Loading...
07/16/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Love, and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Dale Lambert Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Steven Allred, Acting City Attorney; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Max Peterson, City Engineer; David Dobbins, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development (CED) ; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner, LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) ; Randy Hillier, Capital Improvement Program Administration/Budget & Policy Analyst; Kim Thomas, Grant Acquisition Specialist/Grants Coordinator; Kelly Murdock, Wells Fargo Public Finance and Financial Advisor for Salt Lake City; Michael Allegra, UTA; P. D. Kiser, Parsons Corporation; Katherine Pat, Utah Transit Authority General Counsel; Jeff Koch, Vice President-Field Operations for Union Pacific Railroad; Christine Smith, Union Pacific Attorney; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:29 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment Ms. Gust-Jenson referred to a letter from Cindy Cromer regarding information relating to the use of Pioneer Park as an Olympic memorial. She said a package of additional information relating to Union Pacific and the Utah Transit Authority freight facility had been received. She said there was a Planning Commission appointment scheduled for advancement without an interview. #2. INTERVIEW GEOFFREY BRUGGER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT THE SISTER CITIES BOARD. Mr. Brugger said he was the Executive Dean of the South City Campus of the Community College in Salt Lake City. He said the college had three sister city relationships. He said it was a responsibility of a community college to be involved in the international community. He said business student and teacher exchanges were advantageous. #3. INTERVIEW MARGARET YEE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITIES BOARD. Ms. Yee said she had been with the Sister City Program since its conception 23 years ago. She said student and culture exchanges enriched the community. #4. INTERVIEW DON HARTLEY PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 Mr. Hartley said the process was working well and interfacing with management. He said the committee was well run. Councilmember Saxton asked about tours of the City & County Building. Mr. Hartley said tours were arranged and provided by the staff of the Utah Heritage Foundation (UHF) . He said UHF web site provided a schedule of special tours. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Hartley how he felt the building was aging since the restoration. He asked if there were concerns which were not being addressed in a long-term perspective. Mr. Hartley said the work had been done to last 100 years before another restoration. He said the building was holding up well. He said the City's management of the building was working to maintain and ensure long-term preservation of the building. #5. RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING PETITIONS BY THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. , RELATED TO LOCATING AN INTERMODAL FREIGHT LOADING FACILITY IN AN AREA ZONED M-1, INCLUDING: View Attachment a. A text amendment to Table 21A.28.040, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts: of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a railroad freight terminal facility in the "M-1" zoning district, b. Rezoning of a 21. 979 acre piece of property located at approximately 800 South, 5600 West from a General Commercial "GC" zoning district to a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district, c. Amending the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan by removing 800 West; between 1300 South and 700 South as an arterial street and designating 4400 West, between the same two streets, as an arterial street. Also to close a 1200 foot portion of 4800 West. Union Pacific showed a six-minute video of what an intermodal facility looked like and how it would fit into an urban environment. Doug Wheelwright, DJ Baxter, Michael Allegra, P. D. Kiser, Katherine Pat, Jeff Koch and Russell Weeks briefed the Council. Mr. Weeks referred to a letter from LeRoy Hooton regarding water, sewer, and storm drainage availability for the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and Union Pacific (UP) intermodal freight facility. He said the letter from Public Utilities said they would be able to support the intermodal freight facility if three requirements were met. He said they were 1) extending water mains along the project's frontage and along any public street, 2) 24 hour, 365 day access for the 27-inch sewer trunk, and 3) storm drainage improvements. Mr. Allegra referred to a handout presented to the Council by UTA. He said UTA had been awarded the American Public Transit Association system of the year award. He said it was part of UTA' s commitment to move rail projects in the community forward and was part of a 40-year plan. He said access and usage of the mid Jordan line, West Valley City, and the Sugarhouse line was part of the commitment to the community. He said the acquisition was for 175 miles and would cost $185 million. He said the State had contributed $20 million and some right-of-way to the project. He reviewed the Corridor Preservation Timeline handout with the Council. A discussion was held regarding the shared corridor and tracks. Councilmember Love said she was concerned about what impact the intermodal facility would have on the 900 South neighborhoods. She said she was concerned with 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 oversized trucks in the 900 South neighborhoods. She asked what route the trucks would be taking into the City. Mr. Wheelwright said oversized trucks would use the interstate highway for distribution. Mr. Kiser said the majority of distribution facilities in the valley which would serve the intermodal facility had been identified and were located west of I-215. He said there were a few other locations north and south. He said traffic would move out of the intermodal facility on to 5600 West. He explained some of the other routes which might be used. Councilmember Love asked if the City could enter into an agreement with Union Pacific not to increase rail traffic on 900 South going into the intermodal facility. Mr. Allred said a negotiated contract method could be used and would depend upon the willingness of Union Pacific to agree. He said an ordinance change would be problematic. A discussion was held regarding not increasing rail traffic on 900 South in the UTA contract with Union Pacific. Ms. Pat said the contract between UTA and UP was a real estate contract specifying terms and conditions for purchase of real estate from UP. She said the contract also set out a series of operating and construction agreements. She said UTA was not interested in opening the contract for an amendment because this would open all terms and conditions for renegotiation. She said this issue should be negotiated separately between the City and UP. She said UTA was anxious to conclude the issue and did not want to enforce an agreement of this type on behalf of the City. Councilmember Buhler said the City had letters from Union Pacific indicating traffic on the 900 South line would not increase. He asked Mr. Koch for Union Pacific's position. Mr. Koch said the intermodal facility would not affect traffic on the 900 South line. He said traffic on 900 South was manifest traffic and coal traffic moving from the west to the yard at 2100 South and on toward Grand Junction. He said it was not practical or efficient to use 900 South. He said container and automotive trains had delivery schedules and required priority over general freight traffic. Councilmember Jergensen asked about emergency situations causing more traffic on 900 South. Mr. Koch gave an example of an emergency situation. He said slides washing out railroad tracks in Ogden would be an emergency. He said an emergency situation was one where the tracks were out for 2 or 3 days. He said after 2 or 3 days the intermodal and auto business would be routed across the southern corridor from Tucson, Arizona to El Paso, Texas and then on to Chicago. He said in an emergency any trains west of Wells, Nevada would be routed across the causeway of the Great Salt Lake to Ogden. Mr. Koch said emergency situations were very rare and occurred for 2 or 3 days only. He said it would be a short term clean-up. Councilmember Christensen asked for a schedule from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for construction of the overpass at 5600 West to cross the railroad tracks. Mr. Koch said there was no schedule. He said the overpass was part of the western transportation corridor study currently being initiated. Mr. Wheelwright said it was the City Administration' s hope that the western transportation corridor was not built north of the 2100 South freeway. He said 5600 West could then be developed as a surface arterial street with an over-pass when traffic indicated the need. He said this could necessitate the relocation of 700 South 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2002 intersecting with 5600 West. Councilmember Christensen asked that through the conditional use process the intermodal facility have enhanced landscaping requirements that incorporated barriers and did not foster birds. Mr. Wheelwright said that could be included. He said a water conservation approach was needed along with bird habitat requirements. Mr. Baxter said a way to address land use was to make sure surrounding land uses were compatible. Councilmember Saxton said she agreed that landscaping for the intermodal facility should be enhanced and creative. She said the facility would have a large impact on the area. She asked Mr. Allegra how much of the corridor would be single track for the future commuter line. She asked if there were any locations along the corridor where only single track could be placed. Mr. Allegra said he hoped 30% to 50% of the corridor could be limited to single track. He said the attempt would be for as much double track as physically possible. Councilmember Saxton asked what the City' s financial benefits would be by having the intermodal facility located in Salt Lake City. Mr. Allegra said new employees would be located in Salt Lake City and current City residents would benefit from employment. He said there would be a benefit to the freight business with regard to cost effectiveness. Mr. Wheelwright said there would be spin-off development and property tax benefits. Mr. Allegra said there would be a sales tax benefit from the construction of the facility. Councilmember Saxton asked why the facility location had been chosen. Mr. Allegra said the location was 300 acres, the appropriate size, the location had limited property owners, and it had freeway access for trucks, and was located between two main line railroads. He said the site had been zoned appropriately and environmental cleanup issues were not a problem. He said the site and the acreage had limited applications to other uses. Mr. Wheelwright said the length of the site was approximately 7,000 feet uninterrupted by roads. He said this accommodated the length of trains and was out of the way of cars. Councilmember Saxton asked what environmental cleanup would be needed at the present location for UTA. Mr. Allegra said no cleanup was necessary at the Beck Street facility. Ms. Pat said phase one and two of the environmental investigation of the right-of-way had been completed. She said UTA had a perspective purchaser agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, the U. S. Department of Justice, and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality. She said the perspective purchaser agreement provided that UTA used these properties for rail related uses and limited excavation. She said there was no obligation for further environmental investigation. Councilmember Saxton asked if there were contamination problems at the site but not that needed to be taken care of. Ms. Pat said that was correct. Councilmember Saxton asked if the new location was contaminated. Mr. Kosh said use of the facility would not lend itself to environmental contamination. Councilmember Saxton asked if any other locations would work for the intermodal facility west of the present site. Mr. Allegra said the most likely site had been at 7200 West and was owned by Kennocott. He said Kennocott had said they had future plans for the site and would not allow the intermodal facility. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned with street closures. 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 Councilmember Turner said neighborhood concern was with large truck routes using 900 South. A discussion was held regarding increased traffic due to the intermodal facility. Mr. Koch said no freight would be loaded in the Roper Yard and trucks would not be routed on to 900 South. He said the auto facility at the Roper Yard would be moved to the new intermodal facility. Councilmember Turner said he had seen 9 train cars filled with autos on the 900 South tracks. Councilmember Turner said at the present time the future intermodal facility site was empty ground and had no traffic. He said by building the facility there would be more truck and car traffic in the neighborhood. He asked how the facility was funded. Mr. Allegra said $185 million would be from bond proceeds which would be paid back with the approved referendum of 2000. He said acquisition and purchase of the right-of-way would be used as a match for the development of the project in process. Councilmember Turner asked who was paying for the facility. Ms. Pat said UTA was paying $185 million and UP had a contractual obligation to construct the facility with its own funding. Councilmember Turner asked why the maintenance facility would be so large. He asked if they were buying more land than was needed. Mr. Allegra said a facilities study had been commissioned. He said UTA was in a high growth period and the facility would also be used for commuter rail maintenance. He said as growth occurred other transit needs would be incorporated into the facility. A discussion was held regarding the facility for bus and train maintenance. Councilmember Turner said his community wanted to see improvement in the curve of the track and no trains running after 10:00 p.m. for noise improvement. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about noise from trains and claims for property damage on 900 South. He asked Union Pacific if claims were being paid. Ms. Smith said she was not aware of any damage claims being made but she said she would check and pass the information on to Salt Lake City. A discussion was held regarding damage claims to property adjacent to railroads. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING AND REFUNDING BONDS. View Attachment Dan Mule, Russ Weeks Kelly Murdock and Nancy Tessman briefed the Council. Mr. Murdock said refunding would create savings with a lower levy. Ms. Tessman said taxes to tax payers would go down. Mr. Murdock said refunding would change the interest rate for bonds issued in 1999 and would be a savings of $2 million. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 8 AND RELATED GRANT RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Michael Sears, David Nimkin, Randy Hillier, Rick Graham and Kim Thomas briefed the Council. Mr. Sears made a correction to the handout, Page 3, top paragraph, 2nd sentence, 4.5 FTE changes to 4.7 FTE. There were no objections to Issue #1, Refugee and Youth and Family Consortium Grant. Councilmember Buhler asked with regard to Issue #2, State of Utah Office of Crime Victims Reparation, that the Administration watch for program cuts affecting the City. Mr. Sears said there was approximately $232,000 in liquor funding being cut. He said this was being tracked. Councilmember Buhler asked for a written briefing regarding cuts. Ms. Gust-Jensen said Issue #2 was for the Prosecutor' s Office. She said it was an additional amount of grant money which would add to the ability of the existing unit. Councilmember Christenson said he was concerned with some of the appropriations of 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 Issue #3, U.S. Department of Education Grant. He said he did not want to spend $175,000 in grant funds on the Boxing Building at Liberty Park. He said he was concerned with the increase in full-time employees (FTE'S) . He asked if the City should be the provider of the conduit. He said a non-profit organization should be the provider. Mayor Anderson said the City would not receive appropriations for grants if they were not the provider. He said there was a need for a variety of programs outside schools. He said the City was committed to having first-rate programs with enriched curriculums. He said programs would be open to all children in every part of the City. Mayor Anderson said they had been talking to Salt Lake Community College regarding integrating a mentoring program beginning in the lower grades. He said this program would be called college bound and all participants would be aware that if they were in the program they were College Bound. He said it would create a new expectation and participants would receive a college scholarship if they kept their grades high and remained drug free. Mayor Anderson said the Liberty Park Boxing Building was a valuable building because of the location and resources. He said after school summer programs should be located at as many locations as possible. He said activities offered by the program were different from other programs. He explained some of the programs. Mr. Sears explained budgetary controls with regard to the grant. He said the grant allowed a 60-month time period with a one-year extension for expenditures. He said the Administration preferred 3-years to expend the grant. He said whatever was not spent would be re-appropriated. Mr. Graham said the objective was to deliver and spread youth programs into other communities within the City. He said the City needed facilities to do this. He said the Boxing Building was centrally located and it was owned and controlled by the City. He said the Boxing Building would serve the needs of the community if remodeled. He said the same was true of Ottinger Hall in the Capitol Hills area. A discussion was held regarding renovation of the Boxing Building at Liberty Park. Mr. Graham said the building was not historic. He said it was cinderblock and need a complete renovation and some up-grades. He said a new entry inside of the park was needed. He reported on the North Shelter in Liberty Park which was smaller and also needed renovation. He said this building was a multi-use building for special events. Councilmember Buhler said he supported demolishing the Boxing Building. He said there were schools, churches and community centers in the community which could be used. He said he wanted to exclude the Boxing Building from the grant. He asked if the Boxing Building was part of the grant application. Ms. Thomas said the application was for establishment of three sites in three parks, Liberty Park being named in the grant as one of the parks. Ms. Gust-Jenson said flexibility in the grant had been discussed and was extensive within categories. Ms. Thomas said the City should adhere to the language of the grant request. Mr. Nimkin said the Council's concerns needed to be explored and addressed. A discussion was held regarding non-profit organizations being providers for grants and the City being an intermediary. Mr. Nimkin said the City was trying to build a base for access to Federal funding. Councilmember Jergensen said in addition to the building renovation the City should look outside at groups interested in youth. He 02 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 16, 2002 said the City should have a wider focus. He said his fear was the creation of another bureaucracy with regard to the grant. Mr. Nimkin said the intent was for partnership and collaboration not bureaucracy. He said leadership needed to be established which helped focus other providers and resources. He said the future role of the City was not to be the prime provider. A discussion was held regarding other partners in the community. Councilmember Saxton said her concern was that the City's responsibility was to serve citizens. She said limiting locations did not bring services to citizens. She said existing schools and churches could be used as locations within the community. She said the community needed to be empowered to keep the program going. She said hiring ten staff members was not the right direction to go. She said non-profit groups would manage the program efficiently. She said when Federal funding ran out, the program needed some way to continue. She asked that guidelines for a two-year plan, using existing locations and non-profit groups to manage programs be forwarded to the Council. A discussion was held regarding youth programs. Councilmember Love requested the Administration find another building in the Central City area which could be used rather than the Boxing Building. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the Administration to provide information regarding out-sourcing for management of programs. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING CREATING TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING REGULATIONS, LOCATING PARKING LOTS BEHIND BUILDING, AND ESTABLISHING PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN STANDARDS. (WALK-ABLE COMMUNITIES) View Attachment Janice Jardine, Stephen Goldsmith, Doug Dansie and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council. Ms. Jardine referred to an E-mail from Lynn Olson recommending additional language be included in the Walk-able Communities Ordinance to tie into planned trailways or the open-space plan. She said the Sugar House Community Council had sent a letter expressing support and requesting that walk-able communities be considered in more commercial areas. She referred to a packet of reference photos taken in the 400 South area applying to the transit corridor zone. Mr. Goldsmith introduced a slide presentation addressing the aesthetics of neighborhoods and there function. Mr. Dansie talked about walk-able communities, transit corridors, and traditional communities in Salt Lake vs. conventional suburbs. He said the intent of the walk-able communities ordinance was to be more pedestrian friendly, enhance the public experience, create a sense of place, enhance street vitality and accommodate new development. A discussion was held regarding large glass windows. Councilmember Saxton said the preservation of existing housing was important. She asked what was in the new ordinance to preserve housing. Mr. Dansie said the transportation corridor ordinance did not preserve homes. He said the ordinance was to be applied to the existing commercial corridor, it would not encourage demolition of adjacent homes zoned residential. He said Planning staff could look at the concept and create a policy. Councilmember Saxton said houses on the north side of 400 South from 700 East to 900 East needed to be preserved. She requested that Permits and Licensing review the ordinances. A discussion was held with regard to the approval process. Councilmember Buhler said many businesses would not exist if they depended upon foot traffic. He said automobiles needed to be accommodated. He said the impact was not enough parking. Mr. Goldsmith said the current culture was in transition with respect to walk-able communities. He said the ordinance did not undermine the relationship 02 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2002 between the pedestrian and the automobile; it changed the way in which priorities were oriented in the community. He said the focus was on people not automobiles. A discussion was held regarding parking in the downtown area and the move toward orientation of people rather than autos. Councilmember Love asked with reference to the Sugar House Community Council letter, why the ordinance did not include the CC and CS zones. Mr. Dansie said the CC zone was not mapped into the Sugar House area. He said the Planning Commission felt it was not an appropriate zone for Sugar House. He said the CS zoning district was for new planned development only. Ms. Love asked why there were no design criteria for rear and side entrances. Mr. Dansie said the design was for the basics. He said the architect and the building owner would address those issues. Councilmember Love asked Mr. Goldsmith for an explanation regarding compatibility review. Mr. Goldsmith said a number of issues were not agreed on. He said height, location of doors and garages were issues. He said he would provide a memo listing items which the community could not agree on. A discussion was held concerning the creation of criminal activity areas when interfacing buildings, sidewalks, and rear parking with residential areas. Councilmember Saxton said pedestrian oriented development should be interfaced with mass transit and considered with regard to zoning. A decision was made to re-schedule the issue to September allowing for more investigation and feedback. The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. cm bj 02 - 8 JUL I-K VHLLhY [ILNIHL HEALTH 8015810193 TO 5357651 P.02/03 July 15, 2002 Dear Members of the City Council, On June 5, the Historic Landmarks Commission heard a presentation by Stephen Goldsmith and Ray Grant regarding the use of Pioneer Park as an Olympic memorial. The Commission responded by forming a subcommittee to study the appropriateness of the proposed activities for Salt Lake's most historic park. Since that date, I have repeatedly told representatives of the Administration that I view the proposed use of Pioneer Park as one EXCLUDED under the existing zone and that. the.':changes necessary to allow the use are substantial and involve major shifts in the City's policy toward Open Space. The purpose of my letter is to outline what I consider to be very serious issues related to land use in the Park. I am confident in the ability of the Landmarks Commission to address the compatibility of the proposed activities with the historic status of the Park. Once the Commission's review is completed, however, we will have just begun the review that will be necessary, AND we will be out of time based on the schedule established by SLOG. In short, I do not believe that the proposed uses are allowed in the Open Space zone, the current zoning of Pioneer Park. You of course have the authority to change that zoning, but that would require more time than SLOC has allowed and you should anticipate significant public opposition. Additionally, you risk reducing protections for open space throughout the City which were developed as part of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite. Prior to 1995, the City's park were zones R-2, a low density residential zone. What I am trying to get across to you is that the restrictiveness of this zone is very deliberate and intentional. It is one of the Major accomplishments of the Zoning Rewrite, in my opinion. I have outlined the obstacles to using the Park as proposed on the attached sheet. My purpose in writing you is to urge you to examine other locations which ARE feasible. By selecting Pioneer Park, the Administration has guaranteed that the City cannot meet SLOC's deadline. Simply put, if the City is to take advantage of SLOC's existing financial offer, you or someone else will need to propose a different site. My personal opinion is that at this point, our best bet is to recruit a donor for a location, that is appropriate for the proposed use including the constraints that SLOC is imposing. Sincerely, Cind romer I I Constituent Comments about Pioneer Park&Olympic Legacy as of July 16,2002 Totals: COUNT TOTALS 192 11 Name Phone# Address Opposed For Additional Comments Val Atwood �.A ,KK`, �7 Pioneer Park is a sacred place, and can be cleaned up. He was a � " security guard during the Olympics. Dorothy Hinsey w ,' `: ,,�. Jeanette Fink b '� ,i Robert Smith 435-512-0911 s�,, ' `,: Pioneer Park has heritage,why not Liberty Park-is that an option? Terry Forward ,,' '%w- Heritage and the trees needs to be protected LaVeme Dale Left as a park, Liberty Park , : Moving too fast, park is beautiful and can be cleaned up, don't wipe out Mauguhn 486-2157 * '.,ik q k trees,consider the Library Block or 1st S between State St&2nd :;;' ', ;7 Strong Pioneer Park opposition, Geralee Wirthlin Mayor does not have the consent of the people ,, ,, °,.,t Butler and Evans Architects, LLC Pioneer Park should be cleaned up, not demolished of the oldest trees Lafe Hams 424-2703 ,� '` lafe@butlerevans.com : R: `,a y, , in the State,or removing the heritage that is important to so many 9915 Falconview Dr '''; Lisa Szymanski 571-8368 �,;;_,, ;.';�, , .. Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Sandy, Utah »xz»was«1";,, Katrina Weber 255-9305 �`- a,. Put it somewhere else Diane Packer 295-6050 M, ' M Keep Pioneer Park a Park. 975-3705 4,t °,,°� Heritage, Put it some where else <la259 East 6th Avenue A 'F' JoAnn Autenrieb Keep Pioneer Park a Park. 84103 'ryry a`Y s Julie 565-3577 ,;` Strong Pioneer Park opposition. Carol Simonds 581-9208 Mayor does not have the consent of the people Natural Resource Conservation ,,.. Paulie Strong Pioneer Park opposition. . Service ny Elaine Bambley , `' Somewhere else Page 1 Marilyn Lynn w Heritage ', " '` Historic Irene Ericksen D5 , H , °` put it somewhere else,although what are the financial impacts? Richard Worthland 523-2553 Y .,, Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Janice Twede 292-1610 ';, X Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Michael Austin 521-1739 .' Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Ruth Morgan 467-8245 .,..X Mayor does not have the consent of the people Ann 583-0190 .� Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Collet Virgil 782-6031 '. ' Put it somewhere else James Beless i, ��' Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Marilyn Clayton Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Vicki Scott X .:''KKeep Pioneer Park a Park. "-!". Merlin Dye 557-6686 :-i Put it somewhere else 4$ KeepPioneer Park a Park. Laverne Bellemy <� �;�,.;� Roger Jensen&Family y3 -x Put it somewhere else-fairgrounds? Virginia Denhalter 264-8745 Heritage David Heaps 550-4090 :.. ,,,(. Put it somewhere else Jack Lambson stopped by Undecided `' F, Hesitate, needs to understand/see the long range picture Edith Hickey 904-1685 . ...i Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Mrs. Collins 350-0216 'NV ,.A' Keep Pioneer Park a Park. 485-1038 . '?`1 Put it somewhere else Carly Dean 756-6817 Keep Pioneer Park a Park. N YQ: Ronnalynn Dean Keep the trees Guspavo Adalos '''X'r; Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Wayne 524-3095 , ;,7-a. Keep Pioneer Park a Park. al2 1 Rick Johnson 583-7615 994 MilitaryDrive Kt '��'" Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Merisa Wilson 484-6628 * ,to.,• Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Mrs.Wood 487-7802 `a'`"*• Historic Doug New 205-5304 Keep Pioneer Park a Park. ,M Ms. Hansen 278-1478 '''`'� J Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Perilyn Barton 266-9751 '41.. Keep Pioneer Park a Park. • Stacy Midgley 240-1000 Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Nannette Staples ,„ Keep Pioneer Park a Park. n_s, Dennis Tagget 272-7614 � , Keep Pioneer Parka Park. Cathleen Gordon 766-9644 �'y Heritage N k� bN PO Box 526312 •:,r F'7 Leta Lagerstrom 487-7815 Loves the Farmers' Market 84152 ; ,. ' R"-, yNs.G.\N.�u4 Shirley Kalawaia 466-7323 ' Q-' '. Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Comment Line .'j> �� KeepPioneer Park a Park. Comment Line '''''''''''''''X' t••. KeepPioneer Park a Park. Comment Line = Xi Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Comment Line °',Vf, ;� X Perfect,close to Gateway, downtown,trax Julie Palmer 725-3742 Comment Line ' y; Keep Pioneer Park a Park. 652-4972 "VV Brent Parry Comment Line N Keep Pioneer Park a Park. ..~` `."a*mow_ 532-5846 Comment Line ' Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Patricia Clark 466-6202 Comment Line _ ' .. Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Craig Adams 671-2731 Comment Line »» Put it somewhere else Julie Steele Comment Line Keep Pioneer Park a Park. 427-6265 Comment Line ,i w �- Heritage Jeff Frost 824-0911 ` '\ Heritage Page 3 Linda Hoffmega Susan Crook Ryan High Susan Abbott 355-6471 393-3356 with American Towers sctimpejuno.com pocketgoddess@attbi.com 1767 Hillside Circle 1,pr- , h. „, .,.,„“‘„ .,„ ,;Fi , e,- ,, S,01' -*74 "1 °.,4 ' :/so; ::t•F" Keep Pioneer Park a Park. Put it somewhere else. Save green space/trees at Pioneer Park, Heritage. Clean up the park Heritage If it can be safe as an Olympic Park,why not make it safe and keep it Pioneer Park? „„ ,„ Put it somewhere else. Chuck Matthews cm701@planetmail.com $ 44' 4\k," Keeping it closer to downtown,and its original location, is ideal Heritage Janet Thwaits 222-9288 janet@thwaits.com it ;,..: Put it somewhere else , Brian Anderson 485-2626 -,, , , Heritage .'.:4,;#7g:.A.. Beverly Jacobs 4 '''''--:-X4: :,p,';" Keep Pioneer Park a Park. „'-41`,'!' 2545 Beacon Drive :,ti,; ;i, Doesn't want a tribute to the Olympics put anywhere-it will eventually Allen Dodworth 582-2787 .tu, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 hf ",„ ,, be a drain on the City and community's resources Aer Put it somewhere else-fairgrounds. Don Bennion Open Space Vt. Sandy Seger 604-4271 1418 S 1100 E, apt 7 ;41,1 ":',.. Environmental 4th West and the parking right now is terrible! Where do you think all 14; 01,.. these people are going to park to come and see the Olympic Legacy tttv,i- ','.,': Park? The noise level we have downtown now is very disturbing. She Barbara Ames 321-0582 '%"1-,e4" '' strongly disagrees with putting this park at this location it is so congested now she doesn't know what would happen if this park goes in. -•:,,,kiieff Joan Wilder 557-3915 Phone Call ',,4,t,;`,.-:4,, Disgrace to tear down Pioneer Park find someplace else. , I don't think it would be a good idea to turn Pioneer Park into what you Dale R. Lyons Post Card .:,,,,,,,,,,,, k,,,'h :,, $ ..lyW want to. . — ''',,• , : ,!-i , .:64 Fred Nelson Post Card 2281 So.810 E Windsor St I, ';'::,:v: "Let it Be" The major use of Pioneer Park during the Winter Games was a protest William Athey Post Card 1776 So 5th E .„,.4f, ;'',- zone! Olympic culture was involved-False data, but a better site is the parking lot used as Olympic square. Make that a park/culture center. e 4 1 i --' I've enjoyed the company and leisure's of Pioneer Park and on behalf Robert Penera Post Card 400 Main New Grand Apt 516 ,, ,,; X of Crossroads I am all for a better downtown Pioneer Park Daniel Allen Post Card . Please leave park here for the community use. �-,,.,; zN;t, Please keep our Pioneer Park the way it is. Course I've been there at Joseph S.Withain Jr. Post Card General Delivery ; T "''r'p; least 100 times or more in a year. Please don't take away my place for » ', peace and relaxation. Jennifer Post Card 1284 W Pacific Ave. �1, `'°wµ: : The park should stay the way it is so that people could be entertained (76 ' . ; and go there for a while and have fun. ,-K 1a.,."4,7 We do not need an amphitheater in Pioneer Park-Leave the Park a Kevin Knapp Post Card SLC Mission Park. .',..,,ttf,,Frank Granderson Post Card 271 E 900 S 4: Leave it alone Pat Grand Post Card 1379 G Ave .,,,n., Keep Pioneer Park a Park Ellis Hughey Post Card 225 S 400 E#37 4` `'' >.qt„ Keep Pioneer Park a Park Christopher Sebring Post Card 1735 S 2000 E4 Keep Pioneer Park a Park Armand M. Koenen Post Card 5225 S 900 E laiii Keep Pioneer Park a Park J. Hellaway Post Card PO Box 1594 ,"`T`:X„ It appears to me that Salt Lake City has more appropriate place for a cultural center. Please respect the culture that is already present. ,'''^R v Being a voter I really can not understand why you're trading green David Guardidee Post Card space for greenbacks. Please remember why its called Pioneer Park. k-r` Being proud of 2002 Olympics is fine but us old pilgrims started at the `,,°:,4°;� v park just like yourself. F Joe Er Post Card Homeless ''' „iR,, Speaking for the homeless we would like to keep Pioneer Park a park. ', r�' We need a park for the homeless. Enjoyment as well as other people. Chris Atkins Post Card 741 S 300E ' ''' ` wy ' Don't change the park! =s; Pioneer Park needs to be left the way it is. The proxim ity to the 4,"N""'" homeless shelter and homeless resources makes it the only place for Jeramy Courier Post Card 8650 S. State Sandy, UT At''' the homeless to go. If you remove that from them, it will make the ,p.ii homeless have to wander around Downtown. Think about it. tt Jeff Hutchings Post Card ,,r` ", Leave the park alone. At least we're keeping the element contained. ,,4Mr, '';, We have other places that need help. Page 5 Russ Molloy Post Card 463 S 400 W Please leave Pioneer Park alone. Put this Oly stuff in Beck St park. ,, Larry H. Miller has the power, I think he's a hell of a guy, I never met `"" `":,; `V` him but I love the Jazz, build something for the poor, homeless,vets, Glenn T. Scurry Post Card Homeless 1 ��s,. x people have fought so others can get rich how many slaps are we to ir j: take. Do the right thing build a Legacy. •°,`"'.'i. We need to keep Pioneer Park the same as it always has been. A Annette Rodgers Post Card 5489 S. E#G .", 9 tic, park we can still keep a park. Salt Lake City needs at least some ,46k, _'4 things to stay the same. ° ' ":;y,,, Three reasons to keep Pioneer Park as it is: 1. It is open to all people in the community,especially those who need a refuge. 2. We need Perry H. Hull Post Card 1128 E Sherman `�° 3 °,'"` ` green space downtown. 3. We do not need another amphitheater. ," Please do not change our Pioneer Park into an Olympic park. Pioneer . ,` Park is now open to all people: people who want to picnic during the Samuel Cohese Post Card 1541 Logan Ave --4., ' a. work week,go to the farmer's market,or take a nap on a hot day. We '` .,1i „7 need our downtown green space. Leave Pioneer Parka park. Patricia Sells Post Card 309 e 100 S s; Keep the park a park! Our green space is limited-don't take that away. (Postcard comments)You are the ones we depend on to help those of us who need help to live. Just having friends is not enough. Where is 51, _ our shelter/food/medical/clothes and (life)why is our life being traded David W. P Hughes Post Card/Mee1234 E 1st N#26 x' 9 X'-° A like a mere commodity today? (Meeting comments) I agree with all `,SAS,,, the things of replacing the SLOC mindset with a better place to put the " , , icon of 2002,somewhere other than Pioneer Park in the middle of :4': ,,' SLC. Wendy Polad Post Card 839 S.200 W. ;,,XI:," Leave Pioneer Park alone. It's all the poor have. y Dennis Fischer Post Card 253 S State#86 ;H.,,, F-, a If it ain't broke don't fix it. Naomi Post Card 309E. 100 S ,,E° tq",,,,,,„P Where will these people go? • ey' I have been told that whatever you build in the park it will put the Leon Johnson Post Card 212 S 1400 W Apt. C -,104, homeless people out of the park. Is there possibly any other suitable ;' ;; ,. , ,,°• sites for the Olympic Legacy? Connie Ritamm Post Card 2035 So 300 E#1 ° . `,-: Leave it the way it is. 1 6 • , - To me building monuments are not as important as people's needs. Vera Eini LCSW Post Card 5586 S Sanford Murray UT Tk Please don't spend money on building things while people are hungry ' `Y and on the street. ..¢�=s�4,;, .,, , Salt Lake City, needs it's parks! The more the better to relax in- Debbie Chase Post Card 1352 Edison St#6 exercise in and to have family fun in. Please keep Pioneer Park a % 'a::i4:4:,',/ Park. �`' , Please keep Pioneer Park a park. Our downtown desperately need green space that is open to all in our community. While the Olympics Liz Paige Post Card 1128 E Sherman Ave ;) <' : was an historical event for Utah,changing Pioneer Park would dismiss l°, .. a much older part of our history. The park needs picnic tables not an '` amphitheater. Joseph Coult Post Card 326 E 100 S Apt 205 £w " Why do things have to change. Help leave our park the way it is! v Please support the tradition of Pioneer Park. It is a park open to 4'4z a everyone in downtown Salt Lake City, particularly homeless Utahans. greenspaceyet Hansen Post Card 1477 Ute Drive `� �, ��•�'`. We need to maintain this not turn in into another 4'4..'- ,,,� amphitheater or cement stage. Hey,who will pay to maintain one more '' thing that we don't need? Kathi Cohen Post Card 1541Logan Ave .« a \y Leave it as it is. More picnic tables would be helpful. Shane Monnga Post Card 842 N 1500 W • ‘kot Please leave the park as it is. It's the only place for the homeless. Andria Cardelana Post Card 841 S 200 W ''3 :lye,', Don't change the park it's been here since I was born. It is part of x}° ; Utah's downtown. ''. " Please leave our park a park. We need green space downtown. We ,4 .,4: need to continue to have a place where all people-people who are Jeff Abrams-Cohen Post Card 428 Edith Ave. , ; ,,: '' ,u��,, homeless or yuppies enjoying the Farmers Market are welcome. ,,ynyd�, ,:gin, a Please do not support changing the park into the Olympic park. °°''"'`�`,` Too many unattractive NEW structures replacing historic buildings, ' parks,green spaces,etc. (e.g.. LDS conference building was far too Amy Price Post Card 1062 Princeton Ave#R-1 , `yf expensive and is our expense) I think the money would go to more 't" *a important things, like to better the rotten education in this state. '' ' L.:''', Pioneer Park needs to continue to be a place that everyone can enjoy. ,�q, Improve the park with picnic tables, a basketball court, a small lake Karen Nielsen-Anson Post Card 1457 Harrison Ave. 7, Nk' ,, ,., ,,y* , ,,am around which people may feed ducks and enjoy their lunches. We 1,5 ; don't need an amphitheater or an Olympic Park. Page 7 Jacqin Cowgill Post Card West Jordon I have enjoyed the trees and recreational venue this park offers! Keep ,aµ Pioneer Park a park. w•w .:µ: ; Hiding the homeless won't cure the problem. The park is home for a Darrell Guess Post Card Men's Shelter lot of us. Robert Thomas Post Card ;• ° .. ,; I feel that the park should be left alone. M Please make this a better park for the homeless and the low income Robin Page Post Card 1422 University Village ; • ; , families in that area. 44,14.r»» » . '° '4 I am very concerned about preserving the open space/green space of F I a Pioneer Park. I use the park and have never felt threatened, in DeNorris Bradley Post Card 474 4th Ave.#6 �,�;-` ,' ,, anyway. Please give the park a chance by investing more finances in ,, , upkeep. 4,: _:• It would be nice to keep Pioneer Park because of it's heritage and open Mary Torgerson Post Card 325 E 100 So.Apt. 205 - „ '4< ,% spaces within the city,thank you. . Joker Hindenburg Post Card 312 S 400 E " M1 Please keep Pioneer Park the way it is, no changes. ¢ Chris Parunt Post Card 562 S. 600E • " ' Lets be sure to keep helping the homeless and recently ill for shelter to ''A ,, food. I had to sleep on the streets for 3 years before my SS kicked in. Natalie Allen Post Card , .N}(w µ Keep Pioneer Park a Park, this is a park for the homeless. Rina Sommer Bowen Post Card 360 E Ramona Ave y - ,:,,,. Leave the park for those who need it. a Our downtown does not need another concrete structure. Please Annie J. Heart Post Card Crossroad urban Center X preserve our trees and natural resources. < Shawn J. Crosby Post Card 234 E 1st Ave#2 • ,--,-�y,; ,; Keep Pioneer Park the way it is. ,:' 3`'i t (Postcard comment) Please keep the park a park so that it remains r,,, - accessible to ALL-not only during your leadership but also for under all those that follow you! (meeting comments) Our city leadership does <, • not need to succumb to the money pressure from SLOC and bestow • upon our city another unneeded amphitheater. This open space does Mandi Janis Post Card/Meei 1203 S. 900 E. 84105 "' not need to be cluttered with monuments to an event that lasted 17 a it. rM days. It is unclear how this area will be maintained once SLOC'S dollars are spent. Regardless of the promises of current leadership, ' < the displacement of the homeless and service providers is sure to .N i< follow the development of the Olympic park, because wherever 6 million dollars are planted,fences and security are soon to follow. i 8 i . ., Kathi Gaynor Post Card 831 E Three Fountains 84121 1,Pc : 1 , At, Keep Pioneer Park a park. 44? , T, D. Branundo Post Card 643 S 700 E 84102 :,,g* ,% , Keep Pioneer Park a park. 4441 , '9 Dorothy&Larry Brewer Post Card 1, A We feel you should leave the park alone. Just as this community has provided shelter, beds and food for some who carry burdens of life, I believe that by tradition the community has ttl.,,, come to offer Pioneer Park as a refuge from related burdens. It is not J.Allen Kimball Meeting 6/20 1541 Chandler Drive 84103 difficult for me to regard those who frequent Pioneer Park as pioneers in their own right. I am convinced that the park is of great benefit to them and that the present use of the park should be declared its highest and most valuable use. ,,• '''''., , -,i I would like to save our green space;we have so little of it you know. ,c*. i1,2,f'rfC Do not put at Pioneer Park. The Olympic Cultural Center Amphitheater should go into an area that could use old buildings that needs to be torn down and not in what little green space we have left. Better yet I s4 Paula J. Keiman Meeting 6/20 660 S. 300 E#613 84111 would suggest that you also consider giving the money to the athletic 4',;X:, department which is what the Olympic committee said that they would do if we didn't make a decision by the end of June. Not downtown we %10 have already too much bottle necked traffic downtown. Save our green space,save our park. I was one of the homeless back in 87,88 and 91, I say'NO'to Pioneer Park as an Olympic Culture center. q ,"*-, I want the powers to be to think about what you are doing to the homeless and how it is effecting the area businesses. The homeless are camping out,drinking Listerine until they pass-out. I see this in my Richard Brown Meeting 6/20 454 S 500E#1 ,xy 'A' Ave A between 4th-5th and 500 E to Denver St. This may sound rude, but please have a place for the homeless to congregate, drink and do what they do out of sight. & ; Not sure yet if she is opposed or for. No decisions have been made Vicki Mickelsen Meeting 6/20 yet on what might happen. There are still many discussions to be made. Page 9 e o ° '" r','!,:- This would be a positive move for block 49. We need to focus on the issues and realize SLOC'S time frame. We do not want to see the David Berg Meeting 6/20 Downtown Alliance .Tv ' �W' X money going back to US Funding. This would complete the necklace ^,y to downtown and enhance gateway, hotels and a majority of other 3 '% attractions. We will only be using part of the park so as not to displace ' ',,°s `, anyone and we will only strengthen the downtown area. /,0 ` :; In favor of having an Olympic Park just not in Pioneer Park. He is very ' '.f,z� disturbed by Frasier Bullock's comment in Desert News that it will not Concerned Citizen 933-5827/ - .n; be built at all if not at Pioneer Park. We need more comments before Michael Smith Meeting 6/20(ai lisle@att.net(P.O. Box 11191, 84147- ,Y "4,, tN 0191) deciding on where to put this. We need to hold on to the green space `` we have! (Also called on 6/25/02 to say he's not opposed to the idea of the park--just doesn't want it to be at Pioneer Park.) r �;;,°.'m ' ; Haven't made a decision, but how does the masterplan and zoningfit Robin Carbaugh Meeting 6/20 ;�4k into this decision? Can't we re-do the grant and get more ideas? sw 25 He can't understand why everyone thinks this will displace the :x< "' homeless! The Salvation Army will be gone soon and the homeless might follow. With an Olympic Park right in downtown property values TonyCaputo Meeting6/20 Property Owner ' .,,P P ttY �� X will go up and people can capitalize on the underdevelopment. SLC is Y, ,, dead and needs more activity. We can get control for the park but others need to be let in as a community base to listen and enjoy. Their offiv,;' , ,�,;y: is plenty of empty space. '.4.5, You have a fight on you hands and it has started today! There is no Samatha Francis Meeting6/20 70 Van Buren Ave landmark communication here and you are trying to change the name *;° "• ':,i of the park, push out the homeless, and take away our green space it . _; is not going to happen! , „,;JS�''.''.;:, This is a good positive change for the city. You can still keep the John Meeting 6/20 Volunteer at the Olympics ,. X heritage issue with the park your just adding to the enjoyment of it. we ' Olympic Legacy Park is a wonderful idea just put it somewhere else! Weston McNeill Meeting 6/20 733 Green St 84102 0XgC Pioneer Park serves an important function and purpose in SLC. It is a FM, refuge for displace people and is not a drug park. He believes Fair :: ° Park would be an excellent place for this legacy. 11,o • She feels citizens need to get involved to help stop this from 5 l,p happening! SLOC is bribing the city into believing they need this park. Cindy Cromer Meeting 6/20 816 E 100 S 84102 ,M If the citizens become involved we can put this park where it belongs f„.,. don't let SLOC dictate what do! '�' Why is SLOC in such a rush? Lock SLOC,?,.ter'*, .- into a plan which the ` ' ° `h constituent accept. The way Pioneer Park is now with no ball fields, Glenn Baily Meeting 6/20 864 E Parkway Ave 84106 T,, _,,,,; -p; ,,, X picnic areas it is really overdue for something to happen this could be ' ' good if it is done right. It needs to become a park where everyone is %tl ::*': welcomed! �;�.; We need to put this where more of the Olympics took place like Rice Donald W. Ball Meeting6/20 135 So 30 E#303 84111 Stadium or the Medals Plaza. Pioneer Park is more of a historical M - ,.,, . ,�a,1('. ° value to the city instead of an Olympic one. We need to keep our Via' green space. She feels like the public is getting cut out of making any decisions for ``• ,: °'"' ` where the Olympic Park should beplaced and that the people •,,, : 'NoP P (SLOC) Linda Hilton Meeting 6/20 347 S 400 E 84111 `.,, ,5; a with the check book are dictating to us what to do. SLOC is leaving at the end of the year so what do they care who gets stuck with any costs ,' or extra taxes. We do not need SLOC to design our city. Pioneer Park has many uses Jeff Fox Meeting 6/20 149 Windsor St 8410 and changes which can enhance the park but,we do not need outside enmities telling us what to do it needs to be a decision by the citizens. ,h;a n, The fact that SLOC has no trust in us is very suspicious! It makes no ,iy ,, 'L; sense to put this at Pioneer Park without any parking. The Medal Jan Barlett Meeting 6/20 \ . ., Plaza is the best place, it is in the city center and this would get the ,,„ » » greatest use. Paul Warden Meeting 6/20 ' ;' Let West Valley City get the park and keep Pioneer Park as it is. s , ' She has lived in Central City for 60 years and this is the only park that Ethel Hale Meeting6/20 436 E 8th So St , M,n,, ".M, welcomes thepoor people of the city. We should NOT be destroying p PY g ,, ` -T;, the trees and we need to respect the historic value of Pioneer Park! .»"» ` Yam Ana Archuleta Meeting 6/20 AK, Use another park. ,4 The 340 trees in the park are a great asset to the city! We need great Sandy Edwards Meeting 6/20 437 Douglas 84102 =t (,,%- parks in our city and Pioneer Park needs to keep its place in history , : with Utah. Page 11 Robert Syfu Post Card 133 CST Apt#1 , '"`. , Please help keep the Pioneer Park as an existing part of our history. At a public meeting today,one citizen said, "Great cities have great A,° parks." I couldn't agree more. Urban life is intolerable without `a µ.hi* ;�,AY. "" •, : 7, adequate green space. We need oases, not more concrete. The TP Patricia Samuel Post Card 660 S 300 E #509 :'rv, X .; , Olympic Cultural Center could be sited where it belongs--Medals ;^ ' °, ; Plaza,for instance. Why destroy Pioneer Park? SLOC dangles$6 " ' '& million,says"Hurry, hurry!"and expects to bypass community process. ,d» N I don't think so. Do you? m 4. Michael and Carmina Molinos Post Card 125 E. First Ave#1308 84103 I would like to continue to walk with my family in the park. Jennifer Cruz Post Card 1908 W Gander 1 N : ;~ It is nice for family and people to go and have a picnic. ' '{�'" ,,•, A The park is needed for the homeless so they have a place to go to Molly Smith Post Card 122 So. 1900 West ' ' ' ,, enjoy and relax! Sharon Curley Post Card PO Box 65 Please keep the parkas is. Denise Dewey Post Card 285 So 200 E �,,, "3 < ," Please keep the park as a park. Mary Ann Morgan Phone Comment Line ,.,° . 4:it X I vote for this is a wonderful idea for the middle of the city! Yes,yes! z F_4`Air.:* Concerns: maintain open space; create more parking and address Letter; Rio Grande Community Council A °,,, ,- traffic issues; keep construction of fencing and closed off space to Christopher Viavant, Community 364-5576 c/o 404 So.400 W., SLC, 84101 teed is e;Ore dE minimum; provide secure and monitored restroom facilities; maintain increased patrol and security. Carol Hoard 532-3755 email;241 N.Vine,#802W, SLC =a,k ; ;.. The trees are worth more than a theater. Don't do it. , '°; 'ri' 'x If this park has the Olympic memorial, I would bring friends and visitors : ,.,,f, to see it. I volunteered for the Olympics and would love a place to visit Paul Johnson 73 F Street,#4,SLC, 84103 �k "° l�,=_, �� ,u X and reflect on my wonderful experiences. I hope you'll support the Mayor and vote to convert Pioneer Park. and build a permanent A_' :, Ft°' reminder for the Games our great city held. I really liked Nancy's comments in City Weekly about public process. "44,'t a. Personally, I love the idea of the library block. It reduces the requested N 1 : $4M, by having SLOC help and it will spread people east a bit. Margaret Pahl city employee X Gateway,the Aquarium, Farmer's Market and all of the smaller spin-off investments already have launched the Pioneer Park area. It doesn't .N . need any more encouraging. Central City does. Make the seating area smaller. 12 My relatives in CA want to visit SLC to see Olympic memorabilia. I tell `s them there is nothing to see. It would be nice if there was some kind of • Steve McCann email ° ```F` ,`,, `: X center or park celebrating the Olympics. It is a shame to have had one "`15 %, of the best Olympic events in history and have no monuments or parks to commerate them. I live in Murray and work in SLC. Decorating this park so SLC is all prestigious and impressive makes Miriam Pope Post Card 3774 Lois Lane '° me wonder if you are REALLY concerned for the people of this city. 5,, Are you at all compassionate? You know this decision will hurt more a ,, people than it could possibly help! Be Humane! Care for these people. Darrel Fisher Post Card PO BOX 4072 84101 °40. as "��- Please leave the park as it is or we will have no place to go. Cassie Wright Post Card 555 E 700 S ,` s" The park is fine the way it is. Sondra Stephens Post Card 1918 Ramona 84108 ,,,' , ' . Isn't there a greater need in the city for the funds? Please reconsider µxi k- ,,,,.; using the money to make changes to Pioneer Park! , `'rry , ,;,-' '' I am oppose to the Olympic Amphitheater being placed at Pioneer Park fiy"�`°` e ,' this area is a known drug selling area. These is a liquor store and Dave Salinas Post Card 301 E 2700 S#11 =, "',a; ' homeless people staying there. This will discourage local and visitors ,y ''"'° r from visiting the park! d °' u` Be reasonable-Keep Pioneer Park. Don't the homeless deserve Marie Leceleow Post Card 1359 Enbuglry 84108 , , V ,,,,,', some green space too??? Angela Macshara Post Card 253 S State ,,; ;,� :"di, Please keepthe a park. Leave it alone. ks €' 107How about Salt Air for an amphitheater? The park is an important Bons Kurz Post Card 1203 S 900E 84105 . gOPEN space. Don't bill any of the trees! Lydia Herres-SYFU Post Card 133 C St. 84103 ', Please keep Pioneer Park a place for a family gathering. Please keep �, the park. I Treapton Post Card 120 West 400 So , ,'. j Please leave Pioneer Park as it is. :w :� Amy Edward Post Card SLC 44 '' Save the trees. Randy H. Post Card Rio Grande Hotel r I am homeless and need the park. °�`+, '` '' I am concerned about proposed changes for Pioneer Park. I would like Jeanine Kuhn Post Card 516 12th Ave 84103 > } '``a' to see it stay as it is with continued Farmer's Market music, and free » „ 4,, activities for all to share. Ellie Lambal Post Card , Page 13 Margorie&Edmond Sperry Phone call 2393 Beacon Dr. 84108 r"" `,� _, N* Opposed to having Pioneer Park sacrificed for an Olympic Park. Strongly opposes. Bob Farrell Post Card ' y 3 '; - Keep Pioneer Park a park! A. Galway Post Card Sugarhouse a°' History YES Olympic NO Please build an Olympic Park, but please build it someplace other than Michael L. Smith Post Card PO Box 11191 ' ' Pioneer Park. Please keep the name and focus of Pioneer Park Pioneers. It is effectively the birthplace of our city and the first pioneers - were homeless. Ellie Lambol Post Card 339 West 2nd North °;w , , We really, really love the Farmers market but not the Olympics. Randy Buck Post Card �:. Keep Pioneer Park a park! Gisele Connor Post Card 317 W Ouray Ave 84103 .w , Keep Pioneer Park a park! ,,<Q46.'ll, ''''' Michele Larkin Post Card 2264 Marvinwood Dr 84119 X '' Keep Pioneer Park a park! Rey Jones Post Card 600 S 319 E 84111 44X, Keep Pioneer Park a park! Nancy Vega Post Card 7494 S Platinum Circle `X. Keep Pioneer Park a park! Maria Lopez Post Card 53 W 8840 S Keep Pioneer Park a park! Javier Lopez Montes Post Card 6885 S. Redwood Rd W Jordan X_ ; Keep Pioneer Park a park! Jason Hansen Post Card 462 Kensington Ave -k Keep Pioneer Park a park! Gladys Medina Post Card 462 E Garfield Ave s;,xl',,_ , Keep Pioneer Park a park! Pablo Goner Gumid Post Card 500 S 150 W •`>>tv Keep Pioneer Park a park! Jose Luis Espinosa Post Card , `' >.,. Keep Pioneer Park a park! There are so many that have so little. Please leave Pioneer Park as it Kathlyn M Capozzi Post Card 477 Cheyenne 84104 '4X. ' is in that those who need it's refuge most may continue to enjoy. Martha Salzada Post Card 555 E 500 N 84116 mac. , Pioneer Park is a nice quit place to relax and take a break. Pioneer Park you can go to a restaurant order take out for a picnic Leticia Rosa Post Card 1, ;< : please leave the park alone. � - „ Pioneer Park is a nice place to keep. It is a place to go on a hot day Bruce Anderson Post Card 243 W.400 S and drink a nice cold pop. 14 1 Maria Sautoscano Post Card 1213 Trinity Ave It is a good place for people to go to that don't have a place to go to. Patrick Montgomery Post Card 724 8th S Pioneer Park is a place for friend's and family to get together. t4 We need Pioneer Park for the homeless. They have no where to go to. Lorena Ontiveros Post Card 212 S 1500 W g: `'xF' We need to keep Crossroads Mall open that's where the money comes from. ( Pioneer Park is a place where you can see God's creation,the tree's Taylor Tate Post Card 5292 W Kerns and the birds. Roscoe W. Swenson Post Card 130 S 300 E -'„ We need a park in our area of living. 41, rF5 ��ry ens:!?\ Page 15 SALT 1tLA a_;GITy G�ORPO�e fI01 f LEROY W. HOOTO N, JR. '�' w ROSS C. "ROCKY" AN DE R SON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS ) I: WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER f 11 JUL I [ 2002 July 9, 2002 ri Mr. Doug Wheelwright _ ..