sale of this land would permanently eliminate the long term potential for reconfiguration of the power substation_The sale would also permanently eliminate the potential to complete the park as outlined in the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN_ The sale would also impact long-term flexibility regarding the potential for underground rail or other transportation corridors. The proposed land sale conflicts with the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN and the GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN_ Staff Report, Petition Number 400-02-12 4 November 7,21*72 41111 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Capitol hill Master Plan The CAPITOL}TILL MASTER PLAN calls for the extension of 500 West to Beck Street as • an alternative thoroughfare to 300 and 400 West. While this proposal does not negate or prohibit that potential,it does affect the directness of the route,by eliminating the potential for a straight street. Finding: The proposed land sale does not prohibit,but impacts the extension of 500 West as proposed by the CAPITOL HILL MASTER PLAN Street Closure Policy Salt Lake City Council Policy Guidelines for Street Closures: (This applies only to the parcel within the 500 West R.O.W.) 1. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. Finding: The proposal would not deny access to any other nearby parcels. 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,whether the abutting property is residential or commercial. Finding: The property would be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency to sell as a development site.Part of the purpose of this sale is to generate revenue to construct • the 200 to 400 South portion of the 500 West blocks. 3. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street,and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street would accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Finding: Closing the subject property is contrary to the Master Plan policies for the area,as identified in the Gateway Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate a change in adopted policy. 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. Finding: Public policy does not support the closure. Any closure should be accompanied by a corresponding amendment of the master plan. Department Review A memorandum was sent to Salt Lake City Police,Public Utilities,Property Management,Engineering,Fire and Redevelopment Agency requesting their input regarding the proposed land sale. The Redevelopment Agency raised the following issues: • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-12 5 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division 1) The route for commuter rail has been determined and is not going through this area any more.Subter-anean commuter rail will not happen. When Salt Lake City originally began pursuing the consolidation of railroad • tracks and shortening of the 1-15 viaducts,the light rail project had been voted down by the electorate and the possibility of commuter rail appeared bleak, therefore a decision was made to consolidate the rail lines into the 600 West tracks,despite the fact that they did not serve the existing rail stations.In doing so,an additional 80 acres were opened to development in the 300 to 700 South corridor along 500 West. By the time the GATEWAY MASTER-PLAN was completed,light rail was an increasing reality and commuter rail appeared more likely. Numerous alternatives were examined to recreate rail line access to the rail depots,but none were technically/financially feasible. As the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN was finished,it identified the 600 West 300 South site for the hltennoda]station but suggested that the 500 West corridor be kept utility free to accommodate a"Park Avenue"approach to subterranean rail lines at a future date. The final adoption by both the Planning Commission and the City Council suggested the possibility of widening 500 West all the way to 900 South to lengthen the parkway and enhance the transit corridor. There are no conditions that exist now that did not also exist when the master plan was adopted, therefore the possibility of subterranean rail is no less likely now than at the time of plan adoption. Staff believes the call for underground rail may one day appear in much the same way commuter rail quickly became feasible after initial opposition and political infeasibility. 2) It is not likely that the substation will be relocated or reconfigured at any time in • the near future. While costs have dramatically risen because of decisions to only partially construct the parkway the maintenance of the corridor allows the substation to be reconfigured at such time that it does become financially feasible. 3) The green space is already constructed. There is green space constructed,but because of design compromises made to leave the substation in place,critical elements that were previously planned (such as a 90 foot circumference plaza to accommodate the Japanese Obon Festival)have been eliminated.The 200 to 400 South section of the park is being built without an intersection at 300 South(as was originally designed). There have been recent calls by Intermodal and transportation consultants to open that intersection,which will further impact open space. The return of the 200 South 500 West intersection to its original design(similar to 100 South) will have the effect of greatly increasing the open space along 500 West, allowing for originally planned cultural features to be accommodated. The major purpose for open space along 500 West was to create an environment for housing,which it has done so far. That purpose has not changed. Finding: Other departments and divisions provided no technical opposition to the closure and sale. The proposed street closure/declaration of surplus property would not have a negative affect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services because the . Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-12 6 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division portion of land was never constructed as part of the street,therefore there are generally no utility or service corridors crossing it. Staff does not agree with comments from the RDA.Although in the short term there appears to be no use for the property,selling the • property will eliminate the possibility for many of the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN policies and recommendations from coming to fruition in the future. RECOMMENDATION: The staff finds the following: I. The street closure is inconsistent with the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN. 2. The proposal harms long-term implementation strategies outlined in the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN(any sale of property should be conditioned upon amendment to the master plan). 3. There is no technical(Utilities,Transportation,etc.)reason to prohibit the sale. 4. The applicable departments have reviewed and find no objection to the sale of the property. The staff recommends the Planning Commission not declare public property adjacent to the power substation(parcel number 15-01-176-009),or a portion of the 500 West right- of-way(parcel number 15-01-176-008)located near 200 South and 500 West as surplus. • The staff also recommends the Planning Commission transmit a recommendation to the City Council to not close a portion of 500 West street(parcel number 15-01-176-008). If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the sale,the staff recommends the amending the GATEWAY MASTER PLAN to reflect the policy change. Doug Dansie Community Planner Attachments: Exhibit I-Site map. Exhibit 2-Site photos. Exhibit 3-Letter from Community Council. Exhibit 4-Other Division Recommendations. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-12 7 November 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 Site map. • • �;n,s� k: p1a11 "SV3V1 ,£O'Z6L'3„6s;00 b S ON12IV38 JO SISVB 13381S 1S3M OW, • I a" OJ 51� o tp OSp ^C y o 1 F p ,}} _ aISL 3 v(.- .. .is ,::r s W f dS-� r _` va _ " 9 J )a' , - 8 ,toms, a0 - er o • 5 ti -- a.MI — 3-o.ioD V990Z .{'x Y m ti.01.M_9f,00.0 N .Sf f9 M_9f.00D N Sal 11) z> -C 0 U) U) N r' V JUQ NW - U WJ C __ICY U Li Q 0 O VCC -.-IW �� a� • ' �� �N 20 L Qlp - O n m a - = 0 10 R _ a /1 .9f-s9 NINON KL01 NINON in3 VS f0 C91 MINOS _ in qr." NlnOs -. V So: • acMv 4 �N y 0 O ,000 IlCZ,00A M f0'SV1 wyCZ UOD N 4Z'1 -3aa-11S:.7.SaM-OOS ' ..s..eP Pokey /.4 Reconstruct the sidewalks at intersections to meet ADA standards. Policy 7.5 lievelop a system of pedestrian walkways that onnect the Central Business District to the Gateway District, and to surrounding neighborhoods. Policy 7.6 Focus on transit/pedestrian-oriented streets that include wide sidewalks, street furnishings, sidewalk lighting, and sustainable street plantings. Policy 7.7 Provide a pattern of open spaces and pedestrian ways that create strong linkages with surrounding areas and adjacent neighborhoods. Policy 7.8 Design the ground floor of buildings to contribute to an active and interesting pedestrian environment. Policy 7.9 , quisure that service areas and parcel access is ovided in a manner that limits interruption of pedestrian ways and sidewalks. • giiie k , AVit.,. 1 ,tx.„.,..131.'t*ti/A .: _, ,,4: 4 .•iir...i opi, ' ,‘` ix: e �1� f. .06 AM .�ram aat : .4.a f ��-'-"1T}����. rr , III ��Y����YY�"'' 1�- le le 9to'-0" GKEENWAy II IT id __ a 96'O"green way is proposed for 500 West Street Ill 38 • i • • ;ejns212.Lsmdt+ns_ 4 ossod0641. 'rOV 200 ..3 U-�To �, o {� II m-rm o-4 ,vN�iz�o IL. NotLytns , u' r .219r20d4_:// • 0 0 - • _ .�s . . ,I _1 • Exhibit 2 Site photos. • }}' Z j F .„,----iir-Z;::_4.-ii-----1`'-: -%' `h\ \ . f" - :cei:+. T _rr. ,,,�.��..�� Y- ? #^E_ Li• . '� - v rt Park block looking south Park block looking south � � z e � `e � .t �?r ts' � x d�- £3' '� �iøir . i -x .r--j � ,. d i .. -.x-!•. ...+'4' `i �R�_-,s- +�1:f'�S"". f � s," c,�` x� sx �,. ..�:� �x ,�-a-� ;�-� �a �*f:�7's aa�'� 1`. aAa, �_.,...• "-a "`',� -" -1.te ,s., •ram,, _ \ 4: , - - ., Y • •-„.••:1 -7.',, -,,.•_,-.2--„L-t_c- -„,-_,j:,--..----,-, - Site to be declared surplus Site to be declared surplus M • • Exhibit 3 Letter from Community Council. • ine IR't'D) GIlr imfie ComI 1iunl l l ComucIIIl A Community Council Organization of Salt Lake City . 10 August 2002 Mr.Doug Dansie Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South Stale Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re:Proposed sale by Redevelopment Corporation of parcel located in right-of-way easement on 500 West north of 200 South. Dear Mr.Dansie lam writing on behalf of the Rio Grande Community Council to communicate the Council's concerns regarding the Redevelopment Corporation's proposals to sell a parcel of land adjacent to the Utah Power substation facility on 500 West and 200 South. The Council discussed the potential impact on the intersection and on the continuation of 500 West if this parcel was transferred to the private sector and removed from the right of way.We are sensitive to the need to ensure that Redevelopment funds not be tied up in property,and apparently there is a good chance that this parcel would be purchased resulting in funds becoming available for other uses in our city_However,our position was unanimous that we are strongly opposed to selling • off the parcel. First we would like to go on record that we support long range plans,as discussed in the past,to alter the substation and put all the lines relating to that facility underground.Those lines are a problem visually,and in the future could impede other possible uses.Second,if the parcel was removed from the right of way,500 West and the park lanes currently under construction would have a permanent and ugly visual encroachment.As the city works to upgrade the Gateway district and as this neighborhood becomes more residential and retail,we want to keep all options open and look forward to having the 500 West/200 South intersection remain as wide as possible. Thank you for your time in reviewing our concerns,and please forward this to the appropriate parties in City Government and in the affected agencies_If you or anyone else has questions or would like to further discuss this issue,please feel free to contact me at 801-364-5576. Sincerel", 7 V Christo er Viavant,Chair Rio Grande Community Council do 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City,UT 84101 801-364-5576 • • Exhibit 4 Other Division Recommendations. • From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday,June 06, 2002 9:04 AM To: Dansie, Doug Cc: Stewart, Brad;Johnston, Richard;Tarbet, Valda Subject: Pet 400-02-13 surplus • May 5,2002 Doug Dansie, A=CP Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Declaration of surplus property cn 500 West at 400 South Petition #400-02-13, Parcel A and Parcel B. Dear Doug: The Division of Transportation review comments for the proposed surplus declaration and sale are as follows: We see no impact to the remaining right of way to accommodate the existing public wav transportation corridor system. Roadway, curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and landscaping improvements are currently under construction along the 500 West frontage. The 400 South frontage still needs landscape upgrade improvements_ Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, .arry D. Walsh ransportation Engineer ASSOC. cc: Kevin J. Young, P_E. Kurt G. Larson, P.E. Rick Johnston, P.E. Brad Stewart, Utilities Valda Tarbet, RDA file • 1 SALTSAT r. I I 1Y C ORPORATI.ON1 ,a�� a �. .� w� _' RD55 C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. TRA..SPDRTATtOw D.RE Clr COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPOR7ATION May 5,2002 • Doug Dansie,A1CP Planning Division 451 South State Street,Room.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re:Declaration of surplus property on 500 West at 200 South Petition #400-02-12,Parcel 3 and Parcel 4. Dear Doug: The Division of Transportation review comments for the proposed surplus declaration and sale are as follows: We see no impact to the remaining right of way to accommodate the existing public way transportation corridor system.Recent roadway,curb&gutter,and sidewalk improvements have been made along both frontages_ Street lighting and landscape update improvement have been made along the 500 West frontage.The 200 South frontage still needs lighting and landscape upgrade improvements. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, ] rilL Barry D. Walsh • Transportation Engineer Assoc. r cc: Kevin J. Young,P.E. _. `'_ Kurt G_Larson,P.E. 4 Rick Johnston,P.E. ti 1 Brad Stewart,Utilities E Valda Tarbet,RDA ___;_;:_- `� %� • file • 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-6630 FAX:BO 1-535-60 i 9 es .xoc.Eo•.-c. Dansie,Doug From: Johnston,Richard Sent: Tuesday,June 25,2002 3:40 PM To: Dansie,Doug Subject: RE:500 West property vacation •DOUG-No concerns were raised in Engineering. RICK Original Message From: Dansie,Doug Sent: Tuesday,June 25,2002 3:33 PM To: Stewart,Brad;Tarbet,Vatda;Andrus,Dan;Johnston,Richard;Hodson,John Subject: S00 West property vacation On May 29 I sent you a memo regarding two petitions to vacate and on 500 West. One petition is to vacate land around the power substation near 200 South(400-02-12). The other is to vacate property east of the right-of-way near 400 South(400-02-13). Have you had a chance to review the memo? I will assume your division has no concerns if I do not hear from you by Monday July 1,2002. If you have any questions,call me at 535-6182. Thank you Doug • • 1 From: Garcia,Peggy Sent: Wednesday,June 26,2002 9.07 AM To: Dansie,Doug Cc: Stewart,Brad Subject: FW:500 West property vacation • Doug, I had Ray Eastman review these two request hat were sent to Public Utilities. He found that we do not have any conflicts with water,sewer or storm drain. Thanks, Peggy ----Original Message From: Stewart,Brad Sent: Wednesday,June 26,2002 7:52 AM To: Garcia,Peggy;Cowles,Vicki Subject: FW:500 West property vacation Do either of you know where this is? If we need another copy I'll call Doug. Thanks Original Message From: Dansie,Doug Sent: Tuesday,June 25,2002 3:33 PM To: Stewart,Brad;Tarbet,Valda;Andrus,Dan;Johnston,Richard;Hodson,John Subject: 500 West property vacation On May 29 I sent you a memo regarding two petitions to vacate land on 500 West. One petition is to vacate land around the power substation near 200 South(400-02-12)- • The other is to vacate property east of the right-of-way near 400 South(400-02-13). Have you had a chance to review the memo? I will assume your division has no concerns if I do not hear from you by Monday July 1,2002. If you have any questions,call me at 535-6182. Thank you Doug • 1 Dansie, Doug From: Andrus, Dan Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:11 AM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: RE: 500 West property vacation 4111 Thaks, Doug. I had reviewed this and had no concerns. Dan Original Message From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Tuesday,June 25, 2002 15:33 To: Stewart, Brad;Tarbet,Valda; Andrus, Dan;Johnston, Richard; Hodson,John Subject: 500 West property vacation On May 29 I sent you a memo regarding two petitions to vacate land on 500 West. One petition is to vacate land around the power substation near 200 South (400-02-12). The other is to vacate property east of the right-of-way near 400 South (400-02-13). Have you had a chance to review the memo? I will assume your division has no concerns if I do not hear from you by Monday July 1, 2002. If you have any questions, call me at 535-6182. Thank you Doug • • I Agenda and Minutes • • 0 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah iThursday, November 7, 2002, 5:30p.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. Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey, and Planners Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, and Greg Mikolash. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:42 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS • PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-12, by Linda Cordova, Salt Lake City Property Manager, requesting the City to declare a portion of the 500 West right-of-way, and adjacent land, surplus and to dispose of it through a future sale. The land disposal and sale, if approved, will also require an amendment to the Gateway Land Use and Development Master Plan and Gateway Specific Plan. The site is located on the Northeast corner of 500 West and 200 South, near the Utah Power& Light power substation. Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition in the Staff report. She explained that the master plan was originally developed with the idea of reconfiguring the substation. The substation is built in the right-of-way, and the northern portion of the north parcel was purchased with the intent of reconfiguring the substation, with the south parcel proposed for widening the street right-of-way. The southern parcel is before the Planning Commission for a street closure, and the northern parcel is requested to be declared surplus. Ms. Coffey stated that, although these matters are not required to be taken to Community Councils, the Peoples Freeway and Rio Grande Community Councils reviewed this petition. Both opposed the sale because they felt it would limit implementation of the master plan in the future. The master plan calls for the Gateway to • Planning Commission Meeting 16 November 7,2002 have housing along 500 West, and the park blocks are the open space amenity for that housing. Ms. Coffey noted that the master plan specifically calls for preserving the right-of-way for the park blocks and for future subterranean commuter rail. It states that the City should acquire additional land on the east side of 500 West to accommodate development of the greenway and reserve adequate right-of-way to allow for a future underground transit corridor. Ms. Coffey noted that one purpose of the greenway is to accommodate festivals and activities on the corridor. She explained that the staff report outlines four items the City Council considers when looking at a street closure, and the Staff did not believe this request would meet items 3 and 4. Closing the subject property is contrary to the master plan, so the sale of the street would require a master plan amendment. Ms. Coffey reported that the applicable City departments reviewed this petition and there were no technical objections to the sale of the street or the surplus property. The RDA comments and Staff responses are included in the staff report. The Staff finds that the street closure is inconsistent with the Gateway master plan, the proposal harms long-term implementation strategies of the master plan, there is no technical reason to prohibit the sale, and the applicable departments have no objection to the sale. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission not declare the public property adjacent to the power substation or the portion of the 500 West right-of-way as surplus and not transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to close a portion of the street. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to forward a favorable recommendation, the motion should include amending the Gateway Master Plan. . Mr. Chambless asked how many Community Council members opposed the petition. Ms. Coffey stated that she did not have that information from the Peoples Freeway Council and referred to a letter from the Rio Grande Community Council indicating that the vote was unanimous in opposition. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. Dan Mule, Salt Lake City Treasurer, stated that he has an interest from a bonding standpoint through the municipal building authority. He asked if it would be possible to get back the money paid for the two parcels. When the RDA purchased the McDonald properties for the purpose of reconfiguring the substation, it immediately deeded the properties to the Municipal Building Authority. When it was determined that they were not needed for the project but that the RDA needed to bury the transmission lines in the area, the Municipal Building Authority paid bond proceeds to the RDA of nearly$500,000. The City Council and RDA Board approved in their budget last year reimbursement of the $500,000 to the Municipal Building Authority. He was Planning Commission Meeting 17 November 7,2002411/ unsure how a decision made by the Planning Commission this evening would impact reimbursing that money. • Chair Jonas did not believe the reimbursement of money should impact the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Mule remarked that the RDA cannot reimburse the money until Linda Cordova provides them with a deed to the property, and Ms. Cordova cannot provide the deed until the property is declared surplus. Mr. Wilde explained that the Staff went to the City Attorney to see if this was something the Planning Commission needed to address. He was told that the Planning Commission needs to address this sale the same as any other. However, the City Council will make the final decision due to the financial issues involved. The Planning Commission need only advance a recommendation as to whether these properties should be retained. Chair Jonas clarified that the Planning Commission only addresses land use issues and not financial issues. Ms. Funk asked if it would be possible to make a recommendation to sell part of the property so they could retain the right-of-way. Mr. Wilde explained that, in order to free up the right-of-way, the substation portion would have to be relocated. Ms. Coffey stated that she did not believe • they could sell off part of the property and still reconfigure the substation in the future. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Ms. Funk felt the property should be retained and that they should not do anything to cut off options for the future. One reason this was reconfigured was to save money, and she favored denying the request. Motion for Petition No. 400-02-12 Arla Funk moved that Petition No. 400-02-12 for a street closure and declaration of surplus property at 500 West and 200 South be denied based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and that the best land use for this parcel would be as initially planned, which was to move the substation and widen the median on 500 West. Chair Jonas noted that the Planning Commission is only being asked to make a recommendation. Ms. Funk clarified that the Planning Commission needs to declare surplus property and make a recommendation to the Mayor not to close a portion of 500 West. • Planning Commission Meeting 18 November 7,2002 Ms. Funk rephrased her motion. in the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved that the Planning Commission forward a S recommendation to the Mayor to deny the request that the property adjacent to the power substation on 500 West be declared surplus. Robert"Bip" Daniels seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, 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. In the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council not to close a portion of 500 West with the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. Jennifer Seelig seconded the motion. Findings of Fact 1. The proposal would not deny access to any other nearby parcel. 2. The property would be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency to sell as a development site. Part of the purpose of the sale is to generate revenue to construct the 200 South to 400 South portion of the 500 West blocks. 