` I .-� Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage availability for the UTA/UP Intermodal Freight Facility Dear Doug, Salt Lake City Public Utilities can make available water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage service for the Intermodal Freight Facility being proposed that is bounded by, 700 to 1000 South, 4400—5600 West, if the following requirements are met: Water — City Ordinance requires this project extend water mains along its frontage along any public street. There is a 36-inch water transmission line in 5600 West. A parallel 12-inch main will be required along the 5600 West frontage. A similar condition exists in 700 South Street; there is a 24-inch transmission line that requires a parallel 12-inch main line along all frontage. The proposed new street, 1000 or 1100 South, connecting 5600 West to 4400 West will be required to be constructed with a 12 inch water main, and all applicable appurtenances such as fire hydrants and valves. Landscaping of the intermodal facility should emphasize native and low water use plants to reduce water demand. Sewer— There is a 27-inch sewer trunk line in 4800 West that is available for this project. This sewer trunk line was installed to take sewage from a significant area of the industrial west side of Salt Lake City to property Public Utilities owns for the purpose of constructing a future sewer treatment plant. The closure of 4800 West at about 800 South causes significant concern with regards to protecting and maintaining this sewer. Preliminary analysis has shown that this sewer cannot be relocated, but must be hardened in place. Casing and a secondary casing for by-pass pumping, and a re-arrangement of manholes, will be required. Of primary concern is that the maintenance and operations of this important pipe is never compromised. Public Utilities must be allowed unfettered access, 24-hours per day, 365-days per year for all purposes related to the ownership, operation, maintenance, alteration, repair, inspection and replacement of the facility. The new 1000/ 1100 South Street must be constructed with a new 12-inch sanitary sewer. Storm Drainage - Is not currently available to this property. There are some poorly defined ditches through this and neighboring properties, but the capacity is far from adequate to service the proposed facility. Significant off-site improvements will be required. This property must also make provisions for natural drainage that has historically flowed from the properties to the south, approximately 125 acres. Additionally, the street drainage from the proposed 1000/ 1100 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: 801-4133-6900 FAX: B01-483-6131B Pacheco, Vicki Subject: Tour of three (3) housing projects along with some history of Artspace *Location: 329 Pierpont Ave Start: Thu 7/18/2002 r End: Thu 7/24/2002 . .. �G Recurrence: Weekly Recurrence Pattern: every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Required Attendees: Pacheco, Vicki; Buhler, Dave; Christensen, Carlton; Jergensen, Eric; Turner,Van; Saxton, Nancy; Love, Jill; Lambert, Dale; Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Mumford, Gary Additional Notes: Dave- Carlton - Van - Eric- Nancy- Jill - Dale- New Event: 0 Cindy-- I received a request from Jessica Nore and Jackie Sabine of Artspace. They would like to meet with the Council members, give them a tour of their three housing projects along with some history of Artspace as a housing developer. They would like to do this the week of July 18-26th at the Council members pleasure/availability. The Artspace is willing to work with each Council Member time and date. The only date that is unavailable will be Monday July 22 from 12:30pm to 3:00 pm. Please let Vicki or Lehua know what date and time works for you. 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12,2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Intermodal Freight Facility: Answers to Questions from the City Council CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Steven Allred, Margaret Hunt, Stephen Goldsmith, Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless, Janice Jardine, Michael Sears This memorandum pertains the to July 16 briefing by the Administration and Utah Transit Authority representatives about the proposed intermodal freight facility. The packet is divided into two sections. The first section contains responses from the Administration to questions from City Council Members.The second section contains responses from the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah Department of Transportation to questions from City Council Members. Both sections contain letters from various officials addressing various topics and maps to help illustrate various points. The format of both sections involves listing a question in boldface and following each question with a response below it. 1 SALT rGITY( GORPO ° e 1I01N1 LEROY W. HOUTON, JR. - "`° "'- �"K�""'� '���� �-r`ate `�� �^_"6"rt' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER r- I _{ II 1 2 2002 July 9, 2002 _ _"3 tBi. k.,sS St tlrt� Mr. Doug Wheelwright ' Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage availability for the UTA/UP Intermodal Freight Facility Dear Doug, Salt Lake City Public Utilities can make available water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage service for the Intermodal Freight Facility being proposed that is bounded by, 700 to 1000 South, 4400— 5600 West, if the following requirements are met: Water — City Ordinance requires this project extend water mains along its frontage along any public street. There is a 36-inch water transmission line in 5600 West. A parallel 12-inch main will be required along the 5600 West frontage. A similar condition exists in 700 South Street; there is a 24-inch transmission line that requires a parallel 12-inch main line along all frontage. The proposed new street, 1000 or 1100 South, connecting 5600 West to 4400 West will be required to be constructed with a 12 inch water main, and all applicable appurtenances such as fire hydrants and valves. Landscaping of the intermodal facility should emphasize native and low water use plants to reduce water demand. Sewer— There is a 27-inch sewer trunk line in 4800 West that is available for this project. This sewer trunk line was installed to take sewage from a significant area of the industrial west side of Salt Lake City to property Public Utilities owns for the purpose of constructing a future sewer treatment plant. The closure of 4800 West at about 800 South causes significant concern with regards to protecting and maintaining this sewer. Preliminary analysis has shown that this sewer cannot be relocated, but must be hardened in place. Casing and a secondary casing for by-pass pumping, and a re-arrangement of manholes, will be required. Of primary concern is that the maintenance and operations of this important pipe is never compromised. Public Utilities must be allowed unfettered access, 24-hours per day, 365-days per year for all purposes related to the ownership, operation, maintenance, alteration, repair, inspection and replacement of the facility. The new 1000/ 1100 South Street must be constructed with a new 12-inch sanitary sewer. Storm Drainage - Is not currently available to this property. There are some poorly defined ditches through this and neighboring properties, but the capacity is far from adequate to service the proposed facility. Significant off-site improvements will be required. This property must also make provisions for natural drainage that has historically flowed from the properties to the south, approximately 125 acres. Additionally, the street drainage from the proposed 1000/ 1100 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: S01-483-6900 FAX: S01-4133-6818 :1? ar .aco .Pca South Street and the associated property drainage, approximately 25 acres, must also be accommodated by new drainage systems. An engineering analysis will be required to identify high water elevations, flow rates and channel design. One proposal, under consideration, is to construct a new channel on Public Utilities property. Reimbursement for the value of the land will be required. Early analysis suggests that the typical 0.2 cfs / acre is unattainable for the intermodal site. Public Utilities will require that some outfall be provided for new facility; full storm water retention will not be allowed. The size of the pond and duration of storage will be a function of the magnitude of off-site improvements performed by the developer. The airport also has an interest in the pond design because of potential bird strike hazards. Copies of environmental assessments of the property will also be required for review to minimize the mobilization of possible on-site contaminates to the storm water system. Additionally, this project will be required to provide best management practices for site run-off to comply with storm water quality requirements. This letter highlights the significant or unusual conditions of this project. There will be additional typical design matters that will be worked out during the design and permitting phases of this project. The cost of all fees and work associated with this project must be fully borne by the developer/ owners. All design and construction must meet State, City, and Public Utilities' standards. The development teams working on this project have expressed confidence that the above-mentioned matters will be resolved as the project design progresses. Approval is subject to review and acceptance of design submittals. Brad Stewart (483-6733) will coordinate the review phase of this project for Public Utilities. Sincerely, LeRoy W. ooton, Jr. Director LWH/BDS cc: Alan McCandless, Airport Planner Vicki Bennett, Environmental Specialist Kevin Young,P.E., Transportation Scott Weiler, P.E., Engineering File JUL 1 1 2002 Questions for the Administration What are the current zoning classifications of property around the proposed intermodal freight terminal site? There is a strip of CG zoning along the east side of the 5600 West Street frontage. Everything else is zoned M-1. There is detailed discussion on this on page 6 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Would adopting the proposed ordinances result in spot zoning? Spot zoning is not an issue. Per the E-mail from Lynn Pace to Russell Weeks etc. dated July 5, 2002. "The only legal issue that I saw among the questions for the Administration was the question regarding spot zoning. Under Utah case law, by definition, spot zoning only occurs when there is a rezoning of small parcels of property in a manner inconsistent with the zoning of the surrounding property. In this case,the adjacent property is already zoned M-1, and the size of the parcel to be rezoned is 19+ acres. Under these circumstances, I think there is no likelihood that the rezoning of this property could be considered spot zoning". Are there other properties in the area that should be considered for zoning similar to zoning changes included in the proposed ordinances? This issue was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting by two individuals. Refer to page 10 and 11 of the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Bob Fisher,organizer for the Property Rights Foundation of America in Utah felt that M-2 zoning on adjoining property would provide more development options. Mr. Donnie Sweazey, who was not opposed to the facility but wanted all adjacent properties zoned the same. His property is zoned M-1. The Planning Commission did not concur with their views. What is the basis for the City knowing that there will not be an increase in freight railroad traffic on the 900 South line? There are two letters in the Transmittal Packet that address this issue. See letters from the Union Pacific Railroad dated April 5, 2002 and May 8, 2002. The City Council received information Tuesday that the Public Utilities Department was satisfied with all utilities issues. Please describe what agreements have been reached in regard to: 1.)Public Utilities' 16-inch water line on 4800 West. 2.)Public Utilities'plans to use 4800 West as a sewer line corridor. 3.)Public Utilities' concerns about storm water drainage. 4.)Public Utilities'concerns about the use of asphalt on 97 acres of the site,and the potential to create a heat island on the site. Public Utilities is preparing a letter that addresses these issues. We will forward the letter to the Council office when we get it. What is the latest evolution of the proposed road at about 1000 South between 4800 West and 5600 West? The latest plan to relocate the street to approximately 1100 South,along the north edge of the Landfill has been presented to PRI who is now considering the proposal. We will forward any new information as it is received. A copy of the latest site plan, showing the street is attached. The site plan was received July 10, 2002. Is it correct to say that the existing 700 South intersection with 5600 West will be shifted an additional 700 feet north to about 600 South? It is likely that this intersection would be shifted in the future if U.D.O.T decides an overpass is required in the future. If the intersection will be shifted,when would that occur? When U.D.O.T. determines that the carrying capacity on 5600 West Street warrants an overpass. No date has been established. If the intersection will be shifted,what effect would it have on property owners on or near the existing intersection? The 700 North intersection will likely be reconfigured when UDOT decides to build the overpass which would affect the vacant property north of 700 North and east of 5600 West. The streets and intersections serving the property will need to be located to accommodate UDOT's intersection spacing requirements. The Transportation Division is currently updating the Transportation Master Plan. This will reflect the changes to the 700 North intersection. The Transportation Master Plan will be updated later this year,reflecting UDOT's requirement. The actual location of the intersection and streets serving the property will be addressed when development occurs on the property. Would any of the intersection shifts and potential movements of 1000 South require amendments to the Transportation Master Plan beyond what currently is written in the proposed ordinance?If not,why not? No,the Transportation master plan identifies approximate locations for needed roadways. Master plans are guidance documents. The street and intersection alignments are for the Planning Commission to determine through the conditional use or subdivision approval process. As part of any conditional use landscaping requirements,the City Council has expressed interest in increasing the amount of buffering and landscaping improvements beyond the usual 15 feet of landscaping on street frontages plus requiring similar landscaping on side and rear yards, particularly to screen the views of property owners on 700 South from railroad facilities.What is the position of Union Pacific and UTA regarding the City Council's intention? This issue was not brought up at the Planning Commission hearing by adjoining property owners. See Planning Commission minutes. UP feels the tracks are elevated approximately 6 feet above the adjoining properties which provides sufficient visual buffering for adjoining uses. Any additional vertical landscaping, particularly near the 700 South rail crossing, would reduce site distances for vehicles at this already dangerous intersection. • Given the proximity of the site to the airport, substantial vegetation on the property could attract birds which is a concern to the Airport. A final landscaping plan is required as a condition of the conditional use approval. The Planning Commission delegated final approval of the landscaping plan to the Planning Director. This could be reaffirmed at the July 25 Planning Commission hearing. What is planned to improve the intersection of 700 South,4800 West,including the railroad crossing there? The intersection of 4800 West will be eliminated improving the safety of the crossing. Discussions regarding improvements to this intersection are ongoing. What City Impact Fee funds does the Administration contemplate using to improve railroad-crossing gates on 700 South?How much money would be required to improve the crossing gates?What is the estimated City share of the cost of the improvements?Would City Council approval be required? The City has collected approximately$500,000 in impact fees that could be used to improve the rail crossing. It is estimated full improvements would cost nearly$1,000,000,however, improvements could be done incrementally. This would be a city project that would require the usual approvals and funding authorizations. It is hoped the City could get some participation from UDOT to improve this crossing. Rick Johnston of the Engineering Division would be your best contact for city project authorization processes. What among the above items can be accomplished administratively?What among the above items would require City Council action? Transportation Master Plan approval by the City Council, final landscaping and fencing plan approved by the Planning Director,final subdivision and street dedication by the Planning Commission and Administration. If items require City Council action,does the Council have the necessary documents from the Administration to reach a decision? The transmittal includes all necessary information for the decision on the three agended items. Final site plan approval is under the Conditional Use permit to be finalized by the Planning Staff after Planning Commission action. - State of Utah SIMKO17 EEMIAAWE Michael O.Leavitt DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Governor John R.Njord Commission Randall R Park, P E . Director Glen E. Brown Executive Director Region Two Chairman Carlos M.Braceras 2010 South 2760 West James G. Larkin Deputy Director Salt Lake City.Utah 84104-4892 Hal M.Clyde 801-975-4900 Stephen M. Bodily Fax 801-975-4811 Jan C.Wells Bevan K. Wilson www.dot.state.ut us/r2 Kenneth L.Warnick July 02, 2002 Paul D. Kiser Parsons 1000 East Williams Street, Suite 110 Carson City,Nevada 89701 Dear Mr. Kiser: The UDOT Region 2 Staff have reviewed the traffic impact analysis report and addendum No. 1 to the report for the Union Pacific Railroad Intermodal/Automobile Facility at 5600 West(SR-172)and 1000 South, in Salt Lake City and will grant preliminary approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed location of the street connection must be located 1500' from the railroad crossing. 2. Switching operations for the proposed facility cannot restrict traffic at the 5600 West crossing for more than 5 minutes. Union Pacific must have an operational plan that addresses queuing of traffic after 5 minutes. They must conduct the majority of switching operations to the east side of the facility, thus avoiding impacting 5600 West as much as possible. 3. The proposed crossing must have restricted concrete raised median islands constructed on 5600 West to prevent vehicles from going around the crossing arms. In order to make a permitting decision, we ask that you provide us with the civil engineering information requested in our letter to Jeffery L. Harris, Utah Transit Authority, dated December 21,2001. Please call me at(801)975-4810 if you have any further question. We appreciate your cooperation. Proper access management can yield benefits for both the development of properties and the operation of the highway system. Sincerely, Alan M. Loiacono Right-Of-Way Control Coordinator cc: Doug Wheelwright, Salt Lake City Planning Dept. _ W. Steven Meyer, UTA Gary W. Luenenborg, UPRR r RELOCATED INTERMODAL FACILITY s. /-.-, - A7 Wrote -. -.wGa • "-`-- �im;'r-a�r Z+ _._. ., ,...: 1 ff' .'yr,�„�,,,,,� c foig i ruy.;.v.a,•.e.w:er. \ �\ 1 , -.. i, .F�\ -M7�DYM�6/pri :,.........1/4::,.,:.: • rMaA� ; _;1.!i:; ."r'"` \,, • -a•., i�' \ • - ., :rrw<++'r'�`c✓r ` '• .1�:.1 \, �\ r` r/Rswie6i> A;'}, :,r 11 \ \ -ran7l�raw at". �y{lA i, cenrr o�ors�¢tetMr--. }:`'?. vow�wr°'wei°-'�,�yqc• -._arras amino row ems*a!s�re row i,_��s awwo If \ �\ _,.. ::_:i r. '..,,rt'n0:� •' '—POMP MVO A ,dam -rorw,we met ^.:� 3, �r !,• ^ r•r 4, ... .. -rOMM nM[twQ --- - .. ._ _ _. -- - -- -"-' -- our �.�\ \ •ram f r, / (IMP/{w0 ,. . or Nwr7ot' i I ,�,.,T-n r I ' MI SNP A.. ..., ,:;-- izi Y wrong I.mcgrarr cox • ,j /OMeMIMrMMaOlwaf ----::.,. -• »- - . ... ---•-c•-�•�''lsW' ; Ii f iIMOr t toter - v9- _ r-Au*MP SIMI A Y i�! memo away .3•' , • ,,. - _..,.__-.. ir".--' 4.� gy p, :rs g €;.. <n@r,>e c '.v.1 I al ar j7 �mMl pin ` 1 r� ,� �i i{t IIsI sCE��iFkf R' Ts .4k ��4es Pt t'FF aL }8i _eaw ky. .ter \.› a u 1. t&Ili ; z r P=t �“.'—' s its "� :<.. I< IT sorrow • '. ' Wm."'" 'e II ...'-'-'--::Z .--::=.''. \ 41.\AtttfltiiitIttt . -:;;;.,..,th .!.,..Y.P4f.'.:§“ _,,ti • . > r „laeter , _ it,-..".:::may- -* •:T -I�.. MINIM -tMeel�vtMavMPut i Y , '•, �•-err is rwwMeD •-nemi�ammo tear 1 IOW t • ." ww ie eg - C I '-- •-tl.'-• , ��rsrwra ---- -- ---Al7C MAW ---------------- --- -- WEST I FACILITY --- - MOO-PemM Jr caner 7 r f r J -I SITE PLAN ,r VwGrML AIMj EffoogrovArco ,. -.ii!r- j� _LEGEND _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ --- TRUCK PARKING STALLS v——� ---TRUCK/CONTAINER LOADINGUNLOADING TRACKS ----- PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE (PROPOSED AREA 238.75 AC) .. AUTO PARKING STALLS -••-•--• AUTO UNLOADING TRACKS M-1 MINIMUM YARD REOUIfE ENTS NT 1.==� PAVED SURFACE RELOCATED M NONE RE AIN TRACK YARD ONE REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD I UTA July 11, 2002 Councilman David Buhler Chair, Salt Lake City Council Room 304 451 S. State St. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific freight intermodal site; response to questions from the Salt Lake City Council Dear Councilman Buhler: Attached are the responses from the Utah Transit Authority to questions received from the Salt Lake City Council regarding the proposed site development of the Union Pacific freight intermodal facility. The completion of this corridor preservation purchase will be an important first step towards the development of the future transit corridors along the Wasatch Front. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the City Council, the Council staff, and the administration in assisting us to meeting our schedule. I look forward to meeting with you on July 16 to discuss this issue further. 'ncerely, \,� I Inglish General Manager UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 3600 SOUTH 700 WEST (84119) P. O. BOX 30810 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84130-0810 TEL. 801.262.5626 www.rideuta.co'- Presentation to the Salt Lake City Council Union Pacific Intermodal Freight Facility Utah Transit Authority and Union Pacific Railroad July 16, 2002 Utah Transit Authority's Corridor Preservation Project and its relationship to the Union Pacific freight intermodal site: • Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific purchase agreement: Utah Transit Authority is purchasing 175 miles of Union Pacific rightof-way. This purchase provides the basis for developing transit corridors for Wasatch Front communities. The right-of-way includes: Property along the Union Pacific mainline extending from Brigham City to Payson, The old D&RGW alignment in Davis and Weber County. This corridor could be used as part of a trail system and preserved for additional future transportation uses. • The Sugar House spur in Salt Lake City. The spur provides a vital access under I-15 which could provide light rail access from the north-south line to West Valley City. Property along the Bingham branch in the southwest portion of Salt Lake County. This corridor could provide light rail access to South Jordan, Midvale and West Jordan. • Extension of the north-south rail corridor to Draper. Development of Long-Range Development Plan transit improvements: The purchase of these properties will provide an important rightof-way contribution to the future development of these transit corridors. Development of all these corridors could result in the capability of transit to carry up to 50% of the work trips to downtown Salt Lake City from the north, south and west. • The proposed Union Pacific intermodal freight facility is necessary to facilitate safe and efficient operation of a future commuter rail system on the right-of-way that UTA is purchasing from the Union Pacific. • The relocation of the intermodal freight facility will allow a future commuter rail system to access Salt Lake City and its investment in the Gateway Intermodal site. • Utah Transit Authority participation in the Union Pacific petitions: As part of the purchase agreement, Utah Transit Authority has agreed to assist Union Pacific in obtaining all government approvals necessary for the new freight intermodal facility. The relocation of the intermodal freight facility is a critical component in the ability to use the railroad corridor for commuter rail. Schedule for the Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific purchase agreement Utah Transit Authority has two primary needs to move ahead with this process as soon as possible: • Utah Transit Authority and Union Pacific have signed agreements that set dates to close the contract. It is necessary to complete the government approvals prior to closing so that both parties understand their respective requirements and obligations. • The Utah Transit Authority is financing this purchase through bonding. In order to receive the best possible rates, and therefore minimize the cost to the taxpayer, the closing needs to occur as soon as possible while the bond rates are the most favorable. • Schedule for Commuter Rail from Salt Lake City to Ogden There are many steps to complete prior to operating a commuter rail system. An environmental study of the corridor will be underway shortly to cover the area from Salt Lake City to North Ogden. Upon completion of the environmental analysis, UTA will apply for federal funding to assist with the construction of the corridor and purchase of vehicles. In a best case scenario, a system could be operation within five years. The concept for Commuter Rail The goal of the Utah Transit Authority is to construct a system that combines the highest speed, greatest convenience to commuters and lowest cost to the taxpayers. Brigham RAIL CORRIDOR Cityl PRESERVATION III 'T' INNED Shared Corridor UP Ogden Subdivision ip UTA Ownership Access Agreement Ogden ( >\ .Clearfield Clearfeld Facility Great I \ Salt Layton Lake UP Salt Lake Subdivision UP Salt Lake Subdivision 1 (formerly Oregon Short Line) (formerly Denver & Rio Grande Western) i 1)Bountiful - ) North Salt Lake Facility ) Maintenance Facility . salt () Lake City F-- f UP Sugarhouse Spur cn I— UP Bingham Industrial Lead co Sandy West � Jordan 13 n American 1/7 \ Fork S UP Provo Industrial Lead `-, (TRAX Extension) UP Provo Subdivision Orem/Provo UP Sharp 0 5 10 20 Subdivision Miles Utah UP SharpSubdivision Lake l\ N Spanish Fork UP Tintic Industrial Lead j _ III W E S i Payson i K:\Rail\Com m uter\P resentationMaps\corridor_preserv_g raph ic_7-11-02.m xd i U T A UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY CORRIDOR PRESERVATION Corridor Preservation LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 11, 2002 UTA Doc.No.: FILE CODE: 0-1-6 TO: Russell Weeks FROM: Steve Meyer Salt Lake City Council RE: UP Intermodal Freight Site CONTRACT REFERENCE: We are sending you: X ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER FAX ELECTRONICALLY The following: PROPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS INVOICE COPY OF LETTER TIME&MATERIALS RECORD/INFO RFI AUDIT REPORT DEFICIENCY REPORT SAMPLES PLAN CHANGE ORDER DRAWINGS/PRINTS PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION REQUEST FIELD OBSERVATION PRODUCT OPTION REQUEST OTHER: ITEM DATE COPIES DESCRIPTION 1. 07/11/02 20 UTA/UP/UDOT responses to City Council questions 2. These are transmitted as checked below: FOR APPROVAL FOR YOUR FILE REPLY TO SENDER FOR YOUR ACTION REVIEW AND RETURN X AS REQUESTED COMMENTS OTHER(SEE BELOW) FOR INFORMATION REMARKS: Cc: DocC I:\Commuter Rail\Correspondence\Transmittals\Corridor Preservation Transmittal Template.doc UTA 221 West 2100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Phone(801)466-4697 Fax(801)466-8057 Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific Freight Intermodal Site Responses to questions from the Salt Lake City Council Submitted: July 11, 2002 Responses from the Utah Transit Authority: 1. Please describe why the July 31 deadline for publication of ordinances related to the proposed intermodal freight facility is important. • The latest possible date for closing under the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Union Pacific and the Utah Transit Authority is August 31, 2002. • A condition to closing is that the parties have obtained all state and local governmental approvals and permits on terms and conditions acceptable to the Union Pacific. Satisfaction of this condition has been interpreted by the parties to include the expiration of the period to appeal a final decision regarding approvals and permits. The appeal period of the City Council decision is 30 days from the publication of the ordinance. Therefore, in order to meet the August 31,2002 deadline,the ordinance must be published by July 31, 2002. • Another condition to closing is that the Utah Transit Authority procure bond financing of$185 million. Local permits and approvals need to be in place before the Utah Transit Authority enters the bond market. It takes 30 days to market the bonds and close the bond transaction. 2. What might happen to UTA's plans for commuter rail if the July 31 deadline is not met? • The negotiations with Union Pacific for the preservation of the corridors for potential commuter rail and light rail expansion will have to be reopened. This could indefinitely postpone or terminate the opportunity to acquire right- of-way in these corridors. The current purchase and sale agreement has taken over two years to negotiate. • If this deadline is not met, the critical corridor preservation component of the Wasatch Front Regional Council's rail and light rail expansion projects will be in serious jeopardy(see attached map). Commuter rail access to Salt Lake City's Gateway passenger intermodal hub will also be at risk. • Unless the corridor preservation project is completed, the balance of the commuter rail and light rail expansion projects which have been approved by the voters of Davis, Weber and Salt Lake Counties will not go through, since Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific Freight Intermodal Site the Utah Transit Authority does not have condemnation powers to acquire a substitute corridor. 3. Please explain in detail why the planned purchase of right of way from Union Pacific Railroad is better than the idea raised in the public hearing of using the Rio Grande line plus building a light rail line in Davis County. • As noted in the response to question#2,the purchase from Union Pacific includes the Rio Grande (DRGW) line in Davis and Weber counties. • An environmental impact analysis will be underway shortly to evaluate the best alignment and technology for transit between Salt Lake City and Ogden. The study team will consider the DRGW corridor as well as the Union Pacific mainline corridor. • Regardless of the corridor used, the Beck Street intermodal freight facility will have to be relocated. 4. Would it be possible to share Union Pacific's freight tracks instead of purchasing right of way? • The parties have agreed to share track where capacity and safety allow(for example, between Ogden and Brigham City). • Both parties agree that due to the operational capacity and safety issues, it would be unacceptable to operate a commuter rail system on the mainline corridor from Ogden to Provo. 5. If a commuter rail line were to share Union Pacific freight tracks,who would determine whether a commuter train or a freight train would have priority to use the tracks? • If it were possible for the Utah Transit Authority to run commuter rail on the Union Pacific mainline track from Ogden to Provo, Union Pacific would have control of the corridor and priority for use of the tracks. 6. With regard to the commuter rail line,what other corridors were studied? What were the pros and cons to the other options? • All available rail corridors from Brigham City to Payson were evaluated by the Utah Transit Authority and are included in this acquisition. • Specifically for commuter rail,there were several alternative alignments evaluated by the Utah Transit Authority: a. Ogden to Salt Lake: the DRGW and the Union Pacific mainline b. Salt Lake to Provo: the former DRGW mainline and the Union Pacific Provo Subdivision. • These alignments will receive further analysis during the environmental impact study. Utah Transit Authority Page 2 of 5 7/11/2002 Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific Freight Intermodal Site 7. Has there been or will there be an independent analysis of the potential for improvements to the Grant Tower curve to change the amount of freight traffic on the 900 South railroad line? • The Utah Transit Authority is not aware of any studies specifically looking at Grant Tower improvements with respect to traffic on 900 South. • The Utah Transit Authority is aware that there have been two studies conducted to look at improving the track geometry through Grant Tower. The first study was conducted by Salt Lake City during the Gateway Rail Consolidation efforts in 1997 (analysis performed by Wilbur Smith Associates as a subconsultant to Sear-Brown). The second study was completed in 2002 by the Sale Lake City Redevelopment Agency (analysis performed by Carter & Burgess). • The Utah Transit Authority has not conducted an independent analysis of the Grant Tower freight track geometry largely because future transit improvements in the corridor would operate independent of the freight system. 8. How does UTA intend to connect the commuter rail line with the existing light rail system in Salt Lake City? • Consistent with the Gateway Specific Plan and the Salt Lake City Intermodal Center Environmental Assessment(1998), light rail would be extended from its current terminus at the Delta Center, south along 400 West to 200 South and then west along 200 South to the intermodal site 9. Does UTA plan to complete the 400 South, 400 West, South Temple,Main Street light rail circulator loop described in the March 1999 Airport to University West-East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement? • In 1999, the West-East project was broken into what the Federal Transit Administration refers to as Minimum Operable Segments (MOS). The MOS's were downtown to the University of Utah, the University of Utah to the University Medical Center, downtown to the Airport and finally the 400 South loop. • The 400 South loop is the most expensive segment on both a cost per mile and a per rider basis. • The 400 South loop is still part of the CBD to airport alignment and is listed in the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Transportation Improvement Program. • The 400 South loop will be evaluated for construction based on ridership and availability of funding. Utah Transit Authority Page 3 of 5 7/11/2002 Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific Freight Intermodal Site 10. Please cite the passage, if any,in the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Design and Construction of the University Light Rail Transit Project adopted by the City Council on May 4,2000, in which the Utah Department of Transportation prohibits or UTA stipulates that UTA would not extend light rail on 400 South west of Main Street. • The document referenced deals specifically with the University Light Rail project and does not discuss the use of 400 South west of Main Street. 11.Please provide any relevant documents in which the Utah Transit Authority stipulated to the Utah Department of Transportation that it would not extend light rail on 400 South west of Main Street and when either the current or previous Salt Lake City administration received those documents. • The Utah Transit Authority is unaware of any such documents. 12.If UTA does not plan to complete a light rail circulator loop on 400 South, 400 West, South Temple and Main Street, a.) What are UTA's reasons for not doing so? • No decision has been made to eliminate the 400 South loop. b.) What effect would not completing the loop have on Salt Lake City's portion of the light rail system? • A decrease in accessibility to light rail to those in the immediate vicinity of the portion of the loop not constructed. • Increased frequency of trains along the entire route because of the elimination of a segment of slower speed, street-running track. c.) What alternatives are under consideration? • The 400 South loop is under consideration. • Utah Transit Authority is also exploring the concept of a street car circulator that would connect the intermodal center with the rest of the downtown area. The street car concept could run in a modified loop extending from the intermodal hub along 600 West to 700 South and then connecting back to the North/South TRAX line. d.) When did UTA notify either the previous or current Salt Lake City administrations or previous or current Salt Lake City Councils about a decision not to complete the circulator loop? • The Utah Transit Authority has not notified the administration because no decision to not complete the circulator loop has been made. The 400 Utah Transit Authority Page 4 of 5 7/11/2002 • Utah Transit Authority Corridor Preservation Project Union Pacific Freight Intermodal Site South loop is still part of the CBD to airport alignment and is listed in the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Transportation Improvement Program. 13. Would not building a light rail circulator loop on 400 South,400 West, South Temple and Main Street require an amendment to the Airport to University West-East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement? • If the 400 South loop was dropped from the plans or another alternative is developed, a supplement to the existing environmental impact statement or a completely new environmental document might be required. Utah Transit Authority Page 5 of 5 7/11/2002 Brigham RAIL CORRIDOR City' PRESERVATION i Shared Corridor UP Ogden Subdivision I ,_UTA Ownership Access Agreement Ogden Clearfield r Clearfield Facility Great Salt Layton Lake UP Salt Lake Subdivision UP Salt Lake Subdivision \ (formerly Oregon Short Line) (formerly Denver&Rio Grande Western) I Bountiful North Salt Lake Facility I Maintenance Facility Salt Lake City i UP Sugarhouse Spur UP Bingham Industrial Lead 'i 130, Sandy West A Jordan y } American i \ Fork UP Provo Industrial Lead UP Provo Subdivision (TRAX Extension) ® Orem/Provo \ i UP Sharp r 0 5 10 20 Subdivision 1 Miles Utah UP Sharp Lake Subdivision NAA Spanish Fork W Jl E UP Tintic Industrial Lead S Payson i K:\Rail\Commuter\PresenlalionMaps\corndor_preserv_graphic_7.11-02.mxd UTA , Corridor Preservation Timeline: KEY DATES: 1995-1998: Initial discussions between Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority regarding corridor preservation August, 1997: Wasatch Front regional commuter Rail Feasibility Study final report published Fall, 1999: Governor Leavitt and legislator meetings March, 2000: Governor Leavitt called Union Pacific to express State support for corridor preservation March, 2000: Legislative intent language passed directing the Utah Transit Authority to enter negotiations for corridor preservation March, 2000: Multi jurisdictional team assembled to look at corridor preservation. Team reported back to legislative committees and local jurisdictions. Fall 2000: Agreement between Union Pacific and the Utah Transit Authority on the conditions and operation configuration of the available corridors November, 2000: Referendum to increase funding for rail extensions and corridor acquisition passed in Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties. Completion of the first set of concept drawings for the corridor preservation December, 2000: Identification of 5600 West site for relocation of Union Pacific freight intermodal and automobile unloading facilities. Salt Lake City administration and property owner meetings regarding the 5600 West site. January, 2001: Governor Leavitt briefings January, 2001: Salt Lake City and Utah Department of Transportation administrative staff meetings regarding the proposed 5600 West Union Pacific site. March, 2001: Legislature approved $24.5 million contribution to corridor preservation May, 2001: Federal Railroad Administration meetings September, 2001: Federal Transit Administration acknowledgement of corridor preservation activities Sept. — Dec., 2001: Salt Lake City administration meetings October, 2001: Salt Lake City Development Coordination Team meeting to discuss permitting requirements of 5600 West site January 17, 2002: Purchase and Sale Agreement between Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority signed January, 2002: Interregional Corridor Alternatives Analysis completed February 24, 2002: Initiation of formal approval process with Salt Lake City March, 2002: Meeting with West Salt Lake Community Council C:\Documents and Settings\stmeyer\My Documents\documents\slc council chronology 071602.doc Page 1 of 2 March, 2002: Meeting with Poplar Grove Community Council April, May, 2002: Weekly meetings with Salt Lake City staff regarding both passenger and freight intermodal hubs April 8, 2002: Meeting with Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board April 19, 2002: Informal briefing with City Council members April 26, 2002: Salt Lake City Council briefing April 30, 2002: Salt Lake City Council members and City staff informal briefing May 2-3, 2002: Salt Lake City Council members attended tour with other elected officials of California commuter rail systems May 16, 2002: Planning Commission hearing June 18, 2002: Open House at Glendale Senior Center June 19, 2002: Open House at Glendale Senior Center June 20, 2002: Development Coordination Team meeting at City Hall July 2, 2002: Salt Lake City Council public hearing July 16, 2002: Salt Lake City Council Briefing July 25, 2002: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Hearing July 29, 2002: Salt Lake City Council Hearing July 31, 2002: UTA Board action on the corridor preservation purchase July 31, 2002: Salt Lake City publication of ordinances August 31, 2002: Latest possible date to satisfy all conditions to closing under the terms of the Purchase and Sale agreement. 2C:\Documents and Settings\stmeyer\My Documents\documents\slc council chronology 071602.doc Page 2 of 2 �JUL-11—CUUC 1I1U U0, 10 till UUUI ICU1UN C rCrcr111� ri-IA IYU. CIUl d15 r,4y1� uc v,, State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Michael 0.l.ea vil l J It mmiaaion Randall R. Park, P.E., pirtittor eaun i;. Brown John Njord P..Awwwv Unrctur Region Two Chairman CiI1J ,M.Bruceras 2010 South 2760 West James(i. Larkin Sail Lake City, Utah 8 10a-4892 trsl M. Clyde 801-975-4900 Stephen M. Bodily Jan C. Wells Fw,801-975-4811 Bevan K. Wilson www dol.state.ut.us/r2 Kenneth L. Warnick July 11, 2002 W. Steven Meyer Manager, Commuter Rail Engineering and Construction Utah Transit Authority 221 West 2100 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Dear Mr. Meyer: The purpose of my letter is to provide a response to your email, Salt Lake City Council questions on UP Freight Intemodal site, dated July 10, 1. Question:"On what are the short-term and long-term estimated auto traffic delays on 5600 West Street based? If the estimates are not based on Utah Department of Transportation figures, does UDOT agree with the estimates?" UDOT's understanding of the traffic delays estimates as explained by P.D,Kiser from Parsons Engineering,was based on the PM peak traffic counts and the trains length and speed. Parsons conducted AM and PM traffic counts every 15 minutes and the delays are an average_ UDOT does not agree or disagree with the short-term and long-term estimates. As we stated in our letter granting preliminary approval dated July 2,2002, switching operations for the proposed facility cannot restrict traffic at the 5600 West crossing for more than 5 minutes, Union Pacific must have an operational plan that addresses queuing of traffic after 5 minutes. They must conduct the majority of switching operations to the east side of the facility, thus avoiding impacting 5600 West as much as possible. 2. Question: "What is the status of UDOT's plan to construct a viaduct for 5600 West to cross the existing tracks that currently delay 5600 West traffic, and how will a freight yard increase the delays?" UDOT currently has no plans to construct a grade separation crossing at this location on 5600 West. Eventually, the continued growth in Salt Lake County will necessitate the development of the 5600 West Corridor from its current two-lane condition to a wider high-speed corridor. It is anticipated that when the corridor is improved, a grade separation crossing will be required. This crossing may or may not be on 5600 West, depending on where the corridor will be. 3. Question: "What, in general, is the status of UDOT's plan for 5600 West between Interstate 80 and 2100 South?" UDOT is partnering with the Wasatch Regional , JUL-11-CUUC IflU UO' 1 ( till UVUI ISCUIUPf L 1L11I110 rnn nu, (Jul 01J 4010 1 . uJ Council and several municipalities to initiate a Western Transportation Corridor study which would address this specific area and the transportation requirements. Again, as we stated in our answer to question 2, we do see a need for a future high speed transpiration corridor for this area which we hope this study will address and define. Please call me at (801) 975-4827 or Alan Loiacono at (801) 975-4810 if you have any further question. We appreciate your cooperation. Proper access management can yield benefits for both the development of properties and the operation of the highway system. Sincerely, Mack Christensen Traffic Operations Engineer 11:1WPFILE81AL1tr120021Sr-172WPRR lnlmmoclal Situ-1000 SnrrA's It equca1 For Into-July I0.wpd 11 c_VVc_ 11 'TV I IS VI INI♦ I—,Iw TVL L I 1 JV1V I V J1 VVl`YVVVVJ I 1 .VG/CJV UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H.KOCH Room 120E Vice President-Field Operations 1416 Dodge Street Omaha,Nebraska 6e179 UNION (402)271.5423 VAC CIC III I FAX(402)271.6319 July 11, 2002 Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah RE: Utah Transit Authority/Union Pacific Applications for Railroad Facility at 5600 West Dear City Council Members: Union Pacific submits the following answers to the questions asked by the Salt Lake City Council members. We appreciate the opportunity to address these and any other questions the City Council may have at the City Council briefing on July 16. 1. As part of any conditional use landscaping requirements, the City Council has expressed interest in increasing the amount of buffering and landscaping improvements beyond the usual 15 feet of landscaping on street frontages plus requiring similar landscaping on side and rear yards, particularly to screen the views of property owners on 700 South from railroad facilities. What is the position of Union Pacific and UTA regarding the City Council's intention? ANSWER: The site for the proposed facility is essentially an "enclosed" site, with the exc ption of the 5600 West street frontage. There is no need for upgraded landscaping on the perimeter of the proposed facility. The existing Union Pacific track along the north side of the proposed facility is significantly elevated above the adjacent property. This serves as a visual screen for property that fronts on 700 South and that backs up to the track. The proposed new street at 1100 South will be landscaped in accordance with City requirements for street landscaping. Also, any buildings constructed n th PRI property on the north side of new 1100 South will back up to the proposed facility. This eliminates the need for landscaping on the southerly perimeter of the proposed facility. .•VL 11 LVVL 11 T I I I\ VI I\I L I J. 1V I I I .VV VV The easterly perimeter of the pr p s d facility is ncumbered with an ov rhead p werline. The property wner to the east has n t r quired acre ping as a condition to selling property to Union Pacific for the proposed facility. Landscaping will be provided along 5600 West in accordance with City requirements. 2. Is City Council action required to complete the project? If not, does Union Pacific have alternate methods of moving the project forward? ANSWER: UTA and Union Pacific have determined that it is in the best interest of the UTA project to follow the procedures established by City Ordinance for obtaining City approvals for the proposed Union Pacific rail facility in the same manner as for property being developed for purposes other than rail. There is no alternate method of moving the project forward. UTA cannot complete its acquisition of Union Pacific's existing facilities at Beck Street and Clearfield until there is certainty that the proposed replacement facility may be constructed. Obtaining City approvals is the only way to achieve that certainty in a time frame which is consistent with UTA's funding for the acquisition. 3. What provisions for access to the proposed intermodal freight facility are proposed from 5600 West Street? ANSWER: Access from 5600 West has been given preliminary approval by the Utah Department of Transportation. See attached letter from UDOT and map depicting th access. 4. What legal assurance does the City have that: 1) Building the proposed intermodal terminal will not result in increased freight rail traffic across 5600 West Street? 2) Building the proposed intermodal terminal will not result in increased freight rail traffic on the 900 South line? ANSWER: Trains that serve the existing container (intermodal) and automotive facilities at Beck Street and Clearfield already use the segment of main line track that crosses 5600 West. The proposed facility replaces those existing facilities. R placement of the existing facilities will not generate additional rail traffic on that main line track. Also, as a result of the proposed project, one at-grade crossing of 5600 West will be eliminated when the rail line that crosses 5600 W st at 900 South is relocated next to the line that crosses at 800 South. 2 J VL 11 GCJCJG J. Y 1 1 I\ VI 1\I\ LflW YCJG G 1 1 JV1CJ 1 V J1 VCJIYVVVCJJ 1 1 .CJ`tf CJV Rail traffic nt ring the prop sed facility will cross 5600 We t at lower sp ds than the traffic that now crosses 5600 West to access the existing facilities. Also, there will be some back and forth movement of trains across 5600 West as cars are picked up and set out in the proposed facility. However, the traffic impact study shows that the proposed facility is expected to generate only a moderate Increase in the amount of time when the crossing at 5600 West will b blocked, and that none of this increase will occur during the morning peak hours. Als , the Utah Transportation Department's preliminary approval of the rail access across 5600 West (copy attached) is conditioned upon limiting the Impact on 5600 West from operations at the proposed facility. One of those conditions is that the crossing may not be blocked for more than five minutes. The best assurance that the proposed facility will not result in increased rail traffic on the 900 South line is the fact that using 900 South to route container and automotive trains to and from the proposed facility- which will handle only container and automotive traffic- simply is not practical or efficient. Container and automotive trains have delivery schedules that require that they be given pri rity over general freight traffic. As a result, container trains, all of which originate at or are destined for West Coast ports, and automotive trains handled at th Salt Lake City area unloading facility(existing or proposed), all of which originate in the Midwest, use the direct Cheyenne-Ogden-Salt Lake City line with routing through Salt Lake City via Grant Tower. Union Pacific freight traffic over 900 South Includes no container or automotive trains handled at Union Pacific's existing facilities (or the proposed replacement facilities when completed). Although the 900 South line Is In proximity to the Cheyenne-Ogden-Salt Lake City line near the proposed facility, th 900 South line cannot be used for trains moving to or from Ogden without running the engines around the train at Roper Yard. The 1-15 viaduct prevents the construction of a connection at the east end of the 900 South line that would eliminate this problem. See attached maps. 5. How can the City be assured that train traffic on the 900 South line will be increased beyond current projections only in emergencies? ANSWER: See above answer to Question 4. Because of the inefficient routing, 900 South would be used for container and automotive trains from the proposed facility only if no better routing were available due to an emergency. This is th case today for container and automotive trains handled at the existing facilities at B ck Street and Clearfield. The only foreseeable emergency that would result in thi traffic being routed over 900 South would be if the Cheyenne-Ogden-Salt Lake City line between Grant Tower and 5600 West is unusable. See attached lett r dated May 8, 2002. 3 JUL 11 2002 11;4b t-K UI-KK-LHW 'WJc r 1 bola IU 710U1400OUJ f r.UJ/ego 6. Have Union Pacific representatives met with representatives of Property Reserve Inc. to discuss moving the entire length of the proposed road at about 1000 South to about 1100 South? ANSWER: Yes. 7. What was Property Reserve Inc.'s response to the idea? ANSWER: PRI's initial review of the proposal was favorable. We are awaiting PRI's final decision and formal approval, which we expect to receive the week of July 15. 8. What is the process for filing claims for property owners who experience damage as a result of the operation of trains? What is the average length of time for response to claims that are filed? What is the history of payment for claims of this nature? Does Union Pacific have any immunity against claims of owners abutting Union Pacific rights of way? ANSWER: Claimants may call Union Pacific's toll-free claims number(800-638-3891) to sp ak with a claims representative. The claims representative will ask the claimant for documentation based on the nature of the claim, and will send a claims form to the claimant. Once the claims form and supporting documentation is received by Union Pacific, a response typically Is made within seven to forty- five days depending on the nature of the claim. Union Pacific's history of claim payments is proprietary business information. Payments are based a number of factors including, but not limited to, Union Pacific's analysis of its legal liability. Generally speaking, Union Pacific is not liable for damage caused by the non- negligent operation of its trains. 9. Has there been or will there be an independent analysis of the potential for improvements to the Grant's Tower curve to change the amount of freight traffic on the 900 South railroad line? ANSWER: As discussed above, the 900 South line bears no relationship to the issue f wh ther the City should approve UTA's and Union Pacific's Applications for approvals for the proposed facility. However, Union Pacific will respond to the question. Union Pacific is not aware of any such Independent study. 4 JUL 11 CUUC rrc UrICR-LI"Iw `-rwc c i 1 JV1V V JIvvJ.wvIJVJ I .vv vv 10. There has been reference of a letter from Union Pacific to residents along 900 South regarding freight train traffic along the 900 South line. The letter appeared to indicate that railroad traffic on the 900 South line would only be increased as a result of the freight transfer facility in an emergency. Council Members would like a definition of an "emergency situation"and what specific scenarios would constitute an emergency. Council Members have suggested that any scenarios could be in a list format. ANSWER: See answer to Question 5 above. Again, Union Pacific is prepared to discuss these issues and any other issues of concern at the July 16 City Council briefing. Very truly yours, kCoy e . Koch Vice President-Field Operations (402) 271-5423 (402) 271-6319 (FAX) 5 ** TOTAL PAGE.Ei6 ** . -. _ . State of Utah Br0fAsrorE.I7AAAIILE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Michael O.Leavitt Governor Commission John R.Njord Randall R. Park, P.E., Director Glen E.Brown Executive Director Region Two Chairman Carlos M.Braceras 2010 South 2760 West James G.Larkin Deputy Director Salt Lake City, Utah 84104-4892 Hal M.Clyde Stephen M.Bodily 801-975-4900 Jan C.Wells Fax 801-975-4811 Bevan K.Wilson www.dot.state.ut.us/r2 Kenneth L. Warnick July 02,2002 Paul D. Kiser Parsons 1000 East Williams Street, Suite 110 Carson City,Nevada 89701 Dear Mr.Kiser: The UDOT Region 2 Staff have reviewed the traffic impact analysis report and addendum No. 1 to the report for the Union Pacific Railroad Intermodal/Automobile Facility at 5600 West(SR-172)and 1000 South,in Salt Lake City and will grant preliminary approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed location of the street connection must be located 1500' from the railroad crossing. 2. Switching operations for the proposed facility cannot restrict traffic at the 5600 West crossing for more than 5 minutes. Union Pacific must have an operational plan that addresses queuing of traffic after 5 minutes. They must conduct the majority of switching operations to the east side of the facility, thus avoiding impacting 5600 West as much as possible. 3. The proposed crossing must have restricted concrete raised median islands constructed on 5600 West to prevent vehicles from going around the crossing arms. In order to make a permitting decision,we ask that you provide us with the civil engineering information requested in our letter to Jeffery L.Harris, Utah Transit Authority,dated December 21,2001. Please call me at(801)975-4810 if you have any further question. We appreciate your cooperation. Proper access management can yield benefits for both the development of properties and the operation of the highway system. Sincerely, Alan M. Loiacono Right-Of-Way Control Coordinator cc: Doug Wheelwright, Salt Lake City Planning Dept. W. Steven Meyer,UTA Gary W. Luenenborg,UPRR � 7 ;�h ti i. is ls� .r S 7 t : I•.1 . i.'...-4,. ;8 i'A •t .6,,r.....fa. I+ • ••••• A ,,;,,, -.. \i-,-..) ,.. .6.'f" • '', '‘ ; .'•., ,' .sltpir,A6- i; 4. .. . • •i• 44%. !, .: : , , : t # ...., ‘. : lati, "., , .., t ,tt`�' < ,v, r �,` sue.+ • h,► y, wril.,,„ • . JI • . .1..."Mt ' ••• , I•,t t_t I 1 p t I , I,' ' t I „ \ , 11 1tt e 1 J t ', �xN I, 1I •c, ' ✓• {r•}- / , 1'. I ' tom op • ¢ $$ Z . g 9 'pp a bl ,. , C 9O8 OAO9d e�8 KjL 1 \ 1. g.g i§ P • U x < a .4'`9 5 w ' a` i ''., t 61 b. d 14, / °�} > �� § c �( s OAou +.A e+y„ $4 y wua o� w 0 �' �+� 5 • �.. ,. b E 3 w4 - i 6 _`4 C--�� 7' ` ae .,....ter wn 1 -b �a8 5 ge vQ ++„„a ,.a / y,41a, // UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H.KOCH Room 1206 Vice President-Field Operations 1416 Dodge Street UNION Omaha,Nebraska 68179 PACIFIC (402)271-5423 I1111I FAX(402)271-6319 May 8, 2002 Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Mayor, Salt Lake City 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: UTA/SLC Dear Mayor Anderson: As you know, Union Pacific Railroad Company has requested certain City approvals for the proposed new intermodal/auto unloading facilities that will replace the existing facilities being acquired by the Utah Transit Authority. The question has been asked as to whether the new facilities will generate traffic over the rail line at 900 South. As indicated in my April 5 , 2002 letter to Douglas Wheelwright of the City Planning Division, copy attached, rail traffic that will serve the replacement intermodal/auto unloading facilities at 5600 West will not be routed over Union Pacific's rail line at 900 South except in an emergency situation that would require rerouting over 900 South. Because traffic serving the new facilities at 5600 West will originate over Union Pacific's east-west mainline routes from Chicago to Oakland and Los Angeles, any rerouting of this traffic over 900 South would involve significant detouring and consequent delays. Less circuitous alternative routing would be pursued first, and emergency rerouting over 900 South is unlikely ever to occur. A map that depicts the planned routing for the new facilities at 5600 West is attached. If you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, cc: Salt Lake City Planning Department Attention: Douglas Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor 451 South State Street, #406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 2 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JEFFERY H KOCH Room 120e VMe pn i000t-Fuld OperaOust leis Dodge Sbeet Omaau,Nebraska eel20 (002)271dt23 1 1 1 1 FAX(402)27141310 April 5,2002 Mr. Douglas Wheelwright Planning Programs Supervisor Salt Lake City Corporation,Planning Division 451 South State Street, Rm 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr.Wheelwright: This letter is written to outline the Union Pacific's operating plans for the replacement intermodal and auto facility proposed to be located in the 5600 West area. Currently the Union Pacific operates an intermodal facility near Beck Street and an auto unloading facility in Clearfield. In order to accommodate the Utah Transit Authority project, it is necessary to relocate these facilities. The plan is to combine the relocated auto and Intermodal facilities at the same location at the 5600 West site. The relocation itself will not increase the train traffic that currently exists. The same number of trains using the same routing that is used today is the operating plan for when the new facilities become operational. Any future growth in the levels of Union Pacifies intermodal and automobile transportation businesses(which could occur regardless of relocation of the facilities)is not reflected in this operating plan. Currently,none of the intermodal or auto trains that use Clearfield or the Beck Street facilities use the 900 South line and there is no plan for these trains to use the 900 South line in the future. However,in the event of an emergency,it is possible that any train could run on any available route on a temporary basis. Sincerely, • )111(09O5.DOC To Oakland OGDEN• To Chicago CLEARF I ELD In,Existing II Auto Focility i BECKS A , (I Existing Intermodal Facility N NORTH YARD • Proposed Auto/ I ntermoda I Facility GRANT Nr. 5600 West SLOW p TOWER To Oakland sL To Los Angeles 900 SOUTH it ROPER YARD\ SALT LAKE CITY Legend 1 & VICINITY • lntermodol Train Route z' N. T. S. 900 South Route 4 0 0 05/06/2002 • RELOCATED INTERMODAL FACILITY 9I- _•_••• '- EXISTING UP RW EXISTING SANITARY NB B>B'TS•TIS B10 B9 \�,— \\ _—.. _.p . •- 1 EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING TRACK �Y! 1 I EXSTING UP Rw - I 1 aoJ \'� PROPOSED UP PROPERTY LNJE N I EYISma OVERHEAD POWER EXISTING OVERHEAD ,!.% 1 I j \ RELOGiED MNN UNE POWER p\ `EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER `EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER . ,. . \ R•T001 Y STORAGE TRACKS(SJ URLIIY I EXISTING OVERHEAD �_CUL IERr �� L-1011 J>96' /—B'GHAIN LINK FENCE i --- / EASEMENT I I GRANGER FAULT LINE � _ e'CHAIN LINK FENCE I •-•-• •- •. 1 ° It `, STRUCTURE ING 1 I _ S \ l PIIKA?? YARD (TRUCKSTRUCT MAINTENANCE) I I • .'B01®0'BUILL)Nf---_ /�' r _W Z [`\\\ m� STRUCTURE �\/) ,\/J ..._:._ seo•se zs^ i `+fWOPDSEo UP PROPERTY LINE 00.0'GUARD HOUSE _ I 1 TRAPEZOID) I 4 JJ I I OOSTING OVERHEAD — _ '17�S- --— DRAINAGE q•��,, a n POWER IXISIWG TRACK / AUTO RAMP TRICKS(2O _ - L I I CHANNEL N. 'p 11 r /� --+- I I 42"CULVERT AND L I PAVED ACCESS L1 J 1114' 1 rI SIPHON SRCUNDER ROAD �I P / op E63HT G �Youspiva 9"SANITARY pj�� /p—�� ( �� �� fl1I ���� ���� � . ��JM I hI�SEWER ITARY SEWER € __ _.. _ _ -.... I 1 pII 1 :• II -.-.-.-.-.-.T -.-.-.- - _._._._._ _._ ._._._._. 3IYS�I'� _ v.>u.-�.._. u_- 30160'BUMING STRUCTURE(TRUCK MAINTENANCE) l p/ EASING 00540'BUILDING STRUCTURE(ADMINISTRATOR) PROPOSED UP PROPERTY LAVE OVERHEAD 805460'BUILDING STRUCTURE(ADMMISTRAnpWTRUCK MAINTENANCE) RELOCATED OVERHEAD POWERPOWER 6 BM2 GUARD HOUSE PREL OWER TES OVERHEAD _ POWER(UPRR) 77 f R NRE R6 00 1000 SOUTH a Il- e'' - _ -- __ :_ a 5600 WEST INTERMODAIJAUTOMOTIVE FACILI ( / I I . SITE PLAN I EXISTING Or WATER SCALE NO SCALE LANDFILL AREA PARSONS ° DATE: JUNE 2002 ®TRANSPORTATION JOB NUMBER SHEET +I GROUP •..m�m.o LEGEND TRUCK PARKING STALLS TRUCK/CONTAINER LOADING•UNLOADING TRACKS ---•-- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED AREA 238.75 AC) 411 AUTO PARKING STALLS AUTO UNLOADING TRACKS M-1 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS I PAVED SURFACE NONE RE YARD . RELOCATED MAIN TRACK REQUIRED FOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD • FIGURE 9. PROILD DRIVEWAY CONCEPT • INTERSECTION OF 5600 WEST AND PROJECT DRIVEWAY 5soe 560E wE S PARSONS 28 4/11. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 11, 2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Library General Obligation Building&Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,Dan Mule,Nancy Tessman, Gordon Hoskins, Steve Fawcett,Gary Mumford, Michael Sears This memorandum pertains to the proposed refunding of some of the$81 million in general obligation bonds issued to develop the new main library,the public plaza south of the new building,a roughly 600-stall underground parking garage and a new heating and cooling plant to serve the library and the City&County Building. The Administration is proposing to refinance some of the$81 million in bonds that were issued in November 1999. Salt Lake City voters in 1998 approved issuing up$84 million in general obligation bonds to build a new main library and other projects. The Administration also is proposing to issue the remaining$3 million of the$84 million in general obligation bonds. It should be noted that during a City Council briefing in May on the Salt Lake City Library System budget and on Page 6 of the Library System's proposed budget for the current fiscal year Library System administrators indicated that the remaining$3 million of the$84 million would be issued in summer 2002. According to the Administration's transmittal, "the current interest rate environment provides a favorable opportunity to combine the refunding"of portions of the$81 million bond issue with issuing the remaining$3 million in bonds. Long-term,refunding portions of the$81 million in bonds would result in a savings of about$1.9 million over 17 years.Issuing the remaining$3 million in bonds would result in an additional debt service increase of about$4.3 million over 17 years. According to the transmittal, refunding portions of the$81 million in bonds would result in a savings of about$110,000 in the current fiscal year,and savings of about$112,000 a year in debt service costs until the bonds are paid off. The Administration estimates that additional debt service costs from issuing the remaining$3 million would be$104,000 in the current fiscal year and about$263,000 a year until the bonds are paid off. Currently,projected property tax on the$81 million in bonds for a house valued at $150,000 ranges from$37.37 in the year 2003 to$33.81 in the year 2019. For a house valued at $200,000 the projected property tax ranges from$49.83 in 2003 to$45.08 in 2019. For a house valued at$250,000 the projected property tax ranges from$62.29 in 2003 to$56.35 in 2019. 1 With the proposed refunding of portions of the$81 million in bonds plus the issuance of the remaining$3 million in bonds, the projected property tax for a house valued at$150,000 ranges from$37.34 in the year 2003 to$34.59 in the year 2019. For a house valued at$200,000 the projected property tax ranges from$49.79 in 2003 to$46.12 in 2019.For a house valued at $250,000 the projected property tax ranges from$62.23 in 2003 to$57.65 in 2019. (Please see attachment.) 2 WELLS FARGO Public Finance MEMORANDUM TO: DAN MULE FROM: KELLY MURDOCK DATE: JULY 12, 2002 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF $3 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND $40 TO $50 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS On July 3rd you provided a memorandum to Rocky Fluhart outlining the economic reasons and benefits for the issuance of the City's remaining $3 million general obligation bonding authorization for Library Block improvements as well as advance-refunding the callable portion of the City's Series 1999 General Obligation Bonds. For purposes of clarifying the net financial impact to Salt Lake City homeowners of the entire $84 million bonding authorization, including the refunding issue, I have prepared four additional spreadsheets for the City's review. The first sheet indicates the estimated current annual tax impact of the $81 million, Series 1999 Bonds. As you can see, for the $150,000 homeowner, the estimated annual tax impact is approximately $34.00, or just under$3.00 per month. We have also presented the estimated impact to the $200,000 and $250,000 homeowner as well. The second sheet shows the incremental property tax impact of the additional $3 million bonds. For the same $150,000 homeowner, the annual impact should be approximately $1.37. It increases to $1.83 and$2.28 for the $200,000 and$250,000 homeowner,respectively. t. Page three estimates the annual property tax reduction as a result of current estimates for the advance-refunding, or refinancing, of the Series 1999 bonds. For the $150,000 homeowner, the estimated annual property tax reduction would be approximately 58 cents, and 76 and 98 cents respectively for the $200,000 and $250,000 homeowner. While these numbers seem trivial when examined on a per-home basis, City officials should keep in mind that these numbers approximate nearly $1.9 million of aggregate property tax savings to Salt Lake City property owners. Page four shows the aggregate net impact to Salt Lake City homeowners of the three transactions outlined in pages one through three. Salt Lake City, Utah Estimated Impact of Annual Debt Service on the $81 Million Series 1999 Annual D/S Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Increase/ Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated Date (Decrease) Tax Levy(a) $150,000 Annual Tax $200,000 Annual Tax $250,000 Annual Tax 2003 6,780,450 0.0004530 82,500 37.37 110,000 49.83 137,500 62.29 2004 6,758,950 0.0004427 82,500 36.52 110,000 48.70 137,500 60.87 2005 6,741,450 0.0004329 82,500 35.71 110,000 47.62 137,500 59.52 2006 6,727,450 0.0004235 82,500 34.94 110,000 46.59 137,500 58.23 2007 6,716,450 0.0004228 82,500 34.88 110,000 46.51 137,500 58.14 2008 6,694,525 0.0004215 82,500 34.77 110,000 46.37 137,500 57.96 2009 6,679,463 0.0004205 82,500 34.69 110,000 46.26 137,500 57.82 2010 6,665,475 0.0004196 82,500 34.62 110,000 46.16 137,500 57.70 2011 6,657,038 0.0004191 82,500 34.58 110,000 46.10 137,500 57.63 2012 6,643,188 0.0004182 82,500 34.50 110,000 46.00 137,500 57.50 2013 6,627,788 0.0004173 82,500 34.43 110,000 45.90 137,500 57.38 2014 6,604,038 0.0004158 82,500 34.30 110,000 45.74 137,500 57.17 2015 6,586,775 0.0004147 82,500 34.21 110,000 45.62 137,500 57.02 2016 6,559,850 0.0004130 82,500 34.07 110,000 45.43 137,500 56.79 2017 6,542,975 0.0004119 82,500 33.98 110,000 45.31 137,500 56.64 2018 6,529,713 0.0004111 82,500 33.92 110,000 45.22 137,500 56.53 2019 6,508,913 0.0004098 82,500 33.81 110,000 45.08 137,500 56.35 (a) 2001 taxable value taken from the Property Valuation Certificate provided by the Salt Lake County Auditor, plus 2% growth for each year to 2005 Base Tax amount for 2001 equals $14,386,786,788 (b)All residential homes receive a 45% exemption FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo Brokerage Serivces, LLC File= SO2 Rfndg Impact Public Finance 7/11/2002 18:34 Salt Lake City, Utah Estimated Impact of Annual Debt Service $3 Million Series 2002 Annual D/S Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Increase/ Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated Date (Decrease) Tax Levy(a) $150,000 Annual Tax $200,000 Annual Tax $250,000 Annual Tax 2003 103,757 0.0000069 82,500 0.57 110,000 0.76 137,500 0.95 2004 263,958 0.0000173 82,500 1.43 110,000 1.90 137,500 2.38 2005 260,913 0.0000168 82,500 1.39 110,000 1.85 137,500 2.31 2006 262,143 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2007 262,793 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2008 262,910 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2009 262,390 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2010 261,368 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2011 264,823 0.0000167 82,500 1.38 110,000 1.84 137,500 2.30 2012 262,713 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2013 265,220 0.0000167 82,500 1.38 110,000 1.84 137,500 2.30 2014 262,030 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2015 263,330 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2016 263,985 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2017 263,975 '0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2018 263,280 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2019 262,000 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 (a) 2001 taxable value taken from the Property Valuation Certificate provided by the Salt Lake County Auditor, plus 2% growth for each year to 2005 Base Tax amount for 2001 equals $14,386,786,788 (b)All residential homes receive a 45% exemption FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo Brokerage Serivces, LLC File= SO2 Rfndg Impact Public Finance 7/11/2002 18:22 Salt Lake City, Utah Estimated Impact of Annual Debt Service Series 2002 Refunding Estimated Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Annual D/S Tax Levy (a) for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated Date Savings Decrease $150,000 Annual Tax $200,000 Annual Tax $250,000 Annual Tax 2003 110,073 (0.0000074) 82,500 (0.61) 110,000 (0.81) 137,500 (1.02) 2004 112,018 (0.0000073) 82,500 (0.60) 110,000 (0.80) 137,500 (1.00) 2005 111,638 (0.0000072) 82,500 (0.59) 110,000 (0.79) 137,500 (0.99) 2006 112,488 (0.0000071) 82,500 (0.59) 110,000 (0.78) 137,500 (0.98) 2007 114,158 (0.0000072) 82,500 (0.59) 110,000 (0.79) 137,500 (0.99) 2008 111,560 (0.0000070) 82,500 (0.58) 110,000 (0.77) 137,500 (0.96) 2009 110,013 (0.0000069) 82,500 (0.57) 110,000 (0.76) 137,500 (0.95) 2010 114,320 (0.0000072) 82,500 (0.59) 110,000 (0.79) 137,500 (0.99) 2011 109,330 (0.0000069) 82,500 (0.57) 110,000 (0.76) 137,500 (0.95) 2012 110,193 (0.0000069) 82,500 (0.57) 110,000 (0.76) 137,500 (0.95) 2013 111,735 (0.0000070) 82,500 (0.58) 110,000 (0.77) 137,500 (0.96) 2014 109,375 (0.0000069) 82,500 (0.57) 110,000 (0.76) 137,500 (0.95) 2015 113,525 (0.0000071) 82,500 (0.59) 110,000 (0.78) 137,500 (0.98) 2016 111,665 (0.0000070) 82,500 (0.58) 110,000 (0.77) 137,500 (0.96) 2017 109,353 (0.0000069) 82,500 (0.57) 110,000 (0.76) 137,500 (0.95) 2018 111,723 (0.0000070) 82,500 (0.58) 110,000 (0.77) 137,500 (0.96) 2019 110,873 (0.0000070) 82,500 (0.58) 110,000 (0.77) 137,500 (0.96) (a) 2001 taxable value taken from the Property Valuation Certificate provided by the Salt Lake County Auditor, plus 2% growth for each year to 2005 Base Tax amount for 2001 equals $14,386,786,788 (b)All residential homes receive a 45% exemption FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo Brokerage Serivces, LLC File = SO2 Rfndg Impact Public Finance 7/11/2002 18:24 Salt Lake City, Utah Estimated Net Impact of Annual Debt Service All Outstanding Library Bonds Annual D/S Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Increase/ Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated Date (Decrease) Tax Levy(a) $150,000 Annual Tax $200,000 Annual Tax $250,000 Annual Tax 2003 6,774,135 0.0004526 82,500 37.34 110,000 49.79 137,500 62.23 2004 6,910,890 0.0004527 82,500 37.35 110,000 49.80 137,500 62.25 2005 6,890,725 0.0004425 82,500 36.51 110,000 48.68 137,500 60.84 2006 6,877,105 0.0004330 82,500 35.72 110,000 47.63 137,500 59.54 2007 6,865,085 0.0004322 82,500 35.66 110,000 47.54 137,500 59.43 2008 6,845,875 0.0004310 82,500 35.56 110,000 47.41 137,500 59.26 2009 6,831,840 0.0004301 82,500 35.48 110,000 47.31 137,500 59.14 2010 6,812,523 0.0004289 82,500 35.38 110,000 47.18 137,500 58.97 2011 6,812,530 0.0004289 82,500 35.38 110,000 47.18 137,500 58.97 2012 6,795,708 0.0004278 82,500 35.29 110,000 47.06 137,500 58.82 2013 6,781,273 0.0004269 82,500 35.22 110,000 46.96 137,500 58.70 2014 6,756,693 0.0004254 82,500 35.10 110,000 46.79 137,500 58.49 2015 6,736,580 0.0004241 82,500 34.99 110,000 46.65 137,500 58.31 2016 6,712,170 0.0004226 82,500 34.86 110,000 46.49 137,500 58.11 2017 6,697,598 0.0004217 82,500 34.79 110,000 46.39 137,500 57.98 2018 6,681,270 0.0004206 82,500 34.70 110,000 46.27 137,500 57.83 2019 6,660,040 0.0004193 82,500 34.59 110,000 46.12 137,500 57.65 (a) 2001 taxable value taken from the Property Valuation Certificate provided by the Salt Lake County Auditor, plus 2% growth for each year to 2005 Base Tax amount for 2001 equals $14,386,786,788 (b)All residential homes receive a 45% exemption FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo Brokerage Serivces, LLC File= SO2 Rfndg Impact Public Finance 7/11/2002 18:41 8 1UO DANIEL A. MULE' SALT' i•® 'MY CORPORATION: ---- = 5� T` »—r ROSS C. ',ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER TO: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: July 3, 2002 FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Library General Obligation Building & Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer TELEPHONE NUMBER: 535-6411 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion and schedule appropriate actions to refund the above-referenced bond issue. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately$1.9 million in savings over the next 17 years in reduced debt service costs resulting from the refunding of the General Obligation Bond Series 1999, and approximately $4.3 million in additional debt service costs over the next 17 years resulting from the issuance of the remaining authorized General Obligation Bonds for the Library Project. DISCUSSION: In 1998 the City received voter authorization to issue up to $84 million in general obligation bonds, payable within 20 years, to construct a new library and other facilities and to make a variety of related improvements to the existing Library block. A par amount of$81 million in general obligation bonds were issued in November 1999. The remaining $3 million will be included in the issuance of the Series 2002 bonds. The current interest rate environment provides a favorable opportunity to combine the refunding with the new money portion. Assuming interest rates remain at their present levels by the time the bonds are sold, there is an opportunity to realize an estimated $110,000 in current fiscal year savings and approximately $112,000 per year thereafter in reduced debt service costs resulting from the refunding. Additional debt service costs resulting from the new money portion for the current fiscal year is estimated to be $104,000 and approximately $263,000 per year thereafter. H:\Treas\DansDocs\council cover letter 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 ®aEcvceo PA>sR -7- With net savings of approximately $6,000 it will not be necessary for the City to levy additional taxes in 2002 for fiscal year 2003 relative to the $3 million portion. However, the City should levy sufficient taxes during calendar year 2003 in order to provide for the payment of debt service on the bonds during fiscal year 2004. In future years, it will likewise be necessary for the City to levy taxes for this purpose. I have attached schedules prepared by the City's Financial Advisor, Wells Fargo Public Finance, showing the anticipated savings resulting from the refunding as well as the impact from the issuance of the $3 million. There is also a schedule showing the impact from the required tax levy on property owners. Regarding a somewhat related matter, and under a separate attachment, I have provided a response to Cindy Gust-Jenson's request for information related to the Administration's plan for preserving the tax exempt status of certain bond issues. Attachments Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2002 Refunding and $3.0 Million New Money (Issued Separately) Debt Service Increase (Option 1) Series 2002 Refunding 12 Months Series 1999 (incl. non-callable $3.0 Million Increase/ Ending 06/30 Debt Service Series 1999) Savings New Money (Decrease) 2003 6,780,450.00 6,670,377.29 110,072.71 103,757.38 (6,315.33) 2004 6,758,950.00 6,646,932.50 112,017.50 263,957.50 151,940.00 2005 6,741,450.00 6,629,812.50 111,637.50 260,912.50 149,275.00 2006 6,727,450.00 6,614,962.50 112,487.50 262,142.50 149,655.00 2007 6,716,450.00 6,602,292.50 114,157.50 262,792.50 148,635.00 2008 6,694,525.00 6,582,965.00 111,560.00 262,910.00 151,350.00 2009 6,679,462.50 6,569,450.00 110,012.50 262,390.00 152,377.50 2010 6,665,475.00 6,551,155.00 114,320.00 261,367.50 147,047.50 2011 6,657,037.50 6,547,707.50 109,330.00 264,822.50 155,492.50 2012 6,643,187.50 6,532,995.00 110,192.50 262,712.50 152,520.00 2013 6,627,787.50 6,516,052.50 111,735.00 265,220.00 153,485.00 2014 6,604,037.50 6,494,662.50 109,375.00 262,030.00 152,655.00 2015 6,586,775.00 6,473,250.00 113,525.00 263,330.00 149,805.00 2016 6,559,850.00 6,448,185.00 111,665.00 263,985.00 152,320.00 2017 6,542,975.00 6,433,622.50 109,352.50 263,975.00 154,622.50 2018 6,529,712.50 6,417,990.00 111,722.50 263,280.00 151,557.50 2019 6,508,912.50 6,398,040.00 110,872.50 262,000.00 151,127.50 Total 113,024,487.50 111,130,452.29 1,894,035.21 4,311,584.88 2,417,549.67 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo File = SO2 Rfndg Comp NM Public Finance 7/1/02 14:29 Salt Lake City, Utah Estimated Impact of Annual Debt Service Option 1 (New Money Only) Annual D/S Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Taxable Value (b) Increase/ Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated for Home of Estimated Date (Decrease) Tax Levy (a) $150,000 Annual Tax $200,000 Annual Tax $250,000 Annual Tax 2003 103,757 0.0000069 82,500 0.57 110,000 0.76 137,500 0.95 2004 263,958 0.0000173 82,500 1.43 110,000 1.90 137,500 2.38 2005 260,913 0.0000168 82,500 1.39 110,000 1.85 137,500 2.31 2006 262,143 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2007 262,793 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2008 262,910 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2009 262,390 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2010 261,368 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2011 264,823 0.0000167 82,500 1.38 110,000 1.84 137,500 2.30 2012 262,713 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2013 265,220 0.0000167 82,500 1.38 110,000 1.84 137,500 2.30 2014 262,030 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 2015 263,330 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2016 263,985 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2017 263,975 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2018 263,280 0.0000166 82,500 1.37 110,000 1.83 137,500 2.28 2019 262,000 0.0000165 82,500 1.36 110,000 1.82 137,500 2.27 (a)2001 taxable value taken from the Property Valuation Certificate provided by the Salt Lake County Auditor, plus 2% growth for each year to 2005 Base Tax amount for 2001 equals $14,386,786,788 (b)All residential homes receive a 45% exemption FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Wells Fargo Brokerage Serivces, LLC File = Impact SO2 Public Finance 7/1/2002 14:29 SALT LADE`%NT GORPORATIOI DANIEL A. MULE' =--� �, =-=— ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER July 8, 2002 Chairperson David L. Buhler Salt Lake City Council City& County Building, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Preserving the Tax Exempt Status of Certain Bond Issues Dear Chairperson Buhler: My letter to you dated May 9, 2002 entitled "Private Activity Issues Related to the Library Block Financing," recommended that the City begin documenting compliance with regard to private activity issues in order to preserve the tax-exempt status of certain outstanding and yet- to-be issued bonds. A meeting was recently held with certain key members of the Administration as well as the City's bond counsel and financial advisor to discuss this matter. It was generally agreed upon that the individual(s) with decision-making responsibilities for a project or facility would be required to participate in the due diligence/document review process leading up to the issuance of the bonds. Bond Counsel would educate these individuals by explaining the rules defining private activity bonds, particularly with regard to management contracts and changes in use of bond-financed property. Furthermore, a document for periodic reporting would be developed. The responsible individual will be required to file this document with me, probably on the annual principal and interest payment date for that bond issue. The City Attorney's Office would also need to be educated and included on an ongoing basis in this matter since they frequently negotiate private use agreements and contracts and leases that have the potential of becoming problematic. I am committed to preserving the tax-exempt status of the City's bonds and I am confident that this process will achieve its intended result. Sincerely, 0(9,444Aze. 77/e44-/-- Daniel A. Mule City Treasurer DAM/Ic cc: D.J. Baxter Steve Fawcett Boyd Ferguson Kelly Murdock Nancy Tessman Blake Wade 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 ®nEcvceo PnrcA SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Biennial Budget Amendment #8 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous TYpe Facts Facts Ordinance The proposed amendment does not The ordinance is The requested impact the General Fund for fiscal year presented to amendment has 2002-2003. All proposed amendments amend the issues related to relate to the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. second year of Grants, Public the biennial Safety, and budget. donations to the City. The briefmg and discussion of the eighth budget amendment of fiscal years 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for July 9, 2002, and a public hearing will be scheduled for a later date. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorized budget opening items as follows where possible: • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications; because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since staff involved on these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Refugee and Youth and Family Consortium Grant ($344,725 - Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant providing additional staff resources")The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $344,725 in grant funds for the support of area agencies that provide services to the Refugee Community. This is a continuation grant that the City has received in each of Page 1 • th previous two years. The resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and sign any additional contracts and awards relating to this grant was passed two years ago. This grant does require a 25% in-kind/cash match that is met with a portion of the Director of Youth Programs salary. Refugee grant funds are used for the resettlement of refugee families into schools, neighborhoods and communities. The City contracts for these services with area service providers. This grant provides for the salary and benefits of the Refugee Coordinator (1 FTE) and monies for fiscal monitoring. Issue #2: State of Utah Office of Crime Victims Reparations - VOCA Grant ($55,183 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $55,183 in grant funds for the Salt Lake City Police Department Victim Advocate Program. This is a continuation grant that the City has previously received. The Council previously adopted a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and sign any additional contracts and awards relating to this grant. This grant requires a local match that is met with the Victim Advocate Program Director's salary. Victim advocate grant funds allow the police department to provide advocate services to victims of domestic crime cases. This year's grant funds will be used to enhance the current program by increasing the number of advocates available to provide services to victims of abuse. The Administration is proposing adding two new hires and funding a current position with the grant funds. Total FTE associated with this grant is 1.5 FTE. It is noted in the transmittal that the positions will be eliminated once the grant expires unless other funds become available. In the past when grant funds have expired for positions in the victim advocacy area the Administration has requested general funding to continue the positions. Th Council may wish to discuss the issues raised during the last budg t op ning regarding the City Prosecutor's request for a victim advocate position and encourage the Administration to determine whether the additional r s urces provided by this grant can be used to fill any gap between th Pr secutor's Office and the Police Department's Victim Advocacy program. Issue #3: U.S. Dept. of Education Grant ($1,200,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of a grant from the U.S. department of Education in the amount of $1,200,000. The Administration indicates that they intend to spend the grant over three fiscal years. The grant has a 60-month limit for spending the money. Spending the grant funds over 36 months would allow the Administration to provide an increased level of service. Funds for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 fiscal years will need to be appropriated during the next biennial budget adoption process. Future fiscal year FTE positions would also need to be appropriated at that time. The grant that the City has received is for the expansion of youth programs throughout Salt Lake City. The funds were awarded for the operational costs of _ program expansion and continued operation of programs at the Central City Community Center, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and the Global Artways program. In the first year, grant funds will be used to hire 4.5 new employees and fund salary and benefits, equipment, travel and training, and building improvements. Building Page 2 improvements include $300,000 for renovation of various buildings in City parks: $25,000 for improvements to Fairmont Cottage in Fairmont Park, $100,000 for improvements to Ottinger Hall in Memory Grove Park and $175,000 for improvements to the Boxing Building in Liberty Park. It is the Administration's intent to hire 4rfoFTE this fiscal year, an additional 4.5 FTE in the second year of the program and an additional 1 FTE in program year three. Total FTE's in year three will be 10.25 as noted in the transmittal from the Administration. The Administration has indicated that they intend to raise funds and pursue additional grants to fund this program. They indicate it is not their intention to ask for general fund dollars for this program in the future (this is not to say that they will not request the $150,000 appropriation that they have previously indicated they would pursue). There is a corresponding resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and sign any additional contracts and awards relating to this grant. Th Council may wish to: Discuss the extent to which outside resources (collaboration with non-profit organizations) will be used to provide services anticipated by the grant vs. the rent to which services will be provided by City employees; Determine wh th r the Council supports the use of grant funds for the capital projects outlined, and how operation and maintenance of the facilities will be addressed in the futur ; Ask the Administration to clarify the relationship between this program and th City's other programs that provide services to youth through the Public Services Department - is there a potential to reduce overhead by sharing r sources. Review the draft Legislative Intent statement that was discussed and then def rred during the budget process. It was prepared based on questions / oncerns voiced by one of the Council Members. (Draft Legislative Int nt Statement: It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provide a written plan of the Youth City program. Further, it is the Council's intent that th Administration seriously consider opportunities to collaborate with existing n n-profit agencies rather build an infrastructure of City employees. It is r quested that these approaches be considered prior to grant submissi n, to nsure that contracting for the service is an alternative to the City actually providing the service.) Issue #4: Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Vehicle Workshop ($2,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Donation") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of$2,000 for costs associated with alternative fuel vehicle workshops. The U.S. Department of Energy provides a voucher for the reimbursement of costs associated with education outreach efforts concerning Alternate Fuel Vehicles. This voucher has been received annually for the past few years. There are no positions funded with this voucher. Page 3 Issue #5: Y uth City Employment Program ($25,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The City has received funds from Salt Lake County for the City's Youth City Employment Program. The funds will be used to pay partial salary costs of a contract worksite coordinator. Funds from Salt Lake County do not fully cover the cost of the program. The remaining salary and program operational costs will come from the Mayor's Youth Programs budget. There is a corresponding resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement and accept the grant award and sign any additional contracts and awards relating to this grant. The Council may wish to r view the proposed program and determine if it wishes to expand the youth pr grams to include a Youth City Employment program, clarify whether or not funds will be available for this program in the future, and determine if th City should be providing youth programs. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The coordinator is a contract employee with the City. Issue #6: State of Utah Department of Public Safety Operation Crosswalk Safety ($10,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The City has received funds from the Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Safety for overtime reimbursement. Overtime can be reimbursed for officers participating in the Utah Highway Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Project. The Police Department has an Operation Crosswalk Enforcement (OCE) project where up to six officers conduct a Pedestrian Sting Operation at 4 major crosswalks in the City. The public will be notified of the time and place of the enforcement operations. The goal of the program is to draw attention to pedestrian right-of-way laws through media attention rather than citations. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The grant pays for overtime of existing officers who participate in this program. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Rick Dinse, Mac Connote, Jerry Burton, Gordon Hoskins, Janet Wolf, Randy Hillier, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen Page 4 JL02 "; SALT''' �' r A\ a GITYr GORP@ rA, �I.OI�r ROCKY J. FLU HART -me.aw,a� •�.,��� �ao'�s ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 8 Recommendation: We recommend that on July 16, 2002, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on August 7, 2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 8. Discussion and Background: The amendment packet will be transmitted to the City Council Office on July 2, 2002, for the briefing on July 9, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535-6426 FAX: B01-535-6190 ®ar:c.c�eo P.,acn SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001 which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted biennial budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biennial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 .I1ii 1 2 Lt)t)C FY 2003 Grant Initiatives in Budget Amendment - July FY 2003 - FY2004 Initiative Nam• e Initiative Gen. Fund „`FTE Gen.-Fund Amount. Impact' • Impact FTE; 1. Refugee and Youth and $344,'725 1 -0- Family Consortium Grant 2. State of Utah Office of $55,183 1.5 -0- Crime Victims Reparations —VOCA Grant 3. U.S. Department of $1,200,000 10.25 -0- Education Grant 4. Clean Cities Alternative $2,000 -0- -0- Fuel Vehicle Workshop Grant 5. Youth City Employment $25,000 -0- -0- Program Grant 6. State of Utah Department of $10,000 -0- -0- Public Safety—Operation Crosswalk Safety Grant Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayors Office :,,FY 02-03 Department Fiscal Year Refugee and Yand Famify-Consortium:-Federal Department of Health,and:Human Services:_-`. BA#8 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number -Sherrie Collins ,535�6150 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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 344,725.00 Total $344,725.00 $0 1 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 344,725.00 Total $344,725.00 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 46,285.00 2. Employee Benefits 11,350.00 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 17,550.00 4.Charges and Services 3,000.00 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other-Supplies, Equipment&Travel 266,540.00 Total $344,725.00 $0 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Coordinator 1.00 40,526 Fringe 11,350 Fiscal Monitor 5,760 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Measurable Impact 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. 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: Criteria: The Mayor's Office of Youth Programs applied for and received these funds from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. This grant is awarded for a three year period on an annual basis. This is the 3rd year continuation grant. The city will contract with the Refugee Resource Center Asian Association, Catholic Community Services, the Human Rights Resource Center,and International Rescue Committee. Other consortium members include Visions for Learning and the National Conference for Community and Justice. The goal of the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium is to increase the successful resettlement of refugee families into schools,neighborhoods and communities by leveraging interagency resources, sharing information and providing a support system that provides services to those who need it. CFDA#93-576. Condition: The grant requires a 25% in-kind/cash match which is met with a portion of the Director of Youth Programs Salary and Fringe. Each organization is also required to provide and document their required 25%match. Effect: This continuation grant will provide continued support of those agencies that provide services to the Refugee Community. Cause: This is the 3rd and final year of this grant with a Resolution adopted and passed two years ago, authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant. R commendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant 4 44A c, i.nut. ull ' VVL dL1V11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3= Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- Alone of the above. Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This program funds the Coordinators salary and fringe and the a portion of the fiscal monitors salary and benefits. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This is the 3rd and final year of this grant. Additional funds/grants will be looked for in an effort to sustain the program. 1111 Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Y s- Unless other funds become available for the sustainability of programs. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Possibly. Consortium coordination may not continue if funds are not available. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - These programs are geared to the needs of Salt Lake City refugees. Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department Fiscal Year , fit& IS/I"'ha,G1,0e BfCnme 7tcfms ge"arations �1 ,� VOCA Grant, BA#8 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number irgii7ColliWs f 535 6150 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 Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 i $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 55,183.00 Total $55,183.00 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 55,183.00 Total $55,183.00 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 51,261.60 2.Employee Benefits 3,921.51 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other- Total $55,183.11 $0 �qn, �.�y uipurairett Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Victim Advocate-Current position 0.50 17,087 Victim Advocate-New Hire 0.50 17,087 Victim Advocate-New Hire 0.50 17,087 Benefits 3,921.51 tom► s ? _`_�-r - Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Measurable Impact F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. frlarjA 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. 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: Criteria: The Salt Lake City Police Department receives this grant annually from the State of Utah for their Victim Advocate Program. The required match is met with the Victim Advocate Program Condition: This is an annual grant, received for the Victim Advocate Program. Last year, this program provided advocate services to 3,768 of the 5,671 domestic crime cases that occurred within the SLCPD jurisdiction. These crimes included domestic violence and non-domestic sexual assault( and stalking. These funds will enhance the current program by increasing the number of advocates available to provide services to victims of abuse. Effect: These funds will enable the PD to retain one .50 Victim advocate position currently employed and provide for two additional.50 Victim Advocate positions. Cause: The necessary resolution was previously passed. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use errant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This program served approximately 3,768 people last year, who were victims of domestic violence and assault. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This grant is founded on an annual basis for program expansion. The PD will continue to apply as long as funds are available. . Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes - Unless other funds become available for the sustainability of programs. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can-accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Possibly. Programs may not continue if funds are not available. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - These programs are geared to the needs of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayors Office FY 02-03 Department Fiscal Year U.S. Dept.of Education Grant, BA#8 03 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150= 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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 1,200,000.00 Total $1,200,000.00 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 1,200,000.00 Total $1,200,000.00 $0.00 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 552,600.00 2. Employee Benefits 86,850.00 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 94,000.00 4. Charges and Services 14,500.00 5. Capital Outlay 306,696.00 6. Other-Supplies, Equipment&Travel 145,354.00 Total $1,200,000.00 0.00 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Senior Coordinator(Full-time Employee) 1.00 60,000 Site Coordinators (Full-time Employees) 4.00 96,000 Teachers (Paid Hourly) 4.25 47,600 Employment Coodinator(Note: Grant funding will 0.50 18,750 bring to full FTE and add benefits) Global Artways Assistant(Note: Grant funding will 0.50 8,500 bring to full FTE and add benefits) '-(. <k.m........ .... � ,u ,s...,a , ems' ' " 4?e+ e; ,4, �y` �s'¢,. .,.. 1' ra Not : Although a total of$230,850 is to be spent on an annual basis for the total number of FTEs, it must be understood that not all the positions will be filled in the first year of the grant, and may or may not be filled for the life of the grant. It is estimated that no more than the$552,600 will be spent for salaries over the life of the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurabl Impact on functions, structure and organization Measurable Impact F. Issu 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. 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: Criteria: The Mayor's Office was awarded a congressional appropriation from the U. S. Department of Education for expansion of their youth programs throughout Salt Lake City. Condition: These funds were awarded for the operational costs of program expansion to three additional sites as well as sustainability of the Youth Programs currently at Central City Community Center, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, the Global Artways program and the Northwest Multi- Cultural Center. Personnel costs including salary and benefits, operational costs to include equipment, salary, travel and training, and building improvements. $300,000 of funds are to be used for refurbishment of various buildings in local City parks to be used as program sites. $25,000 for improvements to Fairmont Cottage in Fairmont Park, $100,000 for improvements to Ottinger Hall in Memory Grove Park and $175,000 for improvements to the Boxing Building in Liberty Park. As a condition of the grant, Salt Lake City will follow all applicable monitoring and amending requirements of the granting agency (EDGAR). Note:Please see attached memo for further discussion of FTE type and count. Effect: These funds will allow the overall program expansion of the Mayor's Youth Programs in various parts of the City. Cause: Without this appropriation program expansion will not be feasible. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council pass a Resolution authorizing Salt Lake City to accept the EDGAR grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1 In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4=None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This program will fund 10.25 new positions. Positions include a Senior Coordinator position for the Youth Program; an Employment Coordinator; and a Global Arts Assistant, as well as 4 site coordinators and the equivalent of 4.25 teachers. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This grant is for 60 months. Additional appropriations may or may not be available to the City. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes- Unless other funds become available for the sustainability of programs. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Possibly, programs may not continue if funds are not available. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - These programs are geared to the needs of Salt Lake City youth and provided within their neighborhoods. vaa.J vvl Ft.1 Ql.1V11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayors Office FY 02-03 Department Fiscal Year a.`i-?Cleany Cities Altemalive Fuel.Veliic;le 1N(irks£ ' BA#8 04 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sheriie.C,ollins :.;':fi_v M _ .pt 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 Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0' 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 2,000.00 Total $2,000.00 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 2,000.00 Total $2,000.00 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 2,000.00 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $2,000.00 $0 $0 • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • Measurable Impact F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. riteria 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. 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,them 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: Criteria: The Mayor's Office receives a$2,000.00 voucher annually from the U.S. Department of Energy to be used for costs associated with alternative fuel vehicle workshops. Condition: Typically, requests for reimbursement include printing costs, paper, supplies and plaques and certificates of appreciation in an education outreach effort concerning Alternate Fuel Vehicles. Effect: These funds will enable the Clean Cities program to further it's education and outreach efforts. R commendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the appropriate budget,necessary to facilitate the grant. Jait LaKe �,orporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 9—In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds are for the AFV Workshop. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? NA Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No / bait i.axe t,ity (...orporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mavors:Office FY.:02-03 Department 2002-2003 >>>>'_` ::Ai ft -itv= .rriolavirierit Proarana BA#8 05 Initiative Name Initiative Number .. 5355150 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 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 I $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 25,000.00 Total $25,000.00 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 25,000.00 Total $25,000.00 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 25,000.00 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other-Contractual Total $25,000.00 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Worksite Coordinator 25,000 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured r measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization Measurable Impact 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 Poy 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.if 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 Me with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Criteria: The Mayor's Office of Youth Programs has requested funds for the City's Youth City Employment Program from Salt Lake County who administers the Utah Department of Workforce Services program. These funds will be used to pay partial salary costs of a worksite coordinator. This position will be a contract employee. The remaining salary and program operational costs will be budg ted within the Mayor's Youth Programs budget. C ndition: Participants will be paid an incentive upon completion of each training module. Successful completion of all four modules will result in participants receiving a bonus. Successful completion is defined as 80%attendance and completion of a competency test. Eff ct: This project will provide pre-employment training and school retention skills to twenty(20) to thirty(30)Youth Employ-Ability Services participants,ages 14-18. Cause: The attached interlocal agreement will provide for this joint venture between City and Salt Lake County. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant ..n•t a..anc�.■ty wrpurauon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G.Grant Crit ria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1- In some cases,the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2=Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Qu stlon 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This program will fund a portion of th worksite coordinators salary. Program will provide services to 20 to 30 youth b tween the ges of 14-18. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Additional funds/grants will be looked for in an effort to sustain the program. Qu stion 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes-Unless other funds become available for the sustainability of programs. Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds,a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5-Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is th re a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No-These programs are geared to the ne ds of Salt Lake City low Income and refugee youths. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year • State of Utah- Dept. of Public Safety Operation Crosswalk Safety Grant BA#8 06 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 10,000 Total $10,000 $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 10,000 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund Total $10,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 10,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $10,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Overtime for approximatley 6 Officers NA NA 10,000.00 oat 1 i axe try Lorporatton • 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 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. Ouse 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: Criteria: The Police Department applied for and received this grant for Operation Crosswalk Enforcement (OCE). OCE, or more commonly known as 'Pedestrian Sting Operation," will be conducted at four city locations where the most pedestrian/auto collisions occur. A plain clothes Officer will be a decoy,an additional plain clothes officer will act as a spotter and an additional chase officer(vehicle or motorcycle)will be located down the road from the crosswalk. The pedestrian decoy will cross back and fourth in the crosswalk,when safe to do so. As a violation occurs,the spotter will radio the vehicle description, violation and lane position to a chase vehicle. All motorists who violate the decoys safety will be given a citation. The Public will be given notice as to the date, time and location of the operation. Condition: This grant is to be used for Officer overtime. It is expected that approximately six officers will be needed. Effect: The goal of this operation is to draw attention to pedestrian right-of-way laws through media attention rather than writing a lot of tickets. If 10 people get tickets,and 100,000 hear about the sting,the operation will be more successful than if 100 motorists receive tickets. Cause: 177 pedestrian/auto accidents occurred in 2001 resulting in 4 deaths. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution accepting the grant and to establish the necessary budget to facilitate it. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G.Grant Criteria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy 2 1_In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2_Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in Iona-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3=Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I -Will this grant fund employee positions? This grant will fund Officer Overtime for the OCE sting only. It will not create or fund any additional positions. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? The OCE sting is the only Overtime that this grant will be used for. Four crosswalks have been designated as the most dangerous throughout the City. It is anticipated that through media attention,motorists will be educated about pedestrian right-of-way laws. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is not known if additional funding will be available for this type of operation at a future date, however if available the City will apply. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Th necessary overtime will discontinue. Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes,unfortunately. Qu stion 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No DAVID DOBBINS S`� P n # G>' TY� "�RPO ° A. - IOi '�'�- � '' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 18, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, Director RE: A resolution authorizi ' the Mayor to accept the grant award provided to the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office's Youth Program from the U. S. Department of Education. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive a $1,200,000 grant. DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office's Youth Program requested and received a congressional appropriation from the U.S. Department of Education in the amount of $1,200,000. These funds will be used for the costs associated with program expansion, including: • salary and benefits of additional personnel • program operation costs to include supplies, equipment and travel and training • building improvements to three Salt Lake City facilities located in City parks. The three facilities include Fairmont Cottage in Fairmont Park, Ottinger Hall in Memory Grove Park and the Boxing Building in Liberty Park. Funds will also be used to expand current programs operating in Central City Community Center, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and the Global Artways program. The Youth City program located in Central City Community Center serves a diverse group of socio-economic youth from the surrounding neighborhood. The goal is to facilitate the development of resiliency by providing programs that nurture self-discipline, perseverance and positive inter-personal communication and caring. Issues related to location, transportation, parent and community support make it imperative to expand the program sites throughout the City. This grant will allow and provide for that opportunity. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 ®wcc cco PnPen RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $1, 200, 000 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the U. S . Department of Education, to expend for the purposes of : Expanding the Mayor' s Youth Programs by providing funding for building improvements to three local park buildings where programs can be housed and to hire additional personnel, and other operational costs associated with the Youth Program expansion. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City ttorney's Office Date 6 !9 2- By . _. n OFp "IN/1p, U.S.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION �r�, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT i.:. Z �,{T OFFICE OF REFORM ASSISTANCE AND DISSEMINATION R�nyCO MAY 3 12002 Dear Project Director of a New FIE Grant: Congratulations on receiving a new grant award from the Fund for the Improvement of Education(FIE)Program. Enclosed is your grant award notification. You should review this document and its attachments carefully. Also enclosed are two items that should help you administer your grant and familiarize you with U.S.Department of Education regulations: • Copy of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations(EDGAR). EDGAR contains all of the administrative requirements for managing grants funded by the Department of Education. You can look at EDGAR"on line"at http://www.ed.gov/offices/O CFO/grants/edgar.html. • A copy of an explanation of the"Expanded Authorities"regulations as published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1997. Note these regulations are included in EDGAR. Your program officer(see block#3 of the Grant Award Notification,the"Department of Education Contact Person")will call you soon to conduct a post award conference. The post award conference is to set the foundation of a partnership between you and the Department. The conference will focus on project outcomes as described in your application. Other topics that may be discussed are:how you will address any weaknesses noted when your application was reviewed for funding,your project activities and evaluation design,your technical assistance needs,and our monitoring plans. From this discussion we will develop a memorandum for the permanent file describing what was discussed. ance report will be requested from all projects of more than one year. In addition,all projects must submit a final report 90 days after the end of the project period. Your program officer will notify you regarding the due date for the annual report and the final report. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Linda W.Jo s Director Development and Demonstration Programs Division Enclosures WASHINGTON,D.C. 20208- U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20202 GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION 'IL RECIPIENT NAME: 5 AWARD INFORMATION Salt Lake City Corporation PR/AWARD NUMBER R2I5K020226 451 South State Street ACTION NUMBER 01 Room 306 ACTION TYPE New Salt Lake City,UT 84111 AWARD TYPE Discretionary 6 AWARD PERIODS 2 PROJECT TITLE BUDGET PERIOD 06/01/2002-05/31/2004 84.215K FIE EARMARK GRANT AWARDS PERFORMANCE PERIOD 06/01/2002-05/31/2004 3 PROJECT STAFF RECIPIENT PROJECT DIRECTOR Janet Wolf (801)535-7712 EDUCATION PROGRAM CONTACT AUTHORIZED FUNDING Patricia A.Knight (202)219- 1768 7 THIS ACTION $1,200,000.00 EDUCATION PAYMENT CONTACT BUDGET PERIOD $1,200,000.00 GAPS PAYEE HOTLINE (888)336 8930 PERFORMANCE PERIOD $1,200,000.00 4 KEY PERSONNEL LEVEL OF O ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION NAME TITLE EFFORT DUNS/SSN 072957822 REGULATIONS CFR PART EDGAR Janet Wolf Project Director EDGAR AS APPLICABLE ATTACHMENTS A,B OERI-1,C,F,S 9 LEGISLATIVE AND FISCAL DATA AUTHORITY:PL PL 107-110 ESEA OF 1965 AS AMENDED BY THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 PROGRAM TITLE:FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION CFDA/SUBPROGRAM NO:84.215K FUND FUNDING AWARD ORG. CATEGORY LIMITATION ACTIVITY CFDA OBJECTCLASS AMOUNT CODE YEAR YEAR CODE 1000A 2002 2002 ER000000 B QFE A66 215 4101J $1,200,000.00 Ver.1 ED-GAPS001(01/98) Page 1 of 3 1"k U.S. Department of Education { Washington, D.C. 20202 it° rnsa GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION •PR/AWARD NUMBER: R215K020226 RECIPIENT NAME: Salt Lake City Corporation 10 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (I) THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE GRANT AGREEMENT: (1) THE RECIPIENT'S APPLICATION(BLOCK 2), (2) THE APPLICABLE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS(BLOCK 8),AND (3) THE SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN AS ATTACHMENTS (BLOCK 8). IN ACCORDANCE WTH 34 CFR 74.25(c)(2),OR 34 CFR 80.30(d)(3)CHANGES TO KEY PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED IN BLOCK 4 MUST RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT. THE RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ALL NECESSARY REPORTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER THE END OF FEDERAL SUPPORT(BLOCK 6). • AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL DATE S Ver. 1 ED-GAPS001 (01/98) Page 2 of 3 EXPLANATION OF BLOCKS ON THE GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION For Discretionary,Formula,and Block Grants (See Block 5 of the Notification) 1. RECIPIENT NAME-The legal name of the recipient,name of the primary organizational unit that will undertake the funded activity,and the complete address of the recipient The recipient is commonly known as the"grantee." 2. PROJECT TITLE AND CFDA NUMBER -Identifies the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance(CFDA)subprogram title and the associated subprogram number. 3. PROJECT STAFF -This block contains the names and telephone numbers of the U.S.Department of Education and recipient staff who are responsible for project direction and oversight *RECIPIENT PROJECT DIRECTOR -The recipient staff person responsible for administering the project. This person represents the recipient to the U.S. Department of Education. EDUCATION PROGRAM CONTACT -The U.S.Department of Education staff person responsible for the programmatic,administrative and business- management concerns of the Department. EDUCATION PAYMENT CONTACT -The U.S.Department of Education staff person responsible for payments or questions concerning electronic drawdown and financial expenditure reporting. 4.*KEY PERSONNEL -Name,title and percentage(%)of effort the key personnel identified devotes to the project. 5. AWARD INFORMATION -Unique items of information that identify this notification. PR/AWARD NUMBER -A unique,identifying number assigned by the Department to each application. On funded applications,this is commonly known as the "grant number"or"document number.' ACTION NUMBER -A numeral that represents the cumulative number of steps taken by the Department to date to establish or modify the award through fiscal or administrative means. Action number"01"will always be"NEW AWARD' ACTION TYPE -The nature of this notification(e.g.,NEW AWARD,CONTINUATION,REVISION,ADMINISTRATIVE) AWARD TYPE -The particular assistance category in which funding for this award is provided,i.e.,DISCRETIONARY,FORMULA,or BLOCK 6. AWARD PERIODS -Project activities and funding are approved with respect to three different time periods,described below: BUDGET PERIOD -A specific interval of time for which Federal funds are being provided from a particular fiscal year to fund a recipients approved activities and budget The start and end dates of the budget period are shown. PERFORMANCE PERIOD -The complete length of time the recipient is proposed to be funded to complete approved activities. A performance period may contain one or more budget periods. *FUTURE BUDGET PERIODS -The estimated remaining budget periods for multi-year projects and estimated funds the Department proposes it will award the recipient provided substantial progress is made by the recipient in completing approved activities,the Department determines that continuing the project would be in the best interest of the Government,Congress appropriates sufficient funds under the program,and the recipient has submitted a performance report that provides the most current performance information and the status of budget expenditures. 7. AUTHORIZED FUNDING -The dollar figures in this block refer to the Federal funds provided to a recipient during the award periods. *THIS ACTION -The amount of funds obligated(added)or de-obligated(subtracted)by this notification. *BUDGET PERIOD -The total amount of funds available for use by the grantee during the stated budget period to this date. *PERFORMANCE PERIOD -The amount of funds obligated from the start date of the first budget period to this date. RECIPIENT COST-SHARE -The funds,expressed as a percentage,that the recipient is required to contribute to the project,as defined by the program legislation or regulations and/or terms and conditions of the award. RECIPIENT NON-FEDERAL AMOUNT-The amount of non-federal funds the recipient must contribute to the project as identified in the recipients application. When non-federal funds are identified by the recipient where a cost share is not a legislation requirement,the recipient will be required to provide the non-federal funds. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION-This information is provided to assist the recipient in completing the approved activities and managing the project in accordance with U.S.Department of Education procedures and regulations. DUNS/SSN -A unique,identifying number assigned to each recipient for payment purposes. The number is based on either the recipients assigned number from Dun and Bradstreet or the individual's social security number. *REGULATIONS -The parts of the Education Department Genera';Administrative Regulations(EDGAR)and specific programs regulations that govern the award and administration of this grant *ATTACHMENTS-Additional sections of the Grant Award Notification that discuss payment and reporting requirements,explain Department procedures,and add special terms and conditions in addition to those established,and shown as clauses,in Block 10 of the award. Any attachments provided with a notification continue in effect through the project period until modified or rescinded by the Authorizing Official. 9. LEGISLATIVE AND FISCAL DATA-The name of the authorizing legislation for this grant,the CFDA title of the program through which funding is provided, and U.S.Department of Education fiscal information. FUND CODE,FUNDING YEAR,AWARD YEAR,ORG.CODE,PROJECT CODE,OBJECT CLASS -The fiscal information recorded by the U.S.Department of Education's Grant Administration and Payment System to track obligations by award. AMOUNT-The amount of funds provided from a particular appropriation and project code. Some notifications authorize more than one amount from separate appropriations and/or project codes. The total of all amounts in this block equals the amount shown on the line,"THIS ACTION"(See'AUTHORIZED FUNDING" above(Block 7)). 10. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AWARD -Requirements of the award that are binding on the recipient *AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL -The U.S.Department of Education official authorized to award Federal funds to the recipient,establish or change the terms and conditions of the award,and authorize modifications to the award. FOR FORMULA AND BLOCK GRANTS ONLY: (See also Blocks 1,2,5,6,8,9 and 10 above) 3. EDUCATION STAFF -The U.S.Department of Education staff persons to be contacted for programmatic and payment questions. 7. AUTHORIZED FUNDING CURRENT AWARD AMOUNT -The amount of funds that are obligated(added)or de-obligated(subtracted)by this action. PREVIOUS CUMULATIVE AMOUNT -The total amount of funds awarded under the grant before this action. CUMULATIVE AMOUNT -The total amount of funds awarded under the grant,this action included. *This item differs or does not appear on formula and block grants. Page 3 of 3 LII tell tititiititbII1Iab1 "abb . 6ll . . . . el 4. gO - ..."! ���°F U.S. I)FI'AR I �1l•;N•I OF EDUCATION . itr sT' OM H Control Number: I}{v )-0(104 Lti Ti ve,,•!r.'y�• RIII)(;h, I' INFORMA"PION •vzi, %* - ey nn,a NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS Expiration Date: 02/28/2003 Name of Institution/Organisation Applicants requesting funding for only one year should complete the column under "Project Year I." Applicants requesting funding for multi-year grants should complete all applicable columns. Please read all instructions before completing form. ---- Sal r T.ak Y P P_i y 1'o fan an-- - - -- SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY - — U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FUNDS Project Year I Project Year 2 Project Year 3 Project Year 4 Project Year 5 Total 13uclLet Categories (a) (h)_. — _-. (c) — (d) (e) --- (f) I. Personnel i --- - — -----4.49,.0.09 ______1.69_,55.Q_..------------= -- ____ - ________ _ 2. Fringe Benefits 87,596 20,000 3."Travel 6,500 ------ 4. I.quipment --- ------ -— 57,450--------- -- --- .- . .. -----. -- --. --- 5. Supplies -------- __ ..._.. 41,404 -- 6.Contractual 14,500 • — - 7. Construction X. Other refurbish sites 300,000 . ._ • 9. Total Direct Costs - -- — - (lines 1-8) 10. Indirect Costs 54,000 I I. Training Stipends 12. Total Costs - (lines9-11) 1,010,450 _„a„$9,r 0 . . - - ---- - -. .._..-------------- --- ----- I:I) Form No. 524 i Fairmont Ottinger Boxing Sorenson Central Global Administration Cottage Hall- Building Multicultural City Artways Memory - Center Community Fairmont Grove Liberty Center Park Park Site 24,000 24.000 24,000 24,000 Coordinators . . Teachers 51,200 51,200 51,200 40,480 67,000 Drivers 9,600 9,600 9,600 1 ' Deputy 60,000 Director I Grant 3,120 r manager M Fringe 7,920 7,920 7,920 3,116 7,920 33,000 19,800 ✓ benefits A . Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 6,404 5,000 ✓ Equipment 18,150 18,150 18,150 3,000 w Travel 750 750 750 750 3500 w _ Training 250 250 250 250 6,000 ✓ w Refurbishment 25,000 100,000 175,000 r _ Operation and 18,000 18,000 18,000• Maintenance • Evaluation 7,500 • 164,870 239,870 314,870 50,000 40,920 100,000 99,920 • TOTAL • w Grand total. 1,010,450. ✓ • • S ■ r Quality of Project Design Research indicates between 7 and 15 million children return to an empty house on M • any given afternoon (U.S. Census Bureau, Urban Institute 2000). Children are at greatest OP risk of being involved in crime, substance abuse and teenage pregnancy during after- school hours (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1999). Children spend 80% of their al waking hours outside of school (The Future of Children, 1999; Miller et al., 1997). N Children without adult supervision are at significantly greater risk of truancy from ma school, stress, poor grades, risk-taking behavior and substance abuse (Pettit et al., 1997; AD Dwyer et al., 1990). Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and ranks first in the country • with students ages 5 to 19. Utah also has one of the highest student/teacher ratios and a one of the lowest per pupil expenditures in the nation. In the last ten years, the Wasatch Front population has soared to over one million, and includes rapid growth in ethnic and I. minority populations that are concentrated within Salt Lake City. Since 1991, the number of students who live at or below the federal poverty level has more than doubled, p. from 26 percent to 57.1 percent. The Utah State Department of Workforce Services estimates that by 2003, 59 percent of all Utah children under the age of 13 will live in families where both parents, or their only parent, is employed. The availability of quality after-school and summer programs that address the diverse needs of families and students has been minimal due to limited resources. Recognizing the need for more after-school activities for youth, Mayor Rocky Anderson's Youth Program formed a consortium of quality providers to formulate a new after-school and summer program to meet the needs of at-risk youth. Our partners 1 pm pm IP . III . I ✓ include Salt Lake County Community and Economic Development, the University of IP Utah, Spyhop Productions, and Artspace Institute for Art and Imagination. The intent of A II the program is to utilize the latest in technology, art, and physical fitness to plan IP constructive and fun activities for students. • O YouthCity After-School and Summer Program, located in the Central City • A Community Center, opened in January 2001. YouthCity began by serving youths from • the surrounding neighborhood schools and refugee students from a school in an east side • • neighborhood. Its aim is to facilitate the development of resiliency by providing ~ programs that nurture self-discipline, perseverance, positive inter-personal • • communication and caring. During the last 12 months, YouthCity has captured • participants from diverse areas. The participants represent a broad socio-economic 0 P demographic. Issues related to transportation, parent and community support, and the • different needs of the children make it imperative to expand the program sites throughout • M the city. (See Tab 1.) 01 Based on this finding, Mayor Anderson has dedicated three buildings located in 00 neighborhood parks for YouthCity after-school and summer programming. The i a buildings are the Boxing Building located in Central City, the Fairmont Park Cottage a located in the southeast section of the city, and Ottinger Hall located in the northwest a a section of the city. Each of these buildings will become home to youth from different a geographic and demographic areas. (See Tab 2 for detailed budget) a a The Boxing Building is located in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Salt Lake ab City proper. The Federal Housing and Urban Development program has determined 67 a a percent of the households meet the guidelines for low and moderate income, and the — a 2 a a a • ■ ■ neighborhood has a 67 percent minority population. One of the neighborhood's elementary schools reports 28 different languages being spoken among the student body. • • The Fairmont Park cottage serves middle-income families. The average family / income in this area according to 1999 federal tax retums is$23,659. The area / elementary school reports a total battery SAT score of 57 in 2002. • The Ottinger Hall is located in a neighborhood that straddles two diverse socio- • • economic communities. The area's school serves families who represent the extreme 00 AO high,the average 1999 federal tax return was$56,900,and low-income brackets;the S average federal tax return for 1999 reported an income of$10,971. The elementary school has a substantial refugee and immigrant population,a gifted program,and also r serves many children whose families receive Section 8 housing assistance. 11/ QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN Ab Salt Lake City has been the recipient of numerous federal allocations. To date • we have zero audit findings. This project will be under the supervision of Janet Wolf, Director of Youth Programs,in the Mayor's Office. A full-time Site Coordinator will be hired for each new program site. The Coordinators will be responsible for hiring,training A▪ND and supervising the site instructors. In addition,the site coordinator will be responsible '' for community building and participant recruitment. All site coordinators will have a bachelor's degree and a minimum of one year experience supervising employees. BAIP Instructors will be responsible for curriculum design and implementation.Resumes,job O descriptions,and an organization chart can be found under Tab 3. ma pa 4 via pa • I DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES Grant goals,action steps and measurable outcomes have been divided into three ■ categories. The first is the remodeling and furnishing of the three parks buildings. The • second set of goals,action steps and measurable outcomes relate to programming for the • • new sites. The third set of goals,action steps and measurable outcomes is specific to ✓ v participant activities and evaluation. r SOGoal 1:Remodel and furnish 3 parks buildings Ciiil l'.t1 i _ C, r 1.Complete 1. Salt Lake City 1. Design completed remodel/refurbishing of the Planning by July 15,2002. Boxing Building located in Department will 2. Bid process PP Liberty Park. facilitate design completed by 110 process. October 1,2002. w 2. Begin bid process. 3. Refurbish completed 3. Begin refurbishing. by March 1,2003. w M 2.Complete refurbishing of 1. Design interior 1. Interior design the Fairmont Park Cottage, space for completed by June located in Fairmont Park. classrooms. 30,2002. 2. Begin bid process. 2. Bid process a 3. Begin refurbishing. completed by July 30,2002. 3. Refurbish completed by October 1,2002. 411 r 3.Remodel/refurbish 1. Salt Lake City 1. Design process Ottinger Hall in Memory Planning completed by Grove Park. Department will August 31,2002. facilitate design 2. Bid process pa process. completed by 2. Begin bid process. October 1,2002. 3. Begin refurbishing. 3. Refurbish completed by February 1,2002. — ✓ 4 rAl or w II II ✓ 1 Goal 2: Staffing for programs S I. Create and post job 1. Meet with current 1. Job descriptions ✓ descriptions for site partners to completed by May coordinators and determine site 2002. ✓ teachers. needs. 2. Announcements run • 2. Advertise for 2. Place job for 2 weeks. r positions. announcements in 3. Interviewing and 10 3. Hire coordinators the area newspaper hiring completed by and teachers. and the University January 15, 2003. r 4. Complete training. of Utah. 4. Staff hiring and r 3. Interview applicants. training completed r 4. Schedule training by dates of building with partners. openings. II r r XI Goal 3: Recruitment and programming i I E}[.J C Y 1 V �� ACT i I�..1.\ .' c F S `�i_. .-'.S♦,_.i\.:.6'i,i i. i 01 a C`N117S: MO 1. Site coordinators 1. Attend meetings 1. 5 new participant a will recruit students with district and contacts made per a through school community affairs meeting. visits, community office. 2. Contracts signed a council meetings 2. Contact teachers to with teachers for OP and advertising. ensure teacher session. a 2. Schedules for availability. 3. Evaluation results classes made 3. Students and shared at providers a available to public. teachers fill out meetings at the end a 3. Students evaluated evaluation forms. of each session. a at the end of each a session. a i Program Rationale a YouthCity After-School Program (YCASP) seeks to facilitate the development of OS resiliency within participants by providing programs that nurture self-discipline, perseverance, positive inter-personal communication and caring. YCASP focuses primary AI attention on the emotional, social, educational and economic needs of its participants. d m 41 YCASP realizes that quality programming must be maintained to provide a catalyst to p. 5 la A de in ■ • ■ • youth seeking its services.Thus,YCASP provides participants with a variety of activities,including,Claymation,video production and filmmaking,dance,visual arts. • and non-traditional physical activity programming.However,YCASP believes the • • activities provide only the organizational focus and to ensure an effective program,the whole person must be addressed.By allowing participants to choose programming • activities,providing small teacher to student ratio and maintaining student accountability • and responsibility,YCASP seeks to empower participants by encouraging a sense of • independence and control over their own lives and experiences. MO Evaluation Rationale • The consistency in learning domains(cognitive,affective,and psychomotor)across 46 40 the disciplines of music,art and physical education/activity allow for a common method • of investigation. The main objective is to investigate motivation and self-responsibility as the primary program outcome components. A multi-method approach will be utilized to evaluate YCASP's effectiveness in the following areas: 40 Motivational Climate • During the past decade, achievement goal theory has become a major theoretical paradigm in sport psychology for examining motivation in physical activity settings AO (Ames, 1992;Duda&Hall,2001). The theory suggests that motivation is a function of r• personal goals,contextual goals and perceived ability. Individuals are thought to adopt a different personal achievement goals based on the way in which they construe # competence(Nicholls, 1989). Personal achievement goals are comprised of a task goal r• orientation and an ego goal orientation. Task goal orientation reflects a focus on effort, cooperation and improvement while ego orientation indicates an underlying concern for doing better than others or competition. Goal achievement theory suggests that the task rr and ego qualities inherent in the context are of critical importance. Research indicates that learning situations that are geared toward more"task-orientation" facilitate greater enjoyment and participation(as cited in Todorovich,2001). Developing Social Responsibility Threaded throughout the program is a five level curriculum designed to facilitate 01111 student development of social responsibility. The curriculum has been adapted and 6 A • 11411 modified from Hellison's Teaching Social and Personal Responsibility through Physical Activity Model (1995). The five levels are sequenced in a progressive manner and are as 1111 follows: ai • —� Compassion -3 Respect Trust a Cooperation a Communication a i 'r Each week concepts are introduced and presented in a discussion format. a Program participants then engage in a cooperative or initiative activity that underscores illb the meaning of the concepts. Group processing follows each activity. The development a a of social responsibility is intended to provide participants not only with the interpersonal i tools by which positive intrapersonal skills are grounded, but also with the foundation in 410 which skills related to resiliency are associated. Measurement Procedures • Examine effectiveness of the program by comparing mean differences in ab perceived goal structure (task versus ego) as measured by the Perceived a Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton & Duda, • 2000) (Appendix A) a • Compare mean differences in self responsibility as measured by the Contextual Self-Responsibility Questionnaire (Newton & Watson, 2001) (Appendix B) ral • Compare mean difference in persistence as measured by daily attendance a • Use of focus groups has been recently demonstrated in the health science literature to be a valid and reliable method to obtain data from under-studied populations (Nies, et. al., 1999; Eyler, et. al., 1998). The group interaction fostered by a focus group provides for an environment that encourages the 7 ■ lb • development of ideas and concepts. Program participants will participate in one focus group. • • Program teachers will complete a self-evaluation questionnaire which will be • adapted from the focus group interview questions Data Collection S All participants and teachers in YCASP will be surveyed using the measures noted above. Participants will also be chosen to attend focus groups. Participation in the S ✓ focus groups will be strictly voluntary and will be conducted with at least one (1) music NO class, one (1) art class, and one (1) physical activity class. Morgan (1998) indicates that S 6 to 10 participants are sufficient to provide a variety of opinions and to stimulate discussion. Focus group questions were taken directly from the questionnaires and were r ✓ rewritten into a sentence completion format (Appendix C). Participants will be given the questions and provided a few minutes to complete the sentences. A moderator then will 89 read the first question and ask each participant to share his/her response. Once the entire a group has had a chance to speak, the moderator will then ask participants for comments Ab or observations on what has been said (Krueger, 1998). Moderators will be graduate al students in the Department of Exercise & Sport Science from the University of Utah and will undergo training in the art of focus group facilitation (Appendix D and E). The a moderator will record all focus group interviews in writing. No audio-recordings will be done. 4111 a Summary a The use of a multi-method approach to evaluation will provide both qualitative a and quantitative indicators of YCASP effectiveness. A quality program is evidenced by F quality teaching, which thereby affects positive youth development. pm i 8 pm FAA NIP 1111 Teacher- —> Participants-*--* =Program Outcomes III O P safe • Cooperative & • Communication • Participant safe learning • Cooperation empowerment • environment • Trust • Participant r • Success based • Respect independence IP on effort • Compassion • Participant • Focus on responsibility ID emotional, social • Participant • and educational accountability needs of child a ,r Appendix A a Perceived Motivational Climate (Newton & Duda, 2000) a a Directions: Think about the classes you take at YouthCity and the teachers. Please read each of the following statements. Put an X in the box that best describes how you truly feel. There are no right or wrong answers, so please be honest. a a At YouthCity... 110 Questions Strongly Disagree Don't Agree Agree Strongly a disagree or disagree agree i People in the i program help each other learn i The teachers a yell at a students for messing up a The teachers a have their i favorites Each person feels they ar contribute in Pai some 01 important way . a Kids in the ii program are ID,... excited to do better than 9 a la it am a al i other kids at Kids feel successful when they s improve The teachers always stress trying your best a at a a a aw a ar a• a, I. a• a a 411 p. 10 Ab ow a • a a aI Questions Strongly Disagree ' Don't agree or Agree ' Strongly a disagree disagree agree j il. The teachers a make sure a the kids a improve on skills they a are not good a at a The teachers a give most of their a attention to a the"stars" a Kids help each other to a _get better AI Kids are a punished if a they make a mistake 311, Each kid feels they a have an important role in the class Trying hard la is rewarded The teachers encourage kids to outdo each other 011/ The teachers favor some kids more than others The teachers emphasize kids working together The teachers believe all _kids are 11 ira important I al Questions Strongly Disagree Don't agree or Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree The main focus is to improve my skills Kids are sat out of class a for making mistakes • Teachers praise kids only when they outdo each other The teachers encourage A kids to help each other team Kids at all skill levels think they 1111 have an im portant role Only the top kids are noticed by the teachers Only the best kids are praised in the class The teachers want us to try new things The teachers get mad when a kid makes a mistake 12 "'OD 4. a I i 411 i1 Questions Strongly Disagree Don't agree or Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree Teachers only think the good kids contribute to 411. the class 41 Kids feel rie good when they try their best The teachers make it clear who they think are the best kids If you want to do well in p the class you must be one of the best Kids are ra afraid to make mistakes in !� the classes Kids are encouraged to work on things they are not good at Each kid feels as if they are important Ira drip 13 ii ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A Appendix B Contextual Self Responsibility Questionnaire(Newton&Watson,2001) ■ Directions: please place an X in the box that best describes your behavior. w Remember,there are no right or wrong answers. la While I am in classes at YouthCity ... Questions Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very much I don't lose my temper...I keep my cool I control my a behavior • I respect others ✓ I try hard a I am able to control what I AI do I take AD responsibility for what I do I am able to set goals rr 1 am w concerned for others ralb I support the other kids in r■ my class I try to do what the teacher says I practice on i my own I set goals .b I participate r� even when I don't want to rw I make fun of a 14 some of the other kids I listen to other kids Appendix C Focus Group questions 1. The teachers in the program focus a lot on trying your best... 2. The teachers in the program treat all the kids like they matter... 3. Sometimes I am frustrated in the program when... 4. The things I feel I have learned in the program that are important to me are... 5. If I didn't go to YouthCity, I would... Appendix D Moderating Focus Groups: Food for Thought Do's and Don'ts 1. Remember to turn the tape recorder on. 2. The moderator's role is to guide the discussion and listen to what's said but not to participate, share views, engage in discussion or shape the outcome of the group interview. 3. Keep focus group introductions between 90 seconds and 4 minutes. Too much talk shifts focus from group. Too little talk and something might have been left out. 4. The focus group participants should always be the center of attention. If the moderator is talking too much, it is not a focus group. 5. Do not ask participants if they have questions before the focus group starts. This can shift the focus of the group, possibly put people on the defensive and take too much valuable time. 6. Questions should be asked in a conversational manner. 7. It may be necessary to modify the sequence of the questions or even eliminate a question if it has been answered previously in the discussion. 8. Be mindful of how you will come across to participants. Too formal creates a tight environment. Too informal and the importance of the group can be lost. 9. Avoid responses that imply judgment such as; correct, that's good, excellent, or good answer. 10. Use responses that affirm participants such as; ok, yes, uh huh, hmmm. 11. Consider nonverbal reactions that can help you communicate such as; hand gestures, smiles, and facial gestures. 12. Be comfortable with silence. An effective moderating technique is the 5-second pause after a question has been asked or after a comment has been made. Do not assume because there is silence that participants need clarification or that they have nothing to say. Allowing for a pause can stimulate other's comments. 15 13. Keep notes while listen. Notes can highlight your impressions of people's responses,highlight critical quotes,or highlight your feelings or hunches. 14. At the conclusion of the focus group,summarize key points of the discussion. 15. Ask participants if there is anything else they would like to add or clarify to the discussion at the conclusion of the group. Questions to consider while discussion is underway: 1. What else do I need to ask to understand this respondent's statement-what it means,why he/she feels that way,etc.? 2. Am I hearing everything I need to know to understand the problem and answer the objectives of the research? Is there a question not on the topic guide that I should ask? 3. How much time do I have left? Will I be able to cover everything? 4. What does all this mean anyway? What am I learning about student feelings/ beliefs,and behavior? What ideas does this suggest about solving the particular problem? 5. How do I get beyond the intellectualizing to respondents'real feelings? I want to reach the level of unanalyzed impressions and emotions-what goes through people's minds before it becomes censored. The issue is,"what do you feel?" Not,"What is your opinion?" Appendix E Focus Group Procedures and Questions Beginning Procedure 1. The moderator will introduce themselves to the group. 2. The moderator will highlight the procedure of the focus group. Focus Group Procedure 1. The moderator will hand to each participant a sheet with 5 questions. 2. The moderator will ask each participant to write a response to each of the questions. 3. Once all participants have answered each question the moderator will begin the discussion. 4. Turn tape recorder on. 5. Participants do not identify self on tape. 6. The moderator will read the first question and then go around the table allowing for each participant to respond. 7. Once each member has been allowed to reply,the moderator can ask for clarification of points,ask the group to compare or contrast statements made and why they believe that is so. 8. Group members are encouraged to interject or discuss. 9. The moderator begins the next discussion by reading the second question. 10. Each participant will have a chance to respond(same as 6 and 7). 16 J . - 11. At the conclusion of the entire discussion, the moderator must ask if there is anything else anyone would like to add. 12. Turn off tape recorder. Students and teachers are evaluated at the end of every session. Results will tabulated by Dr. Doris Watson. 17 0 3 2.110? OSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON SAL' TA " C rT�Y G®RPD JOT MAYOR SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (awl COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officeic7\-7D 7 DATE: May 17, 2002 FROM: Janet Wolf Director o outh Programs Mayor's O ce RE: A resolution authorizing the Salt Lake City Mayor to contract with Salt Lake County to provide funding for the YouthCity Employment Program. The program is located in the Central City Community Center. STAFF CONTACT: Janet Wolf 535-7712 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: $25,000 DISCUSSION: YouthCity will contract with Salt Lake County to receive funding in the amount of$25,000 for the contract year of July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. The funds will be used to expand the YouthCity Employment Program. The YouthCity Employment Program will provide pre-employment training and job referrals to a minimum of 12 students during the contract year. Salt Lake County will provide the program with clients and case management for any participants who need assistance beyond the scope of the employment program. The program is designed to serve young people between the ages of 15-18. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 ® RECYCLED PAPER , RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and SALT LAKE COUNTY, to wit: An interlocal agreement for the purpose of the City providing work experience, internships and job skill training under the Youth Employ-ability Program for qualified young persons. The City shall provide $12,500 in program funding. 2. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attor ey's Office Date S---) c9 City Contract No. 08-3-02-6378 County Contract No. Rev. March 29,2002/gn INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT YOUTH EMPLOY-ABILITY SERVICES (YES) PROGRAM THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is entered into and shall be effective as of the 1st of July, 2002, by and between Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter "COUNTY", and Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "CITY", and (collectively "the Parties"). RECITALS: A. The COUNTY has determined it to be in the general interest and welfare of the COUNTY and the Utah Department of Workforce Services Central Region, consisting of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties, to conduct and administer the WIA Youth Employ-ability Services (YES) Program for qualified young persons in the Program Area under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, 20 C.F.R. Part 660 et seq. and 29 C.F.R Part 37 et seq. (2000) as amended and supplemented (the "Program"). B. The CITY is an organization which desires and is able to participate in the aforesaid program and provide the necessary job site and the desired employability opportunity for certain youth referred to it by the COUNTY (the "Participant(s)"). THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits derived, and other provisions hereof; the parties agree to the following: 1. Term. This Agreement shall begin no earlier than July 1, 2002 and end no later than June 30, 2003, unless said period of performance is changed by a written amendment agreed to and signed by the parties. 2. Contents of Agreement. The,following Exhibits are specifically incorporated into this Agreement and the CITY shall follow and comply with provisions to the extent they are appropriate and applicable to the work site operation: Exhibit A: Budget Exhibit B: Work Statement Exhibit C: Certificate Regarding Lobbying 3. Project Description; Orientation. A. The CITY agrees to provide work experience, internships,job shadowing, or job skill training for the Participant(s) as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement, and shall provide all orientation,job supervision, participant payroll records, and participant job evaluations required under this Agreement. B. The CITY shall require the worksite supervisor to attend a YES Program orientation to gain a more thorough understanding of program requirements. The COUNTY will hold said orientation on a group or individual basis. 4. Allocation of Funds. The amount allocated to the CITY for the performance of activities outlined in this Agreement isTwenty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($25,000.000) and is limited to the costs contained in the project Budget, which is attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement. 5. Allowable Costs; Payment. A. For the performance of this Agreement, the COUNTY shall pay the CITY its program costs, for the period specified in Paragraph 1, which are allowable in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of WIA, the procurement standards set forth in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102, and the cost principles set forth in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87 applicable to grants and contracts with state and local governments. B. The CITY shall maintain separate fiscal accounts for WIA support service funds. C. Payments to the CITY shall be made by the COUNTY upon submission by the CITY of an invoice, which shall be due no later than the 15th of the month for expenditures occurring in the previous month. D. Based on audits, payments to the CITY may be subject to adjustment for amounts, which constitute costs not allowable under the grant and adjustments for overpayment or underpayment of funds. The COUNTY may require at any time an audit of the invoices, budget, and cost reports. E. Program income, as defined in the Rules and Regulations, shall be immediately returned to COUNTY. F. The CITY'S final invoice, including an income statement for the program, shall be submitted no later than fifteen (15) days after the termination date of this Agreement. G. The CITY agrees that any refunds, rebates, or credits owing to the COUNTY shall be paid to the COUNTY within thirty(30) days of written notice to the CITY, or, at the County's option, may be credited against future payments due the CITY. H. It is understood and agreed that the effective date of this Agreement is the date of commencement of services as provided in Paragraph 1 above and that any and all appropriate costs that are deemed allowable for the WIA program and cost incurred by the CITY between the said effective date and the date on which this Agreement is fully executed are hereby approved and ratified for payment 7 6. Maintenance of Records and Reports. A. The CITY shall maintain and provide access to financial records in accordance with United States Department of Labor guidelines and regulations to assure a proper accounting of all project funds. A uniform system of accounts will be maintained, from which a monthly statement of actual expenditures can be drawn. These records will be made available for audit and monitoring purposes to the COUNTY, County's agent, State of Utah, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Comptroller General of the United States or any authorized representatives. B. The CITY shall preserve, maintain and make available for audit all records for a period of four (4) years from the date of last payment to the CITY under this Agreement and such records shall be made available on the CITY'S premises or elsewhere for audit, copying, and examination by the COUNTY, County's agent, State of Utah, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Comptroller General of the United States or any authorized representatives. C. The CITY shall prepare, retain, and submit to the COUNTY, if requested, all of the normal and necessary employee records, data and infoiniation and any other records, data or information, as required by the COUNTY, pertaining to the Participant(s) and their participation in the Program. 7. Additional Compliance. A. The CITY'S participation shall be in compliance with the terms of the federal WIA Grant Agreement under which the aforesaid Program is funded; the applicable federal and state rules and regulations issued for the Program; all applicable federal, state and local law, statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances; and any applicable contracts and subcontracts of the COUNTY implementing the Program. B. The CITY shall sign and comply with the provisions of the Certification Regarding Lobbying, which is Exhibit C to this Agreement. 8. Background Checks. The CITY agrees to conduct criminal background checks on all its employees and agents who will have substantial and direct contact with youth pursuant to the terms of this Agreement to the extent permitted by Utah Code Ann. Section 53-10-101 et seq. (1999). The CITY shall maintain proof that it caused such background checks to be performed and produce such proof upon COUNTY'S request. The CITY may request reimbursement from the COUNTY for cost incurred in order to comply with this paragraph. 9. General Assurances. A. The CITY assures the COUNTY that funds provided under this Agreement shall only be used for activities which are in addition to those which would otherwise be available in the area in the absence of such funds. 3 B. The CITY assures that it will administer the activities funded under this Agreement in full compliance with safeguards against fraud and abuse as set forth in WIA and the WIA Rules and Regulations. C. The CITY agrees not to discriminate in selecting or supervising the Participant(s) on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age,political affiliation, or national origin. The CITY shall comply with all applicable federal and state civil rights laws, rules, executive orders, regulations, and the provisions of the Affirmative Action Plan in the area of nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity. D. The CITY, in carrying out its responsibilities under this Agreement, assures that it will not contract with companies, persons or agencies that are on the federal Debarment List. (Executive Order 12549, 29 CFR 98, Federal Register 53 FR 19189.) F. The CITY assures that reasonable care will be taken that no Participant(s) be required or permitted to work,be trained, or receive services in buildings or surroundings which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to his/her health or safety. The CITY further assures that it shall provide a drug free environment. G. The CITY assures that training and work experience for eligible youth will be coordinated with school-related programs and may include the awarding of academic credit. H. The CITY assures and certifies that it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352); with the provisions of the Unifoiiii Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), which requires fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs; and with the provisions of the Hatch Act that limits the political activity of certain state and local government employees. 10. Personnel Provisions. A. The CITY shall be the employer of the Program Coordinator and shall bear sole responsibility for said Coordinator hired under this Agreement. The Coordinator hired with funds granted through this Agreement shall be an employee of the CITY and shall receive the benefits and abide by the personnel regulations of the CITY. Participants shall not be employees of the CITY. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed in any manner, as creating or establishing an employer/employee relationship between the COUNTY and the Participant(s) or between the COUNTY and the CITY. B. The CITY is an equal opportunity employer. It is the policy of the CITY to employ the best qualified personnel available without discrimination as to race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, or physical or mental disability except when justified to meet a bona fide occupational requirement. All Participant(s) shall be infoiuied of the ternn's of their employment and training and shall be notified of the CITY'S equal opportunity employment policies and grievance hearing procedures. 4 C. The CITY shall abide by the provisions of the Immigration Refoiin and Control Act of 1986 and represents to the COUNTY that the CITY and its officers, employees, and agents are lawfully permitted to pursue employment in the United States under applicable federal immigration law. CITY agrees that it will hold the COUNTY hainiless as to any fines or other penalties levied against the COUNTY for the CITY'S violation of such immigration laws. 11. Performance Responsibility; Notice. The overall performance responsibility for the Agreement as it pertains to the COUNTY shall reside in the COUNTY'S Community Development and Resources Division, in cooperation with other divisions of said office with respect to the WIA sub-grant agreement administration. Any written notice to be given to the COUNTY shall be addressed to: Director Community Development and Resources 2001 South State Street, Room S-2100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-2710 The overall perfoinrance responsibility for the Agreement as it pertains to the CITY shall reside in the Youth Programs office. Any written notice to be given to the CITY shall be addressed to: Director Youth Programs Office of the Mayor 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-3102 12. Monitoring. The COUNTY shall monitor, evaluate, and/or audit this Agreement and the Program under which it is conducted, and the CITY agrees to cooperate with the COUNTY with respect thereto. The COUNTY shall, within its sole discretion, also perform program orientation and provide advice and technical assistance in the program operation; it shall provide all necessary forms and furnish a program operations manual or guide and job counseling. 13. Modification; Termination. This Agreement shall not be modified except by mutual written amendment executed by both parties. This Agreement may be teiminated by either party for any reason, by the terminating party giving five (5) days written notice to the other party of the termination and the reason therefore. Upon any early termination of this Agreement, COUNTY shall pay CITY allowable costs incurred by CITY as of the date termination becomes effective, and the CITY shall provide final reports and supply infoirnation and data to the COUNTY as requested. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments hereto and referenced herein, contains the entire agreement between the parties and no statements, promises, or inducements made by either party or its agent not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. 15. Indemnification. Both parties are governmental entities under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, §63-30-1 et seq., Utah Code Ann. (1953, as amended) therefore, 5 consistent with the teinis of the Governmental Immunity Act, the parties agree that each party is responsible and liable for any wrongful or negligent acts which it commits or which are committed by its agents, officials, or employees. Neither party waives any defenses or limits of liability otherwise available under the Governmental Immunity Act and all other applicable law, and both parties maintain all privileges, immunities, and other rights granted by the Act and all other applicable law. 16. Insurance. Both parties are self insured and shall be responsible for payment of liability claims caused by their respective negligent or wrongful acts in accordance with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, §63-30-1 et seq., Utah Code Ann. (1953, as amended). 17. Ethical Standards. The Parties represent that neither has: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to an officer or employee or foiiner officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity of the other party; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code or any comparable Salt Lake County ethical standards ordinances or policies; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that they will not knowingly influence, an officer or employee or former officer or employee of the other party to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or any comparable Salt Lake County ethical standards ordinances or policies. 18. Confidentiality. The parties agree that all information regarding students' identity or services provided by this Agreement shall be kept confidential, except as otherwise provided by law, including and in accordance with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other applicable laws. 19. Not a Joint Venture. This Agreement does not create, and shall not be construed to create, a joint venture by the parties to operate or maintain public facilities or programs. No separate governmental entity is established by this Agreement. 20. Utah Law. This Agreement shall be governed and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as follows: SALT LAKE COUNTY By: Nancy Workman or Designee Mayor, Salt Lake County STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On this day of , 20 , personally appeared before me , who being duly sworn, did say that (s)he is the of Salt Lake County, Office of Mayor, and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of Salt Lake County, by authority of law. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES By: Michael Gallegos, Director Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE J i By: 7' —2c`.f_..__ \Deputy District Attorney Date:( 0 7 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Ross C. Anderson Mayor, Salt Lake City ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Acl LCW% rvr SALT LAKE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Date: c74 ''�` CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 8 EXHIBIT A YOUTHCITY EMPLOYMENT BUDGET Income Expense Salt Lake City Youth Programs $17,560 Salt Lake County Youth Employment Programs $25,000 *Youth Stipends $4,500 $4,500 Salary $34,560 Travel $1,000 Computer $2,000 Supplies $5,000 Total $47,060 $47,060 Salary=$18 per hour, 40 hours per week, 48 weeks per year. Travel = .33 per mile Computer self explanatory Supplies= office supplies, classroom supplies, postage and phone expenses * Stipends will be paid directly to youth by the county Note: With the exception of the stipends noted above, this is a cost reimbursement contract. 9 EXHIBIT B SALT LAKE CITY YOUTH CITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM WORK STATEMENT Program Description/Goals Pre-employment training and school retention skills will be provided for twenty(20) to thirty (30) Youth Employ-Ability Services (YES) participants. Salt Lake City-YouthCity (SLCYC) and Salt Lake County will conduct outreach and recruitment efforts and refer youth to YES who are on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and/or are likely candidates for WIA Youth funding as a function of their economic status and priority need for services. Program population will be composed of, but not limited to immigrant and refugee youth residing with in the Salt Lake City School District. The training program will operate one, eight week session during the course of the contract year. Classes will operate Monday through Friday from 3:00 PM until 5:00 PM at the Central City Community Center. The training program, totaling 80 hours, will consist of four (4) two week training modules. Each training module will be taught as 'stand alone' classes and students will be encouraged to take as few or as many of the modules as desired. The training modules are: Life/Employment Skills: Participants will be instructed in the exploration of vocational opportunities, resume writing, interviewing techniques and job seeking skills Computer Literacy Skills: Participants will be introduced to word processing, spreadsheet systems and interne applications. Focus will be placed on building participant confidence in the use of technology in the employment arena. Tutoring/ESL: Participants will bring in homework assignments/projects from school to the program. Individualized participant assistance will be provided while youth establish a "mentoring" relationship with instructors. Portfolio Development—Participants will develop a skill and employment portfolio that will include their resume, examples of their writing, certificates of course completion, photographs and letters of reference. Upon completion of a training module, participants will 'pass off'competencies and receive feedback and an informal assessment of their involvement by instructors. These competencies and instructor assessments may be developed by SLCYC staff or may be pre-established evaluation mechanisms. Additionally, those successful completers who are interested in employment will be referred to potential employers by SLC-YouthCity staff SLC-YouthCity instructors will identify unsubsidized employment opportunities and coordinate youth placement. SLCYouthCity/YES 10 participants will also work with a YES case manager and will be provided additional skills and career development opportunities. Program Participation Incentives Successful completion of each training module will be measured by at least 80% attendance (16 out of 20 hrs) and successful completion of competency testing. Youth will receive $25.00 for each successfully completed training module. Successful completion of all four training modules, as measured by at least an overall attendance rate of 80% (64 out of 80 hours) and passing of all four training area competencies, each participant will receive an additional $50.00 Target Population to be Served SLCYC will serve 20 to 30 YES youth, who have been determined eligible by YES staff for TANF and/or WIA Youth program funding, and will primarily be composed of, but not limited to, immigrants and refugees between the ages of 14 and 18 residing with in the Salt Lake City School District Responsibility for the certification and selection of clients will rest with the Division of Community Resources and Development (CDR). Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the City to meet the "priority need for services" set by the Central Region Youth Council. An effective referral process between YES and SLCYC will be established prior to the start of the program. - Perfoiiiiance Standards Pre-employment training skills will be provided for up to 30 participants with 85% of the participants successfully completing the program as defined in the "Program Participation Incentives" section. City will be presented with competency testing materials prior to the start of the program. Attendance records will be maintained by SLCYC. City must approve significant changes in the project in advance. Client youth may be enrolled in the program only on the approval/referral of the City. A representative from SLCYC will be expected to attend a YES staff meeting at least once a month. This will serve to facilitate communication between staff, provide further infoiivation and insight into both programs and allow for interagency staffing of existing and potential program participants. SLCYC staff will be in contact with the appropriate YES case managers as frequently as deemed necessary. 11 Program Effectiveness The effectiveness of the program will be based on the completion of the services described in the "Program Description/Goals" and the "Performance Standards" section of this document. 