3. Closing the subject property is contrary to the Master Plan policies for the areas, as identified in the Gateway Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate a change in adopted policy. 4. Public policy does not support the closure. Any closure should be accompanied by a corresponding amendment of the master plan. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, 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. Mr. Wilde clarified that the first motion was a recommendation to the Mayor, so the Planning Commission is not the final decision maker. The second motion is a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting 19 November 7,20021111 411 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Tuesday, January 6, 2004 at 7 : 00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance redefining the term "department store" and amending the Downtown and Gateway Mixed-Use districts tables of permitted and conditional uses, and creating a new overlay district to define the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay district pursuant to Petition No. 400-03-23 . All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. Assisted listening devices or interpreting services are available for all public meetings . Salt Lake City Corporation complies with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) . For further information, contact the TDD Number 535- 6021 . By order of the Salt Lake City Council, this 9th day of December, 2003 . 1410 KENDRICK COWLEY CITY RECORDER (P 03-26) Publish: December 22, 2003 0 slips C5357671L07 Sent to NAC 12- 03 10 FOQ. cilES The Kennedy Center imagination I ni agi nation • ebratio „ of Salt Lake City ARl F N F0 OVrH & TEACHERS Administered by Global Artways—Salt Cake City's arts education program. Co-sponsored by AXA Foundation,the philanthropic arm of AXA Advisors. fih a i., • 41114..' , -, 10. ii., ;,: Q�:' r)t 1 � • ll .1 _\ ,-, �� ,. � �� / AND i.+� - I .I . i �' . . _ , _, ...hi , Iv, 1 . : _ ....._ _ 4.....IP , 1 ri tlirer r :-.).-- _ 1•)4 til!)14 . Repertory Dance I I - it 'S The Kennedy Center/ Theatre, D is for Dance i _ U of U Marriott Library Infinity Workshop for Teachers Ririe-Woodbury Book Arts Program/ Repertory Dance Theatre's Infinity Dance Company, Children's Dance The City Library, professional development work- Objects & Places Theatre, A World of An Illuminating Story shop helps teachers become Original choreography and unique World Premier of Sandra The Kennedy more effective, productive and Dance The Kennedy Center Imagination fulfilled while teaching dance. improvisation creates incredible Fenichel Asher's Romeo Production o The University of Utah Children's Celebration,The City Library and The workshop focuses on Utah trails of music,motion and visual and Juliet: Together Nightingale Dance Theatre brings A World the Marriott Library Book Arts State Core Curriculum for dance: design, encouraging movement (and Alive) at Last Join us for this prc Program present world-renowned modern dance technique, reper- that carries attendees from the of Dancee into nchoolsltTLake City illuminator, Richard Leray. Leray tory composition,improvisation, ballroom to the desert. Objects UHniversity ofdeveloYouthp Theatre through the High School and the a proud song ut 2003-2004scho school year, will teach children, ages 8-12, partnering,music for dance,and &Places is geared toward young Program will develop and present sionate and ench fists will teach dances from how to design a decorative letter dance history.Teachers of grades people and the young at heart the world premier of playwright gale, what it me around the world to after-school from their own story.The letter K-6 will work with RDT mentors through the imaginative use of Sandra Fenichel Asher's corn- wise. The classic classes at Beacon Heights,Park- creates a visual image, telling to develop successful methods flags,bags,balls,chairs,sticks and adaptation of Romeo ',Christian Anderse view,Lincoln and Mountain View a story through its shape, size of teaching. and stools. and Juliet:Together(and Alive)at into a theatrical elementar schools. A World of and color. This workshop, with Last, by 2003 Newberry Award filled with dance, y its roots in medieval manuscript November 15, 9:00 a.m.2:00 School Performances winner/novelist,Avi. narrative, action Dance includes a parent-child art, is a captivating experience p.m.; Rose Wagner Performing January 28, 10:00 a.m. acclaimed writer, evening and yearend informance for any child interested in story Arts Center January 29, 10:00 a.m. Highland High will also present Hall Surface, co celebrating the experience. telling through both word and & 12:30 p.m. Asher's We Will Remember and Maddos and chore D is For Dance Januar 30, 10:00 a.m. a staged reading of Everything After-School Dance Programs image. Participants are asked D is for Dance features 10 RDT & 1:30 p.m. is Not Enough,adapted from her Tai Soon Burgess October 2003— May 2004 to bring a one paragraph story. dancers who create magic with Capitol heatre young adult novel. Time: Varies byschool Richard Leray studied graphicAs part of the KEi dances,poetry and music.Artistic Tickets: $3/person. Locations: Beacon Heights, arts and illumination in FranceRomeo and Juliet:Together on ea Ke g Director,Linda C.Smith,plays the Advanced reservationAlive) package, a Kel and Israel. His work has been (and at Last Parkview, Lincoln and role of"professor"and guides the required. Call Jill at 297-4213 exhibited internationally.He holds q February 2-4, 10:00 a.m. artist will visit Mountain View elementary audience through a new way of to reserveyour group's workshops in illumination for understandingthe ABC's. Each g P's space. &12:30 p.m. prior to the pe children and adults throughout (Limited number of reduced February 5&6, 12:30 p.m. conduct a profe, letter of the movement alphabet fee and free admission to &7:30 p.m. Contact:Anne Marie Smith the world. is delightfully choreographed. opment workshop 585-9172 Title I schools and special Rose Wagner Performing Arts District elemental' Illumination Workshop populations.) Center, 138 W. 300 S. PHOTO COURTESY OF GLOBAL ARTWAYS October 24, 2:30-5:30 p.m. Performances for Teachers Matinee Shows: $3(581-6098) learn new and CI and Students Public Performances Shows: $10 Adult; to