12 ATTACHMENT C CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1)No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan,the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,renewal, amendment or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. (4) This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 13 5 2, title 3 1,U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Organization Program Title Printed name of certifying official Signature Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Omce Date/ By! t:441a 13 MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Janet Wolf,Director of Youth Programs Date: May 31,2002 Re: Responses to questions posed by the City Council regarding funding for youth programs What niche do the City's youth programs fill that is not filled by other government or non-profit agencies? • The first and primary niche or, more correctly stated, gap that the City's youth programs are seeking to fill is the high percentage of children who do not have youth programs available to them. For example, a recent Kids Count survey showed that there are only enough after-school slots for approximately io% of Salt Lake County youths with working parents. Quite frankly, the area of youth programs is not a hugely competitive market were one needs to fill a niche to win new customers. Rather the goal of youth programs, city sponsored or otherwise, must be to provide higher quality programs to a larger number of children. • Beyond the issue of filling service-level gaps, YouthCity programs aim to distinguish themselves from other programs in a number of ways. o Providing programs for children from a range of economic backgrounds ■ Affordable for low-income children ■ Rates adjusted for moderate income levels ■ Higher income families pay full fee o Providing a variety of interesting, engaging alternatives to traditional after-school care • Many programs are glorified babysitting ■ Each program has its strength (e.g. sports, tutoring) ■ YouthCity provides class options not available in many other programs and the curriculum is research-based • Many YouthCity programs, such as YouthCity Government, Employment, Murals and the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium, are one-of-a-kind opportunities for the City's young people. They are drawing many older youths who are otherwise not engaged during the vulnerable out of school time hours. • Technology, video production, claymation • Employment opportunities • Arts • Dance • Community service o Providing flexible, longer hours • Most programs don't engage youth until the end of the work- day and all day in the summer. • We are able to keep participants until parents are home from work and intend to expand even further, to days when school is not in session. o Serving age groups often overlooked by other programs • Most after-school and summer programs for young people cease around the ages between 12 and 14. This is a difficult group to serve for many reasons. Youth from low-income families may be expected to care for younger siblings during out of school time and youth this age are difficult to capture. By working with the families and other providers, we can provide referrals for the younger siblings while offering interesting and adult supervised activities for youth during these vulnerable adolescent years. • The YouthCity after-school and summer program targets youth ages to-14. Older adolescents are served in the YouthCity Government and Employment programs. o Providing leadership and collaboration opportunities between service providers, community groups, funding sources, and government agencies • City investments in after-school opportunities can have a tremendous impact on young people because of the powerful leverage opportunities implicit in the City's involvement. Many schools and community-based organizations run after- school programs and are important partners in the development of an effective overall after-school system. However, without leadership from municipal officials, they usually cannot forge a community-wide strategy that works for all children. • The City is in a unique position to provide the leadership needed to bring youth program providers together and to fill gaps in program delivery. We have assessed the needs of young people in our city and the resources and community assets available. We are working to establish uplifting, interesting, enriching programs and a sustainable funding source for them. Our inventory of programs has identified every after-school program in Salt Lake City, and we are working with a community-based committee, consisting of program directors, to discuss the various opportunities that exist for collaborations among these programs. — ■ The outcome of this effort over the long-term will be: o All of the stakeholders will be linked for joint planning and information sharing. o New relationships will continue to be built. o Leadership will be nurtured amongst providers and stakeholders. o Sufficient numbers of programs will become available and the barriers that prevent access will be addressed. o Program quality will be enhanced. o A community infrastructure will be established to include funding strategies, coordination of training, program evaluation and accountability, and public awareness of where children can be safe and engaged when they are not in school. How do the school district's after-school programs or other programs and non-profits interface with the City's program. • Our programs have brought together individual schools, the school district, foundations, neighborhoods, corporations, non-profits, University of Utah, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah. • At the County level, we have established collaborations with their Youth Employment Program, Central City's Computer Lab, Northwest Multi- purpose Center, and the AmeriCorps program. • Our first YouthCity after-school program draws youths from 7 elementary schools and 6 middle schools. School personnel are the referral source to the children who participate in our programs. The arts component of our youth program, Global Artways, has been offering after-school and summer programming in schools, libraries and community centers for several years. This effort would not be possible without the support and endorsement of our classes by the District and individual schools. • In light of the termination of federal money for after-school programs in our middle schools, Salt Lake City's youth programs and the School District will be engaged in leveraging funds for future program operations. The funds will be used to maintain and expand opportunities at schools and in community centers during after-school and summer time. An example of this has already occurred with Glendale Middle School. A grant proposal was submitted in early May to the Department of Education for funds to continue their current program, built by zist Century Funding. If successful, the additional money will be used to fund programs at Glendale, utilizing classes from a variety of providers, including the City's arts education program, Global Artways. • There are numerous other partnerships in place. Some examples include, o Salt Lake County and a local corporation to provide a youth employment and mentoring program. o The University of Utah's Service Learning Program and Department of Sports and Recreation Science offering non-competitive sports programming at YouthCity. The University provides this program at no cost. The University of Utah has also committed to assisting YouthCity with the College Bound program, designed to keep children in school and go to college. o Spy Hop Productions and Artspace Institute for Art and Imagination are two organizations providing interesting and age-appropriate activities to the YouthCity participants. o Americorps has funded our program manager for the past nine months. o TreeUtah will begin teaching courses in Summer zooz, and has donated trees for participants to plant at Central City Community Center. Is the school district's after school programming continuing or is a lack of funding curtailing its after school programming? • During the last five years, Salt Lake City School District has received $8 million in zIst Century funding. The money is a one-time funding source; that is, schools were expected to seek other resources to ensure sustainability. This year marks the third and final year of funding for the middle schools. The School District does not have a plan to extend the programming beyond this grant. We have been working with the schools to assist them in finding additional resources and recently completed a "School Drop Out Prevention Grant" with Glendale Middle School. The elementary schools will lose their funding within the next two years. It is noteworthy that many families did not participate in the after-school programming because it is cost prohibitive. In many schools, the charge is $14 a day for after-school and$25 dollars a day for all day care. • The District's evaluation of its own programs includes information about the characteristics of the type of young person most likely to stay for after-school programming. Many youths will not stay at school, even if the programs were large enough to accommodate them all. • This is the first year the zIst Century money has been available to providers other than the School District. We are working with the Salt Lake City School District to apply for additional funding. The funding will be used to build collaborative, sustainable programs for all of the City's youth, through the YouthCity program. Should the City provide funding to other providers for these programs rather than competing? • YouthCity programs do not compete with other programs. We create programs using the City's numerous assets, and coordinate and collaborate to fill gaps and provide for sustainability. Utah has the youngest population in the United States. We have more children needing affordable, quality after- - school activities than we have available slots. Our intent is not to compete, but to fill the existing gaps by collaborating and coordinating with schools and all community partners. • Almost every city and town in America offers some activities for youth during after-school hours. Many cities, such as Boston, spend tens of millions per year on city-run youth programs. They do this not because there are no other programs for their youth (Boston has the same organizations, like the Boys and Girls Club that SLC has), but because they realize the need for the city to take a leadership role and to provide services to a broader range of young people in a variety of ways. • Some municipal governments also provide financial support to community- run programs to supplement other sources of funding such as federal and state grants, private contributions and fees paid by parents. Salt Lake City has been providing funding for community-run youth programs through CDBG funds. Last year, Salt Lake City appropriated$90,00o to Neighborhood House. We have provided over $3 million to the Boys and Girls Club during the last zo years. Both programs have limited physical space. There are programs in place that use volunteers. Shouldn't the City work with these programs that use volunteers? • The City currently works with programs that use volunteers. We also use volunteers in our programs. However the word volunteer can be a misnomer. One program uses Foster Grandparents, AmeriCorps and Vista for staffing. Workers in this program receive a modest stipend. We have been working with AmeriCorps and also with the University of Utah Service Learning Program to provide lower student-to-teacher ratios in our after-school program. The YouthCity Employment Program will work with volunteers from local businesses to provide employment-mentoring services. There are many more opportunities where volunteers will be utilized when programs are expanded and staffing is adequate to manage the volunteers. There is duplication among providers. • There are currently enough after-school slots to serve only a small portion of the City's children. While there are numerous providers of after-school and summer programs, the programs are targeted toward different markets, with varying fee schedules and hours. Often these fee structures are prohibitive for middle and low-income families and the hours do not extend to the end of the workday, every day of the week. We provide the highest quality programming to all families who need it, at an affordable price. • The State Office of Child Care reports a shortage in the number of slots available to working parents. Agencies providing after-school programming a that are based on a sliding fee scale report waiting lists. Even with additional staff, the number of children they can serve is limited due to physical space. Also, program quality suffers tremendously when program enrollment grows _ too large. How should the City get the most out of our limited funding? • By continuing the course we have charted. We are leveraging our resources to obtain funding locally and nationally. We are accountable to the 87% of those City residents polled who believe after-school programs are very or somewhat important to Salt Lake City's future. We are maximizing our limited funding with program development, collaboration, and partnerships. In the short time we have been building youth programs, we have developed amazing out of school time opportunities with very little money, and we have also leveraged over$3 million in gifts. Memorandum To: Salt Lake City Council Date: July 2, 2002 From: Janet Wolf Re: Summary of Department of Education Funding for Youth Program Expansion Program Description Salt Lake City is receiving funding for the YouthCity Empowerment Project, designed to give at-risk youth between the ages of 11 and 17 the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of interesting and productive activities after school. While considerable resources have been expended in addressing the needs of young children, the needs . of this older group frequently are not addressed until after a problem has arisen. This population needs as much attention as their younger counterparts as they struggle to define their future. The YouthCity Empowerment Project will be respectful of the tension young people face in terms of their need for autonomy and decision- making authority versus their need for supervision. Young people will design many of the components of the project. Oversight of the project will come from the YouthCity Advisory Board made up of youth from communities throughout the city and their adult partners. Youth who participate will be able to work on art projects, improve their computer skills, develop and implement community service projects, participate in the youth employment project, participate in our college readiness program, participate in our sports program, and get access to other community resources. The project will be located in buildings in three city parks. I Memo To: Michael Sears, Cindy Gust Jensen From: Janet Wolf Date: July 9, 2002 Re: Summary of Key Discussion Points between City Council Staff and Youth Program Staff FTE's In order to implement the Department of Education Youth Program Appropriation, a total of io.25 FTE's will be hired. In every case, the administration will follow Salt Lake City's Human Resource Department guidelines, and in every case, those hired will be fully informed that the position is being funded with "soft" money. In Year i, a total of 4.75 FTE's will be hired. These positions include site coordinators, employment coordinator, teachers, assistants, and a senior coordinator. In Year z or sooner, if refurbishment is ahead of schedule, a total of 4.5 FTE's will be hired. These positions include site coordinators and teachers. In Year 3, a total of i FTE will be hired. This position includes teachers. The Administration is proposing this number of FTE's based on our best estimate of need and with the commitment to maintain ongoing communication with the City Council as we develop the program sites. As with all YouthCity programs, a low teacher to student ratio will be maintained to ensure program quality remains high. • Refurbishment of Park Buildings The Administration has attached estimates from an earlier proposal for the refurbishment of the Liberty Park Boxing Building. It is our intention to leverage donations from the community to keep the costs of all restoration as low as possible. The long term operation and maintenance costs associated with all buildings to be restored will be minimal other than utilities and janitorial needs due to the fact that Salt Lake City is currently maintaining the buildings. We have selected parks as the location for the program because they are places where young people currently congregate. Refurbishing these buildings will improve the atmosphere of the parks by providing needed programming and supervision. The parks, and the neighborhoods around them will be safer and livelier, and serve as magnets for the kind of healthy, productive community gathering we want to inspire in Salt Lake City. A complete maintenance cost analysis will be available within a year after refurbishment of the buildings. Collaborations and numbers of youth to be served The list of partners in the implementation of YouthCity programs to date is extensive. The following is a partial list: Salt Lake City School District University of Utah/Bennion Center, Graduate School of Social Work, Department of Recreation and Sports Science, Theatre Department, Art Department Salt Lake County/Department of Community and Economic Development, Parks & Recreation, Central City Community Center, Northwest Multi-Purpose Center Utah State Office of Child Care Spy Hop Productions Artspace Institute of Art and Imagination Children's Dance Theatre Tracey Aviary Utah Symphony Utah Opera Company UTA Salt Lake City Corporation It is anticipated that with the addition of three new sites, YouthCity programs will reach thousands of young people every year. • MAYOR'S YOUTH PROGRAMS Youth City After-School and Summer Global Artways Employment Program Programs ❖ Imagination ❖ Central City Community Celebration Center 111/ ❖ Sorenson Multi- Cultural Center •'• Northwest • Multipurpose Center Youth City Government ❖ Boxing Building at Liberty Park + Cottage at Fairmont Park ❖ Ottinger Hall in College Bound Memory Grove Refugee Youth and Family Consortium • JUL 1 1 11-2?- SALT' rA £:GUT CORPORATI.O MARGARET HUNT �� �_ - — -- -�- ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office)7DA : July 11, 2002 FROM: Mf14 -it / c-r-- RE. ' ret Hunt, CED ctor A resolutoauthorizing the Mayor to accept agrant award provided to the Salt p Lake City Police Department from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive a $10,000 grant. DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $10,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant will be used to pay overtime for approximately six officers involved in "Operation Crosswalk Enforcement" (OCE). OCE, commonly known as Pedestrian Sting Operation, targets drivers who violate pedestrian right-of-way laws. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH E41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801.535-623❑ FAX: 801-535-6005 ®aevceo anPea RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $10 , 000 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, to expend for the purposes of : Paying approximately six Officers Overtime for Operation Crosswalk Enforcement" (OCE) . OCE targets drivers who violate pedestrian right-of way laws . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 1/()-4°0 By� • .s, v , ~�, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY = UTAEI HIGHWAY SAFETY • Michael O.Leavitt (:oternor David A.Beach Robert L.Flowers Director Commissioner Earl R.Morris 5263 South Commerce Dr..Suite 202 Deputy Commissioner Salt Lake City.Utah 84107 Verdi R.White II (801)293-2480 Deputy rommtrtioner t801,293-2498 tFax July 03.2002 Salt Lake City Police Department Attn: Krista Dunn 315E _200S Salt Lake City. UT 841 1 1 Dear Krista Dunn: Your application for pedestrian overtime enforcement funds has been approved. However, we were not able to give you the full amount requested. Your agency has been approved for S10,000 at this time. Studies show that enforcement combined with education is more effective than doing one or the other alone,and publicizing what you are doing makes it even better. We encourage you to combine your enforcement with community activities,school educational programs, and media events. If you would like brochures, incentives,or educational materials please contact this office. By signing up for overtime hours, you agree to the following guidelines: • Complete the Overtinze Reimbursement Request&Activity Report Form. This should be completed by each officer after each overtime shift, approved by the supervisor and payroll clerk, then returned to our office for reimbursement. (Make additional copies as needed.) PLEASE NOTE: The activity report must be completed before payment will be made. Reimbursement will be made to the agency, not the individual. • Complete the Final Activity Report form. This is due 30 days after the enforcement period is completed. This form is to document all activities and events that took place. PLEASE NOTE: On this form you are required to list your goal(s)and how you accomplished them. This should be the first thing you do! Future funding will be influenced by this report. Only one form per agency is required. • 4 or 5 hour shifts are encouraged. • Enforcement efforts should be aimed at motorists violating pedestrian safety laws. Common motorist violations are: • 41-6-24-4a: Vehicles shall stop at a clearly marked stop line,not in the crosswalk. • 41-6-78-la: Vehicles must yield to pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk(marked or unmarked)when the pedestrian is near or upon the half of the roadway which the vehicle is traveling. • 41-6-78-3: When a vehicle is stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross, vehicles approaching from the rear may not overtake or pass the stopped vehicle. • 41-6-805: Vehicles crossing a sidewalk must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and all other sidewalk users. Enclosed are some brochures that list pedestrian laws as they apply to motorists and to pedestrians, and also gives safety tips for each. These may be helpful to officers as they cite individuals by showing them which law they broke,or they can be used just for educational purposes. More are available by calling the Highway Safety Office. These federal funds will expire on October 1,2002. However, let me know if more time is needed—a 30-day extension is possible. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, / 9 Gary Mower Program Manager PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENFORCEMENT PROJECT Overtime Reimbursement Request & Activity Report Overtime Reimbursement Request Activity Report Agency: General location of enforcement Address: Violation Warnings Citations Officer(print name) 41-6-24-2a Officer(signature) 41-6-24-4a Badge# 41-6-78-1a Social Security# 41-6-78-3 Date Worked: 41-6-80 Time Worked: to 41-6-80.1 41-6-80.5 This portion should be completed by your payroll Pedestrian violations clerk. Reimbursement will be made to the agency, Other violations not the individual. Total hours claimed Hourly rate (straight-time) Comments Hourly rate (overtime) TOTAL OVERTIME PAY $ CLAIMED Supervisor Approval Media/Educational activities Date Fiscal Officer Approval Date RETURN ORIGINAL FORM TO: (Please do not fax. We must have original signatures) Utah Highway Safety Office For Office Use Only: Attn: Gary Mower 5263 South 300 West, Suite 202 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Telephone (801) 538-9145 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENFORCEMENT PROJECT FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT Agency: Agency Address: Contact Person: Phone: Enforcement Period (beginning&ending dates): Goal(s) (Specific things you hope to accomplish): (Sample:To encourage drivers to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians. To reduce the number of vehicle/pedestrian crashes on certain streets. To cite motorists who violate pedestrian safety laws,etc.) Activities: What education, special activities, media events, and/or other activities did you conduct prior to and during the enforcement period? (Use additional sheets, if necessary, to briefly explain all activities.) (Attach photos,news articles,flyers,and other pertinent documentation. Include crash/fatal data before&after enforcement period.) List all streets or areas that were targeted for enforcement: Total number of overtime hours claimed: Total reimbursement amount: Total number of drivers violating pedestrian laws: # Citations #Warnings Total number of pedestrians violating traffic laws: # Citations #Warnings Total number of other violations: #Citations #Warnings #Arrests Were your goal(s) accomplished? (Explain) Would you be interested in doing more pedestrian overtime shifts in the future? This form is due 30 days after the enforcement period ends. PLEASE MAIL TO: Utah Highway Safety Office, Gary Mower 5263 South Commerce Drive, Suite 202 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Questions Call: (801) 538-9145 Utah Highway Safety Office Grant Application PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENFORCEMENT PROJECT Agency Salt Lake City Police Department Date 06/28/02 Address 315 East 200 South City Salt Lake City, UT • Zip 84111 Fax (301 ) 799-3640 Telephone (801 ) 799 -3265 Contact Kri sta Dunn Title Grants Acquisition Manager Amount of overtime funds requested: $ 15,000 ( 10 ,000 for crosswalk enforcement, S5,000 for Number of officersyour agency general enforcement regarding motorists) 9 Y employs:s:P Y 106 Number of pedestrian/auto crashes during year 2000 172 # of deaths 2 Number of pedestrian/auto crashes during year 2001: 177 # of deaths 4 # of citations issued to motorists violating pedestrian laws in 2000 1473 2001 1200 Number of citations issued to pedestrians during year 2000 1219 2001 746 Has your agency or any other part of the community engaged in special activities related to pedestrian safety in the past year? No Yes X (if yes, briefly explain) Please see attachment (Use back or attach additional sheets if necessary) What education, media events, or community activities are you planning to conduct prior to, during, or after this enforcement period? (Explain) Please see attachment (Use back or attach additional sheets if necessary) What streets or locations have the most pedestrian/auto collisions: #1 State Street Downtown North Temple to 900 South #2 North Temple Street Downtown to Redwood Road #3 Redwood Road 500 North - 800 North and 1700 South - 2100 South #4 1300 East 2100 South - 2300 South and 200 - 800 South Which streets will you target with your overtime shifts? Authorized Si nat r Date z� o 2--- Attachment Utah Highway Safety Office Grant Application Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Project Has your agency or any other part of the community engaged in special activities related to pedestrian safety in the past year? Yes (if yes, briefly explain) The Office of the mayor is actively involved in implementing several initiatives to improve the quality of life in Salt Lake City. Notable among them are: • An alternative transportation strategy, emphasizing pedestrian and bicycling as the backbone of the downtown strategy. • Walkable communities ordinance. • Traffic Calming • Pedestrian Safety, to include enforcement, and flags or signals at crosswalks. What education, media events, or community activities are you planning to conduct prior to, during, or after this enforcement period? (Explain) This grant would help provide a vehicle for increased involvement by the office of the mayor. He would promote the effort during weekly citizen mayor meetings, and in comImunity council meetings. The department would use the city public access channel to promote the effort in PSA's. The Chief would also utilize press conferences to announce the program. and give performance updates. In the past year, a significant emphasis has been placed on pedestrian traffic violation. We have conducted extensive enforcement projects targeting autos that fail to yield to pedestrians. This included a sting operation, in which plain-clothes officers utilized crosswalks, and enforcement action was taken against those who did not yield. Also, jaywalking violations were targeted in many downtown areas. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANT APPLICATION GUIDELINES Purpose To assist police agencies with reducing pedestrian/vehicle collisions by providing funds for overtime shifts to enforce laws among drivers violating pedestrian safety laws and to encourage community involvement for a total pedestrian safety program. Eligibility To qualify for grant funds, an agency must demonstrate a need for pedestrian safety in their community or jurisdiction. They must also demonstrate their commitment to pedestrian safety through enforcement and by promoting other pedestrian safety activities. Enforcement These funds are to be used for overtime shifts only, and for the purpose of citing motorists and pedestrians who violate Utah pedestrian laws. However, other violations should not be overlooked during the enforcement period. Grant Awards Grants up to $10,000 will be given to agencies willing to conduct Crosswalk Enforcement Operations. These operations will be done by a combination of news media and sting operations using decoy pedestrians. Crosswalk Enforcement Operations are further explained on the following page. Grants up to $5,000 will be given to agencies willing to conduct general enforcement efforts aimed at motorists violating pedestrian safety laws. Grant money may also be used for pedestrian safety education, targeting pedestrians, motorists or both. Grant awards and amount will be based on the following: (1) size of the agency and/or the population it serves, (2) the size of the pedestrian safety problem, and (3) the involvement and/or promotion of other activities that will enhance enforcement and promote pedestrian safety in the community. Funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis and must be spent by October 01, 2002. Reimbursement checks will be made out to agencies and not individuals. Awards will be made and recipients notified by July 08. 2002. Resources The Utah Highway Safety Office will be available to assist with community activities, such as press events, safety fairs, etc. Educational materials, brochures, and incentives are available upon request. If you have questions or need more information, please call (801) 538-9145. Reporting Requirements Activity reports will be required at the same time reimbursement is requested. Appropriate forms will be sent to award agencies. A final report of all other activities will be required at the end of the project period. Application Process Completed application forms must be received by Monday, July 01, 2002. Please fax or mail to the following: Utah Highway Safety Attn: Gary Mower 5263 S. Commerce Drive #202 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 FAX: (801) 293-2498 OPERATION CROSSWALK ENFORCEMENT Commonly known as a "Pedestrian Sting Operation," crosswalk enforcement is making an impact upon drivers who fail to respect pedestrian rights. Well done, it takes advantage of the news media's interests, reaching drivers through news broadcasts. The news media is not interested in a story about someone getting a ticket for failing to stop for a crossing pedestrian. However, use a police decoy pedestrian, a large number of police and do it aggressively, that's news (at least for a while!). The goal is a lot of media attention, not a lot of tickets. If 10 people get tickets and 100,000 hear about it you've been more successful than if 100 get tickets and only they know it! Targeting drivers who violate pedestrian right-of-way laws is more effective than ticketing pedestrians. The driver should be considered the key to the problem, it takes a vehicle and a driver to kill a pedestrian. Drivers should respect the crosswalk and be expected to yield to pedestrians. PERSONNEL: This operation will need A minimum of six personnel, two of which will be in plain clothes. The number of personnel may vary depending on the location of the operation. News media should be invited to observe. EQUIPMENT: All personnel will need a radio. There will need to be sufficient chase vehicles (patrol cars and motorcycles) to allow for the apprehension of the violators. Four large cones and at least one radar unit and possibly a video camera may be used. PREPARATION: To insure the safety for both the pedestrian decoys and for the motorists, this operation will follow the listed criteria: • Operations conducted only in daylight conditions, fair weather, and at marked crosswalks • Pedestrian decoys will use due care to not endanger themselves or motorists and will wear clothing to allow for conspicuity • The required stopping distance for the vehicles will be measured out and one cone will be placed at the crosswalk and another cone will be placed at the beginning of the measured stopping distance If available, a video camera will be setup near the crosswalk to allow for recording the offense • If possible the chase vehicles will have radar to record the speed of the violators Chase vehicles will be posted out of sight up to a block from the location of the operation A spotter, in plain clothes if needed, will be in position to observe the violations and to document and radio to the chase vehicles The public will be given plenty of notice of the date, time, and location of the operation OPERATION: The pedestrian decoy will cross back and forth in the crosswalk, when safe to do so. All motorists who violate the decoy's safety and who were outside the coned area when decoy began to cross will receive a citation. The spotter will radio the vehicle description, violation, and lane position to a chase vehicle. The chase vehicle will conduct a stop out of sight or sufficiently down the road as not to effect operation. Both the officer conducting the stop as well as the spotter(the decoy also if needed) will make notes on this citation. All effort will be made to document sufficiently to allow for successful prosecution. If a speed is available, it will be noted as well. The spotter will keep a log of the vehicle descriptions and violations as they occur. This info will be used to match up citations to the violations seen by spotter. • Jardine, Janice From: Jardine, Janice S nt: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:23 AM To: City Council Members; Lynne Olson (E-mail) Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Aramaki, Jan; Jones, Sylvia; Nielson, Janne; Esham, Barry; Hunt, Margaret; Dobbins, David; Goldsmith, Stephen; Wilde, Brent; Coffey, Cheri; Dansie, Doug Subject: FW: Support Walkable Communities w/proposed amendment for Trailways Lynne, Thank you for your comments. I have forwarded them to Council Members and will see that they have a copy for tonight's briefing. Thanks JJ Original Message From: Lynne Olson [mailto:lynneolson@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:11 AM To: Janice Jardine Subject: Support Walkable Communities w/proposed amendment for Trailways July 16, 2002 Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah Dear City Councilmembers, The City Council will soon consider adoption of a Walkable Communities ordinance. Most of the guidelines were created to orient development to the street, to promote pedestrian activity, and to create visual interest and a safe environment for the pedestrian. The Trails Committee of the Sugar House Community Council recommends that you also include language in the C-SHBD zone regarding access and design guidelines for existing and future trailways. For example, 21A.26.060, section K. Properties adjacent to trailways. Any new development adjacent to an existing or proposed open space or trail corridor should be sensitive to the proposed uses of the open space or trail. Setbacks, buffering, and pedestrian orientation should support and be consistent with the pedestrian use, and should be evaluated for visual interest and safety for the pedestrian. Commercial developments should provide access to and from the trail corridor or open space. This addition will be particularly helpful once the final alignment of the Parley's Trail is determined (hopefully by this time next year. ) In the future, it also will help to maximize the value and utility of the Canal/McClelland corridor as it passes through the Sugar House Business District. We welcome your comments on this suggestion. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Best wishes, Lynne Olson, Chair SHCC Trails Committee 1 SUGAR HOUSE100,06vo 1 _r_ COMMUNITY COUNCIL 01111> Sugar House July 15, 2002 Community Council Ray Pugsley,Chair Justin Jones,Vice Chair Councilmember Dale Lambert Su Armitage,Vice Chair Office of the City Council Scott Kisling,Vice Chair Alice Edvalson,Secretary Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Lynne Olson,Asst.Secretary Kevan Adams,Asst.Secretary Re: Walkable Communities Ordinance Dolores Donohoo,Treasurer Dear Councilmember Lambert, The City Council will soon receive a briefing regarding creating transit- oriented zoning regulations and establishing pedestrian-oriented design standards for the RB, CN, CB, RMU, MU, and C-SHBD zones of Salt Lake City. Members of the Sugar House Community Council have been interested in the concept of walkable communities for a long time, and our community is working toward implementing those principles. Many of the policies and design guidelines in the Sugar House Master Plan reflect the belief that transit- and pedestrian- oriented development will improve the quality of life in our commercial and residential areas and contribute to the economic viability of Sugar House. The Community Council discussed the proposed Walkable Communities Ordinance at their January and February meetings. Support was overwhelmingly in favor of the recommendations that encourage pedestrian activity and create visual interest for the pedestrian. The only objection raised by Council members was that the proposed ordinance does not extend to highly commercial zones, CC and CS. Trustee Rawlins Young said that if we exclude those zones, we exclude the very places where people gather most. He added that the elements of this ordinance should be very close to what is an allowable use in transit corridors. It should prohibit certain uses, like drive-through retail, to comply with the Clean Air Act. He added that auto uses like car washes are not needed in transit corridors and in zones set aside for walkability. A motion was made to send a letter of general support for the Walkable Communities Ordinance, with a recommendation that pedestrian orientation be considered in all commercial zones in Salt Lake City. We respectfully request that you will give your support to the Walkable Communities Ordinance. Sincerely, Lynne Olson Lynne Olson, Correspondence Secretary Sugar House Community Council 7/15/02 Additional information for agenda Item No. 8 - briefing regarding creating transit-oriented zoning regulations, locating parking lots behind building, and establishing pedestrian-oriented design standards. (Walkable Communities) ''.'',...y:i',- ' 't ''t R. ,,2.-ri:. :-.'n-f", ;:ik-, '1-t,'- .,', 1, - --',.. icy' _. ___ ... k -17i 14t1 ... •• 0 -- 4 t — - - .. i•.'s4.`' . t - - s +�,... -..__I— .. tiiit 4 t. 2kt .1.J i- ',' :,--.,.---4,4,,:, j'' _ .; 1 t E - > sty=y�,..�# 1,"S;''- e::�=.'�,r ' s G' k ...--.r._...r'^'-i- `^vim.J.v2."- ,. • 't� 7+Y v . - ::.-.: :':;:' Ir." S - 3 i µ 'YF. > � ' ,c. i fy,ca d ?``sr - x f#` ' # 7' •Y't<,3p`' xx 1 -,, 'Y t At : ,,.';k1, s a ; r ig 3 e 4 ,.' a ,; aL 7,F "+4- -`�F" t 4-----ar "a�S A , j s 7 `'`3r T sz t Fs,-s= s �3 � ;k "ice .,d € i{ zr ": _a 15'S `.�-'� see ." 5: it j • / s ,.,'4—-:7 A:r T,."I/ 4 i: =?spa ' :.:1 ;':" N X ' gd kk F T v j 3 £ 'tip' E t"`.: n ',1 'y '.Z.,'a` >6zt fury 11, J t l �',t T• I J t y{• � SY i 3 1 r �nt�a`n'k wIP fl ,�s >t„ / t 1 Y r1sf/� t ry Y J'. 3 i° • „ _ gsS Sir �, _: C}t '� _ _ :� - a l'•y- rt 1nflc 1 es t, ef :c� _ h _ #'. • • `t c1.. r A .?L• , "' _ .•t a A!2..3•;.,t - ,r4. ,*J 'f - 1 • .. .,�s s a. . 0 . - - •„'ilitt,-X1T-M !•1 i, '4;.:,,,-..!,,4'..2.' ,11•;--,".it', -.-,-• ,:--- . --.:c..-. .T., :• 3 t.4''-_.!F',„i•,M, !I',-, -.- - ' - ,--,,,u..-2,-•-,:,-..-::"t--_: '',' 1,1,-v-M-„it '.i- -•-- ----- . , .---- ---- ,:,_ t:11•-.:•-'*-41' i r -s.,-,,7.-..,-4.,i::-.-•,-_,_ •!-- ';,-4--.•,-cok- It1 i----- . - • . „::-,'.,,„it ,':1-:' I::',-;-,.r,-' ' - ---,r' •..:::•-,.,- ‘.4.1,1r• . - - ,,.. , , • ,.,,:.!24;,,i-.3. k...::::..2ji:....„- :*- - ;:'.-1-1};,flb '. --4-----:.. .- ,,,,.,..,,,.- -,..„;„..„...,,, --- - „-'-c-Z:it:'',11:,- _, ,_ •,''',:.-,-; •• ;• :t , 34=-'''t 1---. 2-si ,- , .."' 1 , ' .'441 !1'4..t1r-,S,"4:• -""._ -i,-; -*--4.4V. --*C4 i,;;Vi'>..=-•;-;'.4X1'.; ',,,,,'f7:-443t.A.,,,;;4N - -.. „... , .„ .,.,..,• , --,-..„ -.,* ,,,,,.... ..3,-..,-,)14,-,t,-..2„3 ---rt,',,,,,t =' # ': 3':.-.;-. ..„4:::,:::t',..;:tr,,V- , „.1f,7,,,;*-1 .q.A-1 -,_ 4,4 t,i;_.4•22: .4.‘'...::;', I'M ''''''';;Tr#$-;:;:e- ' -,',-,.):4,--Z,.*•14'.4.--e.-''.,V t7,:AVP,;`,..",-".'97.,;'e*,.":" -C i *!.;4-14 1 I. '-,:lt.i:•,1f,•,-,, ,-..:-„•• •15T. -:::,-,.,-.-,,,-,,- 7 .. , ,i , .,,.,*'14,4e4'.'4P, ,0-,4; , 1 . . .:. , ., . , • .. - . ; 1 ....- , . • ., . . ... . . , . I . it : i ` i • , 1- I • . . . ., PI ir,., . , . ,... 14, . -- ..,\ ..,.. _ .„. ,..,; . • A ;No, # ,.#4,,,s4• . .* ' ' •' 41.1.1.)::.% '-r'''t, 4,It, I• ,, : (ze"..0.0 :t st. %k"4 -;1 . / ' ' ,,,,. • 6 .".'.ASA. :••,,s. Itle -ei .'' - ''''= , ' 1 , 3 lir ' 'A i,*1 •--; ' - ,4`• '.. .: ..,,,zkl. ' , • _fit . ' ' ‘#),.:1-. • ',,it ''t -'':it°, '', Irlit'X',X' ' -•'''" t . 4 4-4 ,o... • , --'., .''. - : 017f. : ,-. . . , ., : .i, i ,.: . , f.,44 4.• :,t ,. 4 ; . '• * '‘ 4'; V''ii*.7.°4,-,.i ".- 1 1 . * ,%It. :.„f•..„-, , ,,.4 '4. : " ' nt-' , -, • • } , 11 .,1 1l4 / 7 / fk} �l -, �..# It _ f ' '\:%:•.Z.:2..'1',.:-,..1 E2 . . - .. N.7..a�a----sue , ji}A i .. $! a 9 .. _ .. `.L V ( - - < ( i d , i ; _ mo . ' L ! � c j : : , tay p Y.- 5 ,{i- �,ai ,�Yf. 4 .f £ 1,.I..-,;,-"2 z 4 fi I if k. ti�,``: ' .. � g' si_ 44tr `fin+� , f`"., ` 'I, , . y14,- . ' i ,, c E` tea.. �}. j .,�t � �tI ♦ f F�1. �k ,, A. ii 4 i ..� S f,. J5 T f 'mac -re,~ `�. , ,tFX { i 1 > � .t S ( �44 ' c� 1t • k �`t F 7 ` . . w'p, --{ . . s ` ‘k''f A .. i,., n i A y.' Llt '1:', ; t • i' • 1 ` + !` a !' L S fi .\s 6 S�S'[ *"�� 44,44_. ,,,, , \ J _�,;�_ ' +Y,;1 t ..,e; w ..�..,4 r ...Y , T w ,;.�-. Z. -, �4 I'. � . km. i. Y.t r ,J ` ,. 1 4A, - .% w + x,i `'�,� 3 � t• tip _ - - - :::: .♦tvi '1 .+ } ,�.� A.,:: .... `...„.Al '''''.7,, /111&...":„ .:= ' ' , „, ' '. ,,..A,..., t -‹,....„.-% - .... •..--. ,..--2',' 7'3 !*.,, litt.,%.. ‘„ , _..,,,,:,:milb,Z.414.' ,,..:4:(1 n„,"N:.... -:-7111111.,›,,,,,„ , ::::,::,lit,ty,44.----,,P-ma440.0.77:::,- Nitk, ,.....,_ • • •.. ,,......... k - - , -I .1 • • •','" k ..41(4.1041:1111/40,74414:*`---- ► _,.........r....._ ....„...., ,...... mr J '-41%11‘ NA, s4—--- -i\\'',..%i\-- Ni* , ,1/4,„ I 1 , ,,. '. 40671141iii'''':2. . 1,,,N,,,./" .....„` f', r. ''‘,.." '4"..... s.: '' `' t',! -'-' lr'-' *1111111110P l '''. .....-:+:. iv,.,.1.,,,._ , -L. „,,,..-..---*.: i . '"%-`,, - ,-',..: ..--. l'' i i i''''',"4• -'-' - ''''''''''"N.;' ' ' s\-----, _ `. , 4.0,,,,,,,--L', -7.444•0:- ,\ 4,- qy • f�I ` ''k"-4 ,. 1'�, \ •'• yr 4i l V j r'a..eL a r` .l .y. >;.� elf I �,,, i 1 '�t wy� �"� l �V"or P 4 • _ , .. , - w i r .,▪ ; isi.:- t„ tie' / t -' .ky r1,- '-...< 1 2. - ✓ r. 7 _ . . ' •�T�.4n S "�. :s.▪.< kt 8 i •.,,,.<„ --‘<--45 • it a r a iv.,, . r \ - - r` e , - ` ,m, { ; v h.I+�'-rk$. : " ! � e' •Y� t - � tt' . V £r ;r d { s acy ` }tE t tt \ w • 1 a[ a „`1 1 P ; i, y _- e. Y, . _ '\`' .- -.of �,� t ti' ! :{, . ,1 lili\. \ ....7 '--,[).,,,,-,Y40.- --t ., } ...; • ,Z 1iys„ • "''' f t o 4 >••, ,y f gray, " -'-4'v',-: ,13 ## R R µ '� dI ^Ll. • � pie �Z.z ( -� � ll .s. `wig �; 6' �' h $ 4, ' -•ice r 3 'F i ''yk yfy 'R^' * !R'R'.r — ��-{ i ,. __ t '� yyam�+ ..,,,ty, .. tr. F - • '� ilA7-4. '', .3 ` its.. \- },~ .'P • .,--rt . - 't � t-,. 1 t �, �r • �2 aL. pie �r E�{ 3, % -; ,�i T ate_.. -,, `„-- ,.% r,y.- -„,' t -8 1 , 4-m }. @[ ,,-ems+ 4? e-ki.`a. t'.R s� � 3 40-ram V j' 4.'77.f,' J�- . y'r. : : ate �� _ 'a i'i 3 ,ice '�- �� r �! :. �'' F '' $ 'fie _* " • ' 2 ✓ t ...'L �`g�+i �t 1� r.Y ii/ '� � � "y 's'k▪ � fr kv' ' � . { F f ��.li • s •'�t 5 :." -- - - , . ID> ' , is- .� -- li f • Y .1 --. vt t _ d • .�, k t t i • .1 9y. arT • 4 (K`. . t. a_ ,<§y b -7%4 fr 4 t 1 Y ;r t L. ;7... _. .Ra Z f a t4`I .r 4 :3 t titti c k ,.3.,,.`.. _ ! , S _ .—,-"i/r fit+ s - ev...*$ - , i. , T�N j' ...� a " ",A. .1,,,1,4t9T .- sty 1::•, ., .I!rt _ ...„:,:, } q .. _, ( -a ,' `t i 7i e 4`�'Q�t �' _ R� :+t iy `4.'`Ir, t r ` q, - _ t'32t _ 1 •'' '-- ;,.� , .i t,,,r'i...t 1`it f t `. kt, *:5 `yr �1{ }t �0".{. • • t - ` �''.1. . '1 tt- § 4 t t0,a t*4a' • ld*- .,-'�i S - l ' '+3 ( A,; 0-a- ^� ' - Via:"tg'�i a+f ff if F- . • • 4. .- ', • i fit, '' .,i"r y v.�( .� .-. . "'�c "{ E�.. , t 1F`yx �� ? �E�. ,-1,,, r 7. +,. - j. 5 - ,,,,-- 718•: aw 4rt.}• fa r4+t�. f; t. .{ j Q'a > .A. firs° • A -..........-A.!.-!!...,`014' E:'ia:? Cr ...sr.:?et," ,'+ a f r `tr '- s: ,f' #F tx tr , 'V 1, +.6..-'.��\ s+•-+..^�`. ".r i8tY "A J+t1r ,k-•4}1.,.`f.� t t,; 4 '' .- •s. -jy.. _ 1' `'�. s"" FS. ti,`+'. s_E �! iSe-•r�t�` c� ��', `y'" w"'� * % .' r1- f+ al, :.r +cif L' •• ff(a•�) i�,� `+'• ;' ." 'f' .?: ' f't 1i t 5:1-'Sit 14Q :ie 14r•';; - s� .gfr •.. ,�� ~`r'.-a. "�• at' .f54 xQ4 1�t, }. fifj-$`•f!1!s 1' _.-r.y ii �„l.firb - per„..1 't`i * is _,i.-i�pr +hAs::' , ,4-. .jam; . .. MI): r '_#9• T f .w `'a+, - ::;-1'c �.z {•,.� �� , p °'--x s ' "`• 1.. $ t� 1tA ti Ti. . + t•tfiy"j�-r}�t�* s �'n`.:If- - • �) _��t..'..,s'°gYs�T��s, �tt,'�.g�i���.:�°'�i��`F `tjy �[�;}rg°-E� ir;e rrx— ",;.. It... a-.. f - ir;": i� R'ery S is .4 l t: - e +rt t .i { r + - ' - f'ae� �yam{ � .r . ' rZ •e �`'S � +' r '� 'r - arz ,y, . � � ll c 5 ' ' _ ` \ \ 1• r. t rfi .tfg.. r�'1i. __ h,ai 4 I y'i` o r ' 4 ^ �. '4 .. S. a Ff �fy�, r �1 • 4 e • i alo \:, S ,r r n aA f ;tf. S .�4. . 0 `Hth-4:: C`Y nit 4..._ _ ye,a.,' • -z-3R >r �.� - e� �--+ f) a i yt ,r am.s! '.'r e -.a`. ii t. S` j r .. `9 .. \ t V1 'R -„F> t V-; r .fit fie^ • f 1 • S J' 'i tx'.ai. 1 # i? . _ *�g$� r{�� fir `#' krr may,xi > ._ • 4 TT i i.9{'.Alf r �{� s-`.as - i �}- y r j j + j ;F .«..- . l -.. k 5' 4 F 1 } i P } . jg f - r< ('.^ j,.:77— { 7 i, ' _� 7 yk -)7 i' st . : a } 8a pp. t3 t ,-.4 - - 3 • = 'M. _.aaK�„i'• t . j sY -F...•";',/, • ;0 G I1 1 ( z J t ti 1I9 : x.- aa. : c •1 a `I a {pt "' •'`t -, , ,.- ii n� f. J Fit', ii [. E ` r r s i t. y S $) _ � .c.w , dam+ .,ti,` tIt i t I •t t -f f 4i t E rr ;. s.a .t gfit1 ;.1. •:•"'' '44.1I-'4.4"N'''.44, '",'.'"'-‘, • -• 4.': ' '''' - •2 k •••:sulti ,.. yti `i ( f ,:ts„.,„:„ttzt4„,;;;,,itttnit,,;,t4:3.---7,t,i„A,-,TtAtitt.t.tt„,-tt:tit,",.: :,7t:tt;T:. .. - .. - f,..S-ff ' J�^x�f -� 1 7' { -t iiHF {# ��b ?S$T f £ Z : -x _ • _Tr-< - a • e i sP i` 1 3 s 44 r t t ,�,*0;rt:�yam, a .>-- ,4 i l '.' a .: t" r s ., n , ,t. } } ., - (` ` y1 yt af -s Tt w,R a i f 3a 'gl:'. F( it',-, a,,,11.is y"t4 r +' • ;-4...4 ''°4"t 1 '-'-.14,( .1.--,a' j2 y. ,;. }1 y s � ,; r ;; f ;aipra k .1 2, av r { aria } • _ • ( ! £ i • y;�g P ,' ....-..is: s s! iiy� € }may# • i 5A - __. ^i . = 4 _ 4 f�. ha 4T42.��•t $ 'Sk �v^f !' SR i.1si,..i.iyf ^Y"4 ice' € £M1 :,,, „ , ia4# f �,S 6 . ,'M.� X.T ",.2^T` $ `S ' b "t 'W ( e•..F +tw 5'ts ' 'ac -4 try ` -- N.s '', ' ' 'rz:: * ',i,- -"I li:,i F.tt-i:,`-t-'41:g'q •:'gni- 1.-1..,!,1 1 '. ‘ IL ' .-: . --..i:::',,,....._:,f-,;-,'-'2 ,-7_73,-,..,: . .i..t. ' / .'''' ZV - '',el*'':1+11.gt i 14,;''';'A'At'I'V---- ''''.'. .1-;;:::k, * '.*% "",,N'tft - '`,.;,'-'''''''''''''''..*-• - �r of \ `" v . `,` '.%'-:::,.i'''''. -,-: . 't',„ ''',' i.'fr'..‘,, :;'-,-F.1 f.";•, -.7". • '• - r.- .." ' \ \ N\ . .1 IV/ '''.' '.'''''.'' . 3 ems' + •t '� = s, . .. `'t.:, '"' -\:,1 ‘ : '�' it,j€r ` .. ' t 3.fd- ',.=vi'rt•,.:, iM } �'' q '�f 14 } r't � 1 -. S'f, r�.7lt1't 1 -L. j{ a. Y ,t, 4.. : 't _ -•• r'- �, • 4 N w ski L" 'ha rF *.: a 3 .� ,2.1 t i t 1 e F -,.`. - o '- ,.1• L'4fi s x s 0. >a l a< ,I ; J • d •', :, •..sf o � '-aa tr:I ~i a fi V t } € x i 1 . . ' . .i - ''may} rs 3ti � ''h_' 4/ _ 5- ,- t ,t .gym......•...».P ... ',',4 r iL, , ,i, , # "., ,i,„,40,14-4::---'-'2. , ' . 4 ' .t.i. ) r { 1 [ fat t i "a-.. .aa r 4 1 `� a i S a'.♦1.`4 , , ,gt0 � �"4 � t k�,F g _ 'ri 1 + ,, af: - ��F F 1 ,�, s,, r _ F f l y ' 2. j F1,,,,t y�y y i II ��v :gin.ci ' * ‘t 7 i t �J ' � 'r � F k5E .e.l.� t Ff 419 4 k ram»''.acsuaec+ c' "" `- .�..r 4`� .q �tt t tt,'. t t g tt Y'f !., X C }` i 1 ♦ It } SS '%1 7� } Y l. t> .fit*e T k.� {• t s V2 • ` � ,i • k ` - Ks �.' x t J} • .. `.i e S * • t _ ; bk fix% t �, 4. ! �J• �, +• y ,' � P M f T3 ��`. • Q `. ��� , 7 y�, is ',' �.Y ..'L' .. k' S .e§` t' Jam`, -F;S:-^ :.a:`J.. ,* .yp+� n - L,t,��. i _.r . ....- . -..,:,-.4„,..,t,„4„...,,,,.,„.„,,,,,,...,„..„.„...,„ _.:,::::„..,....„....„..„,„,...„.„,_,,,„,„,„_. . .,.,. _..„...„. .. . ,._: .....,.._,,.„,,,,,....,..,.. _ , ,.. „,_ , .. ,..,.A 4,'/: ';'' '-1, ':'•-'.V.'.--"'''' r .i "sue-•.rw '„3.�'33.. `,•. 3'''€='S 3 ',gp ' :. £ ice f zy }: a i ; , : ..'":- 1 . . '--"'„ '•-' '_*te.„,4,,*., - j_ .-4"..-'---W7,.',.:-.7;:-....-.:11-s.N2*-•:-%..&•:. " . * . ' ,....:41.1....../1-.7' '- P. : .. . ,,,, ....i...1.,... .,: ,, •.. : , ..,::_.:;:....„.,.,,fc. . 4..,„:„. , .. .. ..,., __ . ...,J.,.,.,...,.. 4 _ { '• Vic. . _.. , � . ... .' ,.,5..,...._-...:.,.....„.,„...:4. _..a 2.:::.,,,.,„ 3-4*'-:'' f 'its £ s ' • _ �. s+ Sectj :£ nn- .} _ SS • } sfir % sue # . t fix+ • ds 'fE?b:'�'�15• I h '` :� ¢ } • .39 T\ 1 , ,-,-., ,.',,,...;, - -,-----.,-.;, ''::,.7:--n,:ig--;1-.:,,,,a,:4-111,,,,,,,,,,,„.,-,_-c-,,,-,,- tver.,,,.-,.-,, - , . ' ., ,.. -..--,-,,,.-e:,-;f„:f-,,X � F' f r_.. .ty ; ' 3t Tan { J,. . • �,�`a�'Sa krr,Sr p; .°t ...i r .n-rtaT -h' } .a... • F �� - S t, �F3"' _� _ h ram. sa r; ,r y�jgya £ F; fv; . , . _,. k•• . .6,-*"1•4',4:.--'-`` AA' 1 , . N—.7.- 7.,'••=\---i1:4:.,: i '‘, 'tt.• • ' .-;-*,....-k lk.A:.-,,,,-, - ., ,.. i ' , •=. ‘-ti, f :Z• 1 " tat ..•-•:4'1" 1,‘,' , 1 . ,. . ' ),1,....V .i ... i t .: ) . r • '-''...e . ' ::'' VI i;.' . .., ; -% - ...... a '''- : i . : i f i ''. f•fl t! it • -11 - ''-ot=r;;•.4),•,.-- -- ,,- - ., i .,. -,,‘ :,,, - - , ,;.-. ",..,.. wii ,,,f.,v. ' '-i.4 N -X i ,i44,42.,i fie, , -- . -,:-,:,;41',,-.--,-,•.--'6*:,,,, frirt,„ .44 ., ,,J.,..... \ . N.,..,, „... • : f 4:01,,,N .. -r.,4\ i.:..- . )iizt, y -,svf4,:z.•--.-,t,,,,kt...y ?f, "1-,,"!'".,, ,'... .-',.,- , .-4-e 0. :-... i.....,rf.':-...,k•.-••*;A•'.7'•'.* ,.. *-',7 **.e 'A--.'; :\I .,,,,.. \ . „ t.." -..„. • ..q$,4;;10,q,-,x% ..:,'• ,,_. ,.i;,z,,.i_-"fli.,‘, : _ . ( _ -\ 41 •:•1i '14.:1 . .1••'•''.;;:•; %:7;1'4:: 4--4,'..'-r.!.‘:7",'ifo',;4`./.4,, ' -. \ \\. ' Ns i ., I Aki, f,='.)..„,,, . ..ir 0)., '4,,.... '•-'',-- */' \ \ et MI-1.,..-''. a .„.= ,; 1:41=r.4 \ t.t .4... . - .nir. ,.:*.-• t ; ;,Kaii,'''-, . -,' '„. . .. A'--1"? '-'') '''''.. : ''::r...:,` ' '-'- , i!;:le,,',:''''-:-:•.' '. - -%').1,1„..: V;,;, 1,. ki-L-7-',-,. ''-i':. ef. FT, ' '. •-., i,.._,.'a '''',';1.., t . • '-- .1.--,-,*: ..r , , A.;,, ,..;•-1,..4.;:tAbp..„N.-., - itotiti7s, *-rk,,;• \\ = . ,,:A: =-•, :„4,:., LL,IL - - . -•- ,-,141,, - ., --,x4 -- -= -t= ••Attiq..-r , , :, „,,,,,-7,,,‘2,-- f.,-4.t lif7,19,:e.k ,..-:: ,''...`•-, I 7 ,;;--7.- . 4-,`,,,,,,'‘‘.i.-.4-0-,,,,fiTziA-1,..,,z , ,--;',., s•- \\\\ . 11‘. --. ,t, .-..„ 11 .the1&is., r,,,,, \ *IA ;.; -f4v;',:t1A , . ::.... -,, . -.)‘ ,...,,*- . 2:: :::.,'' ' :-..,-,-,. .--T-,:r.4:V..ttil .. ,,nt, -:.-,..-.., .: :, ::::r.7.,,,xlit /...-..0 1-, : i-,47-' --....k 4:1- - -A) - , 1 .,--_-4 z: ,,,--J.,4,,,i,--, . ..; : 7-•,'.,k.:%.,-.- 17-,''''1?..1-A• '...,, • •••• .1*4100 A.1rP. '. .t.,,-):-, '',... , ' :_-Z,----1:-..*' ", '--,; P. . ."-- it••• • .. ''''•-•-•..4•-',%-'..1.-"...„ .:,etti,',i• ......... '''.itjilID,sqt.!, -. .,-..' , i .-: ,,iill".::',...„ .,.*,.:*.. • .. ...,'• •••!: •• •• :t.,,,,,,`,7;,:if„.•14,:•ii.,,!...''' l'.1',„:,,,, •;',..4.4*.!'-,...„... -1 '..,:e.,,;*9.7*-0.4 •Crt..*:' S 1.1';'' \ ',... %. 1,1r„,,c,A.:„ .' / ,,,, gA, . i,,,A1, \•, :,, • ' •; ;r ...VV,.• •', ,, •,,-I.:a• .:4. El*,••:. .ft,41`-'r ' ''-m--,1m, -- h .i,=,,vo.rk--* ‘ .-1.4-i.- -. k'''-' .1 \ , .5••• •`*•;:-••: •7... ••d* .r .,,,,,\;-.' ---.. rii ,s-At- *. ,., >, ';''' ' ''-it.,4 #t .• 1--,. '-'-- '4'...,-. , '-. -= .,', 14,:.:-.‘ - -..,- ''',;7,:''',,," 4X----'?1, _ 7,, .:'',.,'- -,..:17-% 47f:i. :4 -.- - ' ": 41" ' '/ (t.K.,,,- ,.- , ,.._..;:-.. v...,,-,„ ...i..,4 , 1:-?...1 - - ' il,f. '.. -1;';' '.' ,,, ."'"...1'••"-;.`-.4'r,-1.4<1\ -, -"%;'<. . ' :'• 1. ,..'4..„,"--",.,1 i'" - '' LA ; .. , t---If ' -- 4.. stital,,...,' . ti \-:e:.- - ' t1.: .4' '.- \ " ' .... - " it.L.,...4: .%•..1,1'.,-. . 1 \ , . '' , !t•t...i -..`---.,..-1;, , f , ,t,;,:' il _- Ak,t„%fz.:4-..,,N,.../},-,-.A...--..7 \ - , ic t4 .2,, --..1„, ;•=4 ..,..-; - 4.4,- , .. , \ik '-'=:',.; k-‘if' *we -,,i,f•sl s'. \\? • ,•,,1.,• -:;---4.1,-,:,•-,,-„,,,,N7,--triT.'--,. ;„• ,h,,,,,, `0,---,'-el'-1 :" •-i,,,,!4•11'-n; - -k •" t- _4. ,J ' ,..,4:--,;.-^1,--,.4 • 'L., '. .. t.,..--., I . . ''.:-' \ • -, ,.-1- - 4•------„,,,,,- ,..‘„ ••• - - ".t4 . • =-- . ..._ c•-:' - .• -,.=1-,'!---:'',..-,i14, J-- . •I.z - - - . .,. •.., .. -... ,.,,,,,,, — ".„ ., . ... , ;'"'"WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIk , ,' • i9 . -,-; ..,,, ' ,-7 4',..k."f* 3,-,',ii, ,=-•.'74.,,,,...: 4!,---1.• r! V .' ..!,------', - f-'• ' ---- i-,-;..F„..,''41:t.,..,..•-, '-_-'. - --*z.t.`,. .' _ • ';':.' ' '..;.'k,-...;;.,:c.',i.' t' 72i#:14.0'Itil I. ,,,,,. •„.... ', . , ._, '' • . •. • ...... _ 11 r / .-'' ' "A - :i,o--:-.41,' ' ':-..•. - -. • .--..•.----. 4 T-'-',;--,: 11 1 tttit-,-, ' I kt''•,:.; ...#4.. „ , •, . ..._.7' ,,,14.'; . , ! ' •i '-- k i 'A i ir-,.:-.: :,-;.:,•-.0# ., ' tv. 44 1A.,-,::., te- •-:;-_,....2„,,,, . ... y-,••••0,-•-c., -.-,-,-- --, . " k ‘,.-=' ....•-::'..'-, 1: '.1- ." . '"-.:'';'-• ",,,,.' -. -Iti 14.: =,, _ -;s:-„,,,It .f. : --f.-.Li.ii` .1-4-:.****--':-•,•-.•.: .. .- ,7*•••-'-f Z•,.. 'i,it'lf, ' i'-':: ' : ' , -.. . • rz ' ' • ' - —:- --:::-..; -.",': , -•?-''P ii---41i1 4 — -'- ' - ' 4f ;: ,-- ' ‘, 1 - 4 r'. '''' ' I% - . ...,--...- . - . ' - ' :.',L.' ''-.:i ' . • - ..:-1-',3- ' :.. ',= • .,• ' • '.:1".•':••.. i'z'i!` '''' '''''''''.. " - ;z '';1 ' :.,....1--'1'.... '..". •' I'' , ' " :- ''A-ir -"), = : '=- - -.=•••= .- . .' ; -• „.'- :--:-.=., ...;-','>:;:-.1ti -,,- --,,,,„ --. ‘..'2;='.'14,, -,-. -. ''.:4,-,- f . . . -.-- .2.;,r...--.,,a,4.;:V.--?.-!,=1,•,':„‘:,-1.,(1 1% , '. -,=;..,;::,-,3::.-1, .f. '. 2,,,•-',=,„•!: . .-------._:-___;I!.--. ,....i.•,--_v....1-:;:,,, ,,\ „,,„ kc 4, •' It,...4=1••_§,, :•--..A - , if,-;-‘,-.#-,,„.'#,AT. : '',41 - -. ..'..';'V ' q".;n';0.0'itah'1?%.'_''. ,'''',''`z*.ei' '-- if:tit'zi'',,AL'.-.:4,:fh;..7.N '''',, ,.'i,zi.1';''.,7k4:.‘k.A.'''.,', ''' .'.'''A: . .'..,_• ':::",'V.'" \11`;'!";!--,:',:•9;z;t70,:4,':..1., ,...1'',.\, tt., .. i • � 4. 4< ' R'? .�f.�� �``l - NS Yf t yr: a ( f t k �M1•, > j• 1 / c ., w. ` • if •..�'� •"j• lM f aj � 3n- t ��' k' . 3 IS. . ♦fir� s sM• vC}*"�`4�'' p ' -.. •.6 ;' x� •} �+�s-:t 10, . f ¢ • k fi R S" 'It; at i r, �f-;, a t jC'Iyp, �( i i j{ A » ..o.._,.._...x�����111I i <'1' r f .Q 3 ds.. t {-, , r �" . - `eta s ;; 3i " _`' rs._ g,��y- r r ( k - `R 4yi x ,.,,,H i I t ;'` ski • • 14 [1, - to <. fn ',''}`r. A f y }�y. - j�£ 1. t�t'4' , s yR, k W P.'..'-.. '-.14;'''.A.''',4:i i...:":',-:-'4.-:'-,t ..,...--"i'..;1.7*.n x X�" -'w'i. H J s #, ', ',} ,. d Sh$ ��TM a � S ' - �> y S g - 1:t'-'-::(11 S $ _ _ ��enrr+, . . 1 d es TY Sr .y ;T t i t- . � $gam { x { g h at ,`,t. 1' {s a..a -,_ .3)!� < • (• $'�;R f pry"'} , ` 1 • "F ur '"' • e� 4T q �%. 7* �* r] era• i < � :` i q3 1,. to _ t,}- F •Y4,• FR q 4 _ t Ae 4 if -'-'-;10 1;'-'7f IT41.'1:Y..''t1114,4`-e°*'11.1 ' . '-'''''''''t.'s;;A:---'- / I - .1i,.!:,,, -;,':.:01.4:0.-ni f � { ,� } 1 f f r r L T • . \ !, 4, . , -T 1 S ''irPt,"(1.111 1:' +7:' ' ;-1.i ,- vi. ' k 4__ f , vvt[ 111 t III ` • Itri _. ' 1.-. ' ':.- ."' . .-- - IA rani �- - .../Or'llabit41°. # F. a t v. P E Y 4 f ; t: . { 51 I T 1i if • ill- - om.{ - . , , . • ,flpv..4.,: • . . • 1 • '' i , '4 , ' - `T i�riri s4` g s- e s� fiy'r}tr `n >y' " 4�k .R +.�~ ' LL F ._N' a . � .yj K sts' -.A':-r..�� s ., ` `b s ' .. z - � � d `t pia' -i'...... . `,� } `+ '' ..-:-' .4 . --it ,,.., •k, ,... , .;,.._ ..,•. . - _4,-.„:„.,.,.. ... . : • •-- .... . „It 1 ...• • i. . 15.... y �� Qua �� '��.S = � Td 3 Y ` Tom, V.::,".' _ `r�„Nc,''-,iP ,t 'r.'..., s '' y„'' f ^r* j„' 3 • „ :1-.\ Xf�1�}'{... -3`=-£ ' r .101,.7 d F i n s -� ''"- `1 [1:-IS P 3_ Yiy - - fit`, '%. Fy—� ..may.. '.. \111111 • �. - may' - }C'' Y , If,`' 'I i ..47.4 - . tom+ i . -,. 4 't, . ,k. — Alliiiiir. Alif - V• /.,'-' ' ` rests "-'* 'r g '.' a- 'tea A`t# R - v-ii,,,t,itil-1.tst ' �� `v��" �s- .Ni C" I .afi�` �� a= > 4 -r s' --`�. i r tR x` r=-'- '�,. -_�-, , ..,ham, . 'w .-:;-:.4.:i . '-'4,,,--%3,tftt---er,....k:w,-.,,likw,-.• . • ,• s' " I*: . + . Ga. ' �: 'i ,.t i -` A� " f : 4 r r k ' it p �.' ` 41. r :. 1, . `-,ef pa ,,� .�Np ,m e ,1 ' itueie,t I.L A s E a ¢�tf � 'f i * • ,i:-. 'it 1-' ... "t7'-N 4 t� a � '�► _.. w, , # y 1 r F d .. , {,>. t ` r.= ,ifitt.';!. ..y:1_ , . . , ..„, .. t fit:< ,.. ,.:.. - w -.4';01 ‘ ' . ,2,ij,', -.;,1 it . Alf.-4 .' ' '..'4, , - i-4', 1 � f#• j .• ,. N • f 1 .,' k-" sir* i ,'r F Via. • t .• i •4lr y ?', 1, 4, I - ' :; } 4 "fi 4 e Y S vi- p k • A -.w'� ,, ' t d S t,i Y a qqr.:-!!..tk;*.T.,-,--1,44--vrt4140 ; 4-311,14,,r--:',-.,:-;-;:r1, *'• '4" ' - ',:z.' ''.- 1. . T- -` ,1� Y » i 4 i ,} . ,t.. . fib„f �, - t . r� - f�. - �,..1', ' " 4.4 . ^ /• s.. 'F•'*. : _fir... Ft kir y ` S A ., ai .k�Y' a ; ,. - _ . - • 1-• Y 1 t " . sx.rl'? , ,.. , f g , , . ea . N. 4 ,i,` • r+}xr . • i'. • " g1 { i, fil; .,:i,-._..ztA•-,..,.--.,,,:•:: vt.--y.,,,, 1,,4- -- .a . _ -.•10t `gib j I l -r . ,hta l i i - '11 I ti • � i ifit � I,, � yttl .r5 � t �/ / �r :,.. e.00.4ig ,00004.:, ' 1 ( i. In, a : : VI t , lti ,gam t €,, �'-it 3 _�,..._ ,. s • - � ° i fri x1 Ai ii. sv� f, kip a a l' 4 - 6 L .".i.'-.' r _, :_ i 4 -• 13 , * ill k F' i . ....::::_..„.„:, .,_ :..., rT S }: , _ . . . . . f s ,5x.f J. IV. r ,� t �t s •t ♦i " y t } .k L jPP E_ ��CF \ i.Y?'. a't t 1 �, i - a -' _ G ZZ'' r} ; �a k is "�j ..Yy 6 `� h i 40 .' ,• . �� ,' aI ,,.-.4. L4-4i!':-1:;;;-i',';';'..'',',-.-'',=2.':-t,,, .A* ', 1,,f;''$,,,',Ai.„-44,-",:f 61,;-.. k Vt • ,\ 'r x • a,- 14-•;.1"i":;''-:, , ''''' ''‘ tf:' 4:4'47;-"21; 4,-":i."4- 1 f...4.?';;,-,. .1 ATyS ,R F S F .""Z iq \i isc :1 1 I I = . c,,,,,-J„:;i6;.34,4,:g-Niatt.,.--s-k." ,,, ,. ,t-i-,,cc-,,,-;.44,....,, „,.....:, -- 1 , 1 1 :,..,...„. ..,,.,„:,-,...2 ...,:„,. ..,t4;„...=.„,„,.. ". 1. i, „.„ ...„.„,..„;5.r.= ,.., „ 1„, I ' ,....„..........,____1 . 1 : i. b` r7 -- -, e �- fie - f, air ' • i • 41 g ear y �r }• - z, �`'Ra # '. z Y i s • a {� �a tit- t� i • rn a ;, t- 1 :��. €.:.. .'i•a. _ . ,. ..:1.4iii,:,t7,:.r,i,., :.,:7731 ,100milwilmi. .% .. ,..;,':Ii`11.:;.4,-,,, .,,.:::-.:'..'" ,‘,17; ._.,:t?i442-,,,...„..„,,,,,, 1,!:- ag ' t't ',IT\1;4;,:i. ^— N .-.ri y _. i.S. J ,, } 1, tom. if t rwi , (tom tt -A ; :.:: ‘it:1/4• -,7 T-77- .-i,::::,. :::.:;!;i: : q ,h ,—�...-. e�-.. 3 i •"�S mow. F J # Tb i ' '�.x ! -�4"v°'^'i �`' r<' flee $1.�. 3 i L --fittAg::%719. i.f--1;:-'-:.,': -":„..--,,,.:::-:::::r.:;;I:--,::\ E titer. f s+_M '. 64v�,"abZ S :-' ' ..--,----1-'-''';.:!:-' '-.-:1‘.1'1 —777 1 ' 21,,f:.,:.,--'-7`'.. ,...,..,,,,.',,i,,'I-V-4/11 it n .. } t i�-., .2Y' .. ' r L of ��� Y _R .'l5 .Y h f .: _ _ a i f t/r P f�Y{ =i.# S' 1 'j t.' c s ti k r ' . • , :t:_;( 4 ,t€ �•'` � �r, :.. x:: s fib.. . r a#"7, } k 11 . r r, l a _ Wi_ £ 'a... �e • - -1 Ili - . '1!-77' -7'-''*c'''' E-- i — -fi''.'i' Z''',.4..47. --;,''''''''''';.r4.1....---7p.7:i4- 11417.H1.7:7.7-:-'''.;-:::.'..:-. --'-i'?-:;-':'-':.:---::-..-, --'-'::.j-:::.:A:-...'- nE y4 - z .'- ' 'A.•:,....,..,„-,-,..,;-.., ',i'A-... :' c.:,,,,--...:'',.- ',...t.._,,I..'-4,'"T,t,'i.!I...,X',,,,;.4-1-,1,,,,,qhf,:rs,!7,,,4'. ...i:I'•,',..**-PAV- 'A -.t <3 'C g- 5 Y A 2 py 'Y �. �i�`== 3` :^ �4'f?.W!t�� yam¢ ri"r�.�;�{�5 ma 'S` a' • 7 . r}$'• ,� tI p rgF r." .1 4 - Yzestr s#'"'"tl + Rfit ,r ai # '^ ! ! ,3ti. L.R l • j r. �f s� a - 1 x j .. r f< . • } 1 , � xE�{A.� s r !; R °ir{" i �4 � ?"Wc ��of �� �*+ .f , -`+•d � .`1 i6` • # ;�� ���3�c �� + `x•. eri 'M`¢='�,' . - , �}r= t. • t' z,q rt z. 'rr Y :,:,-A.. �. �``. 1 cat R ( j •• • . '.r ''7 4e . 1 .y _ .i. _E� c 3- • ..+ . • - s'{ !� f r `�:s ' ?� " '0.'- a'k't.4,• frL ,. arm . % _ '" „ irk wt S e 23,, �`}} ice -s,� e) as-*,. �`2 x y r tg, ;4 ) t � d c; a)Sa At .r $;y } r a. • ''} x ..• :t` h+,, „r,A{1. �, k ,Yt i ,.. �A*� �� ! r �i. { rr... .ig S'l�a,,,,�` � ,7 1 g9 +' f s.,.+tss_`t4r.= � �"a.�, cI '1 1 ,? "`' 4 '1:tag# s:'y t �3 alb .rr�+rr. +ems"r '� f ty� E #C ,Y..**7.� ,- r. a' _k a--m `.,-„,- -- ..- z" 1`, sw �.�i'" g>r, 444 9 ",t ae_ ar ti' it14 • r_r ^f ' .`}`..+. `];``+81�' .4 C-y�'? 's' ! w ar , l _i -•_t'7� _ - _• N a'ice 'S�'� fi 4 r py' k>< s' 'y 1"•'--���a+fi�� .! j b 'yet t ��'f ` -,,:Ili,- T� �s i s t k k-3, i ,sS� .0 = '3 r , � - F� ,�j � �i b1 ��_. >��^{� ��i:.';�tt '� ��i. �l 't ,..