teaching stat October 25, 2:00-5:00 p.m. Evening $10/Adult; and will use 1 November 17-21; Rose Wagner January30, 7:00 p.m. Call ArtTix at The City Library, 210 E. 400 S. PerformingArts Center $5/Student; to introduce thei This is a free workshop.) January 31, 2:00 p.m. 355-ARTS or Kingsbury Hall ( Capitol Theatre, 50 W. 200 S. Ticket Office, 581-7100. The Nightingale, Public Performances style and geogra For more information and to Tickets: $15/Full; $12/Student; November 21, 7:00 p.m. We Will Remember r contact Lisa Myron $5/Children,egister, 12 and under; re 322 cont106. November 22,2:00&7:00 p.m.; $35/Family of five February 4&5, 7:00 p.m. Public Performai atRose Wagner Performing Arts Available at all ArtTix Box February 6, 3:00 p.m. February 27, 1:31 PHOTO:KAREN MARTIN Center, 138 W. 300 S. Offices or call 355-ARTS. Highland High School Jeanne Wagner 1 Call 355-ARTS for tickets. Little Theatre(2nd floor) Rose Wagner Pei Tickets: $15/Single; Contact:Jill Barnes 2166 S. 1700 E. Center, 138 W. $12/Student; $10/Group of 297-4213 Tickets: $4, $3 for students, Call 355-ARTS fa 10 or more seniors and veterans Tickets: $10.50, PHOTO:RUBBERBALL INC. Everything is Not Enough $5.50/18 years Contact: Linda Smith Call for location and ticketing (nnfnt• AAnctan S About The Launch!... The Kennedy Center Imagination CelebrationTM of Salt Lake City is an ongoing arts education festival that engages young people,teachers and families in exploring 't and celebrating the creative process. The Imagination Celebration brings world-class artists, performances ` , 1 psi , . and events into Salt Lake City schools and communities, creating powerful experiences for all participants. The Imagination Celebration is administered by Global Artways, Salt Lake City's arts education program, and co-sponsored , • A . by AXA Foundation,the philanthropic arm of AXA Advisors. Theme 4 The 2003-2004 Imagination Celebration theme is"Dreaming Beyond the Book." Inspired by the Crayola Dream-Makers Global Artways, The workshops, this theme emphasizes the important role Leonardo Experience • the arts play in both cognitive and creative development. In anticipation of its future home According to Crayola: "Education research proves that hands- at The Leonardo—an art,culture II on art activities aid in brain development and help children and science center located in • in other curricular areas such as reading,math and science." • the former Salt Lake City main library building—Global Artways The Imagination Celebration provides opportunities for students, will launch the 2003-2004 teachers and family members to work creatively at becom- Imagination Celebration season ing better thinkers and innovative problem solvers. with a hands-on Leonardo art- making activity at Library Square. Background Young people attending the event will help create a sculpt In Fall 2000, The Kennedy Center selected Salt Lake City by imprinting their hands as its sixth Imagination Celebration site because of the plaster. Professional artists city's commitment to arts education and ability to create then assemble the hands into a community-wide partnerships between cultural resources, life-size sculpture of Leonardo da Vinci's well-known Measure schools, businesses, professional and civic organizations of Man sketch. Through the and local government. Other Imagination Celebration sites 41 process of "lost wax" casting include: Seattle, Washington; Orange County, California; used in Leonardo's time, Global Dallas, Texas; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Fort Worth, Artways, in partnership with the Texas. Salt Lake City's inaugural Imagination Celebration University of Utah's Sculpture Department, will produce a was part of the 2002 Olympic Winter Olympics Arts Festival. magnificent bronze piece that will be permanently displayed Components at The Leonardo. The Imagination Celebration includes performances by October 11 world-class artists; professional development workshops for 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ' teachers and artists; exhibits and public art projects by Library Commons children and youth; participatory arts events for families at 210 E. 400 S. schools,libraries and community centers;and master classes Admission is free. by visiting guest artists. 1 Contact: Megan Davis 974-2424 Contact For more information, visit www.globalartways.org or contact: Lisa Davis James 1 801.582.7385 I; e-mail: lisadjames@worldnet.att.net j I • • +,. 111► n I\_. ff:-..-- --A11111\4111k. '-- . - viox. 4 i/; • . _ . .. -°14. A • „ , 7? 1 ' I f . M . . , ',, A e/y/ \\ bp 1""lb. r.; 11 I iti % . 11/ ,'.' A. • he.. I -44,4"41.. - . , (.. k T' io i .. r Crayola Dream-Makers ! . Workshops and Exhibit Mariachi Youth ' The City Library's Recognized by leading arts and Educational Program Presentation of educational organizations as (Educacion Juvenil de Strings Attached: A well as the U.S. Department of Mariachi) Spy Hop Productions Festival Celebrating Education, the Crayola Dream- LocoMotion Utah Symphi Salt Lake Community Makers program provides exhi- Grand Theatre Community Institute Action, FACES of the the Art of Puppetry bition opportunities for student (GTCI) is sponsoring a residency International Film & Opera, Ch Pacific: Drums and The puppetry festival kicks off artwork and fosters teachers' for 48 students with Martha Festival 2004 Opera Show with a Friday evening perform- professional development and Chavez, professional classical Opera is for k Dance of Polynesia ance of Autumn Portraits byEricvocalist and founder of Chavez LocoMotion's International Film collaboration.This year's work- Festival is dedicated to sup- members beco Professional instructors will teach Bass and Sandglass Theater. shops will focus on literacy and Performance Academy. Chavez when theysee after-school students at Glendale This solo puppet-mask perform- include 12 original standards- has taught for over 20 years porting and promoting young and performed Middle School dances from Tonga, ance is a series of five inter- based, teacher- and student- and performed professionally filmmakers in the cinematic school children f lockingvignettes,each exploring in the United States, Canada, fields of documentary, PSA, 'a, Tahiti, Hawaii and New g p g tested lessons that encourageLake schools it d.The students will a puppet character and its Europe, and Central and South experimental, narrative