- _--_,-,.-,..,:-:‘,I_-.,.--.---;',) r[g«`i t+ � �.• �� � �s 4. 4 , s yr' j- "" 1, . 14"';i);-' 1 Y'y y ,,"' r ,"y,'ri'`y. .j-,�`,t! �'=- / t t' � r�''�__�V'3'a��`-, I. ry- ,�a� \ � 2it'�,`Z 3 SY..�` [eft%z t� ���.a•s p ta�i f'%i�'�`.r��J3 Ir r •F�-.. �! +-:A:F„: A ..c # ,. ;1- Miss d� c_ 4 -b : , ','�4 i . . . ' , -; (fi -. -i) i'* ' ,-r 'i s i 1, . Y_:'^-:., y i�;,;. hi•_4; tr l ° :A ��°+Fh i �yy j.- ! !r . , J i +�; }f € E a i.' ``: i E of. ¢ ' r 1 4 �a£`r'''; ,ice .' '- 43-- ti ,''s- t *1 s-Yr t <s oe7t' \ 'kWt„ ice, t.I.,1-N-Nilkit- i,. , : ,:i,c 4 .7. '; . . ; . if' f,-: I . i:c'' ,,,,4;..„, .!,„.24.t.,1'41,174*.:.% Ni\-•,,. .14\itit : ..,,, i „, 4 - ..........,.-4.....--7.-......t.:-... ,...4--,.....--.1:4...". . .., ar- it , , , ... ! 131riiit�i'+,�`. �. S�.wi : .*5 ,�-..,�,�ryw.�.a# �t74,:f7-,;41.:":":"a: ~p::::...,.;;_, .. :: ii, ''''44\ t i • 4* iv ` it's'��t t� Rt �a �. . t ri: 3 t�`",^r•} .YI i't`� '.N1'at ! ` Zt .}• 'i "-.° ,,�r t3' ,. {+L? Y"*£•a F ''`s'�' t5, fit � ...? ; ' y. ! i4 eK IhY 3'# yr+�4`. 'lt w {`�'�ti'..` 4 `i'.'. 'z�'�a.�}„�.> • 4 ram.t # ! s ..?. ,, g 2� Ts�* z< �(' ,, sY.-r } w t fi ' '-. .tt_ 21i 's ' Iq ; # Z. r � �r"� C a SSS i' j _ f �' yam, • - {I# �n N,w l :�+ iy�qq4 iK4D,.��M•yc'i q -,-.1� n 3 Sri P,l _ - _ Yty, `f Jy ` 1 - t i pp3�y $ c t Y r r • 77 - f • , } ` 1 :$� 2• r S�• �•'`.s i" ` '-'ram' it 4. t. • e. `.•4 a'ii'� ✓1 «.„„...•r',,, J 4 l .`for a., j w 1 i f tx !a' FFt i.;!- h i .6 1 ' .. . - r ,.., , ,.. .,-40 ' ' 1 i' ' ° y� 3 �2 v t i t+fit} < `' l 3 • • , lit.. l -/ y •" it riirhT +fi" it t-. [• x x s tS. L { • /y ( . t. a7 }ta k ( } #"4 4-r*- i .s' • fIr;aTp, ", } f S)•Y' t • - 6- a a, ids !'-`s !, .i£i` f � S 2. ,s lit:.'4 qt\-k% 4*-SOY ..t y " -, � , .,e.f! a'-`b�i Plat ii �r 1 i.:t,✓ r144.. '' R( Y'�"` •, 'sue„ �. �` t ` t ;_.; : � _',.",. ,A , ` '' - F'';'----\ k i(i.--.„,,,,....c.„,„.7.,-,,,v..•--;:11-it„l'-a, .!;-.!-,..z.:k.,. ,, .._,,,1,-- , '' ' - - 1� 1� �`Y S „ -t,- y f ', 1 ` • _Al .. - _ cr y N. Y l ` 4 t,, q�^.g�'/1�.§ \,. 4"Itt:V747-41 i'it>VV*4..\*;;--4., ':,\t'''1,"•;'•*• `:-` 2'" • ' , yyam�,, ys. � � z` � �` = ,,':.-,11,fi .,, I i {fir ;w'f7 i. ',l'i a - .. t ' ": s'?..:F 4% ♦Cgs- .v` : �3 .''''*"'''I' i.. .+-%•y-}'' ..., , .r.v4?...,44,*,..t.7,4,N,... i. ..70,,..,,,,. ,..,..,,...7.z.:,..:,..,„--,,,,,,:.:,:v : ‘ ••..;•,!.•t••1f-"me'f-.l.,•a.*-a•.---.v'"-:-W,•-,,.,/..-'T.--4 M 4-,t`-r,\4;'2•."l4Q t' 7, 2 lg V- sy D S S P n. _.k y '' •--te e^t . - t. -_ "}..rja 1 443 3 % �. -., s- , ,. - _ .L.E 7e. A AC4 :4 W -a-. • "T yy`a ({{ar� _ y 4,e A' Q ' i "'a;,.1-,{'�`; . � „t—,,-,- 'd`b s t s`.� f y` dq}4 ir( -�"�C! of : a tx i t -rt � V f I\ ,r-I t4.,-..-- L-A'All---,..,, ,is,:. ..,04 rz1"-a..i4,--,,i-<.--f...;,,_f.f„-,1-•.4 l:,.::..:.1,.'4„-,1„,," •'-_...- S sic. +, " ..._..... .. ,}. .e ` tt n ,,-'.1",e'4-:-.-r,-1cW;.:4.3a„.4,,..,.ft.,.'Z-,-,,',v,s.'t4.,4".,-_,,,=:-...,:',-'4:'1 v,,1r-,4„.,A,„li:'.e,.,,:.,14S,,.;'-A:: , - ' .. .j i,1;. „ 1 , i.4o '': �'`w..,R l 'V"tq t` ' =— =.=,. !'''''N.-P-411--'''41:- =a- ,:?,,,,f,;:i �{ x _ -s- ,�_ •� � ��"I of _ �.. , '`" i'. vi{r ,. I '`� r' z •µy e cN+�.`.y?- ,,.z• ,-._,-,,:',.4- . (tom :'aRjL lie� : ' n t 'f t la T '�•�- :Qtt� `�y ' g" y ti 4 t � s r}I tlil .yt P t , i ,j}FF ert • ; a §' ` ' `" .. ` a 3'k 4..4'.it a i mot. 3 'i 5 .•4.'.. a'`,,:.\ f„r`+9. ri,_ 7S. k + } fet yhr5..�"i , -,.. ''-: i, '-,.i,.1, fn 8= ; i ,, l N= .lT. "' 47 4 ` } s i c!}+ . r .1r- ,,:'-'. i` "' # Wit! , ." 4Rt.4- r '' 4 at'•. rt € f,- {� `V� ,yy� 4s 41` jd{t�.S (.i�y 4 sec` 7At S 1 414 rY 4 s , Sr 14.,1- I a te "- -•„;.1 7.".* :-.04;-‘41..--11V4'.i.401:•4'4'.;„--'7A7A-Ap:14.'1,''.. ..' ,[ , '"t4.--_,, '��i+'�t-f S r 'S.'4.,7 .!,'?f % K • j•`L -1 c.,+J LQt„;:a«] r,-, ;�' ' , . Al• Mi.:: •, a wl'�• fi• "§si�h _�` 1'4iY���FY . � _ 4.FM Yrr• 3 ttr s'. „---, 74:114„---4).iiac ,-.2• -,1--,-.03t/tz.94., # .-..; , , i- : -, ,,,,..-,,,,-_„, e) . - c.. -. - ,i,;.:_i-. - -.,...0.. 1,1...„1„..„:„.we 411•Pffriti: '`11, ' -;;,' ' # + ��a 44 f� �i 3 ; }:fi } :t -• • t.. �s : j r .4 4t •"` .,..•. t�4• oyE rSw ' Y •# ��, ��r.tt.' �� ' �� � �it - `<' I " -ti `� x�!t ,,,t�i ` l5ti ;�( .f ! -`{ .~ ;r 'k 3 #yi b> gp r mod € d .� It i ` �.wa7.�^` ±_t 3 t', ,• '` t J - z�,-t=4- a . F!t sue.,'t ' 'a -i >h 17 . -. .fr I. ? �;. - 2 `tom% y�.,�- } �•p \r 1?; A .y�.�! 7„ ? �. j 4 !AA per+*~ -RM`� '' �y'' ' 3 .w�" � : ty . ..•...._,»__ t:4 """"s„s• F '` n'.44 Y ""` ;t a S, Yet.. 'fir.\+ E ,'. : f""`' • € € %,- .. t•"€ ifi .- =•: r '"�: . a i.r ..e g{ e 1A: 4`s 11. 1 �,� s 4 4-' { 'f' n dal �r;-y fi t !r at€` 'Ptt8'. f .i„ .4 '.�'{i' # 4 t e *' t a t' - aw tF r �'�a[1" kit x ; 1;,4 tee'='* ''sp t :. i' '' t.• ,, k. . 'i -4 f:-.1.0'.(1-4,44.qty*=0;*} .�i4:- .t` ' :r-se �^ j - €F r r_a ,'.-• _sr` 4A."4 ' r p t-r •���s 4_ .,.y, ;+� Z i '.e� -e. t�1 y7 •..��^ t4z�' ��- t � _t•'e �,+�r�tttnae t€-•>( } �'F €Y`'+t� -Vt, „i` ' f "W v ..`�'°' z?D'l yi.....--t F • t?d • e. t S ; 2 ,4 4,, L:•i• -1-- ' `1 e' P W_ a j / ((� 3e .r-14%-41. ;.‘t k f ,1 l.+j`s . , :', 't,r is 7 f y q,-`� may' j �+ t '4!at 'y yi t�,., •,,,, c 4.:. -'�' r ;�' +tti ! • '-` , 4� Yt%+ ` i #gam 'At}l3 :,.,{ t. � E n' ^.s„ mot. a.. # ' \ i \ '* t i c t . "� t f ,'7. '`. D k% •a'' T yy,�: ti E ♦t4. g F 1, ' 161116.. .�F?' i � - 'd x , F.w...1. .M " �xj . ES. ix. r+ '! �; e} aj i ) -- fir.- r ' : ♦ � • i y. }4 d�s ,� .. 8 if6 t a '•y�. •`r F • ,'1 !`j.3T�j�"� }'t,.�f`"•. [h t V k� ,: i 3,}-� y }4 i -' � €`k i `tip _ fi T Y �}`{ �r, it Stt" wx `� '�.-''r_.�r. - f5 �-..2,` ri4°'iy.. 'zCa -, • 7. t/ E ' f .wt �' F�''f s r.,1 t, t ..i x d„ '74 a1_' t' '!4.`v�•`f +, • ,++ I. .Y i. S `Tt �-• �� i t•.' k• 1'� .. t �., ... % Y f \ V. • [ ' r' i i. t tr-ti y plyf,:�{ j 11 • low -:,..111.:'16,)..- r :',./ • '> C _fix,t� z � r 1 � � '' 4. , _ , _,...... -,'" ..,r,t..sk,.14. L.:. � '. Fs. _ _ y1, y t ''.,:"1:4'. ., ` '� f. % P' a g JJTeF -.:;... * �'a-ems. s -,...,-; , , ..''-''. - IV' • ..:> .' ' 1 A .. C:. ' ' 61 1. . 1• - 1 1_ . 11C . - .: t. ,. ,.- n . $ ' »y '. it a �. .,w -r.3 a Hwy t r � ' i„_..r _ p i � yy�}{` z . f `,mo t ,,.„ ---- ' Aq.,Nri,„.,.". ,.•,,A es,,74 1.: _ . ... ,, livq."4-k i 4,- e, , 1n ? - �� '�' r.�r. 4' . i' ir'T. ' Y.�}� ‘ i_,.:14.-A...,r 4iii, -, (). ,- , 1 AO „ 144%$94- � 4 � 1 � ' • ds 4_ y �' ; } , I do. .i , _ f ' � L ' +.4,,4y... suitell ,,, *.ltifile*ilk"°' ,,,l(t..t1114g.Y• s++ems ,i. U 1. Q a :q�i', �!. +" fl- ', k ii....,;i::- , (..!, ''.,- r;-4 t*z- — . i r•,-, ,.''- ''-- — -:, , .' 1,' ' ..‘t.to gi,,%•,€.0, '< i i r ¢ ,qb 5 .. -i li ar cl'r t �A 1J 4( }�a 1 k j��� Ai /;�.. :Aa:Itt.. . ' '. j '1v e; T b . t4 3:, ,F ;IN e� <�F !i I 1•,t ` }t t. C t`4 ;ark a d�iY!# a r. ('c '�-, •. .'. t am: L4 jjv.' . ! 'J l� �, s: .i ?t" .. ��j�� t if •s ? V.', ii `J� - ,# l�r z �� �pt i r j F! x i f�{ ch Sit �l 4 ri414W '', `f law—"": _ L. ,. - , , - C-..--.,,,,,t,t.„,•-:0 t,,,..1:-,,,,i..4 J ' S i t 4 3, - .. es c 11112. r !a , ` . ry s �,:>a "'y� s_. - .,- ,s f t' r t � fit�d�. a a.<�:: - �. d : 'a(i { .:,�;� 1 1 14 it ? � { ' ill i.p.,'i-, spy ltd r• ova t ;46 1:1; :. •:•,'-i. z;::r„: il,,,...... ,,,,t,,,.,, ,A ..-,--:_,:- .y.i.- � � fL ,, ,. 5Svc ,,,4- : , � lk- •- : � '. _ a .'ice.� c� 7 � ��c � .t'�U e t- i,, b 2 �. 4 !>g 'd �'� 36. ,.f ' ''''' ."- Az-,:l:{../•':-,-:: iii:i:::7.-1;-''-..,.:14:,?:-•:', 4'F'j.i.'—' tiirs, y. i '''''S i.:,,,;,;' f i r,.:'''-'`' 'ird-ff':)-1W,,,, -:),;',.., . '''''7:',.' x � ;' . F fit§ ,---- £ av F `4 A Y, _ :S a^a� s #. 5 I:= p�.r 't 1,44 F qiw °�• -•... x 4 '- '« ,' al-, t.a� 4 •`'9 r..e { - 1 �• �+�.ww�r.�ft ) :. -.z. ., a- ,,.44 . .4 #rA ' �,i.;a V A 't'' , , �a ,p • ....‘iv*.... icy � ,y,'�'`�' •'� 7,M y d. u . t=�,K.' #. yt .. ,..♦ .ad O r. � k ii ' . _ l o 17.y.::':1:;'' -24f ki.t ':F.,'";. ' '-:'';';:i:4 . ` 4 yy' ' ' ♦ 3 ! k•" . •.•fief ....0.,-. ':1' ' .t-'t'''7,-.71.--2, VV4/,,,,, '' ,A - i .:.; !,-...- .;;;W,,,,,bi."'.Y.;,,,„ 1,11"4.4,N'')-s'-:;,,.:,ii -,-;',,t, _ -, - :- , --.;,,-,----;..4pik,..;e4'41i-j'' :1 6. to .i45 : ,.: ..41, . , „.:_.... :,, ,%, ‘_:., ,, 11..._...., it ;.,:_, . mv,:,......„..s, ; .1-1,i'.,,,k10,,y,,r,•,.-.*,:-a.--_,,-"r•z,',,e,-:'.-,--, ji • - �.•# ♦.a 6`. tip• 0- e�• ``44 a EE „ ... ,':12za', :'-,.� .- ty�s„ •� ] 1 _ .\ t 1i :.a`YfX4. _'x � 4" ?;rt};; •.Ni �i }� 4+ (`_ i( w. -iw W* s :11 `6` p, .;'s r!.r: t 7."-^Y'r d_ - ., �- -.�1t... b I n�'s fA 'S '+r 1.r i Z jT�ti.+ .4»0 5Ss f h` Ja �` 4 . • - a . i ,- ..+'_i e,4�. -I+ i,air 1 . ... i� �.�a d�q�st e+ " 'Y. �l rP" E i!",46.g�gs '2V. 'i.,. £s.44. .- 4 6-;+"gy- • t e ye" �.,S 1 at.'� � i,a^v .14ua ,}. 3 '.r , t o #F€sF s ' *�''to.� '� � `. S k �� �1e<.-mow mt '` �a„Y;4., } - es` r '. S • swr 7" d t t - %,�� }. do `+` P6 kt; II 4 l i �� J� �{ € �� *r r . - r¢ ,:,' ,,:,=,. ,,',.....Lc:<.<, •:-'• ' , ' kl -, „ X 3 F t k q. , . ,....A.;:,:, . { �. It/ t k f R . ,,,, ;,. :,_ 1;, .,..i.:,, .. --I !A.k.\.'-,' - ., ' ... _ . ..--,..-:.---._ -,..,-,7., .. - -_, .... ,„„ ; _ ;,. . ..,._..,. . } el+ - 2t - e �' i s . i s, -� ' ��. +. - ,1 3� e a�� ' � T Yc fit 3° £ {�. (}F 1r ' ri. ) �tl -::.' • �. � `y -` w { r' fir. •{ :rq e ec§3 .-�. .. �� off "{{ Ili% i ALA . . .46,‘ , ';\ . ' 't.( --• - k ttotil.N.7.. ri... ,04,0 . ,. G� tir '`1'1 y IL, ic A Y •. t., . . , .,. , .., . . ,., sl .)....trialb,v,i Als e At,,,o, itiobb--4...„„t„c ..,-- • e`� � ♦ • at o : �� 1Zi L a* iA ' 1' �• � Y '�f ty. .- � A - i'++�� � ai) Irt�.. wysY‘` 1!�. r • + u •Y , Awl • y1,�,'1 ib i!, • �. ;,,., w ,'. `�',°"`' 1,-ji���,• n- a fix+. i 1t 3{ Ae., ..4;if,, .� .th• y+ -!'��;♦. ev 1, ,i?�" i N a,: "a -0,..A ;3-1: `ai. a ve 4 ✓ dt s.;a tee te R �.�. 'ems � r"'_ w'�+.. r• z; r: ¢�. E� i € r irogik s ° "'-_; ,- � i ;,�'', .� i>c."ki t11 ,ram /r {r '.�'+' t. ..,:./.:, • ittL --. , c.x $ r, ♦ .. f of t: E . ,..,ti ,,i-4 , - ' '10- 44041150'..eit. - - 1,,,,,,. , . ---- 1-: 4?„c..-,..... -,401 r "• • , = ..- #:4'41‘10, idlifjih. , .„ anti' _ `, },:.f." " 's''"4♦ x�,f .F � ! t Z. "'A � .�,A r '' ` .` gat :` r At li t•'t t` +- zir ,R - Y \Y' d � .,.+� . ,..fit a►M $,yli.� 4 A 1 •1 / �'j . t rr4�; R ,."e i i t. "w,. "� F to ' of I, •, �A a I:' S { t♦ • �'E.**. .kil'•c ''• `}a ♦n"w -' `sy 'f r- W icr1`a, �3 -sa#YA�� 'i V/. i 4° N. 't F k:a 4 a 1 S' .4- '� r 4."4 k fta,S`+`4 i; 4 u''-a40V Cii n,1 '':::. \4 1 : i i' ;bii yy�' tdrjl'Ld,A s i '•aF.i.',. .1'!-- ! 6 u.>S ' . .lt{P* `# '' rd � -", r } r r`a"' S. .1 a .{ c , ` 1 a 1 PAW7e ' , g j • ie 6. :; _' '' .. ' 71. • ?, Z."-, u �' Fr sW !i 11' **at,'> `Y l l (((�i 1 kw- 1 ��- > � t l �� �� � �ij�� � � �w.ks✓ I 1 4 8y; �ti .w,�ya a� ♦e $ ��e b',wa + '',Ai..:;,'n ,. , ua`,,•- . ;-'1,7 1 .*Lisi" a• .)C.!-4';kriaf,s 'fi t .�il 3 + a+ 'C . t'� �+4. t t. lire 7' ,t z 'ifi- i T 1)�a'. . }tr Mt (yy *'�{?.".tw+,t @ °! 4s dt +. ..Itik `eie.T e," 3; .' � '•T` % 1`tap� ; .. i 1 TYtt a1, ;;(i t` . ?. s 41ky '4-, Y3 ll " � & i4 k1 .� , ' 1 ,�i z � ' ♦le ? om y ." i' , ; > • . i ' f'}. t° 1'. { -i% 1 ' ' 1, ; ,Vk1ito - iy '' l- 'I„•.....:.f•-,' rye' i e, ��1yY-rya ••• t. + ,.•''.--.N...t•,-...t t'.,,...-4.1..:O,L,7i4.*,.`,f,'f‘it,"aev-.'•;4.'*4-:t',.,:‘i';.l,t;..4i.A„,4tl,r,,'t,:.tt'l.4s'...',..'.ii':.1.t4.1..r.,...,.y„y,..%-1.:,1..'..."...1.,.:a7.“..„tr.?,:'^..".:,,:,.-.,1:'e t•4*,i.1'$Nr,_'4-..:',I,,&•r,•^;%.•_-1si 4;•I.4:•.T-t?:'...'o:''.,.t,.Z'2,.'4.:,.:':....-..''L,-'I'.4"..:„'..,:'-:i.<:..'•",."ei),,..1:„*‘.),,,:"1.,:-4....,..„..':-.'.._....,. ' E `4S +*r 'i :.: :;:::4e: =t:t ;1:I1* ' E : .1: :\:;:: : ' 1x' � Tfty9 ,;',.:,,.,• ,t,,,.'%.'P'---:.:.: ,.''''•,,,,•'•,,a',,.,.:v'17Il'•tl'"vr.,7:>.'-...,•.l'"...i•-...4,•,l.=.4-'iZ1r...a.•47d'V tr':t..-..,3I.i4-o,ot.•..U•:•1'••.'t.W':':,1:-..3i:-4..:14. ..,e".-,,i.i4,f.,.4,,,-'1".=;.#..:-;4..':.,,6.t....r .',."A.:r'*'1 re,,',''%,,"'1,.:.,.o.t•.,,:i•i i.,Iv.p.;.4.6...r=..* ♦ .ar �„ , 1 �rS . 2 �j ' ar� f M rki.,= ... , yw:T tiff �z! 4 l� ; .a, .�m y ', C +. 's is '1 J art - '" t ; ♦ J~ y1,i,_+� t i f `1 ;. I. tX NSc' • .. �' d wcf.a rar-> �'+�T :f r t'' �� c tot aim *6t.4' i '=P i" 1: •_ • + i 0: ;•� k , . t 'q . e.'-r4' S`i k aTr ' t ,} �, .. . yea . 4 ;7�'.fj"{j••i .ram' e+ '. ' y' `�":;s�`'f ♦#jam 1 i .r t'', �� t € ,�. 1. ; `�r„. Tt is �.Yr. . 440„0:077/ .'..., .'�.. :1' '' '•�� �. ii* r ',z i�. i r C,a _ r . %,..• ,. :.1.:.,.c., , ' ____ _.,. .<70011 *, ,.'''NINIt': - t ' � a >4�� wr-` X is.' _� - ,,• �-4. t .Y1 �'. rzt' fi ate.-- .4.4 - ,. �r �t - . a: � $ t e �° 1,,1,' . 0" r 3 •, ,roc: " . tc �'f` `r : s • ' i ! aid .. •-T# �'1ID�. � : `.*.rt` 4 - ' t ,,,,,," A ., -„:',. ,. '" '' " . . ‘lilt AVi ''!iT,R,L'.:';'-:1';:':'7; . -.,". i'l.: 4--':, ;:41. ';'''''4''''' 1 Y , I 404 itkiNVII*; ° \ q it �¢ t. x �r'" e. .- ji - I. .� ;fit#•' .q ''''' \ L. IIAA ', L {a lad j r _.• _ fr. •. I .. 04:, '14' ih:14v'AL:14'::' ::. '!',...,1',.'..i.-., r -. .., \t i 'r _!i .ir, t '' 'y y i I jV g , r ril 'r^�"r 14 • T • 1 .; 'fir" 1 {. FI 4 •it.I - ...� F. Y:*t E 4.4$eft y} .. *w•+i� �\ i '1 • t,1+ ru ` 5 3 F,if,yr e L ' `1, x 'li - tw,. \ - mid PI '� • i . � 1\ t . L, ' J l ma's i,ti. : -*-4- - t -v1;-'`ta i! '. ; . t 1't t," •A�, 1,1: },l' tj \, • s ''' -II`•-k*k"-''''-:' k,l• • ' .'•,,'' 't• A "•'''' ‘ i • \kt :1` -0# ovt,,• } •, S 'NI) z y r t-,, a nn,"«w'+ar�' +~ ! :t,,, 7 x t ?1Akj, �'. ♦ „'"1" J' S T.t+' t � ° .--•� ` -D i `r xa S `.h €5#: `t v„.1< «.eu+�RTT. ,_ - . S f /4. , '` y t{ a` :.e_�y ,. S:� } i...„4;�n`i"iyp t ;`3 `, i 1- 4'j: • 1• `',•-•?. +• }y �t�+ �! !f'i • '•3tk - ` , " 1. a Fy� +5°d SFr g'41 c;� f'..t^��•F x i s t t�� �'/ia # kk t _ %. {+ € • - G:r: •-r f °-, $'F .r �, 1 �) �s1} (fi_!`�tfp�' 'ki�,--+y�y', ".i -�< _ "� y` it 4*, t n4�n ^+ _ {j�di � f�5 lt ,��t,; i",--;‘,:-•T E� �#t�:►�/p'°t♦:���ij� ��,�` �t fv/�I; S3-_ f e F`, L' ." .:.." - ' «, -' .k"''. ' \J;\.-1'wsSt"' ;` # 44•*--' t$ •.:-4,� q.',10 S +'+/ f ,1� ,_ i -ice '''#1 ,.K t � ,�,� �, .- y t • a zR',r '§It' jr}' 3j1�, -.4 ',4,1 icA �d -!c ty,L`C,t`7 4� 3 :,•♦ ••9l. , ° !'. ,t 1-1 .Y ``'� "c 4F f1X^ L' L f `G 't +'°.}#;C+ ( k 1 Sh _ f` t .�( Y` , � s` y ; . # ?-r,., t u .-r { " y;� '4- . , ?L3f -4; -,, t,t+t, r F r<L_„,r�. r! i " . - I i st'� '°-" t�3r- '¢§�iL'ikt tY Yt D*{{ "+ ,y f. ` �Y'•y�ii}�iji�{{y�!'�+S . `� 5.;sy ��`�11'33+�*.7P'M g s! }�"�•F, f' it " �,.v.+� '�3'�.- Y' ¢, r e. M t',•T�71.' A k„ xl rr rfi ai�4s�t,.i.i 4 a•:.i; 1 1eliet ' *.r tit @ i t/�L�7�;{`j • ik ✓ t ~ f �r wi 'j 'i a 4`M+' •#, �,,d•i.s a ¢tom r sir S `.� ti ;' t tS► 41, •'F. P .q „ .A�,. .`i.rF�,� .I .tf t ,4 .1":7;'1•; a ;+tS ' ,. ' -�!n f'.,t„AA4.`f = f t .3 4 -n x : � � 1. ,r-,x'sd �p.�FyV �i�,t, �`�tn 'r(��� ��.. � .� ii_ ,,i;!1: 27 .-.",: {, '....7.7_'1'1--:-.:A''..,."tti4 ;;,-;.„-ILta .mr..12...,":,,...1'`I'tt:.'„714,. ..',..':'1::-'.0 *` ��it4,• + � i ; Y. ' -.. 7... .. .. S ) • �i 7 ? ' " a '�k - ,s -r . a z . ;y� ;d tir ' .� ' '1 F .�" F }3qi Y {j• .d .r.� ;: e c£ :., f-Lr {� '• ' �1 •' `t t- tie, ! §` S..F _3,ut x�`Su.i :. i"�:� `.:2'5��}n. as F,� .r E ".d , ' t t /,� . •it.r,, _< "F 1,?- '.1 1 t t (�k—1;4 .'-'-77: �' '° , v:3 3,i_ eei t�'" P ,vy .:''' 05 > 1>/`„.,':'t+ B' 5 - i K Ems", t L V' � F-,T +. F t• ,. .� r t• , tee` . `�.. ;' f ��rt w it=•tom #' ;'V f' Gi 1��3 -- t >«s, / a y. to < • 74.,• :' ��gR # I"i=; € - y' -• a �a ''.-;'' ''''':';":-A...'- . =""'�{ -,, « to i t i,1 �t i- '�.,W.',,, ' + ' '.I` .I.'-,-%. . l' -i- # 1 ,'1si �.ri er tl '(7j'•��+r � ,{���777 +° 1` r i �`.'y � t t .` • � M.g F.. .,..+.�w�t t�� �{� �� /, ,?q141 . {. °.ter }, .�' 14 R yy}}}}1 = x 7 E '1 {[ t„t '�.. • r'�� a �,. �. • j'S+{ t T a4" i id ,.. t� y 3 t y w.rl YS * `�4,*.,�'9 f �jjyl' iii- #"Yttc' t W-1--=4 ` P �/ �' ff' ,.t f f_t • i f :,3; ,�' sYfi ,a S•„Su . , T. F,Y$ a °. .-- ` �, • `-,n it{ 1 e„t. '� ;:.. '� }z { #• ,,- �'.`.. .:vim - 7 d i,,.s�i.I. `.F�. `k'��+"', �,ge E. ,SR 'as i "s'i '¢ - kE , -1 ''- ,,,-�- - '' I G'/' ' -...'e_; i-irr'.s i1{t.r,•*`«iii-- y..-. 4,1 F' ,' `- r�g ,- fi� �Ve �f"-. 7;7.`:,y-""h � 'mot i '� Yt 7 - a o 1 � Fyn--- . ���Wf r • a H d• .. - S i s 3 `3L r X�: .. 'i- \ ZOIW m -, ..t., y� ' � kT �W S< to q •xl 4 Fd 'V./ 'f w i* t� � "� '' 1 1 F .ti .s -. t r y .,g `` l� tip; f +\ h > { §. !` , 4.„ ! Ts: Ts i € ,.- }4 � yt t,, / �, .,4..� i`iy f`" cam.: ,71 '1 ' {, i:}G d•. t i'1' r s.„::�- s:t :,,` s;N"..„,m,kw.41\' R Y 1,4),l w� r yy s . S 1?,�L3< , ..1� j i sCl f '� \ , t t�� a ter t :: v; may. - ..: ..Sy 4.e. 7a. � # JT i t r ,yam l t , , ..'s.t7l, ‘k , , : ,.- . „: LA :-, , ' t }4Y I } E 1.� t } t # re••,, „i tk." 1.,..•,,Iti....-....i , 'R , ; fin;y 'k fi.- i��i3 , : • f;i° �,I��� ; > t, ' .:: ''''', t :.. :- 1* '':.: . t 'As` i f 4 u t F vim.-.... h"{ { T 1t �r • ! '-' I, r.-:..- ----'—.7-,.'*.':`;4'*/.1. 7.P.4.,,,V•I'f-'4; • '''. ' •. -' ' ',..\-:-'7i N - ', ,,t, - a A. ad. .. • mar r s" e any p! j 1-:.-t5;,":14 i•: — .IL\ iTi.4-.',,1*.•!. ':• , �t s;st 4 { c a! # ; Sig i t } t.zi ,C .w' ,1 CA '1 , _ • t iag T tt , mow .ti . >-.:. ` d' ' 1, - i. tK tea, `- -,3 {- c' • - #, vet # '' e t ., ,, t t • z ,1� z.� 'mot It .. .. _. l a risti i� � # Ir , .„..,„„, „,,,-,..„.„, -,, ,,,,, .. . ,, T s sumo ;' 3 a. { .�, . , „ \\�+ice, .�t} ,� 4� #�: t' w ,� # st +•icy. 3rusas Pi r�tei # .r 7 ti $' tN4' :. ' f a¢ cam. k ` t, 5 � f C !'yey�„N �M e ? 4. _ - ;;viz. I `i.+t vf-,. "3`-'�,771..t.y " ' 4`' t1 . '•4i—r.r,. f } 6%fir- t'Z.h xk .i{ ..jY { F} :l\V4 e�iyg '' . , '':.:. -r ,.,.tt,N i -.,4,,!.,.Ir 7 >; +i, [ _ . ,..V.- _firs '`5'y.F� ' ..� .b . �.' ,�,� saw 3. �' • f } '• t�' • _ ♦ .-:`.4'r f �-z"' f - ,fir "' ',e4` _ .§, ` G ' r'i:; y r Y '''' . " '*r :�$: ♦ �'^=,,'t_.r., r ''3�'s:...s../{<. �.`ss.,,.�..r$E, ' .{ . _ , .j e � tb + , ti: f :. 5i( .d f � _{ F d;-4,--,":`S-z.."-"--“,^r„ �'�iZ^a`4. . 4 .Anf..� Yr f +•# t `-.•-4.�v-.- �, s ����S.Y. :}ro3 ^-. < il --.. -- . ' - -- •' .. , . . 4. . . ,., ,T.,_,, i,,I „.., __:" ,1, s v 4..�i tr � f1� v a .s!. ; �' ,"�,+ tt aY,d, '�1`� -t�< C ." t ` \\ =�s e- t Y - =- ''• -- ate. { _ •''..4-if.1-;-1,':,-, ti .,,--;--,,,:-..:i. . _ . ti 0.-_----.'-'s - -:.--,,--,.: :..-..--.....,s-,,.,4"....,e,1,:_'.::;,-.-------;'-,:,7--:.,,,,,,,,,, ., ---,,,-'„:"._;.-„,-t::-...:: -.- - „„..--,, ,- .„._ ',,.._ , . T •~ ... a �'�w o . ','- :LL'a � i a F 11 .st ie } �« 3'• 4 � 6 +.- Ott a: s, . ' i '- � `� { 2 z x, l ti6 xF£ix \::::•111:- ' } "s ' ,„.. { `I Y •• !ttli�`i' vyst-tt ,"Y� a= ,t ;Al ':r�„sa{ +,Si {,-z '<` _'„' S, . + 1 . t' 4 ` 0 �4hu y 4",;"tA S`,''r'<,.6,.4. 4�( 'li <<fx}z3?',,-i;r�?Xr1% ('-' � , n .� S �;; g ice•1 7'S :,{•:s;5,'`Ss?t<-M.ih` 3x, v i 7+s '.:. t( .+Y r �\ .*1'7 - "' 1 " .:.`p$: ''lsoz=. kris: ♦{+' • I- i '-a' ,? f .,{S=`r'ri _ '4'1.' ' �.`#.Y:r�F 3 ..v^.1. i ' 3ii4 qKr" 2 .+ a {.,...e,{. t. :y .1- "' ;3/1'S, z, f S - i :3E{ to s .1 .,,-"",- 9e . _. a .5s� .`a y'• _� ,`. }. ,y•<.<.;' {mac. s.�;,. 5' -w f.t� } € � ^i*tW� '�T�.-.i3't3':��(i .i`♦".�jK,,15 '< Lix Ji{<_.i � e�iFP ., <{�' a s "s`'" ! l*' y'r+is;v}" i' 1; <ig.,e ,42i,, f;Ei}i"}'zy3 J,!', . k' z- ':'i','#'`'" ,x. � 4 z p t :s 3 .}}-` it S"Y 11 a }�. +s t - ! .x�.3+iifi!<....m 4. Ii:‘1 ,f'1,!?• %g.Alf '5.`I'.. *` x -T=' _ ° x {mayp���� ` - 1� ,. , `s;.+1.,z'„a+ �i (I P6,P;`.,p,.LYE-j-1''1 ts' S.'µ # . .i'^"..c�y< 'S't� i iR"s'�3 B4 s I 4= A♦ 1 31r ` .� �£ 3'ti. '` "4v`�, 4 4 -cs 7� 'Y. 51� s.• < 1t •f q �a .t>, Sx 'c y' t +W�:, «�" -;: gy r 4Mls, s • 4'--,Y '` " . },z"'`-t,5"'AV`, f,-7 t z.,s�{ :7 rilt • r s a Z Y b -t [ Y • • ,,..., ...": xI ; _rim 3 ,f. .,.. r�� fi+ ,, t -' . '- '.:Ti.Z.fi...::: . ,.-_:- ' ,:, ' -'.' :-',, � �� a. �� � - <�€ -��„ fir: � ;,,. wt.,' `� 1 • 7 sty e• ' .. 4 "` ' � e• .s ruts } Ys�♦ ! '<,.3 ; ! # $ Les`. 1 -. t .4;-'.-'• 1. 04 '•.� .4 •3'3.4.� lfii+l+ �t 1 1." - ." '"..'- •' Yam£ i41 * t o qi ,41 y } .,•-:,,, w ' Agrilt4,:i5 fr. 'A -€1 ,' Z r! e r .' r } , ib,-- ,S z '" -`* •_ 1 i X ',,ir',7-ii''i" i � .F`F y�' ,�" " ,._3. ` �*� CS '3�4"' t� ': w�W?t 4 It � ,1 F, :1fir* 3 • ,k t " , . s i -a" Ta •. as 4� �` stes t r 5 �� : , -Y- t 1 # _ x - s $��`r, x ? -.`- � �. y _ 41 ' z ? x` �� 'am '4- A ' ` P1as i r- . sarg• ,,,,,,,,...,,,,,-., .. ,,, , -.,:, „..„-,...:---,,r.,;,,,>-,Z,:„sw,,,;..-I...:-._...,A1.1p-r.,-:.:'':.,,, '•-tsX...-_ ,, -,,,,,i,-...e.,':-.,,:i-._z-.,.,;41- '4 - r� ZI F ry, • ' t'*s.. - .s d'c i ' '''''''"r : ' "t sue' -k s.r -�4 °' ° '`+`a & - yF'�', a h ' Ufa 8 + .� ``; • • ) I _ z4, 43.3 4 ,, 4'" 1 '.,cam _ ._ `'- , ,.,7...,r,...,,,..... ,47;..--.1 ,, ,4„,,„..t.,-4....*,„„'''-'1'fl"-- ",'^`;''''''''#'414;4'tc%'''''''' ' C 3 f. . S r`L y p 1 !Ana>. f v' I �r ' X'. s - �x Y i u J" __3 3-,r y ,x � t. z • rc• • . - 1i % '.i`.' � '. • h - fEE pp� y-y� _ - 1 ,� ' 4, s . , . .‘, , , - ' . li i ,,,-..i41 . D . :. ., -. 4 v A ..„-A-„,'__,:-;,'•:- 5,., ••Ii - i --...?"-- -:.- -,,; — c : 't i '' ', % . -; -t.If% ,;-.•.--iii. h :::-,1-P01-- --4--tt-- .'1-;::---- :---'41:,-4K?,•', ' -'.- ' '--"'--- ---"'"- .. ....y2 -,, I i' . I i .f , • i tt :-. 4 4 iii ), %' . if;_, t i ' .1. ' ...S;''44;.'`‘. 1,i 1 ,,,,,....-4t. '7*', ?.*.- Y ,, !'d 1 1 ' . 1,. 40.1t!!;_..,;.',:* ,„- '-,-: ---f 1. 44 1 , , . n.r,. ii I —.. e ,..',-. 't i'f..:-,. ; I i i• kw" z.:i''-'-, t!'-' k, i ' . ':a.- .' ''i.,',A ! ; .'•-,;;.?";t1,--%40.i.-,n::-"" ''',' ''' ' '''';'1:,,, "4-;;;;,' ' - '' ., -1,4•;;E: .; 43/4-' 4,';.;1/4; I- I 1 E.: t .,' ' 4, • .4 4,--, 4 '. -:.!-,..', ;,••-•-; • '1; I1 4 ',*- ,4'' ;.A ? '-• "4`,4,14"-:1" ...-:'''''-:';'"' ' „ :„•- .,:k:-, 1.,!..J7.-4. ' i , , 14 1 _,',' '' itittn,ii.•-:_f.,,,-,,,,..,: ...-..,;;; . - . -, -4-,--'41;--t. ,-',,..,1,-. • , _ I ' w %,x Al''' ' ,' , -E-',.1•4",:',•,"', - -';*.„,- "-:: • ;`.!f; t,•,---- ee,t;4 4, ---","A 4441- '' - , 'IP::--- ,,..-!..„.T:,-,::; ,,.,,,,1,.. , ,.- , i .i. ;,. .,24 ':,t ,::.„; -4,', ' - - E• I .1, : i,'.1• 1 ittillUs-tif,;',4:41/:4'A 7-;,--„,--::,ic:'---'--, ,,--,h-.-' , '-- ,:. .., i _ , -. ..,„- , ,:,.., ; i ,if-. . _ ,,,,,,,, ..,--,1:1 :. 1-A 4 - 6-14,,--,.. '4 1.: tt ,- , -;-;1 , ,, , - • 1 ' -'•L i zit: 111 ."-V... ':-. :r 1 ,‘. • .,._ ..,,.. , - .. ,. . g.- 1' 1 1 • ' - .1.- ;. ',.1„, i'•;:.1,,,,:i ., .4.4•• ,4,, . _ .. ' '1 ;''' tr i _ , . - ., . ,„ vit ., ..t - •, * _,, , 1 \ is ,-, .1- • . ,3,4 s ;3. t t k , , i '4'._`, 't,A i' ,.,3 1 1 - 4 •„ ,. „. • .: 'AA . .....„,... ,. - -.. I . '''':1 SX31i-l'tlili ' (33V2 s 1 •''_''': '4 3'3',--::I\ ' :t.:44 11;13311 \1/4 t 11113:' /11-1-- --28'4: --2 '1473:1•YJ,1?;.;> 3 ./3.. , 3.1 ,-'' '''-...1'. ,'3:'',-4'22;33.:- V':•-:-,/ :-.4-1-a? .."* .'!--;',k3-• lt 4 ; ;-",•-,z-V:',E.:f•E, E',- 1 111...,,,-„,1, ,,k,:. ...'-ii.‘, .:-. -'----; I ---4- -t:, ...„--; 13,'; ....- -i .----,.-,..i -:---- -, t i .,..P -„ ' ,'..",:-.:;,::: -.--2-";::44.;:t. „1--' , ..L„1 A ' t i‘4 t 't „:;:::::'• ,, 'f;,: ,:" ' 1 ;Ix ilI; '-5':'-:''; '--':,-;',- --.: ' ''I ' ' - '' - . #•7 -4'1; 1:44--,-,1 '''44'",4— '•-,- .7'''' i'vlf?)-;-,:::--,•; _ - - ' \ .- •. .". - ,... t. . .2-13? ,;;;,. . ,-;,. ,,, I- _,- .e.. 01,:l,, •-?e...,-4..,.- '-• : ?3t: .'. :':',,I,-'.*:-.',C';',''.''',I, - • 1. '44 ''''''''',,:l, , 4-- -..,...,„ ,., .2 '..: '11- -.. ::. tcf-;:::,:' - \' 1 , I . , . .. .. - . ; ; ,:11'-'21,' -' ''';',..-•;1?-,-$... I - ' -- 0't. , -,;,-;.,-;-..,---c- ,-=. -:".• j -1, \ . ,.! -'' " v 11 -"Ii17.1.1;;; . ; t \ _;,.. .; -, .. .. i; • • .;-,-- -, - ;. ....*:;•-t. ,-.. . .-- . '*1. ". - : --0:;:',:,d-',I;,-;,-- -,i •--:';'-'- '--- .-- I td • . , , .„ „,,„,, I. : 413,,,,,.;,..-$,-, ,0, , ; , ,. ,,,,.E,L;',W; . , 'I ll i ,,, ;. . ' ..;! -CI'.',4 '•:. ':,.:•''''- •' .'', 1 s ' .1 �' --,J. .=Y !'� � f k � _ 'pis ,3' - - .+�-gy O fj'� Y •�, ° # `''. -L, `: c.i::t#�5. e "tff' J k.:� .. �"1- °t ;4;,• �1• 44:IX"1 t�„t .L4f f C ,� ._ { ` F�3' i ••Y�c; r .--,-.-Y • w�-,.. .''3•: 4. y�4''► .jo •. /r rr . j'ffi. t,"�". ,r'4j.; t••a•�.4.,Zi' t Sk�1<<� '4r • Vaii e � � t 9 t3• �'t_.•„ .. i ''4��� f$D�`• Y,i ...� L4y C .„, \t�y' • £ fi £{ fi t ('.^3? Y`i �yW a�F t' `• • .•i,�?*- . /�f J` r t, • 'Y# `'L +y �+ # • t tc Li-,I1.1,t1'...4:al.:Ki,-.‘,:,-ii,. ' i ,� Pik• r r 41",`t , r.c j a 3 ...,...,,,,....._ .: . ..,.„4.7.,_,,,,,...,..,-'`,".may ri t;.{� 'e!`l�f.,+.- • i1'tt . y t'�Act„, 4\ ,.k ` - .. - - � d3> • „ ,.t• `� - - ;.! .; r ,.+'. .fit v t,t... . x .,} ,� . .ti�a 4w4hk•''t-,y:i ,.2 . -�s -'3. „ 'Z. X - SY } yy y R . . •_ ''\ t F ,`. v, , !.,t' S} .., - 4't.,��'•�j� `A'i ° .F itC .� '. • ,L- ? kliti .. a u d '�� 3 to¢' s -‘..,alltifr: ... ,x'' �. +. r ;tF 'T` r ''. .,,*' fit.n. �"Zt••'�yA, ez';3r"j j^•++�t •y.c ••�:.,w •Yt. '1ty Y.« a .-s t y 'Yz z.- .'- p ` '! ;j �.1'ii fi.L•, �s r�- - o'%;., tN� 1(t r err' ":3 �_ is •tL(yr 1 ; � f } ~ \ J=) rs • r y ter' j - }+y 1-•'-'4;.15.-ir,:filleigitilefC' tt:--':-.:1:::'-;-1 - ,11 • lc �f wstatz 3 t' .. .4 s,7 j • l a L • 3 s j .. ' t�� -c � .. t '.:i<�- y !, ram 1 ' *V'' '''''' � ` '' � '. a qa w r .�' ti�t� lifer tit ! ^'°^i' � �'""IL �~.'.�� �.. x • i. ; .sue { r -` 9p Y i ' • • , Yy{.r�) � .R �•. ' - 1'`A``a.'� •. it•a`.t ! • .l \ `,r SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed ordinances pertaining to: • Petition No. 400-00-52—amending zoning regulations to locate parking lots behind buildings and establish pedestrian-oriented design standards in certain commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. • Petition No. 400-01-48 and 400-01-12—creating transit-oriented zoning regulations and rezoning a portion of 400 South for transit-oriented land uses STAFF-REPOR-T-BY:-- Janice Jardine;Land Use-and-Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has budget impact. presented to revise an clearly stated the existing ordinance. positive aspects of the proposal. This staff report combines the paperwork on zoning regulations relating to locating parking lots behind buildings(walkable communities)and transit corridor zones due to the commonalities of both. The proposed text amendments and rezoning are intended to: a. Create walkable,pedestrian-oriented shopping districts b. Emphasize pedestrian access c. Allow design flexibility d. Accommodate the historical development pattern of each zoning district e. Emphasize pedestrian and transit orientation, increase densities and reduce the emphasis on automobile-oriented development Planning staff has provided additional information that includes a brief overview of the proposed ordinances ' and a summary of related petitions currently being held in the Planning Division pending Council action regarding the proposed changes. Please refer to the attached document for details. Planning has the approval of the Chair and Vice Chair to make an audio-visual presentation on these issues at the July 16th Council meeting. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Options will be identified after the Administration's briefing at the Council Work Session on July 16,2002. 1 MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: Council Members may wish to consider or discuss with the Administration steps taken or options to address the following issues and concerns. Please note that these issues and concerns may not, in some cases, relate specifically to the Zoning Ordinance but address the`walkable communities' and`transit- oriented development' concepts in a broader context. A. The Administration's transmittal for the transit corridor TC zones notes"The Historic Landmark Commission recommended the City Council consider including planned development requirements for all new developments within the TC(transit corridor)zoning districts and also consider the development of design guidelines that would further clarify the compatibility issue in order to ensure new construction in the TC zoning districts does not negatively impact adjacent structures, especially relating to shadowing. Some HLC members commented that shadows may make adjacent structures less desirable and therefore potentially harm the likelihood the structures would be maintained and preserved. The area between 700 and 950 East(the primary focus of concern)is within a National Historic District but not a City Historic District;therefore the Historic Landmark Commission would not normally review new construction(the TC zones intersect with the Central City Historic District only between 500 and 600 East). The attached ordinance represents the Planning Commission recommendation and does not include modifications suggested by the Historic Landmark Commission made after the Planning Commission approval." Would Council Members like to request that the City Attorney provide a new ordinance that addresses the changes recommended by the Historic Landmark Commission? To Council staffs knowledge,the City has not addressed the concept of`shadowing' in the past. B. The East Central Community Council has provided to the Council a list of written concerns relating to the proposed transit corridors zones. Would Council Members like to request that the City Attorney provide a new ordinance that addresses the concerns expressed by the Community Council? Please refer to the attached letter for details. C. The Transit Corridor TC-75 zone allows department stores as a conditional use. Based on recent discussions relating to department stores in the downtown and the Gateway development might there be unintended consequences by allowing department stores as a conditional use in the Transit Corridor TC- 75 zone? D. The transit corridor zones do not allow gas stations and automobile-related businesses. What is the potential for automobile-related uses such as gas stations locating in commercial zones just outside the Transit Corridor zones and creating and additional traffic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods? E. Design criteria are established for the front of buildings but not rear or sides of buildings. Near-by neighbors have expressed concern regarding the interface of new buildings with the surrounding low- scale, low-density residential neighborhoods. What is the rationale for not including additional design criteria dealing with architectural features for the back of a building and architectural compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods? F. The Police Department provided a list of crime prevention recommendations that are not included in the draft. The Council may wish to request incorporating Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPTED concepts as identified by the Police Department and discussed by the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission. _ G. Are there any potential adverse impacts that may be created by eliminating the minimum lot area requirement for planned developments? This was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. 2 H. What options might be available to address the following: • Traffic circulation and pedestrian/traffic conflicts identified by the Transportation Division. • Alternative parking solutions such as angle or mid-street parking. (Not applicable in the transit corridor zones,but may be in other areas where the walkable concept is applied.) • . Public way issues such as adequate pedestrian right of way to accommodate access, ease of movement, mobility and ADA accessibility. I. Are there other potential areas citywide or zoning classifications that may be considered for the proposed transit corridor zones or requiring parking lots behind buildings such as the Institutional and Urban Institutional zones? (churches,schools,etc.) J. Has consideration been given to application of the proposed changes on a citywide basis versus use of an overlay-type of zoning applied to specific areas of the city?What are the pros and cons? K. Whether the Council is comfortable to allow the provision for the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to waive, modify or grant exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is currently allowed in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. L. In order to consistently and clearly express the policy aspects that the Council supports, might it be appropriate to amend City master plans and other policy documents such as the Transportation Master Plan and the Urban Design Element? M. The Administration's transmittal for locating parking lots behind buildings notes presentations to the Business Advisory Board and various real estate organizations. Were the Transportation Advisory Board and the Vest Pocket Business organization involved in the review process? If so,what type of comments or input were received? N. Has consideration been given to the implementation of Envision Utah toolbox concepts or other planning tools from other cities such as: • Transfer of development rights • Density bonuses • Solar access protection • Pedestrian-oriented street and public way designs • Incentive programs such as Portland Oregon's transit-oriented development financial incentive programs using federal funds and tax exemptions • Establishing an objective evaluation system such as a point system where a development is evaluated based on the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and awarded points based on a scale or range of points to assess whether or not the standard is met. KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed background relating to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments,the transit corridor zone and rezoning on 400 South. The Planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal, Planning staff reports and memorandum for details. Key points are summarized below. 1. The proposed changes apply to new construction,remodeling or a change of existing use that would increase the floor area or required parking by more than 50 percent for commercial and mixed-use zoning districts and 25 percent for the transit corridor zone. The minimum lot area required for a planned development will be eliminated. The proposed changes include criteria 3 used in other zoning districts in order to maintain consistency in interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Specific requirements include: a. A maximum building setback for a percentage of the exterior front or face of a building for commercial and mixed-use zoning districts and the entire front or face of a building for the transit corridor zone. b. Main entrances of buildings to be oriented to the street. c. A minimum percentage of glass to be used in buildings at the street level on the exterior front or face of a building. d. Parking lots or structures to be located in the rear or side yard areas with a larger landscaped setback than that required for buildings. e. Parking lot screening and lighting restrictions. f. Additional design criteria are specified but compliance with each individual standard is not required. g. The design criteria will apply to development in the Commercial Shopping CS zone when the district is adjacent to more than 60 percent residential zoning(within 300 feet, either on the same block or across the street). 2. The Transit Corridor zones include the design criteria list above and: a. A maximum building height of 50 feet(TC-50)or 75 feet(TC-75) b. No maximum density c. No required rear yard d. A 10-foot landscaped buffer is required next to residentially zoned properties e. A reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces f. A new permitted and conditional use chart that provides more residential opportunities and emphasizes mixed-use. Automobile-oriented types of uses such as drive-thru facilities are allowed as a conditional use and gas stations are not permitted. Department stores are allowed as a conditional use in the TC-75 zone. 3. The Special Exception,Routine and Uncontested Matters and Planning Commission conditional use processes will be used to allow additional design flexibility,accommodate development that may meet the intent of the ordinance but may not meet specific standards of the zoning district or in cases where pedestrian and transit friendly development does not work effectively. a. The Routine and Uncontested Matters process will be used for minor remodeling and in-line additions to existing structures. In most cases,this process is handled administratively at the Permits counter. b. The Planned Development conditional use process will be used for new construction and major expansion of existing facilities. c. The Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may approve exceptions, a waiver or modifications of the zoning requirements based on findings for a specific set of criteria. 4. The proposed changes for parking lots to be located behind buildings will apply to the following zoning classifications: a. Residential Business RB b. Residential Mixed-use RMU c. Mixed Use MU d. Neighborhood Commercial CN e. Community Business CB f. Sugar House Business District CSHBD g. South State Street Corridor Overlay SSSC 4 5. The proposed transit corridor zones will be applied to properties along 400 South currently zoned Commercial Corridor CC as follows: a. Transit Corridor TC-75(building height—75 feet)—200 East to 700 East(approximately) b. Transit Corridor TC-50(building height—50 feet)—700 East to 950 East(approximately) B. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing and Historic Landmark Commission meetings included: 1. Permitted and conditional uses, parking, building scale and design,pedestrian and traffic safety, exterior lighting and landscaping. 2. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility relating to noise, lighting,traffic,density,building scale,design and height. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council has adopted housing and transportation policy statements that support creating a wide variety of housing types citywide and changing the focus of transportation decisions from moving cars to moving people. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community Housing Plan and Transportation Master Plan. Housing policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. Transportation policy statements include support of alternative forms of transportation, considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. Please see the attached policy statements for details. B. During the Council's recent discussions relating to growth, annexations and housing policy, Council Members have expressed support for developments that promote livable community concepts such as: 1. Pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments 2. Compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments 3. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity 4. Local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot C. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. D. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. The Plans also support street designs that are pedestrian friendly and developing a multi- modal citywide transportation system. 5 E. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 3. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 4. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 5. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 6. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings, and the pedestrian. F. Additional master plans that relate to the proposed transit corridor zoning on 400 South include the Central City and East Downtown Master Plans. The Plans emphasize: 1. The need to revitalize and stabilize the residential neighborhoods. 2. Preservation and enhancement of the unique character and viability of the East Downtown neighborhood. 3. Greater recognition of mixed-use areas and their relative permanence. 4. The need for compatibility review, design guidelines and architectural controls to preserve the scale and character of the neighborhoods with an emphasis on the interface between commercial/business uses and residential development. 5. Encourage pedestrian-scale and transit-oriented forms of development. 6. The present design and charcter of 400 South should be improved with medium-scale commercial buildings to serve the adjoining neighborhoods of East Downtown and Central City. 7. The commercial strip(400 South)should be replaced with more diverse and pedestrian-oriented activities with a mixture of retail, entertainment and restaurants. 8. Development in this area should be focused at a pedestrian scale and at the street level with required setbacks and plaza areas designed on a human scale. 9. Blank building walls should be prohibited and scenic vista areas should be protected including a view of the mountains and key landmark structures. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for full details. Petition No. 400-00-52—Parking lots behind buildings (walkable communities) • September 14,2000 Petition initiated by Community&Economic Development Department • October 5, 2000 Mayor's Community Council Chair meeting • November 16, 2000 Planning Commission hearing • December 2000—January 2001 Presentation to various real estate organizations • January 18,2001 Planning Commission decision • December 2000-April 2001 Presentation to Business Advisory Board and various real estate organizations • January—December 2001 Administration meetings to resolve business community issues _ • November 7,2001 Historic Landmark Commission meeting • December 13,2001 Planning Commission approval of revised text amendments and recommendation to City Council 6 Petition No. 400-01-48 &400-01-12—Transit corridor zoning • August 4, 1998 Legislative intent initiated by the City Council • January 18,2001 400 South rezoning petition initiated by the Planning Commission • July 18,2001 East Central Community Council meeting • August 1, 2001 Central City Community Council meeting • September 6, 2001 Mayor's Community Council Chair meeting • November 7, 2001 Historic Landmark Commission meeting • December 13,2001 Planning Commission hearing • January 30, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Steven Allred,Lynn Pace,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,LeRoy Hooton,Tim Harpst,Max Peterson,Roger Evans,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Harvey Boyd,Enzo Calfa, Cheri Coffey,Doug Dansie,Sylvia Jones,Barry Esham,Scott Barraclough File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance Text Change and Rezoning—Parking lots behind buildings and transit corridor zoning 7 July 12, 2002 East Central Community Council 436 South 1200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Dear Members of the City Council: East Central agrees with the intent of the proposed TC-50 and TC-75 Zones along 400 South as described in the proposed Transit Oriented Zoning Ordinances. These proposed zones will encourage reduced dependence on automobiles for transportation and increase residential occupancy along this corridor. After reviewing the proposed ordinances, East Central had concerns about portions of the ordinances. In an effort to have these concerns addressed members of East Central: -addressed the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission; -held a walking tour with Planning Staff of the 700-900 East blocks of the Bryant neighborhood between 300 and 400 South, and -held a meeting with Planning Staff and Council Member Nancy Saxton. Despite these efforts,our concerns were not addressed in the proposed ordinances. The concerns of East Central include: • Exclude Bryant neighborhood from TC-50 zone from 700 E to 900 East blocks on north side of 400 South. There are numerous single family homes in this neighborhood, some recently restored,and no buildings taller than 2 %2 stories. Salt Lake City lacks a compatibility review process to address the interface between the proposed TC-50 zone and the single family residences. Therefore, these two blocks need to be excluded from the TC-50 zone. Also do not extend the TC-50 zone to 950 East, for the same reasons noted above. • Exclude additional drive-through businesses in the TC-50 or TC-75 zones,even as conditional uses. They encourage use of cars, are contrary to the philosophy of this planning effort,and increase safety risks for pedestrians as cars cross sidewalks. • Exclude bus terminal, ambulance facilities, and park-and-ride lots. These also increase motorized vehicle crossing of sidewalks. Locate park-and-ride facilities away from these zones and downtown areas in general, to encourage citizens to use mass transit for more of the commuting distance and to minimize automobile generated air pollution in these zones. The proposed ordinances exclude new gas stations in either of the proposed • zones. The neighborhoods need protection against expansion of gas stations into residential neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor. • East Central suggests all development over 30 feet in height be considered a conditional use so that design review is automatically part of the process. Apply this requirement to TC-50 and TC-75 zones. The dilemma is that without an effective compatibility review process, conditional use offers the only review opportunity. But conditional use approval occurs in a limited, one chance discussion before the Planning Discussion. Implementing compatibility review is the best solution. • Clarify or add more definition to the role of the Zoning Administrator approval process regarding expansion requests so that the intent of these ordinances cannot be subverted by incremental expansion. Consider making all expansions a public process so that the public is not excluded. Clarify language/intent on"no maximum density" for residential in TC-50 zoning area. This will eliminate the potential for developing de facto SROs in the TC-50 zone where they are a conditional use. The City needs to develop a definitive policy statement regarding where Single Room Occupancy developments can be located. Currently location is defined on a map which can too easily be amended. • Include language to address the concerns expressed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Restriction of sunlight penetration and air circulation need to be addressed during the review/approval process. Consider also changing the height requirements to 75 feet on the south side of 400 South and 50 feet along the north side of 400 South. This would minimize shadowing concerns along the north side of the proposed zones. • Add language to clarify design requirements for exits from underground garages. Designs need to assure motorists have maximum possible visibility of pedestrians on sidewalk. An example of poor design is the parking complex adjacent to the Broadway theater. • Compatibility review is a significant missing piece of this process and needs to be included as suggested above. Despite improvements over the proposed Transit Oriented Zoning ordinances of the previous administration, East Central feels there are many opportunities to improve the proposed ordinances and is very willing to cooperate with Planning Staff to accomplish that review and revision. Therefore East Central requests that these proposed Transit Oriented Zoning Ordinances be sent back for this review and revision. Thank you. East Central Community Council Chair, Dennis Guy-Sell, 673-7378 Vice Chair, Andy Fletcher, 467-2706 Secretary, Kathy Scott, 322-5288 Treasurer, Fran Schwab, 581-9643 Past Chair,Julia Robertson, 583-5663 Land Use Coordinator, Cindy Cromer, 355-4115 Master Plan Coordinator, Vicki Mickelsen Moving People Committee, Creed Haymond, 583-8510 Historic Neighborhood Coordinator, Jolie Strohmeyer, 328-4336 Bennion Neighborhood,John Anderson, 364-6086,Jacob Reeves, 515-1123 Bryant Neighborhood,Maha Barrani, 364-2114 Douglas Neighborhood, Cathey Dunn, 582-6804 East Liberty Neighborhood, Margaret Brady, 521-8377 Emerson Neighborhood, Laurel Bartmess, 484-8507 Overview Walkable communities The following bullet statements indicate the fundamental issues regarding walkable communities: 1. The changes pertain to those commercial and mixed-use zoning districts which interface with Salt Lake City neighborhoods (no residential or other zoning districts, such as manufacturing, general commercial, institutional or public lands, are included) 2. The proposed ordinance primarily uses existing design concepts that already occur within our existing zoning ordinance: • Maximum setback(presently used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 and Gateway zoning districts),these encourage the building to be built closer to the street,which facilitates pedestrian activity, • Greater setback for parking lots and parking structures than for buildings (presently used in Downtown zoning districts, Gateway and R-MU),this discourages parking lots from occupying valuable street frontage and in turn encourages buildings at the street frontage to encourage pedestrian activity, • 40%glass required at the ground level(used in D-1 and D-4 and Gateway zoning districts), this creates visual interest between the pedestrian and the business, • Parking location restrictions(there are parking restrictions in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts which are similar in intent,if not exact wording),this also encourages parking to be located secondary to the street frontage, which makes the public sidewalk the primary focus of pedestrian activity, • Requirement of orientation of the front door to the street(used in multi- family residential zoning districts and Gateway district.),this encourages the public sidewalk to be the primary entry, which in turn encourages pedestrian activity. 3. Provides for compatibility • Rear yard lighting restrictions(this is a new concept suggested by community councils to eliminate glare into neighborhoods), this is meant to protect adjacent residential uses from any negative impacts of rear yard parking, • Design requirement to eliminate blank walls along the front façade (presently these regulations are in the Gateway district),this is to create visual interest for the pedestrian. 4. Provides flexibility • The planned development process is emphasized and minimum lot sizes eliminated to allow for creative design proposals to be considered. • 5. What the walkable communities changes do not include changes to the following (new TC zones excepted): • Parking ratios, • Land uses tables, • Heights limits. Related petitions: The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently holding the following petitions pending resolution of the walkable communities ordinance. Once the City Council provides direction on petition 400-00-52, staff will be able to better evaluate the other petitions. "Walkable Communities"type Petitions Petition Request Action Planner 400-00-52 Walkable Communities Ordinance(No December 13,2002 Doug D. parking in front of commercial buildings. Planning Commission review. 400-01-11 Rezone property along 2100 South On hold until petition Melissa A. between 700 and 900 East from CC to 400-00-52 is adopted. CSHBD. 400-01-12 Transit Oriented Development Districts December 13,2002 Doug D. 400-01-48 and map amendments on 400 South of Planning Commission CC zoned properties. Review. 400-01-13 Expand the South State Street Overlay to On hold until petition Doug D. include the west side of Main Street from 400-00-52 is adopted. 1300 South to 2100 South. The South State Street Overlay Zone includes provisions which incorporate the Walkable Communities concepts. 400-01-14 Rezone all properties zoned CS which If petition 400-00-52 is Wayne M. are surrounded by more than 60% adopted,this petition residential development to require the can be filed with no Walkable Community design concepts action taken. Petition are implemented. 400-00-52 includes provisions that cover this request. 400-01-23 D-3 Walkable Communities to add all On hold until petition Doug D. regulations in the Walkable 400-00-52 is adopted. Communities ordinance(such as percentage of glass,maximum setbacks etc.)to the D-3 zone. (The regulations already exist in the D-1 and D-4 zones. 400-01-32 Modify the C-SHBD zone to decrease Jan 17,02 Planning Melissa A. maximum height and amend the Sugar Commission review. House Zoning Map to expand the C- SHBD zoning. 400-02-03 Rezoning existing CS zone property on Planning Commission Doug D. 400 South between 500 and 800 East initiated on 2/25/02. from CS to TC-75 or TC-50. Transit Oriented Districts The new Transit Oriented Districts (TC-50 and TC-75) contain the same urban design components that are being adopted as part of"walkable communities", including a glass requirement at the ground level, orientation to the street and maximum building setbacks. The proposed TOD zoning district contains the following concepts (in addition to the walkable community concepts); 1) Reduced parking requirements(reduce from the present C-C zoning district), this is to acknowledge the increased reliance on transit within the zoning district. 2) A greater percentage of the façade is subject to maximum building setback requirements(all of the façade is subject to the setback, as opposed to percentages listed in other zoning districts),this is to encourage a"streetwall"or continuous façade along the transit corridor to facilitate pedestrian interaction, 3) Height and density limitations are increased for residential uses appropriately for the location(the current C-C zoning district is limited to 30 feet in height and generally discourages residential or mixed-use buildings),this is to encourage housing density to locate along the corridor, 4) Limitations and/or design controls are added for drive-through windows and other automobile oriented land uses,to discourage heavy reliance on the auto and increase reliance on transit and pedestrian activity. Related petitions: The Planning staff is presently reviewing a petition from the Planning Commission(#400-02-03)to include the CS zoning district(between 500 and 700 East along 400 South)within the TOD zone. Once the City Council provides direction on petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48, staff will be able to better evaluate the other petitions. 4/9/02 E.8 HOUSING POLICY (12/99) At the December 14, 1999 Council meeting,the Council adopted the following Housing Policy Statements: I. Affordable and Transitional Housing The City Council supports: 1. Salt Lake City residents having access to housing that does not consume more than 30 percent of their gross income. 2. The analysis of the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. 3. The type of business growth that is compatible with affordable housing needs in the City. 4. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and working or living within Salt Lake City. 5. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable rental housing. 6. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. In particular,the Council supports the establishment of smaller transitional housing programs,with a minimum of one four-plex per Council District. 7. The citywide development of single room occupancy housing(SROs). 8. The City providing examples of how affordable housing can be built, offering incentives for innovative projects that developers may not initially be willing to undertake and serving as a facilitator/partner to maximize housing opportunities. H. Citywide Cross Section of Housing The City Council supports: 1. A citywide variety of residential housing units,including affordable housing. 2. Accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. III. Design The City Council encourages: 1. Architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods that: a) make good use of and incorporate open space,even minimal amounts; b) interface well with public spaces; c) address parking needs in the least obtrusive manner possible; d) are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces, such as designated "commons"areas,community centers,child care,resident gathering places,resident gardens,etc. IV. Transit Development and Design The City Council supports: 1. Coordinated, comprehensive land use and transportation master planning. Specifically, the Council supports transit-oriented development as well as adequate, reliable public transportation in order to allow residents to easily access their employment and residences. 2. A pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment throughout the City. 3. Housing densities and mixed uses that support use of alternative and public transportation,depending on the characteristics of each area. 4. Appropriate housing densities in areas where public transit and local services are conveniently available or can-be provided and are accessible on foot. 5. Reinvestment in existing urban and inner suburban areas. 6. A rebirth of compact, transit and pedestrian oriented developments that conserve water and energy resources,enhance air quality and help restore community vitality. 7. Transit-oriented development with an affordable housing component. V. Mixed Uses The City Council supports: 1. Mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant,safe,integrated,walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established transportation,utilities and related public services that: a) include neighborhood interaction in the design process; b) incorporate affordable housing whenever possible; c) incorporate an assortment of residential,commercial,and professional office uses; d) include a variety of housing types,mixed-income levels,live-work developments,etc. VI. Housing Stock Preservation,Rehabilitation and Replacement The City Council advocates: 1. Policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including, the requirement of,at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. 2. The City promoting housing safety and quality through adequately funding by fees the City's apartment inspection program and programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. VII. Zoning On a citywide basis,the City Council endorses: 1. Policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities within the City to ensure the continued existence of a population base and business base. While the Council supports mixed use development, it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. As such,the Council will discourage any housing development in industrial-type zones. 2. Co-housing developments. 3. A zoning designation to permit transitional housing on a small-scale basis. 4. Higher densities in affordable and mixed income housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize intrusion such as buffer landscaping,usable open space,on-site amenities,support services, underground vehicle parking,etc. 5. Accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. 6. Small scale, low density, scattered site location, 100% low-income residential developments based on quality design,good management,and an established neighborhood social support structure. 7. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity. VII. Expedited Permit Process The City Council endorses: 1. Reducing the negative affects of building codes and regulations on affordable housing. 2. Streamlining the review and permit processes for developments that offer innovative design options and has a positive impact on neighborhoods. VIII. Funding Mechanisms The City Council supports: 1. Increasing the housing stock via public-nonprofit and/or for profit partnerships. 2. Establishing a public document that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. 