and perform visual literacy, reading, writing, p animation.n. A narrative showcase. interplay with the manipulator, America. Chavez will coordinate youth - produced locations in preparation storytelling and"thinking outside who may appear as a masked instruction in the tradition of produced media is presented Teachers attend for a finale performance at Salt fi ure or a voice from the sky. the box." Working with Global _s as a means to entertain, edu- Lake Community am alsoe's Grand g il Artways professional teaching mariachi, including classes in workshop where Theatre.The program includes Saturday, a day-long festival will artists, students and parents violin,guitars,vihuela,trumpet, cate and inform attendees of methods for cre two assemblies on Polynesian be held featuring workshops will engage in original, hands-on guitarron and voice. Enrollment Youth based artistic and socially operas with st culture,language,performing arts and performances by Sandglass activities that encourage them is limited to ensure a quality conscious perspectives. In addi- this training ar Theater and members of the tion to short film screenings,the an,' music. Utah-Wyomingto formulate ideas,design solu- tions, learning environment. Classes from mentors fro PuppetillGuild. culminate in apublic perform- ance weekend is filled with provocative Ines Zeller Bass will tions, and think for themselves. p the teachers and perform workshops on topics such as Public Performancelsidor ance at the Grand Theatre at will write text, co p.m. 's Cheek on a revolving Student and teacher workshops Salt Lake Community College. screenwriting, cinematography, create costumes February26, 7:00 table filled with details of acting and directing,and the use Grand Theatre, South Campuswill take place throughout the and perform their lsidor's miniature world. Isidor Public Performance, First of documentary film as a tool for Salt Lake Community College returns home from an adven- school year at various elementary 1575 S. State Street ture, his outlook of the world schools within the Salt Lake City Annual Educacion Juvenil de social change. Music! Words!C Tickets: $5/Adults; $3/Ages transformed. This program is School District. Mariachi Concert Screenwriting Competition Workshop for Te April 20, 11:00 a.m. July 14-18, 200c 15& under suitable for ages 12 and up. Deadline: March 1 The Dream-Makers program will Grand Theatre, South Campus Utah OperaProd' Contact:Sal Janssonculminate in a public exhibit, Salt Lake Communitye Puppetry College Open to screenwriters, ages N. W. March 12-14 359-2444 Festival which will showcase art created 1575 S. State Street g 13 18; call for information. PHOTO COURTESY OF GLOBAL ARTWAYS The City Library, 210 E. 400 S. by students in the workshops. Admission is free. For ticket 24-Hour Filmmaking Public Performs' information, call 957-3322. Competition April 29, 6:30 p. Autumn Portraits Performances Exhibit Opening& Reception p Black Box Theatr March 12, 7:30 p.m. April 2, 4:30-6:00 p.m. Contact: Richard Scott April 16,5:00 p.m.to Wagner Performi March 13, 7:30 p.m. Salt Lake City&County957-3263 April 17, 5:00 p.m. g Open to filmmakers, ages Center, 138 W. 3 Little Actors on Strings and Building, 451 S. State St. PHOTO COURTESY OF MARTHA CHAVEZ 13-18; call for information. Admission is free Rods,Children's Workshop Exhibit runs through April is limited. March 13, 11:00 a.m. 30th. Admission is free. LocoMotion Workshops (limited enrollment) April 23&24 Contact: Paula F; Contact:Megan Davis Contact: 869-9090 Puppet Parade 974-2424 9:00 a.m.3:00 p.m. March 13, 3:00 p.m. The City Library, 210 E. 400 S. PHOTO COURTESY OF UTA lsidor's Cheek Performances PHOTO COURTESY OF GLOBAL ARTWAYS Admission is free. &OPERA March 13, 3:00 p.m. LocoMotion Screenings March 14, 4:00 p.m. April 23&24, 7:00-9:00 p.m. - The Sense of the Puppet The City Library, Auditorium Adult/Than Wnrkchnn .1an r Ann c • of Salt Lake City `- 2003/2004 imagination celebration,,, Calendar of Events Steering Committee Partners James Andersen YouthCity/Salt Lake Horizonte Instruction&Training Center Youth Program Public Events/Performances Gig Arrington Global Artways snrr �e c ry Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company The City Library October 11th Global Artways Nancy Boskoff y The Kennedy Center Salt Lake Arts Council Binney&Smith,Cra The Leonardo Experience Imagination Celebration" The Leonardo at Lib 24th&25th The KennedyCenter/U of U Marriott Libraryof Salt Lake City is Heidi Clark / Salt Lake Communil Book Arts Program/The CityLibraryadministered by Global Salt Lake City School District g FACES of the Pan An Illuminating Story Artways—Salt Lake City's Eric Dodd arts education program— Spy Hop Productions Repertory Dance Th November 21st&22nd Repertory Dance Theatre and co-sponsored by Ririe-Woodbury Dan, D is for Dance AXA Foundation,the David Dynak Theatre Department,University of Utah Salt Lake County Cc January 30th&31st Ririe-WoodburyDance Companyphilanthropic arm of for the Arts AXA Advisors. John C.Erlacher Objects&Places Mountain View Elementary Salt Lake Communi' February 2nd-6th Highland High School and The University of Utah Global Artways Clayton Farr Grand Theatre Theatre Department,World Premier of Romeo and 1040 Sugarmont Drive Global Artways Salt Lake City Arts, Juliet:Together(and Alive)at Last Salt Lake City,UT 84106 Y Paula Fowler Salt Lake City Soho 4th-6th Highland High School,We Will Remember 801.974.2424 Utah Symphony&Opera Fax:801.466.0148 Spy Hop Production lobalartwa s.or Madelyn Garrett www. 7th Highland High School,Everything is Not Enough g y g U of U Marriott Library Book Arts Program University of Utah 26th Salt Lake Community Action Janet Wolf Dan Gerhart Art&Art History FACES of the Pacific:Drums and Dance of Polynesia Director,YouthCity Global Artways Marriott Library E Office of the Mayor Jean Irwin Program 27th The Kennedy Center Production of The Nightingale 801.535.7712 Utah Arts Council Children's Dana Ilkarch 12th-14th The City Library janet.wolf@slcgov.com Sal Jansson Theatre Depann Strings Attached:A Festival Celebrating the Art of Puppetry Dan Gerhart FACES of the Pacific Youth Theater April 2nd Crayola Dream-Makers Director,Global Artways/ Bill Laney Utah Symphony&C Opening Exhibit&Reception Imagination Celebration Salt Lake Community College 801.974.2424 Mary Ann Lee Highland High Scho 16th-17th LocoMotion dan.gerhart@slcgov.com Children's Dance Theatre 24-Hour Filmmaking Competition Support Staff: Carol Lubomudrov Sponsors 20th Grand Theatre Community Institute Mariachi Youth Clayton Farr Beacon Heights Elementary YouthCity Educational Program(Education Juvenil de Mariachi) Delores Simons Lisa Myron Global Artways 23rd&24th LocoMotion International Film Festival&Workshops Megan Davis The City Library AXA Foundation Dana Rossi-Palmer 29th Utah Symphony&Opera,Children's Opera Showcase Ballet West The John F.Kennet for the Performil Maria Peterson School Events/Performances Salt Lake City School District John Selfridge Contributors Ongoing October-May Children's Dance Theatre The Road Home Binney&Smith,Cr A World of Dance Linda Smith Laurie Downing November 17th-21st Repertory Dance Theatre Repertory Dance Theatre Kim Thomas YouthCity Lisa Davis James, Communication: Reuel's Art&From D is for Dance January 28th-30th Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company Objects&Places Mamie Powers-Torrey U of U Marriott Library Book Arts Program Janet Wolf Professional Development Workshops YouthCity .._ Rick Wray a_A July(2003) 14th.18th Workshop for Teachers Spy Hop Productions Music!Words!Opera! ;, r1 % ,�;. v ° Facts .Clfi �� • Children without adult supervision are at significantly e � ..,� , ,—.El e • greater risk of truancy from school,stress, poor QD� �f grades, risk-taking behavior and substance abuse. . . `.a • Children spend 80%of their waking Cg. • ,1,�? '' of school. hours outside • Children in quality after-school programs have better �,0 % `°- academic performance,behavior and school attendance, 711 i �Ab r'/vim/ • �z as well as greater expectations for the future. �� :'�: e 1 , �1 • Children in quality after-school programs have better p. peer relations,emotional adjustment and conflict • resolution skills compared to peers who are not in after-school programs. • Young people in community-based organizations I _ .t'` ipppklike YouthCity: Z YouthCity City - Are 20% more likely to rate their chances of ' 0 graduating from high school as "very high." ;, — Express a sense of personal value, hopefulness . rP and agency far greater than peers in their \' - C6►. ;;� // ,_ /� community.These youths generally feel proud /� �' of what they can do and believe they can construct '��ti ,/ y'/�/- t1' a positive life. / /�r+�r t, I Feel they want to "give back"to their communities ; I r/� and that it is their responsibility to do so. �� v J — Are significantly more likely than young people r/ • not in youth programs to participate in community volunteer work. 0 , PiP1=1 ,- /' I MI Q 0 bu1kitfl • For more information about YouthCity, visit www.slcyouthcity.com or call 535-7712. YouthCity operates in area schools, II ' + community centers and libraries. Cool A ctiviti Programs are low cost,and most are fy l 1 based on family size and income. YouthCity After-School and Summer for Kids & T 535-6129 Global Artways 974-2424 • Refugee Youth&Family Consortium 0 - 535-6202 _ YouthCity Employment ` 538-2062 Salt Lake YouthCity Government �i�� 535-7917 City's Youth r i.t��, • Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center ��— — , -► 974-2420 Program -�,� Why YouthCity �) - iv , i ., YouthCitl1 YouthCit seeks to: offers fun, enriching, neighborhood-based activities for Salt Lake City is changing. Establish construe t^"e, J( r " s-/ dune children and teens after school and du There are more people, neighborhood-Jr -- : , �fi- f • 1 and more diversity. •<:• lk• -'„,, s, e:- More families where both after school,summer ` :�;. parents work, and more and employment `.;;'=Jg .'. singleparent households. ..�,^t,�_` 4..,•'� YouthCityAfter-School and Summer 9 programs for Salt Classes and activities for school-aged youth selected with Lake City's youth. .'w \ - - - =-— These changes present r;rq�, input from participants. Classes vary from session to session challenges. Many parents • and have included urban arts, bike maintenance and repair, chess, cultural cooking, aren't able to be home Support the efforts ... ` dance, piano, Kung Fu, video production, skateboarding and swimming. This after school and during // program also offers field trips, homework help and community service projects. of families,schools the summer—times , and neighborhoods ,. i 4 Global Artways during which research - 4 ,/ c, Arts education classes in music, dance, visual art, literary art,theater, filmmaking and shows children are most in helping make Salt _ A r. mural making. Global Artways also oversees YouthCity Murals,Arts in the Parks for likely to engage in high-risk Lake City a safe, — Families, and the Kennedy Center Imagination CelebrationM of Salt Lake City. behaviors such as drugs, — nurturing environment — ,3 — sex and violence. — ++ Refugee Youth & Family Consortium for children. — -ow --�' Quality, affordable f. . `. - �� Coordinates between various organizations to aid in the a • — successful resettlement of refugee youth and their families. after-school and summer programs are in high Provide unique, — ).'- YouthCity Employment demand and short supply. research-based Job training and placement,job fairs, a city-county partnership that In response to this, and programs for thee • ' -__\ provides training to low-income youth, and a one-on-one mentori due to his own experience young people that are program that pairs students with employees at local companies. as a single father, Mayor *441r11continually evaluated YouthCit Government Rocky Anderson launched y YouthCit in 2000. for their effectiveness. — '' ' Leadership training program that involves high school-aged youth in city Y and state government, community youth issues and service projects. YouthCity specifically - _- A. targets school aged ..„ Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center youths with innovative, gp y Salt Lake City's Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center is an important gathering place for young enriching activities thatpeople in the Glendale area. The center offers after-school and summer activities, a offer productive alternatives sports program, the Intel Computer Clubhouse and special activities for teens. and improve quality of life FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSIT,E AT WWW,SLCYOUTHCITY.COM. for parents, children and the community at large. , yK" � }°��.� .''r r'�r' ''F=. i T v „not/ n „,,.-