3. Maximizing public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies. F.1 CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PHILOSOPHY a. The Council fully supports changing the focus of transportation discussions from moving cars to moving people. The Council strongly supports and encourages the Administration's efforts to look for all alternatives which will allow Salt Lake City's neighborhoods to be preserved and to flourish. The Council: 1. considers neighborhoods,residential and commercial,as the building blocks of the community; 2. encourages the preservation and enhancement of living environments, particularly the Downtown area; 3. discourages through traffic on streets,other than arterial streets,in residential neighborhoods; 4. will focus on ways to transport people to their desired destinations, not on moving motorized vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods; 5. will make and support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in the City, not necessarily the quantity of development; 6. supports the creation of a series of linkages (provisions and incentives) to foster appropriate growth in currently defined growth centers; 7. supports more public-private partnerships in which all who benefit from capital improvements participate in funding those improvements; 8. supports considering the impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with the impacts on transportation systems in the transportation master plan and related planning;and 9. will give all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. F.2 RAIL-RELATED MASS TRANSIT POLICIES (iiroi) The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Main Street, double track,center of street alignment would best serve the existing and future needs of Salt Lake City. The City Council supports the future expansion of a mass transit system involving the following components: light rail,commuter rail,and buses operated by the Utah Transit Authority and an intermodal hub located at 200 South 600 West. City Council support of the expansion of the mass transit system and the intermodal hub is contingent upon the Utah Transit Authority's ability to secure federal fmancing for the system and the intermodal hub.The City Council acknowledges the responsibilities of UTA and the City outlined in the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for the Gateway Intermodal Terminal signed on August 25, 1999. In particular,the City Council supports expansion of the Main Street to University light rail line to the full extent portrayed in the Airport to University West-East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement published by the Wasatch Front Regional Council in March 1999.The expansion includes: • Completion of the east end of the line to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center. • Completion of the west end of the line to the Salt Lake City International Airport along the West-Fast corridor described in the impact statement. • Completion of the circulation loop in downtown Salt Lake City described in the impact statement.The Council notes that the Salt Lake City Intermodal Center Final Environmental Assessment published by the Wasatch Front Regional Council on September 1, 1998,supports a _ light rail connection from the Intermodal Hub to a light rail circulation loop. • Potential future expansion of the West-East line to the International Center on the west end and the recommended alternative—Alternative 2—on the east end. Alternative 2 would follow the existing Wasatch Boulevard south to Foothill Drive. On Foothill Drive the alignment would be located along the east side of the street and proceed in a southeast direction to Sunnyside Avenue.At the location,the extension would be constructed in the middle of Sunnyside Avenue and would proved service to the east,terminating in This Is the Place State Park and Hogle Zoo area.Two transit centers with stations and parking lots are proposed at Foothill Drive and near Hogle Zoo. The City Council supports construction of a commuter rail line from Brigham City to Payson. The City Council supports the Utah Transit Authority's efforts to purchase rights of way for construction of the commuter rail line,including the right of way to a spur line to the Sugar House area that may be used in the future to expand the light rail system. The City Council supports UTA's efforts to connect the commuter rail line to the Intermodal Hub at 600 West 200 South and looks forward to discussing UTA financial participation in extending railroad track necessary for the connection. F.3 1-15 ACCESS (revised 10/99) a. On December 6, 1994,the City Council adopted its policy regarding I-15 access;this is commonly referred to as the 400 South Option. This Option includes a 400 South general purpose off-ramp, no off-ramp at North Temple, 300 West and 400 West to have two-way traffic, and an off-ramp from 600 North to 400 West. The recommendation includes the following conditions: 1. Immediately following the opening of the light rail first phase, the second phase of light rail connecting the Central Business District will begin. 2. If consolidation of the west downtown railroad lines takes place, then planned freeway viaducts should be shortened to allow for enhanced urban design gateway option. 3. In the event that light rail transit proposals are removed from the I-15 corridor study,the City shall withdraw its support for all other options and transportation improvements. 4. As part of the citywide transportation master plan and the downtown circulation study, the City will plan and implement any and all traffic restrictions and urban design elements necessary to mitigate the impact of commuter traffic on the City's residential neighborhoods. 5. Future high occupancy vehicle ramps to and from the north shall not be located at 200 South or at 400 South. b. On May 12, 1998,the Council adopted a motion regarding the proposed intermodal hub site. The motion states that the Council supports the location of an intermodal transportation facility at 600 West and 200 South Streets with the following conditions and understandings; • that future regional commuter rail alignments along 500 West and 200 South streets be preserved for enhanced regional commuter rail operations and that public utilities in those corridors be located to minimize obstructions; • that the Gateway Master Plan and the design of the facility at 600 West and 200 South streets be flexible to accommodate future regional commuter rail technologies; • that, to maximize present and future regional commuter rail connections, pedestrian corridors between the Union Pacific Depot and 500 West street, and the Rio Grande Depot and the 600 West intermodal facility be preserved and enhanced within future development plans; • that a light-rail extension to the 600 West 200 South location be in place when regional commuter rail operations begin; • that a public involvement and design review program be instituted to address station design at the 600 West site and the relationship of the station with the Rio Grande Depot; • that the City Council supports the development of a transit system (including commuter rail on a dedicated corridor) that would operate for extended hours, seven days a week with frequent service. Transfers within the system should be as seamless and convenient as possible; • that it is the City Council's intent to have the Union Pacific and Rio Grande Depots preserved and utilized in adaptive reuses; • that an independent transportation engineering firm be retained to address the issue of whether or not a commuter rail station is technically possible west of the Union Pacific Depot and north of 100 South street, assuming the use of current commuter rail technology, rails running along the surface, and connection with the 600 West 200 South station. F.4 COMMUTER TRAFFIC (12/99) On December 7, 1999 the Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution that contained policy statements relating to commuter traffic for the areas served by the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council and the Greater Avenues Community Council. The policy statements are: Capitol Hill and Avenues Joint Statement on Commuter Traffic The Capitol Hill and Avenues Districts maintain strong residential neighborhoods important to the culture, history and success of Salt Lake City and Utah. Over the past ten years, the City's Administration has focused tremendous energy into economic development and increased urban density. Unfortunately, it has resulted in an explosion of commuter traffic through these neighborhoods without the necessary provision for better alternatives.Today,cut through traffic is the single greatest threat to quality of life and the stability of the neighborhoods. The Capitol Hill and Avenues communities are united in their desire and willingness to fight for the preservation of Salt Lake City's valued neighborhoods from the long-term, devastating effects of mismanaged commuter traffic. Together,the people of these districts request the City Administration to adopt as a top priority a plan to manage the commuter traffic and its impact on the Capitol Hill and Avenues areas by: 1. Encouraging commuters from the north to use the 100 and 400 South ramps to I-15 as preferred routes. Directing and educating commuters to these alternative access points must begin now as decisions regarding new signage and public relations campaigns are being made. 2. Equalizing commuter traffic between several available city and state routes proportionate to street width and capacity. All commuter routes into the city from the north will have at least the same amount of travel time with no route having the undue burden of being a faster route. 3. Ensuring future north/south alternative transportation options through appropriate land use planning now. Commuter rail and park and ride lots must be part of a long term solution to the increasing commuter traffic. The Capitol Hill and Avenues communities recognize that a certain amount of commuter traffic through the neighborhoods is inevitable due to the presence of the State Capitol and the LDS Hospital. Additionally,the Capitol Hill and Avenues communities recognize that both within and between the two districts there will always be varying opinions but that the greater communities are united in support of a solution that best fits the above statement. APR 0 8 2002 I I ' I A\�y,KITC�R�P �.°'e 4I;_N STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH � .,0 a0.. .� .-,. 1 ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT TO: Rocky Fluha:`. Management Services Director T SMITTAL DATE: 3P9/A et-' FROM: 11/ re • unt, Community and Economic Development Director RE: Petition 400-01-48, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create Transit Oriented zoning districts (TOD) and 400-01-12 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor with transit oriented zoning districts. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner 535-6182 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning text and mapping amendments. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget impacts associated with the proposed amendments. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: On August 4, 1998, the Salt Lake City Council initiated a Legislative action item to create a transit-oriented district. On January 18, 2001, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a formal petition to change the zoning of land along 400 South from CC to a transit oriented zoning district(s). Analysis: The proposed text changes include two new transit oriented zoning districts: TC-50 (originally referred to as TC-45)and TC-75. The districts are proposed to be mapped along the 400 South corridor only in areas that are presently zoned CC. The proposed zoning districts are similar to the other districts that include changes proposed by the"walkable communities"petition 400-00-52. Height is also affected with this zoning change. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 is �� vccceo onrca Traditionally the CC zoning district has a 30-foot height limit. The two new proposed zoning districts have might limits of 50 and 75 feet respectively. The additional height is for residential uses only. The design changes affect maximum setback,percentage of glass along the façade and other design controls. Some of the design controls affect screening of parking and parking lot lighting from adjacent residential areas. The intent of the proposed ordinance changes is to encourage new development to emphasize the building's relationship with the pedestrian and transit,more than the auto, by encouraging buildings to be built near the front of the property (rather than the rear), have a high degree of interaction with the sidewalk(windows, doors) and place parking in a secondary position (side, rear or minimal front yards). The intent is to also allow enough flexibility that the zoning ordinance is not stifling architectural creativity. The staff made a conscious decision to encourage walkable retail by expanding language that is already used in the zoning ordinance,rather than introduce new concepts,which are subject to new interpretation. • Maximum setbacks are presently used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 districts, the G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use district and the CSHBD Sugar House Business District. Maximum setback represents the maximum distance a new building may be set back from the front property line. Historically Salt Lake City has emphasized minimum setbacks,but not maximum setbacks. • The minimum percentage of glass is already used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 zones, the Gateway Mixed-use zone, and the Sugar House Business District zone. The intent is to increase interaction between the building occupant and pedestrians and to eliminate blank walls at the sidewalk level. Other design criteria include the limitation of the height of parking lot light poles, when located adjacent to residential districts (to minimize light over spill), and the requirement of light proof fencing between commercial and residential uses. The design requirements apply to new construction. Remodeling or expansion of existing uses,which do not increase the floor area or parking requirement by more than 50%, are exempt from the new regulations. The ordinance allows a process to modify or waive the requirements for those unique situations where pedestrian and transit friendly development does not work effectively or when the regulation would result in a negative impact on an historic structure, inline additions to existing development or when a more creative solution that meets the objective of supporting pedestrian and transit activities is proposed. Such outlets include administrative and conditional use approval. While Planned Developments have always been allowed in the proposed zoning districts, the Planned Development process has been highlighted and minimum lot areas reduced to make the process more available to developers in order to facilitate more creative design solutions. On December 13, 2001, the Planning Commission found that based on the findings in the staff report, the proposed zoning changes are consistent with the required criteria for a zoning amendment. After the Planning Commission approved the ordinance, slight modifications were made, in conjunction with the attorney's office, to increase legal clarity without affecting content. After the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission once again placed the issue on their agenda for discussion at the request of an East Central resident (January 30, 2002). The primary concern was the height (50 feet) allowed along the eastern portion of 400 South (north side) and the potential for shading adjacent residences. The discussion included comments that four- story buildings are historically common in the area. The Historic Landmark Commission recommended the City Council consider including planned development requirements for all new developments within the TC zoning districts and also consider the development of design guidelines that would further clarify the compatibility issue in order to ensure new construction in the TC zoning districts does not negatively impact adjacent structures, especially relating to shadowing. Some HLC member commented that shadows may make adjacent structures less desirable and therefore potentially harm the likelihood the structures would be maintained and preserved. The area between 700 and 950 East (the primary focus of concern) is within a National Historic District but not a City Historic District; therefore the Historic Landmark Commission would not normally review new construction (the TC zones intersect with the Central City Historic District only between 500 and 600 East). The attached ordinance represents the Planning Commission recommendation and does not include modifications suggested by the Historic Landmark Commission made after the Planning Commission approval. The present petition proposes to replace the CC zoning district along 400 South. The Planning Commission has also initiated a petition to review the CS Commercial Shopping zoning along 400 South. The CS zoning is mapped on the north side of 400 South between 600 and 700 East and on the south side of 400 South between 500 and 800 East. The CS zoning is being reviewed separately because it contains Trolley Square, Trolley Corners and other areas than may not be appropriate for transit zoning; therefore a more thorough review is necessary. Master Plan: The Urban Design Element encourages the maintenance of a pedestrian- oriented environment at the ground floor of all buildings. The draft Central Community Master Plan, Futures Commission report, East Downtown Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan all contain policies supporting the proposed amendments. Public Process: July 18, 2001 East Central Community Council was briefed at their July18, 2001 executive board meeting. No action was taken. August 1, 2001 Central City Community Council was briefed at their August 1, 2001 meeting. No action was taken. September 6, 2001 The issue was presented to the Community Council Chairs at their monthly meeting with the Mayor's Office. No action was taken. November 7,2001 The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission. December 13, 2001 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue.The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-12 and Petition No. 400-01-48. January 30, 2002 The Historic Landmark Commission reheard the issue and suggested modifications. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A.50 of Salt Lake City Code: Amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning map. , CONTENTS Chronology Proposed Ordinance City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda Minutes Historic Landmark input to Planning Commission [Staff report to Historic Landmark Commission not included because it is nearly identical to Planning Commission Staff report] Agendas and Minutes Nov 7, 2001 Jan 2 2007 Jan 30, 2002 Original Petition Chronology Chronology August 4, 1998 Legislative intent initiated by the City Council to create a transit oriented district. January 18,2001 Formal petition initiated by the Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South corridor. Jan.to June 2001 Petition held to allow walkable communities (which has similar language)to be reviewed by businesses and other concerned parties July 18,2001 East Central Community Council was briefed at their July18, 2001 executive board meeting. No action was taken. August 1,2001 Central City Community Council was briefed at their August 1, 2001 meeting. No action was taken September 6,2001 The issue was presented to the Community Council Chairs at their monthly meeting with the Mayor's Office.No action was taken. October 2001 The petition was rescheduled from the proposed a October Planning Commission hearing to coincide with the walkable communities petition. November 7,2001 The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. December 13,2001 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-12 and petition 100-01-48 on December 13, 2001 December 28,2001 The staff delivered the proposed changes to the Attorney's office. January 10,2002 The staff reviewed the ordinance with the attorneys. January 2002 Staff returned ordinance to attorney to include attorney modifications. January 30,2002 The Historic Landmark Commission reheard the issue and suggested modifications March 7,2002 Staff received final ordinance. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to create transit oriented zoning districts,rezoning property along the east-west light rail corridor, and making other related changes) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE TO CREATE TRANSIT ORIENTED ZONING DISTRICTS, CHANGING THE ZONING ALONG THE EAST-WEST LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR,AND MAKING OTHER RELATED CHANGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-01-48 and 400-01-12. WHEREAS, the East-West Light Rail corridor from the downtown business district to the University of Utah Campus has recently been established; and WHEREAS,in order to maximize the potential of that light rail system,the City is anxious to encourage new development which would focus on mass transit and pedestrian traffic, rather than automobile traffic; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council, the City Council has determined that the following ordinance is in the best interest of the City; ' NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.26.073 TC-50 entitled"Transit Corridor District," shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.26.073 TC-50 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-50 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-50 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: Fifty feet (50'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'), except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: None required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum building setback: 25 feet, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle, to the street. Where an arcade facing the street is provided, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors, not the facade of the arcade level. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 2 F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet(15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title. G. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non-residential portion of a mixed-use building,shall exceed thirty feet (30'). H. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed fifty feet (50'). I. Restrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface parking lots or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas, parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or above the first level, or at least thirty feet (30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures located above the first level and closer than 30 feet to the front or corner side yard shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty-five foot (25') landscaped setback. 3. Accessory And Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. The Zoning Administrator may waive these requirements for any • addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the parking area by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 3 7. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. J. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two feet (2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent(18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. K. Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. L. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). M. Density: There is no maximum residential density. SECTION 2. Section 21A.26.077 TC-75 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Transit Corridor District,"shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.26.077 TC-75 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial, residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian 4 friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-75 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2.Minimum Lot Width: Fifty feet(50'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'), except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: None required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum building setback: 25 feet, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle,to the street.Where ' an arcade facing the street is provided, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors, not the facade of the arcade level. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition,expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet(15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements 5 of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. G. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non-residential portion of a mixed-use building, shall exceed thirty feet (30') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. H. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed seventy live feet (75'). Building heights in excess of seventy-five (75)feet, but not more than one hundred twenty feet(120 feet) may be approved as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title and conformity with applicable Master Plan policy. I. Restrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas, parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or above the first level, or at least thirty feet(30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures located above the first level and less than 30 feet from a front or corner side yard shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty-five foot(25') landscaped setback. 3. Accessory and Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures,built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. The Zoning Administrator may waive these requirements for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the parking area by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: 6 a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. J. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings, or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two feet (2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent(18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part VI Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested Special Exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. K. Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. L. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). M. Density: There is no maximum residential density. SECTION 3. Sections 21A.44.040.C.7 and 8 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows: 21A.44.040.C.7 TC-50 District 7 All parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by twenty five percent (25%)within the TC-50 Zoning District. 21A.44.040.C.8 TC-75 District a. For non-residential uses in the TC-75 district, no off-street parking shall be required for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area. For all non-residential uses with more than five thousand (5,000) square feet,the parking requirement shall be one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area, including the initial five thousand (5,000) square feet. b. All residential parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by fifty percent (50%)within the TC-75 Zoning District. SECTION 4. Section 21A.48.080.C.12 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.48.080.C.12 TC-50 and TC-75 Districts. Lots in the TC-50 and TC-75 Districts which abut a lot in a residential district, shall provide a ten (10) foot landscaped buffer. SECTION 5. Section 21A.54.150.E.4 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.54.150.E.4 Planned developments within the TC-50 and TC-75. Planned developments within these zoning districts may be approved subject to consideration of the following general conceptual guidelines (a positive finding for each is not required): a. The development shall be primarily oriented to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot, b. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and mass transit, c. The facade shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, d. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building, e. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, f. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods, g. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure, h. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. SECTION 6. The table located at Section 21A.54.150.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"A" attached hereto. 8 SECTION 7. Section 21A.46.095 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.46.095 Sign Regulations for Transit Corridor Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in transit corridor districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. a. Sign regulations for the TC-50 and TC-75 transit corridor districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the TC-50 and TC-75 districts are intended to provide for appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability: Regulations on Table 21A.46.095.A.3 of this section shall apply to all lots within the TC-50 and TC-75 districts. SECTION 8. The table located at Section 21A.46.095.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. SECTION 9. The table located at Section 21A.26.080 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts,"shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"C"attached hereto. SECTION 10. The table located at Section 21A.26.090 of the Salt Lake City ' Code entitled "Summary Table of Yard and Bulk requirements - Commercial Districts," shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"D" attached hereto. SECTION 11. The properties located along the East-West light rail corridor along 400 South,which are more particularly described on Exhibit "E"attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from commercial corridor(CC)to transit oriented district (TC- 50). 9 SECTION 12. The properties located along the East-West light rail corridor on 400 South,which are more particularly identified on Exhibit"E" attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from commercial corridor (CC)to transit oriented district (TC- 75). SECTION 13. Amending of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 14. Amendment of Master Plan. To the extent necessary, the Central City Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 15. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 10 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G\Ordinance 02\Rezoning cast-west light rail corridor-Mar 4,2002 doc 11 Exhibit A 21A.54.150.E2 District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres FR-3/12,000 Foothills residential District 5 acres R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential 9,000 square feet District SR-2 Special Development Patter Residential Reserved SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family 9,000 square feet Residential District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District 20,000 square feet Commercial Districts CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet CG General Commercial District 1 acre TC-50 Transit Corridor No minimum required TC-75 Transit Corridor No minimum required Manufacturing District M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres Downtown Districts D-1 Central Business District 2 acres D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre Special Purpose Districts RP Research Park District 10 acres BP Business Park District 10 acres FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres AG Agricultural District 10 acres AG-2 Agricultural District 4 acres AG-5 Agricultural District 10 acres AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres A Airport District 2 acres PL Public Lands District 5 acres I Institutional District 5 acres UI Urban Institutional District 1 acre OS Open Space District 2 acres MH Mobile Home Park District 10 acres EI Extractive Industries District 10 acres Exhibit B 21A.46.095.A.3 Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the TC-50 and TC-75 Districts. STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSIT COORIDOR DISTRICTS(TC-50 and 75) Types Of Signs Maximum Area Per Maximum Height Minimum Number Of Limit On Permitted Sign Face In Square Of Freestanding Setback 2 Signs Permitted Combined Feet Signs In Feet 1 Per Sign Type Number Of Signs 3 Flat sign(storefront 1.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note I below) N/A 1 per business or None orientation)" ft. of store frontage 5 storefront Flat sign(general 1.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note 1 below) N/A 1 per building None building orientation) ft. of building face 5 face Projecting business 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per business None storefront sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the entry to the to 2 feet in height face of the street building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Projecting parking 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per driveway None entry sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the or parking lot to 2 feet in height face of the entry building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Marquee sign Subject only to I per storefront None subsection 21 A.46.070.0.of this Chapter Awning/canopy signs 1 sq.ft.per linear ft. (see note 1 below) May extend 6 1 per first floor None of storefront(sign ft.from face door/window area only) of building, but no more than 2 ft. from back of curb 6 Monument sign 100 sq.ft. 12 ft. None 1 per street frontage Construction sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 2 per building None Political sign 32 sq.ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per building None Private directional 8 sq.ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None sign New development 80 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign development Window sign 25%of total frontage (see note 1 below) N/A No limit None window area per use Public safety sign 8 sq.ft. 6 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Nameplate, 3 sq.ft. 8 ft. N/A 1 per building None identifying building name Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. (Ord. 83-98 § 11 (Exh. F), 1998) Exhibit C 21A.26.080'Fable Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES,BY DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT'S C=Conditional Use P=Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS' CSHB CG TC-50 TC-75 D' Residential Assisted living P P P P P center,large Assisted living P P P P P center,small Dwelling units, P P P P P P P P including multi- family dwellings, above or below first story office,retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the Uniform Building Code,where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Dwelling:Single C P Room Occupancy5 Group home,large C C C P (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title) Group home,small P (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title)above or below first story office,retail and commercial uses or on the first story,as defined in the Uniform Building Code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes (see C Section 21A.36.110 of this Title) Living quarters for P P P P P P P P caretaker or security guard Multi-family P P P residential Nursing home P P P P P Residential C C C substance abuse treatment home, large (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Residential C C C C substance abuse treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Transitional C C C treatment home, large(see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional C C C C treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C home, large(see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C C home, small (see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Office And Related Uses Financial institution, P P P P P C with drive-through facilities Financial P P P P P P p p institutions, without drive-through facilities Medical and dental P P P P P P P P clinics Offices P P P P P P P P Veterinary offices, P P P P P C C operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping animals overnight only for treatment purposes Retail Sales And Services Auction sales P P Automobile repair, P C P C major Automobile repair, C P P P P P P P minor Automobile P P sales/rental and service Boat/recreational P P vehicle sales and service Car wash as P P P P P C accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas Car wash, with or P P P C without gasoline sales Department stores P P C Equipment rental, P P C C indoor and outdoor Furniture repair shop P P P P P C C Gas station(may P P P P P P include accessory convenience retail and/or"minor repairs" as defined in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title) Health and fitness 1 P P P P C P P facility Liquor store C C C C C C Manufactured/mobil P e home sales and service Pawnshop P Restaurant,with C P P P P P C drive-through facilities Restaurants,without P P P P P P P P drive-through facilities Retail goods C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail goods P P P P P P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Retail services C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail services P P P P P P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Truck repair, large P Truck sales and P P rental, large Upholstery shop P P P P P C Value P retail/membership wholesale Institutional Uses (sites<2 acres) Adult daycare center P P P P P P P P Child daycare center P P P P P P P P Community P P P P P P P P recreation centers on lots less than 4 acres in size Government P P P P P P P P facilities (excluding those of an industrial nature and prisons) Museum P P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P P Places of worship on P P P P P P P lots less than 4 acres in size Schools, P P P P P P P P professional and vocational Commercial And Manufacturing Bakery, commercial P Blacksmith shop P Blood donation C P centers, commercial and not accessory to a hospital or medical clinic Cabinet and P woodworking mills Commercial P laundries, linen service and dry cleaning Industrial assembly P Laboratory; medical, P P P P dental optical Laboratory; testing C C P Mini-warehouse P P C Motion picture P P P P studio Photo finishing lab P P P P P Plant and garden C C C C C P C P shop, with outdoor retail sales area Sign P painting/fabrication Warehouse P P Welding shop P Wholesale P P distributors Recreation, Cultural And Entertainment Amusement park p P Art gallery P P P p P P P P Art studio P P p P P p P P Commercial indoor P P P p P P recreation Commercial outdoor C P C recreation Commercial video P P P P P _ arcade Dance studio P P P P P P P P Live performance P P P P P P theaters Miniature golf P P P P P Movie theaters P P P P P Natural open space C C C C C C C C and conservation areas Parks and P P P P P P P P playgrounds,public and private, on lots less than 4 acres in size Pedestrian pathways, P P P P P P P P trails, and greenways Private club C C P P P C Sexually oriented P businesses Squares and plazas P P P P P P C C on lots less than 4 acres in size Tavern/lounge/brew P P P P C P pub; 2,500 square feet or less in floor area Tavern/lounge/brew C C P P C pub; more than 2,500 square feet in floor area a Miscellaneous Accessory uses, P P P P P P P P except those that are specifically regulated in this Chapter, or elsewhere in this Title Ambulance services, P P P P C P dispatching, staging and maintenance conducted entirely within an enclosed building Ambulance services, P dispatching, staging and maintenance utilizing outdoor operations Auditorium P P P P p p Auto salvage p (indoor) Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast P P P P P P C P inn Bed and breakfast C3 C3 P P P C P manor Bus line terminals P P C Bus line yards and P repair facilities Commercial parking C P P C garage or lot Communication P P P P P C p towers Communication C C C C C C C towers, exceeding the maximum building height Contractor's C P yard/office (including outdoor storage) Farmers'market C C P C Flea market (indoor) P P P P C Flea market P (outdoor) Funeral home P P P P C Homeless shelter C Hotel or motel P P P C C Kennels P Limousine service, P utilizing 4 or more limousines Limousine service, C C P utilizing not more than 3 limousines Micro brewery P Park and ride lots C C C P P C Park and ride, P P P P P P P parking shared with existing use Pet cemeteries4 P Off-site parking; as P C P C C per Chapter 21A.44 of this Title Outdoor sales and C P C P P C display Outdoor storage C P Outdoor storage, C P public Precision equipment P P repair shops Public/private utility C C P P C P P P buildings and structures Public/private utility P P P P P P P P transmission wires, lines,pipes and poles2 Radio,television C P P P station Recreational vehicle C park (minimum 1 acre) Recycling collection P P P P P P station Reverse vending P P P P P P P P machines Taxicab facilities, P dispatching, staging and maintenance Temporary labor P hiring office Vehicle auction use P Wireless telecommunications facility(see Table 21A.40.090E of this Title) Qualifying Provisions: 1. Development in the CS District and CSHBD District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. 2. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this Title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources (see subsections 21A.24.010S of this Part and 21A.26.010K of this Chapter). 4. Subject to Salt Lake City/County Health Department approval. 5.Subject to location restrictions as per Section 21 A.36.190 (Ord. 38-99 § 6, 1999: Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 19-98 § 2, 1998: amended during 5/96 supplement: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 84-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26- 95 § 2(13-7), 1995) Exhibit D 21A.26.090 Summary Table Of Yard And Bulk Requirements-Commercial Districts: _ Distr District YARD AND BULK REGULATIONS ict Name Lot Mini Maxi Maxi Maxi Mini Mini Mini Requi Lands Sym Area mum mum mum mum mum mum mum red cape bol Regul Lot Build Distri Build Front Interi Rear Lands Buffe ations Widt ing ct ing Or or Yard cape r h Size Size Heigh Come Side Yard Yards t r Side Yard 1 Yard CN Neighb No None None 90,00 25' or 15' No 10' Front 7' orhood mini 0 sf 21/2 mini and Comme mum stone mum come rcial Maxi s r side mum yards lot area: 16,50 0 sf CB Commu No None Up to None 30' or No No 10' Front 7' • nity mini 15,00 2 mini mini and Busines mum; 0 sf stone mum; mum come s lots 1st s other r side over floor; wise yards, 4 or 15' if acres 20,00 parki provi are 0 sf ng ded condi total setba tional floor ck ' uses area permi tted> is a condi tion use CS Commu 60,00 150' None None 45'or 30' 15' 30' The 15' nity 0 sf 3 first Shoppi mini storie 15' of ng mum s front exclu and ding come pad r side sites yards CC Corrido 10,00 75' None None 30'or 15' No 10' Front 7' r 0 sf 2 mini and Comme mini storie mum come rcial mum s r side yards; 15' CSH Sugar No None 20,00 None 90' or No No None None 7' BD House mini 0 sf 6 mini mini Busines mum permi storie mum mum s Multi tted s requir > Condi ed famil 20,00 tion- y: 0 sf is al: 9,000 a maxi sf for condi mum 3 tional 150' units use or 10 plus storie 500 s sf/uni t CG General 10,00 60' None None 60' or 10' No 10' The 15' Comme 0 sf 4 mini first rcial mini storie mum 10' of mum s front or come r side yards TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front None 50 Corrid 0 sf resid and excep or- 50 mini ential Corn t mum 30' er when resid side adjac ential yards ent to 50' resid ential TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front None 75 Corrid 0 sf resid and excep or- 75 mini ential Corn t mum 30' er when resid side adjac ential yards ent to 75' resid condi ential tional 120' 410 Additional Regulations: General provisions for all commercial districts: building height modification-building height may be modified up to 10 percent of maximum height, as a special exception. Modifications of more than 10 percent,but not more than 1 additional story may be approved on a sloping lot as a conditional use pursuant to subsection 21A.26.010J of this Chapter. CS District-access restrictions: driveways onto public streets shall be limited to 1 per 150 feet of frontage on arterial and major collector streets. Footnotes: 1. See Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. (Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(13-8), 1995) Exhibit E Corridor -----" L-=-- 1-----+"•6111-- 1--- = - 1 -i 1 tii--4111-3----j ---* ---1 1 'rt7,--I-j---1. mill I, illii'4:7;, ' -1--: 71,mil • -. r. j i -- arm -i-, 4-_—.r. wig i (307- J I ' _ oLII--- -� P 1 S 12-7-11 11�- u'__ I I ,351.-r I IT' 'I - ' Fs • -;e8 I I� E '. t F;, -- Q 32 _L_ I ll w=_; .' -. E• PL , -�_ ,-- -111110 -_ 1 e a !s I1Iptk : r— Il --.::-- I� , Cr �-. , . ph sw. �'u1■■■ T Tio 1 L._ kn 1 rc 11 13 ;� �— µ _—'-- —.1 h 1\y�A N� . yy p� _ } �,�+ O^ qq r fig^�}}$,�,, ,� _ _ _"_. L._.�,__„__ _ 4tftlVe�;'' `"a ,'e���wv''k;AI'.wA gFA, C_eg ali • ..,r,:ars;�'f'i€5No 1"7I 1 _II -t ' ,I -.i '.w 1 ';����y _ 400 _LH _ '� J�i� �11 - --� 1 , - iw',70,n *um v o# caxra a. !...:. gg ,`-7 _� r�LLf }fyy 1 1 1I�yv�^ -- PL �, ►I IRMO 0 45' -�w - PL s l�r.oal �* C 35'-7 ' (rr I r— cc Co dal _ _ filiiix �.. II Ito '_r7" I -- .,-- r,-„-r I I_`.1 Aa. T 1 , bNrw1r __ Tr- ! 7-4- -- ----7 I Note:Numbers in parenthesis represent current height Iimits MAP LEGEND "�� ..J ,101, r,, TC-75 is proposed to replace CC from 200 E to 600 E TC-50 is proposed to replace CC from 700 E to 950 E Salt Lake City Planning Division Geographic Information System March 2002 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to create transit oriented zoning districts,rezoning property along the east-west light rail corridor, and making other related changes) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE TO CREATE TRANSIT ORIENTED ZONING DISTRICTS, CHANGING THE ZONING ALONG THE EAST-WEST LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR, AND MAKING OTHER RELATED CHANGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-01-48 and 400-01-12. WHEREAS, the East-West Light Rail corridor from the downtown business district to the University of Utah Campus has recently been established; and WHEREAS, in order to maximize the potential of that light rail system, the City is anxious to encourage new development which would focus on mass transit and pedestrian traffic, rather than automobile traffic; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council, the City Council has determined that the following ordinance is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.26.073 TC-50 entitled "Transit Corridor District," shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.26.073 TC-50 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-50 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-50 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: Fifty feet(50'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'), except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: None required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum building setback: 25 feet, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle,to the street. Where an arcade facing the street is provided, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors,not the facade of the arcade level. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 25%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet(15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title. 2 G. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non- residential portion of a mixed-use building, shall exceed thirty feet (30'). H. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed fifty feet (50'). I. Restrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface parking lots or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas,parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or above the first level, or at least thirty feet (30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures located above the first level and closer than 30 feet to the front or corner side yard shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal,not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty-five foot (25')landscaped setback. 3. Accessory And Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. The Zoning Administrator may waive these requirements for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the parking area by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a.The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. 3 J. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass _ surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two feet (2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent(18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. K. Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. L. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). M. Density: There is no maximum residential density. SECTION 2. Section 21A.26.077 TC-75 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Transit Corridor District," shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.26.077 TC-75 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial,residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-75 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. 4 C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: Fifty feet (50'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'), except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: None required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum building setback: 25 feet, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle, to the street. Where an arcade facing the street is provided, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors,not the facade of the arcade level. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area by less than 25% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. G. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non- residential portion of a mixed-use building, shall exceed thirty feet (30') or two (2) stories,whichever is less. H. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed seventy five feet(75'). Building heights in excess of seventy-five (75) feet,but not 5 more than one hundred twenty feet (120 feet)may be approved as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title and conformity with applicable Master Plan policy. _ I. Restrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas,parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or above the first level, or at least thirty feet(30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures located above the first level and less than 30 feet from a front or corner side yard shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal,not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty-five foot (25') landscaped setback. 3. Accessory and Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures, built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities:No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. The Zoning Administrator may waive these requirements for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the parking area by less than 25%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a.The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. J. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings, or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two 6 feet (2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent (18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested Special Exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. K. Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. L. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). M. Density: There is no maximum residential density. SECTION 3. Sections 21A.44.040.C.7 and 8 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows: 21A.44.040.C.7 TC-50 District All parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by twenty five percent (25%)within the TC-50 Zoning District. 21A.44.040.C.8 TC-75 District a. For non-residential uses in the TC-75 district,no off-street parking shall be required for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area. For all non- residential uses with more than five thousand (5,000) square feet, the parking requirement shall be one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area, including the initial five thousand (5,000) square feet. b. All residential parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by fifty percent (50%)within the TC-75 Zoning District. SECTION 4. Section 21A.48.080.C.12 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 7 21A.48.080.C.12 TC-50 and TC-75 Districts. Lots in the TC-50 and TC-75 Districts which abut a lot in a residential district, shall provide a ten (10) foot landscaped buffer. SECTION 5. Section 21A.54.150.E.4 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.54.150.E.4 Planned developments within the TC-50 and TC-75. Planned developments within these zoning districts may be approved subject to consideration of the following general conceptual guidelines (a positive finding for each is not required): a. The development shall be primarily oriented to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot, b. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and mass transit, c. The façade shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, d. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building, e. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, f. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods, g. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure, h. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. SECTION 6. The table located at Section 21A.54.150.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"A"attached hereto. SECTION 7. Section 21A.46.095 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.46.095 Sign Regulations for Transit Corridor Districts: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in transit corridor districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. a. Sign regulations for the TC-50 and TC-75 transit corridor districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the TC-50 and TC-75 districts are intended to provide for appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 8 2. Applicability: Regulations on Table 21A.46.095.A.3 of this section shall apply to all lots within the TC-50 and TC-75 districts. SECTION 8. The table located at Section 21A.46.095.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted as set forth on Exhibit "B"attached hereto. SECTION 9. The table located at Section 21A.26.080 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts,"shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit "C"attached hereto. SECTION 10. The table located at Section 21A.26.090 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Summary Table of Yard and Bulk requirements - Commercial Districts," shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"D"attached hereto. SECTION 11. The properties located along the East-West light rail corridor along 400 South,which are more particularly described on Exhibit"E" attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from commercial corridor(CC) to transit oriented district(TC- 50). SECTION 12. The properties located along the East-West light rail corridor on 400 South,which are more particularly identified on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from commercial corridor(CC)to transit oriented district (TC- , 75). SECTION 13. Amending of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. 9 SECTION 14. Amendment of Master Plan. To the extent necessary, the Central City Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 15. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER `"g = - , "~ Data 3—Z7-oZ ____,/ (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: . G:\Ordinance 02\Rezoning east-west light rail corridor-Clean-Mar 4,2002.doc 10 Exhibit A 21 A.54.150.E2 District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres FR-3/12,000 Foothills residential District 5 acres R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential 9,000 square feet District SR-2 Special Development Patter Residential Reserved SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family 9,000 square feet Residential District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District 20,000 square feet Commercial Districts CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet CG General Commercial District 1 acre TC-50 Transit Corridor No minimum required TC-75 Transit Corridor No minimum required Manufacturing District M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres Downtown Districts D-1 Central Business District 2 acres D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre Special Purpose Districts RP Research Park District 10 acres BP Business Park District 10 acres FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres AG Agricultural District 10 acres AG-2 Agricultural District 4 acres AG-5 Agricultural District 10 acres AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres A Airport District 2 acres — PL Public Lands District 5 acres I Institutional District 5 acres UI Urban Institutional District 1 acre OS Open Space District 2 acres MH Mobile Home Park District 10 acres El Extractive Industries District 10 acres Exhibit B 21A.46.095.A.3 Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the TC-50 and TC-75 Districts. STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSIT COORIDOR DISTRICTS(TC-50 and 75) Types Of Signs Maximum Area Per Maximum Height Minimum Number Of Limit On Permitted Sign Face In Square Of Freestanding Setback 2 Signs Permitted Combined Feet Signs In Feet I Per Sign Type Number Of Signs 3 Flat sign(storefront 1.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note 1 below) N/A 1 per business or None orientation)4 ft. of store frontage 5 storefront Flat sign(general 1.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note 1 below) N/A 1 per building None building orientation) ft. of building face 5 face Projecting business 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per business None storefront sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the entry to the to 2 feet in height face of the street building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Projecting parking 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per driveway None entry sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the or parking lot to 2 feet in height face of the entry building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Marquee sign Subject only to 1 per storefront None subsection 21A 46.070.0.of this Chapter Awning/canopy signs 1 sq.ft.per linear ft. (see note 1 below) May extend 6 1 per first floor None of storefront(sign ft.from face door/window area only) of building, but no more than 2 ft. from back of curb 6 Monument sign 100 sq.ft. 12 ft. None 1 per street frontage Construction sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 2 per building None Political sign 32 sq.ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per building None Private directional 8 sq.ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None sign New development 80 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign development Window sign 25%of total frontage (see note 1 below) N/A No limit None window area per use Public safety sign 8 sq.ft. 6 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Nameplate, 3 sq.ft. 8 ft. N/A 1 per building None identifying building name Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21 A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. (Ord. 83-98 § 11 (Exh. F), 1998) Exhibit C 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES,BY DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C =Conditional Use P=Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHB CG TC-50 TC-75 D1 Residential Assisted living P P p p p center, large Assisted living P p p p p center, small Dwelling units, P P P P P p p p including multi- family dwellings, above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Dwelling: Single C p Room Occupancy5 Group home, large C C C P (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title) Group home, small P P P P P P P p (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the Uniform Building Code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage e Halfway homes (see C Section 21A.36.110 of this Title) Living quarters for P P P P P P P P caretaker or security guard Multi-family P P P residential Nursing home P P P P P Residential C C C substance abuse treatment home, large (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Residential C C C C substance abuse treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Transitional C C C treatment home, large(see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional C C C C treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C home, large (see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C C home, small(see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Office And Related Uses Financial institution, P P P P P C with drive-through facilities Financial 1 P P P P P P P P institutions,without drive-through facilities Medical and dental P P P P P P P P clinics Offices P P P P P P P P Veterinary offices, P P P P P C C operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping animals overnight only for treatment purposes Retail Sales And Services Auction sales P P Automobile repair, P C P C major Automobile repair, C P P P P P P P minor Automobile P P sales/rental and service Boat/recreational P P vehicle sales and service Car wash as P P P P P C accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas _ Car wash,with or P P P C without gasoline sales Department stores P P C Equipment rental, P P C C indoor and outdoor _ Furniture repair shop P P P P P C C Gas station(may P P P P P P include accessory convenience retail and/or"minor repairs"as defined in Part VI,Chapter 21 A.62 of this Title) Health and fitness P P P P C 'P P facility Liquor store C C C C C C Manufactured/mobil P _ e home sales and service _ Pawnshop P Restaurant,with C P P P -P P C drive-through facilities Restaurants, without P P P P P P P P drive-through facilities _ Retail goods C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail goods P P P P P . P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Retail services C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail services P P P P P P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Truck repair, large P Truck sales and P P rental, large Upholstery shop P P P P P C Value P retail/membership wholesale Institutional Uses (sites<2 acres) Adult daycare center P P P P P P P P Child daycare center P P P P P P P P Community P P P P P P P P recreation centers on lots less than 4 acres in size Government P P P P P P P P facilities (excluding those of an industrial nature and prisons) Museum P P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P P Places of worship on P P P P P P P lots less than 4 acres in size Schools, P P P P P P P P professional and vocational Commercial And Manufacturing Bakery, commercial P Blacksmith shop P Blood donation C P centers, commercial and not accessory to a hospital or medical clinic Cabinet and P woodworking mills Commercial P laundries, linen service and dry cleaning Industrial assembly P Laboratory; medical, P P P P dental optical Laboratory; testing C C P Mini-warehouse P P C Motion picture P P P P studio Photo finishing lab P P P P P Plant and garden C C C C C P C P shop, with outdoor retail sales area Sign P painting/fabrication Warehouse P P Welding shop P Wholesale P P distributors Recreation, Cultural And Entertainment Amusement park P P Art gallery P P P P P P P P Art studio P P P P P P P P Commercial indoor P P P P P P recreation Commercial outdoor C P C recreation Commercial video P P P P P arcade _ _ Dance studio P P P P P P P P Live performance P P P P P P theaters Miniature golf P P P P P Movie theaters P P P P P Natural open space C C C C C C C C and conservation areas Parks and P P P P P P P P playgrounds, public and private, on lots less than 4 acres in size Pedestrian pathways, P P P P P P P P trails, and greenways Private club C C P P P C Sexually oriented P businesses Squares and plazas P P P P P P C C on lots less than 4 acres in size Tavern/lounge/brew P P P P C P pub; 2,500 square feet or less in floor area Tavern/lounge/brew C C P P C pub; more than 2,500 square feet in floor area Miscellaneous Accessory uses, P P P P P P P P except those that are specifically regulated in this Chapter, or elsewhere in this Title Ambulance services, P P P P C P dispatching, staging and maintenance conducted entirely within an enclosed building Ambulance services, P dispatching, staging and maintenance utilizing outdoor operations Auditorium P P P P P P Auto salvage P (indoor) Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast P P P P P P C P inn Bed and breakfast C3 C3 P P P C P manor Bus line terminals P P C Bus line yards and P repair facilities Commercial parking C P P C garage or lot Communication P P P P P C P towers Communication C C C C C C C towers, exceeding the maximum building height Contractor's C P yard/office (including outdoor storage) Farmers'market C C P C Flea market (indoor) P P P P C Flea market P (outdoor) Funeral home P P P P C Homeless shelter C Hotel or motel P P P C C Kennels P Limousine service, P utilizing 4 or more limousines Limousine service, C C P utilizing not more than 3 limousines Micro brewery P Park and ride lots C C C P P C Park and ride, P P P P P P P parking shared with existing use Pet cemeteries` P Off-site parking; as P C P C C per Chapter 21A.44 of this Title Outdoor sales and C P C P P C display Outdoor storage C P Outdoor storage, C P public Precision equipment P P repair shops Public/private utility C C P P C P P P buildings and structures Public/private utility P transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles2 Radio, television C P P P station Recreational vehicle C park (minimum 1 acre) Recycling collection P P P P P P station Reverse vending P P P P P P P P machines Taxicab facilities, P dispatching, staging and maintenance Temporary labor P hiring office Vehicle auction use P Wireless telecommunications facility(see Table 21 A.40.090E of this Title) Qualifying Provisions: 1. Development in the CS District and CSHBD District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. 2. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this Title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources (see subsections 21A.24.010S of this Part and 21A.26.010K of this Chapter). 4. Subject to Salt Lake City/County Health Department approval. 5.Subject to location restrictions as per Section 21A.36.190 (Ord. 38-99 § 6, 1999: Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 19-98 § 2, 1998: amended during 5/96 supplement: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 84-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26- 95 § 2(13-7), 1995) Exhibit D 21A.26.090 Summary Table Of Yard And Bulk Requirements-Commercial Districts: Distr District YARD AND BULK REGULATIONS ict Name Lot Mini Maxi Maxi Maxi Mini Mini Mini Requi Lands Sym Area mum mum mum mum mum mum mum red cape bol Regul Lot Build Distri Build Front Interi Rear Lands Buffe ations Widt ing ct ing Or or Yard cape r h Size Size Heigh Come Side Yard Yards t r Side Yard 1 Yard CN Neighb No None None 90,00 25' or 15' No 10' Front 7' orhood mini 0 sf 21/2 mini and Comme mum storie mum come rcial Maxi s r side mum yards lot area: 16,50 0 sf CB Commu No None Up to None 30' or No No 10' Front 7' • nity mini 15,00 2 mini mini and Busines mum; 0 sf stone mum; mum come s lots 1st s other r side over floor; wise yards, 4 or 15' if acres 20,00 parki provi are 0 sf ng ded condi total setba tional floor ck ' uses area permi tted> is a condi tion use CS Commu 60,00 150' None None 45'or 30' 15' 30' The 15' nity 0 sf 3 first Shoppi mini stone 15' of ng mum s front exclu and ding come IIII pad r side sites yards CC Corrido 10,00 75' None None 30' or 15' No 10' Front 7' r 0 sf 2 mini and Comme mini storie mum come rcial mum s r side yards; 15' CSH Sugar No None 20,00 None 90' or No No None None 7' BD House mini 0 sf 6 mini mini Busines mum permi storie mum mum s Multi tted s requir - > Condi ed famil 20,00 tion- y: 0 sf is al: 9,000 a maxi sf for condi mum 3 tional 150' units use or 10 plus storie 500 s sf/uni t CG General 10,00 60' None None 60' or 10' No 10' The 15' Comme 0 sf 4 mini first rcial mini storie mum 10' of mum s front or come r side yards TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front None 50 Corrido 0 sf reside and excep ' r- 50 mini ntial Come t mum 30' r side when reside yards adjac ntial ent to 50' reside ntial TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front None 75 Corrido 0 sf reside and excep r- 75 mini ntial Come t mum 30' r side when reside yards adjac ntial ent to 75' reside condi ntial tional 120' Additional Regulations: General provisions for all commercial districts: building height modification-building height may be modified up to 10 percent of maximum height, as a special exception. Modifications of more than 10 percent,but not more than 1 additional story may be approved on a sloping lot as a conditional use pursuant to subsection 21A.26.010J of this Chapter. CS District-access restrictions: driveways onto public streets shall be limited to 1 per 150 feet of frontage on arterial and major collector streets. Footnotes: 1. See Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. (Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(13-8), 1995) - Exhibit E _ __ _______ Corridor Commercial ,...._, _ , i ______ , , -ifr-r , _ , _., ,----, , -I t--71.3-J sirs 11;41fr -Ia FM ii • - 1 1 A -, I — ; [ _______J _-____L __R_ __.=`110--,' It' I MA II li 070-Itil .3R 41 1111957w, ao, I III i.-.. -2-77-f!_ I cn 11(1S - �7 � 30') ��III U-1._ N H oT-I _ _ 51 i 1 _I !i!1 ,��1� �M �i °�f 3 r-r u l ea f , -�- 32 ' - 0 1 _1',I � PL J • ..� _Li 1 ---- ---i t ° '.." � marvel �qY. � Ar f�9 ' _ :' kfi:e�'% &�MifW"' �.^ 4INpS 1 L { , i 3)-';' ,n�LU � '' - ,1 1 o L I, i F .---- ..... ,,,,,v,h1:. ____,_____I ___.,,, ri ....„--, L_..., 35 -7 ( s'- 2s} 11 to°_ !`451 o.r� I PL ta _ �;"�� _ -` / 1 K71 - • 0 ,.._.1 ` ) 1 __--_ [� __ __i _11_,L!.-.-__ _, I_ (� i' ._._ " _ I ee'� _ .___.1 _ 5Q0 S _ T. ---t--- _ ,��,�.,,__i� ` T — r — il—TE:-"j TIM 111 EtTFF-r- :4 Note:Numbers in parenthesis represent current height limits fil0 MAP LEGEND T J :1 � g ����; � TC-75 is proposed to replace CC from 200 E to 600 E TC-50 is proposed to replace CC from 700 E to 950E Salt bake City Planning Division � ,/ Geographic Information System March 2002 City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing List • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-01-48,a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition 400-01-12,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning. Application of the TOD zones is proposed to include properties fronting on 400 South,between 200 and 950 East,that are currently zoned CC(this includes all frontage properties except the 4th South Market,Family Center and Wonder Bread blocks,which are zoned CS). This will replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor zoning. The purpose of the new districts is to encourage new development along the 400 South Light Rail Transit line. The new Transit Oriented Zoning Districts(TOD)will contain urban design components that are similar to those presently being used in other zoning districts(Downtown and Gateway),including a minimum percentage of glass required at the ground level (facing the public street),building orientation to the street and maximum building setbacks. The proposed TOD zoning districts will also contain variations of the following;reduced parking requirements (which results in more developable space),building height and density limitations will be increased to allow for additional residential uses,limitations and/or design standards will be added for drive-through windows and other automobile oriented land uses(locating drive-in windows to the rear of the property rather than the front, etc.). As part of their study,the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing,the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. LARRY RIGBY,CHAIR KATHERINE GARDNER,CHAIR VALERIE PRICE,CHAIR GRTR.AVENUES COMM.COUNCIL CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1428 E_CIRCLE WAY 606 DESOTO STREET 553 EAST 600 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102 *SON WEST,CHAIR SAMANTHA FRANCIS,CHAIR BETSY BRADLEY,CHAIR LIBERTY WELLS COMM.COUNCIL PEOPLES FREEWAY COMM.COUNCIL RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 562 E.DOWNINGTON AVE. 70 W.VAN BUREN AVENUE 48 W. BROADWAY#1705N SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84101 BRUCE ALDER, CHAIR JIM BYRNE,CHAIR SHAWN McMILLEN,CHAIR ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK FOOTHILUSUNNYSIDE H ROCK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST 1835 SO. LAKELINE DRIVE 1966 EAST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-1367 MIKE ZUHL,CHAIR PAUL TAYLER,CHAIR DOUG FOXLEY,CHAIR INDIAN HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL OAK HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ST.MARY'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2676 E. COMANCHE DRIVE 1165 SO. OAKHILLS WAY 1449 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 JEFFREY MULLINS,CHAIR TIM DEE, CHAIR JILL REMINGTON LOVE,CHAIR SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOCIATION SUNSET OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL WASATCH HOLLOW 873 SO.WOODRUFF WAY 1575 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE COMMUNITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 1533 WESTMORELAND SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 DR.ALAN CONDIE,CHAIR LISETTE GIBSON,CHAIR JULIA ROBERTSON,CHAIR 40_ WEST OF LOWER FOOTHILL(WOLF) YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 5 KRISTIE LANE 1764 E. HUBBARD AVE. 1218 EAST 600 SOUTH T LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 BORIS KURZ,CHAIR PATRICK TAN, CHAIR WILLIAM COOLEY,CHAIR EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS COMM.COUNCIL ROSE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 566 NO.SIR MICHAEL DRIVE 1009 TALLY HO AVENUE 1203 SOUTH 900 EAST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105 KADEE NIELSON,CHAIR RAY PUGSLEY,CHAIR WEST POINTE COMM.COUNCIL SUGAR HOUSE COMM. COUNCIL 1410 NO_ BARONESS PLACE 2171 HANNIBAL STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106 EDIE TRIMMER,CHAIR RANDY SORENSEN,CHAIR POPLAR GROVE COMM.COUNCIL WEST S.L.COMMUNITY COUNCIL g b bhu51� 246 SOUTH 1300 WEST 1184 SO. REDWOOD DRIVE , 527 ied ihA/Ai SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 .5 L_(r 10(03 -JiLiiA) WHITBY iv. (xi 8(411(0-39v° • Revised 8/8/01 sj _..........r.w0 IVI l ACM- SABER,NAGI A&CAROLEE P(JT) WESTERN MORTGAGE LOAN CORP WESTERN MORTGAGE LOAN CORP 1141 S MORNINGSIDE DR 2 CIVIC PLAZA PO BOX 7788 Suite Suite 180 Suite GOODYEAR,AZ 85338-9548 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660- NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-77 • HAILES,STEPHEN R&CHISTINE S;JT PEACHTREE COMPANY N V MARRIOTT,WOODROW D 746 HUNTSWOOD CT 1875 EDLEEN DR 4840 DEXTER ST NW Suite Suite Suite SAN JOSE,CA 95120-2219 TARZANA,CA 91356- WASHINGTON,DC 20007-1017 FONG,LEONARD K M THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANY ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO 3868 POKAPAHU PL P 0 BOX 06529 PO BOX 419627 Suite Suite Suite HONOLULU,HI 96816-4411 CHICAGO,IL 60606-0529 KANSAS CITY,MO 64141-6627 ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO,ET AL ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO,ET AL ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. PO BOX 419627 PO BOX 419627 PO BOX 419627 Suite Suite Suite KANSAS CITY,MO 64141-6627 KANSAS CITY,MO 64141-6627 KANSAS CITY,MO 64141-6627 ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.INC DYER,BRENT R&WILKINSON,HAROLD N NEVADA-UTAH ASSOCIATION OF SEVE PO BOX 419627 1808 NEVADA FALLS CT PO BOX 10730 Suite Suite Suite KANSAS CITY,MO 64141-6627 LAS VEGAS,NV 89134-6432 RENO,NV 89510- DDR FAMILY CENTERS LP HERMES ASSOCIATES LTD WENDYS OLD FASHIONED HAMBL. 3300 ENTERPRISE PARK 3300 ENTERPRISE PARK P O BOX 256 Suite Suite Suite BEACHWOOD,OH 44122- BEACHWOOD,OH 44122- DUBLIN,OH 43017- WENDYS OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS FURMAN,JAY FRESHMAN ENTERPRISES PO BOX 256 3336 E 32ND ST 3037 NE 18TH AVE Suite Suite 217 Suite DUBLIN,OH 43017- TULSA,OK 74135-4442 PORTLAND,OR 97212-3357 MANN,WILLARD C. EAST DOWNTOWN LLC SIMMONS,JAMES C&ANN C;JT 3037 NE 18TH AVE P 0 BOX 42121 140 CRESCENT DR Suite Suite Suite PORTLAND,OR 97212-3357 PORTLAND,OR 97242- PITTSBURG,PA 15228- WIX,GAIL B BALCKHAWK PROPERTIES,LLC RICH,CLIFFORD A;TR 1802 CRESTWOOD CT 1247 MOYLE DR 638 E 1050 N Suite Suite Suite TEXAS CITY,TX 77591-222 ALPINE,UT 84004-1224 BOUNTIFUL,UT 84010-2616 BARNES BANCORPORATION BARNES BANCORPORATION BARNES BANCORPORATION 33 S MAIN 33 S MAIN ST 33 S MAIN ST Suite ST6 Suite Suite KAYSVILLE,UT 84037- KAYSVILLE,UT 84037- KAYSVILLE,UT 84037- ®AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® siage'ssaippv ®A213AV STY • K S G PROPERTIES INC IPAKTCHIAN,HERSH FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAYTON 1601 N HILLFIELD 344 N MAIN ST PO BOX 248 Suite 201 Suite Suite LAYTON,UT 84041- LAYTON,UT 84041-2206 LAYTON,UT 84041- 0 OILWELL PROPERTIES LC IMADA,JOHN M;TR TWO PINES EAST CONDOMINIUM HOME 6900 S 900E 90 E FORT UNION BLVD 4713 S 200 W Suite 200 Suite 200 Suite MIDVALE,UT 84047-5820 MIDVALE,UT 84047-1567 MURRAY,UT 84107-3794 A J LURAS LEASING LC D E MOSS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D E MOSS LIMITED FAMILY PARTNERSH 5778 S UTAHNA DR 64 E WINCHESTER ST 64 E WINCHESTER ST Suite Suite 13 Suite 13 MURRAY,UT 84107-5928 MURRAY,UT 84107-7202 MURRAY,UT 84107-7202 RADINGER,CAROL JO&FRAME,SUSAN;T BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CIT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE 77 N 'J' ST 440 E 100 S 440 E 100 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-3422 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1898 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1898 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE S L C SCH SALT LAKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 440 E 100 S 440 E 100 S 440 E 100 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1898 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1898 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1898 *NO,GARY&SMILEY;JT AMEMBAL,SUDHIR&PURI,KIRAN;TC BALL!,DOUGLAS R 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 708 Suite 806 Suite 506 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 BARBER,BRIAN K CLAY,ANN CRUZ,JOHN F 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 608 Suite 502 Suite 405 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3047 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 DWYER,RICHARD A&ROXANNE L;JT ETHINGTON,NANCY K EVANOFF,PETE F&ARLENE;JT 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 501 Suite 305 Suite 408 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 EYRE,HARMON J HOGAN,KATHLEEN LENOWITZ,HARRIS 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 404 Suite 804 Suite 606 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 LOGSDON,HOWARD M&LYNDA I-I;TRS MASTERS,GAYLE MILNER,SUSAN E i4 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E 426 S 1000 E S 607 Suite 403 Suite 706 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 8410'23047 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 ®Q9i5 Jo;awidwaa asp w1slaags Paai ynoows MOSS,FRANK E&PHYLLIS H(JT) OAKES,CLAUDIA M OSBORNE, DALE H;TR 426 S 1000 E 426 S 1000 E 426 S 1000 E Suite 707 Suite 505 Suite 600 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 IP OTSUKA,KOZO;ET AL PARKER,SAUNDRA L PENMAN,JON L 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 604 Suite 800 Suite 304 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3037 PETERSON, ERIC W& DENNIS;JT POPLAWSKI, ROMAN K SALEHI, MARYAM 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 705 Suite 306 Suite 406 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3037 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3037 STRUHS,MARK J&LAWLER,DEBRA A;JT TEDESCO, ELLA B;TR TRANSASSET INC 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 402 Suite 605 Suite 508 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3045 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3038 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3085 TUCKER,RAYMOND W&LOIS R;JT WILSHIRE CONDM,THE COMMON AREA M WINCHESTER LEASING LC 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000E 426 S 1000 E Suite 507 Suite Suite 704 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3097 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3041 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3038 CHRISTENSEN,LOUISE H;TR GILLMOR,FLORENCE J EAST DOWNTOWN LLC 965 S 1500 E 1235 E 200 S 1555 W 2200 S Suite Suite 201 Suite B SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-0000 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2644 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84119-1454 EAST DOWNTOWN LLC MARSHALL PROPERTIES, LLC MACCALL HOLDINGS,LLC 1600 W 2200 S 445 S 300 E 455 E 300 S Suite 104 Suite Suite 201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84119-1499 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3201 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2606 THE HATCH GROUP,LTC ANNIVERSARY INNS OF AMERICA LC ARNOLD,R CLARK;TR ET AL 1939 S 300 W 448 E 400 S 425 S 400 E Suite 200 Suite #104 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115-7200 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111- SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3302 AMERICAN INSURANCE&INVESTMENT C EATON MAHONEY ASSOCIATES MUSTANG PROPERTIES,LLC 448 S 400 E 460 S 400 E 466 S 400 E Suite Suite UPP Suite 201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3319 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3325 BOLTON,JOHN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF UTA CELTIC BANK CORPORATION 320 E 400 S 330 E 400 S 340 E 400 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2902 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2928 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-0000 ®O9t5 loJ apidwa2 asn wiS;aa4S Pei 4loowS alvyc 1 so-IPPV ©A&J3AV WA ISON,WESTON 0&ELAINE E&BRYANT W NUTTALL,GREGG&MICHELLE;Jr SANDERSON,GREGG 934 E 400 S 940 E 400 S 942 E 400 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3016 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3016 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3016 CHRISTENSEN,TODD H&DEREK R;JT FEATHERSTONE,WRAY M FEATHERSTONE,WRAY W 946 E 400 S 958 E 400 S 958 E 400 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3016 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3075 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3075 BOYER-MADSEN SEVENTH EAST LC TERRAPIN ENTERPRISES OF UTAH PARTN TRANSWESTERN GENERAL AGENCY IN 127 S 500E 426 S 500E 440 S 500 E Suite 310 Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-1980 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2779 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2705 SOUTHRIDGE FINANCIAL INC FRESHMAN ENTERPRISES PACE,W EARL&DEAN G(TC) 466 S 500E 353 E 500 S 715 E 500 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2705 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3315 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2905 FETZER,KATHRYN FETZER,KENT J&JULIA A C;JT COOPER,JAMES E&ROSALIE 747 E 500 S 763 E 500 S 827 E 500 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2905 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2905 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2907 PER,JAMES E&ROSALIE K;JT PETREVICS,LILIJA&SERMUKSS,VARIS;T DEPPE,RALPH S&LOLA W;TRS 7 E 500 S 831 E 500 S 851 E S00 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2907 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2907 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2907 LINDSAY,MARIA E HANCOCK,JOHN ADAMS,ANDREW T&GLENN,JULIE A;J 853 E 500 S 905 E 500 S 915 E 500 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2907 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 JACKMAN,KELLI L EASTEP,ERIC D&TYSON,BRIGET E;JTT ONSTAD,ROCKNE W 919 E 500 S 921 E 500 S 923 E 500 S Suite Suite A Suite A SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 VASS,KATHRYN S HASANOVIC,SAKIB&HATA;JT JOHNS,JACK A&MARLUS M;Jr 923 E 500 S 925 E 500 S 925 E 500 S Suite B Suite C Suite A SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 PASIC,NERIMA KANE,ANN M LAVALLE,GULLIVER J&SIMONE;JT E 500 S 927 E 500 S 929 E 500 S B Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 ®o9I5 Joi apndwaj asp wi53ea4S Psi 43oowS V-' - - - -.-7- . ---^rr v l'2S 2 W 'o- ORR, NOAH BIRD, DAVID W CARLEY,PATRICK F 931 E 500 S 933 E 500 S 935 E 500 S Suite Suite Suite B SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3017 POLJAK,ROSE MARY I DEVITT, BRENDA PETERSON,TRACY N&TORY R;JT 935 E 500 S 937 E 500 S 937 E 500 S Suite A Suite A Suite B SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3017 NOWLEN, LORI A ROMNEY, BRUCE W SCOTT,EDWARD W&KATHLEEN M;JT 939 E 500 S 939 E 500 S 941 E 500 S Suite B Suite 939A Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SCOTT,EDWARD W&KATHLEEN M;JT T H A INVESTMENTS T H A INVESTMENTS,LTD 955 E 500 S 424 S 700 E 424 S 700 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2864 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2864 MODERN DISPLAY SERVICE, INC. MCARTHUR,ROBERT G UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 436 S 700 E 440 S 700 E 3600 S 700 W Suite Suite 200 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2806 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2809 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84119-4122 LEEFLANG,SYBREN, LAURA,JOHAN S& R DEMURI,CHRISTOPHER R FETZER,GRANT J&SANDRA D;J 411 S 800 E 444 S 800 E 452 S 800 E Suite Suite 2 Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2910 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2911 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2911 FETZER,BRIAN J&LORI J P;JT KEB ENTERPRISES LP WILLS,PAUL R JR 456 S 800 E 432 S 900 E 435 S 900 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2911 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2915 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2933 HILL,LAEL W,TR MILLENNIUM HOLDING LLC D&J SONNTAG INVESTMENT COMPAN 447 S 900 E 450 S 900 E 2402 E 900 S Suite Suite . Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2933 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2981 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1441 WILKER,ELAINE L;TRS ET AL STOTT,GRANT E&HELEN C;TRS WAGSTAFF,DAVID B 7112 S BRENT LN 676 E BROWNING AVE 1061 S CRESTVIEW CIR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121-3728 ' SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-2115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2077 MAHOLMES,CARLEEN V ANDERSON,LEE ALLEN,CURT&ALISON;JT 921 E EAST PL 922 E EAST PL 929 E EAST PL Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3021 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3021 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3021 ®09%Jo)aaejdwa)asn wheys pea.' wows aloye I»eJ I'HV OA213At/ Q%/ RATLIFF,FRANK W&GLADYS E ANNIVERSARY INNS OF AMERICA LC ADAMS,SUANN P;TR 932 E EAST PL 39 E EXCHANGE PL 325 N FEDERAL HEIGHTS CIR Suite Suite 160 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3021 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2760 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 4440 BULLOCK,WENDY SCHWARZ,CHARLES M GRIFFITH,RAYMOND L&MARJORIE L 420 S FLETCHER CT 427 S FLETCHER CT 432 S FLETCHER CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 CHRISTENSEN,LARRY D BROCK,DOROTHY J,ET AL RIGGS,CYNTHIA K 433 S FLETCHER CT 438 S FLETCHER CT 439 S FLETCHER CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3022 PACE,DEAN&EARL BROWN,RICHARD W&SEOKIM C;TRS CARLSTON,ELEANOR H;TR 4300 S HIGHLAND DR 4848 S HIGHLAND DR 6014 S HIGHLAND DR Suite Suite 699 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-3504 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-6007 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121-1330 JRD-RBD,LC HALE,DON C INVESTMENT CO HALE,DON C INVESTMENT CO 4578 S JUPITER DR 2431 E LYNWOOD DR 2431 E LYNWOOD DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-3917 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-1213 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-1213 E,DON INVESTMENT CO JORDAN,ERIKA&HARRIS,INGRID;JT KRISPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LC 1 E LYNWOOD DR 2724 E MORGAN DR 2956 E MT SPRINGS RD Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-1213 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-3002 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-5554 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS TENTH CORP OF CH OF JC OF LDS BAGLEY,CAROLYN 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST 2350 E OAKHILL DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84150-0002 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84150-0002 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121-1520 RASMUSEN,EARL H&MARGARET A(JT) WILSON,KATHRYN C&TED L;JT LHR INC 1798 S PARK ST 587 N PERRYS HOLLOW RD PO BOX 171003 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-2937 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-4245 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-1003 LRH INC LRH,INC MARTIN,BOYD G ETAL PO BOX 171003 PO BOX 171003 PO BOX 2881 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-1003 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-1003 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84110-2881 WILSON,JAMES R&LINDA R;JT QUIST,DAVID P FOOTE,LARRY J a PO BOX 3776 PO BOX 511201 PO BOX 581061 Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84110-3776 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84151-1201 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84158-1061 ®09TS Jo;a;e1dwa;as wislaays pea'wows v. . .� -1-,- i -----rry v�u�w Wall PACIFIC WESTERN CONVARLARIUMS INC PETERSEN,D E ASSOCIATES PETERSEN,JOSEPH D&CHRISTINA S; PO BOX 65725 PO BOX 65725 PO BOX 65725 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84165-0725 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84165-0725 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84165-0725 PETERSEN,JOSEPH D,ET AL G&S PROPERTIES,LLC CARRERA CORPORATION PO BOX 65725 PO BOX 9069 311 S STATE ST Suite Suite Suite 460 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84165-0725 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-0069 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-5212 WAGSTAFF, DAVID B WINCHESTER LEASING LLC SALT LAKE CITY CORP 311 S STATE ST 311 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST Suite 410 Suite 460 Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-5213 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-5212 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY CORP SALT LAKE CITY CORP SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST Suite 345 Suite 245 Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST Suite 245 Suite 345 Suite 345 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE COUNTY COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC 2001 S STATE ST 3007 S STATE ST 3007 S STATE ST Suite N450 Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84190-0002 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115-3820 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-3868 COLLUM ENTERPRISES,INC. COLUMN ENTERPRISES,INC. BAPIS, NICK M&GEORGE M;TC 3007 S STATE ST 3007 S STATE ST 2476 S WILSHIRE CIR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115-3868 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115-3868 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-1627 WANIBUCHI, KAZUE POPE,MICHAEL L&KARREN K;TRS NEWMAN,DAVID W&COLLEEN E;JT 1638 E WINWARD DR 8835 S 1275E 15 E ALTA WOOD LN Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117-7538 SANDY, UT 84094-1950 SANDY,UT 84092-0000 COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC,ET AL PROSPERITY ENTERPRISES LLC EAST DOWNTOWN LLC 3007 S STATE ST 1218 W 4365 S 1555 W 2200 S Suite Suite 4B Suite B SOUTH SALT LAKE,UT 84115-38 TAYLORSVILLE,UT 84123-2450 WEST VALLEY,UT 84119-1454 627 Al ,v1 Ai - 5LC ut M103 ®091S JoJ amdwai asn w1s1994S paaj tpoows — ®UHLS ' i I HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORP SOUZA,RENATO&JOAN L;JT y 5544 S GREEN ST 5544 S GREEN ST 762 W SPANISH OAK WY Suite Suite Suite 4OURRAY,UT 84123-5798 MURRAY,UT 84123-5798 MURRAY,UT 84123-6784 Is MAVERIK COUNTRY STORES INC KLTMD,LLC JAFFA,SCOTT L;ET AL L 880 W CENTER ST 1571 MOUNTAIN RD PO BOX 681868 Suite Suite Suite NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054- OGDEN,UT 84404- PARK CITY,UT 84068- , BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT LC BLACK,CHARLES W PHILLIPS,JOHN D&SANDRA A;JT 255 COUNT FLEET RD 318 S 1000 E 322 S 1000 E Suite Suite Suite SAINT GEORGE,UT 84790-7912 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2411 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2411 BLUMENTHAL,NEDRA N KEY FAMILY LLC PHILLIPS,RAY A;TR 326 S 1000E 338 S 1000E 338 S 1000 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2400 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2442 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2442 WILSON,LARA&STEVEN C;TC WALKER,MICHAEL D&CARAMELLI,KIM E; MEDICAL VENTURES CONDMN COMMO 352 S 1000E 358 S 1000E 6778 S 1300 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2415 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2415 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121-2719 ,JTAY,PAUL&THERESA R;JT JUNIOR LEAGUE OF SALT LAKE CITY D&B LIMITED 357 S 200E 438 E 200 S 444 E 200 S Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2801 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2103 ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP DEE'S INC TRAINING TABLE LAND&HOLDING CO 777 E 2100 S 777 E 2100 S 4535 S 2300 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106-1899 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106-1899 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-4426 TRAINING TABLE LAND&HOLDING COMP BAILEY,SAUL LOPEZ,JOHN 4535 S 2300E 310 S 300E 310 S 300 E Suite Suite A6 Suite S9 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-4426 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2523 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2523 DYNAMIC BLDG CONDO COMMON AREA M LEWCO LEWCO,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 320 S 300E 320 S 300E 320 S 300 E Suite Suite 1 Suite 1 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2518 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2518 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2518 S,KAY M&SHERLYN H;TRS OCTAGON INVESTMENTS,LLC 347 METRO LLC S 300 E 336 S 300 E 347 S 300 E 1 Suite Suite 2 'E CITY,UT 84111-2518 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2535 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2545 4 a;eidwa;as w1s3aa4S Pei 93ooWs w,siaauc n». . •- • ---rry ®A213AH 1' CENTRAL CHRICTIAto ®v��2 1 ...- — Sid4L] SbruPPI/ ®A213Alf VA PHELPS,RYAN YAMAGUCHI, BETTY M MCCANDLESS,DREW G&GLORIA D;Jl 315 S 700 E 325 S 700 E 330 S 700 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2112 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2112 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2113 MCCANDLESS, DREW G.&GLORIA F PINEDA,RAUL HINCKLEY INVESTMENTS LC 330 S 700 E 335 S 700 E 679 S 700 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2113 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2112 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-3441 HINCKLEY,HOWARD WRAY,RICHARD N; ET AL EL BARRANI, MAHA A& REX, MARK R;J 679 S 700 E 323 S 800 E 324 S 800 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-3441 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2207 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2208 PAULOS, NIKOLE J BARRANI, KADRI 0 WRATHALL,DEBORA J 327 S 800E 328 S 800E 331 S 800 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2207 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2208 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2207 EDWARDS,CAROLE V SHAFER,BRANDON A&MICHELLE K;JT TAYLOR,JEFF 336 S 800E 350 S 800E 1012 S 800 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2208 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2260 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-1204 TAYLOR,JEFFREY S FERRELL,ALEX JOHNSON,ROBERT L&VIRGINIA S 1012 S 800E 334 S 900E 338 S 900 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-1204 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2311 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2311 OLIVER, DOUGLAS S FIFIELD, DONNA J(TR) WILLIAMS,ROBERT B JR;TR 342 S 900E 350 S 900E 352 S 900 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2311 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2311 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2311 SHERER,MATSON J BALOGH,ED&WISMER,SHELLEY K;JT MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF S 354 S 900 E 1343 S 900 E 4885 S 900 E Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2311 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-2301 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-5746 BDJT LIMITED HANSEN,GAY L OSTERLOH INVESTMENT CO 5525 S 900 E 2274 E 900 S 4325 S ADONIS DR Suite 110 Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84117-3512 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1404 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124-3406 GIBSON,BILL D; ET AL CRITCHLOW,LLC THE YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOeida 264 N ALMOND ST 322 E BROADWAY ST 322 E BROADWAY ST Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-4564 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2699 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2699 64109LS JOl aieldwai asn ,Nislaatis paaj tnoows ®V7rs I siayel SSWppn ®AU3AH 0 JEPPSEN, E ALAN HAMBLIN,RUTH H FRANDSEN,ALAN D 457 E BROADWAY ST 1179 N BUCCANEER DR 327 S DENVER ST Suite Suite Suite 1 *LT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-2606 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116-1703 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3002 GALLEGOS,JOSEPH H JACOBSON,JAMES&JOANI;TC MOUNTAIN COURTYARD SUITES LLC 333 S DENVER ST 352 S DENVER ST 1519 S DEVONSHIRE DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3002 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3000 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2531 LARSON,DONNA R MILLER,MARIAN K;TR WINTHROP COURT,L C 875 S DONNER WY 875 S DONNER WY 9 E EXCHANGE PL Suite 201 Suite 201 Suite 810 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-2138 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-2138 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2743 GEORGAS, ROSIE HARLEY,BRENT SPERRY,ANNA G B 2447 E FISHER LN 69 E GIRARD AVE 2660 S HIGHLAND DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-2503 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-2146 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106-2772 POULSEN,JEAN W. SERGAKIS,VASI M LARSON,SCOTT K 1962 S IMPERIAL ST 2991 E JULIET WY 1983 S LAKE ST Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-3819 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121-7023 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-3134 fliFFIELD, LANCE F&DEBORAH B;JT WADE,LLOYD W&GWENIVERE F;JT ADAMSON,VON G; ET AL 337 S LAKER CT 2679 E LAMBOURNE AVE 2033 E LINCOLN CIR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2322 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-2742 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124-1708 ABOELSEUD,ABDELAZIZ KLINGER, PATRICIA A KOWALCZYK,JACEK A 721 E LINDEN AVE 727 E LINDEN AVE 739 E LINDEN AVE Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2210 KENNARD,LORI J DRAGONWOOD INC DRAGONWOOD INC 743 E LINDEN AVE 755 E LINDEN AVE 755 E LINDEN AVE Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-0000 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 DRAGONWOOD, INC STEPHENS,DOUGLAS C IHC HOSPITALS INC 755 E LINDEN AVE 755 E LINDEN AVE 201 S MAIN ST Suite Suite Suite 1100 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2210 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-4904 113 LAKE CLINIC HOLDING CO SALT LAKE CLINIC HOLDING COMPANY LARSON,DONNA R S MAIN ST 201 S MAIN ST 363 N MIDDLE OAK LN Suite 1100 Suite 1100 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-4904 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-4904 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1649 ®A9i5 Jo)apjdwaa asn W,,siaays Pei y;oows .. -I--1- 1 ----rrr �r�l� lsir -p` ROBBINS,W KALMAR, LINES, FARRELL L& METRO PLACE ASSOCIATES LC SOLAIMANIAN,TAGGE&SARA;JT 3730 E MILLSTREAM DR 4179 S MONARCH WY 4525 S PARK HILL DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109-3221 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124-3168 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-3833 CENTURY INTERNATIONAL CORP CENTURY PROPERTIES INC CENTURY PROPERTIES,INC 3905 E PARKVIEW DR 3905 E PARKVIEW DR 3905 E PARKVIEW DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-2323 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84124-2323 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124-2323 VANMONDFRANS,CAROL N BLACK,CARMON A MANAGEMENT CO,ET SAINTS PETER AND PAUL ORTHODOX 3905 E PARKVIEW DR 1010 E PEAKS CIR PO BOX 17896 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124-2323 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117-7227 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117-0896 ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK NA ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK,N.A. PO BOX 30709 PO BOX 30709 PO BOX 30709 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84130-0709 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84130-0709 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84130-0709 355-363 SOUTH 500 EAST, LLC CAPITAL REDEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP SAMPSON ALTADENA CONDOMINIUM H PO BOX 510006 PO BOX 510006 PO BOX 510006 Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84151- SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84151-0006 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84151-0006 UNIVERSITY PARTNERS LTD It STEPHENS,MARY E DAVIS, HARDIN K&OLSON,SANDI1L; PO BOX 510006 1258 E ROOSEVELT AVE 855 E SHERMAN AVE Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84151-0006 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-2542 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-2236 GARDNER,JAMES R&LYNN F;JT SIZZLE PARK, LLC H M INVESTMENT CORP 626 E SIXTH AVE 60 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST 455 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST Suite Suite 1100 Suite 300 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-3000 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-1019 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-1306 H M INVESTMENT,CORPORATION WILLIAMSEN SOUTH JORDAN INC STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC CONSTR& 455 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST 165 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST 355 N STATE ST Suite 300 Suite 300 Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-1306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84101-1403 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-0002 STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC CONSTR&M STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC,CONSTR&M MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF S 355 N STATE ST 355 N STATE ST 451 S STATE ST Suite Suite Suite 245 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-0002 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0002 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3102 MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST 451 S STATE ST Suite 245 Suite 418 Suite 245 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111-3104 ®o9i5 ioJ aieldwa;l as f w,S�aa45 Pe aj WOWS -- -- - siagel ssa.tppy ®AU3AV V SALT LAKE COUNTY UTAH STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP AUTH CLIFFORD,MARK L&JILL B;JT 2001 S STATE ST 450 N STATE OFFICE BLD 1260 E STRATFORD AVE Suite N450 Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84190-0002 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1201 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106-2727 CLIFFORD;MARK L&JILL B;JT NORDQUIST,GLADYS L LEPPERT,WENDY 1260 E STRATFORD AVE 343 S STRONGS CT 344 S STRONGS CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106-2727 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2303 FAHRMANN,CAROL A LEPPERT,WENDY MILES,CLARK W 347 S STRONGS CT 348 S STRONGS CT 354 S STRONGS CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2303 MILES,CLARK W WINTCH,DOUGLAS H MILES,CLARK W 356 S STRONGS CT 359 S STRONGS CT 365 S STRONGS CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2303 VOSS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;ET BLEAZARD,WILLIAM W&BEVERLEY L;JT BLEAZARD,WILLIAM W,ET AL 1353 E TOMAHAWK DR 329 S VINCENT CT 329 S VINCENT CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-4248 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2109 RD,WILLIAM W.&BEVERLY L. BLEAZARD,WILLIAM W.& BEVERLY L. KING,ANDREA S 329 S VINCENT CT 329 S VINCENT CT 331 S VINCENT CT Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102-2109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2109 WRAG PROPERTIES INC SORENSEN,EDWARD D&JEAN R;TRS 400 SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT PARTNER 1935 E VINE ST 58 N VIRGINIA ST 165 S WESTTEMPLE ST Suite 260 Suite Suite 300 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121-6559 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-4313 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1431 PETTY INVESTMENT CO PETTY, IREVA G, ET AL BIRD,R L,COMPANY 2001 S WINDSOR ST 2001 S WINDSOR ST 2069 E YALE AVE Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-3223 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105-3223 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1905 R.L. BIRD CO PETERSEN, REED K. AYRE INVESTMENTS,LC 2069 E YALE AVE 1148 S 1380 E 1127 S EAGLE VIEW DR Suite Suite Suite SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-1905 SANDY, UT 84092-5366 SANDY,UT 84092-4976 7416.JAD,LLC SHELTON FIRST FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHI COOK,STEPHEN W;TR E ROYAL LN 1998 E VISCOUNT, CV 2840 E WILLOW HILLS DR Suite Suite Suite SANDY,UT 84093-6453 SANDY, UT 84093-1059 SANDY,UT 84093-1932 ®0915 Jo)aieidwai asq qs paaj wowsW,,s�aa as MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SAL WHITE,GARY W MDP,LC 451 S STATE 341 E 2100 S 2945 S 300 W Suite 245 Suite Suite SLC, UT 84111-3102 SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-22 SOUTH SALT LAKE,UT 84115-34 CITY CENTRE ONE ASSOCIATES LTD BREWSTER, HOYT W JR&FIELDING C;TR MAVERIK COUNTRY STORES INC 35 W CENTURY PARK W 7879 S 1530 W PO BOX 8008 Suite Suite Suite SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-35 WEST JORDAN,UT 84088-8305 AFTON,WY 93110- ®09L5 Jai aiejdwai as f W1s2aa4s paaj wows 0w7I,2 .1oG I sjagei sswppd ®A?J3AV Q(/ ROGERS, RICHARD B&ELIZABETH D;TRS ROGERS,RICHARD B& ELIZABETH D;TRS ROSEMEAD PROPERTIES,INC 315 W HUENEME ROAD 315 W HUENEME ROAD PO BOX 6010 Suite Suite Suite *AMARILLO,CA 93012- CAMRILLO,CA 93012- EL MONTE,CA 91734-2010 SALT LAKE RESIDENCE INVESTORS SALT LAKE RESIDENCE INVESTORS GOODMAN OQUIRRH LLC 1273 HIGH BLUFF DR 1273 HIGH BLUFF DR 3131 S VAUGHN WY Suite 250 Suite 250 Suite 301 SAN DIEGO,CA 92130-2077 SAN DIEGO, CA 92130-2077 AURORA, CO 80014- OQUIRRH ASSOCIATES, LLC ORTON,KIRK G&GAYLA V;JT GREENAN,JAY R 3131 S VAUGHN WY 1700 W PLUM ST APT 54F 1835 19TH ST NW Suite 301 Suite Suite AURORA,CO 80014- FORT COLLINS,CO 80521-3802 WASHINGTON,DC 20009-5515 JOHNSON,JULIE M ROTHMAN, NOEL PIZZA HUT OF UTAH INC 410 W 24TH STREET 311 S WACKER DRIVE P 0 BOX 35370 Suite Suite 4190 Suite BURLEY, ID 83318-2905 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6618 LOUISVILLE,KY 40232-537 BROADWAY TOWER APARTMENT ASSOCI VIENNEAU, LLOYD R MECKLENBURG, LLC 63 KENDRICK ST 2401 MINNESOTA AVE 40 CENTRAL PARK SO Suite Suite Suite 2C NEEDHAM,MA 02494- DULUTH,MN 55802-2517 NEW YORK,NY 10019- AH POWER&LIGHT CO CARTER,JOSE FIRESTONE REAL ESTATE LEASING CO FIRESTONE REAL ESTATE LEASING CO 700 NE MULTNOMAH ST 50 CENTURY BLVD 50 CENTURY BLVD Suite 700 Suite Suite PORTLAND,OR 97232-2131 NASHVILLE,TN 37214-3609 NASHVILLE,TN 37214-3609 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO CAMPBELL PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 358 PO BOX 358 335 S 1300 E Suite Suite Suite BORGER,TX 79008-0358 BORGER,TX 79008-0358 BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010- • LUDDINGTON,DEAN F&MARY C;JT BAILEY,G RALPH RUSSON,JAMES E&REBECCA S;TRS 295 E 2050 S 1060 BOUNTIFUL HILLS DR 1292 CANYON PARK RD Suite Suite Suite BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010- BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010-1916 BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010-1502 BAILEY, GRANT S LOERTSCHER, DAVID V&SANDRA D;JT MAVERIK COUNTRY STORES INC 1080 S 400 E 821 CAPITOLA DR 880 W CENTER ST Suite Suite Suite CENTERVILLE,UT 84014- HALLISTER CA,UT 95023- MIDVALE,UT 84047-0000 411EPHENS,PHILLIP;TR ET AL WINTHROP COURT,LC DAISY PROPERTIES P O BOX 1031 860 E 4500 S 5544 S GREEN ST Suite Suite 303 Suite MORGAN,UT 84050- MURRAY,UT 84107-3050 MURRAY,UT 84123-5798 OM JOJ aleldwai asil uS3aays paa.J wows Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda Minutes II SALT C s! Q Gi'PV G�.,:__ r� {�®11€N ROSS C.ANDERSON STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH -.��,r. �.� PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR yg BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR November 28,2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition 400-01-48,a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition 400-01-12,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning. Application of the TOD zones is proposed to include properties fronting on 400 South,between 200 and 950 East,that are currently zoned CC(this includes all frontage properties except the 4th South Market, Family Center and Wonder Bread blocks, which are zoned CS). This will replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor zoning. The purpose of the new districts is to encourage new development along the 400 South Light Rail Transit line.The new Transit Oriented Zoning Districts(TOD)will contain urban design components that are similar to those presently being used in other zoning districts(Downtown and Gateway),including a minimum percentage of glass required at the ground level (facing the public street),building orientation to the street and maximum building setbacks. The proposed TOD zoning districts will also contain variations of the following;reduced parking requirements(which results in more developable space), building height and density limitations will be increased to allow for additional residential uses, limitations and/or design standards will be added for drive-through windows and other automobile oriented land uses(locating drive-in windows to the rear of the property rather than the front,etc.). The Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing to accept public comment on: December 13, 2001 Salt Lake City County Building 451 South State Street Room 126 . 5:50 P.M. 1+ If you have any questions,comments or wish to view the proposal,you may do so at that time.If you are t i i ° an owner of rental property,please notify your tenants of this meeting.If you have additional questions, ~you may contact me at 535-6182. _ ectfully, Doug an .e,AICP Prin pal P1 nner We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpreter services will be provided upon 24-hour advance request. 4111 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174 ej. nmrc,cn..nu LAT-1,1:-. jt--• 1 x \ '° .-th 1 . . . _ . . TICE-OF MEETING rTa009 r' 13 4 T G Salt Lake City Planning Division . 451 South State Street :- Salt Lake City, Utah 841114 n `-N\ r• f S C IP . -1°: ' J IIP P:"--': 4 I f GR3N N, H 1835 19TH W SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT A request by The Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented zoning district and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor zoned properties to a transit oriented zoning classification. Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 December 13, 2001 REQUEST 400-01-48, a request by The Salt Lake City Council to create Transit Oriented zoning districts (TOD) and 400-01-12 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor with transit oriented zoning. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW: Community Council Chairs were briefed at their September 6, 2001 meeting. No action was taken. Central City Community Council was briefed at their August 1, 2001 meeting. No action was taken East Central Community Council was briefed at their July18, 2001 executive board meeting. No action was taken. Corridor Commercial t - '' ' 1 ; s ;` rA: 1i_ IF11iFis ;t-; § � ,.: w coo s` ;o: I 7� ---_ -��PL- D-1 ry - i- ^VahlJIER01_j i ) i__ ry'i -- ff�f ..S a . 41)° Lie t LLI [iv t �/� � ' PL..__ - — `. a` :- Ica _ i :.",.tri Cis g. Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 1 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Salt Lake City Council and Planning Commission. Purpose of proposal and proposed amendment: To create Transit Oriented Zoning Districts (TOD). Previous Case Files: The Planning Commission initiated the petition in conjunction with the "walkable communities"petition. The intent was to replace the CC Commercial zoning district with a new transit oriented zoning district that will maximize pedestrian and transit activity along the 400 South corridor. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: CC Commercial Corridor along 400 South between 200 and 900 East. Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Historic Preservation Overlay between 500 and 700 East. Existing Master Plan Policies: The draft Central City Master Plan suggests high density TOD between 200-700 East and medium density TOD between 700-900 East. The Futures Commission report calls for the design of streets that are pedestrian friendly and to develop a multi-modal transportation system that encourages alternatives to cars. The East Downtown Master plan encourages high-density housing in the general area. The Transportation Master Plan reflects the desire of the public to shift the emphasis of Salt Lake City's resources from meeting the needs of the single occupant automobile to mass transit and multiple forms of transportation. Affected areas and parcel numbers: All parcels along 400 South between 200 and 900 East that are presently zoned CC Commercial Corridor. Parcels, which are proposed to be changed, are illustrated on the map attached to this report. O Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 2 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Purpose Historically many of Salt Lake City neighborhoods have been "streetcar subdivisions", where the neighborhood developed in response to mass transit access (i.e. Forest Dale). Many traditional commercial areas in the city have also been developed with transit and pedestrians as the focus for circulation. In the post World War II era, the automobile began to dominate the landscape and affect land use design. New shopping areas were designed with the automobile as the primary focus. The City has aggravated this phenomenon to a certain degree by requiring landscaped setbacks (in part to soften parking lots) in areas where they previously were not required or needed. With the renewed focus on mass transit along certain corridors, it is the City's intent to increase densities and pedestrian orientation of these areas. New zoning districts that emphasize pedestrian and transit orientation are intended to replace older zoning districts that had an automobile orientation. Details of the new districts. The new zoning districts include design controls, maximum setbacks and increased densities to implement the TOD goals. Design Controls The City presently has design controls in most of the Downtown and Gateway zones, which encourage pedestrian oriented development. These changes were instigated in 1995 and 1998. They are derived from a philosophy that within mixed-use areas, zoning should focus less on the specific land use, as traditional zoning does, and more on the general design and compatibility of uses. The general design controls that Salt Lake City has adopted thus far elsewhere in the zoning ordinance are minimal, involving setbacks, parking location and sidewalk interface. This specific ordinance uses parking location restrictions, maximum setback, 40%glass at the ground level, front door orientation and density increases to achieve its goals. Parking Restrictions and Maximum Setbacks Several existing zoning districts presently have restrictions on parking in the front yard. For example; 1) The Downtown D-1 and D-4 districts require a maximum 5-foot building setback and prohibit parking within 75 feet of a block corner. The Planning Commission can modify those design requirements through the conditional use (and planned development)process. 2) The R-MU zoning district varies in its landscaped setback requirement, depending on use. It does not have a required front yard landscape setback for multi-family or commercial structures,but it does for parking lots (15 feet). 3) The Gateway Mixed Use GMU zoning district has a 5-foot maximum building setback for at least 25%of the building façade and design controls, which encourage orientation to the street. • Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 3 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Parking in the front yard (between the street and building)may be discouraged through the use of maximum setback requirements,which require the building to be built closer to the street (eliminating room for parking). It is also possible to incorporate an outright prohibition of parking in the front yard into the zoning ordinance. In order to discourage parking in front of the building, a maximum setback for structures is included in the draft of each of the proposed TOD zones. The proposed maximum setback will still allow for facade variations while not providing enough room for parking in the front yard. Maximum setbacks have also been proposed as part of the "walkable communities" proposal,which the Planning Commission has previously approved. Presently the minimum landscape setbacks in the zoning districts proposed to be affected by "walkable communities" are as follows; • RMU Residential Mixed Use, Varies between 0 to 15 feet depending on use, 15 feet required for parking lots. • CSHBD Sugar House Business District, No setback required • MU Mixed Use, No setback required • CB Community Business, None, except 15 feet setback required for parking lots • CS Shopping Center, 30 feet (may be modified by the Planning Commission through conditional use/planned development process) • CC Commercial Corridor, 15 feet • CN Neighborhood Commercial, 15 feet • RB Residential Business 20%of lot depth or 25 feet, whichever is less Each of the "walkable communities"zoning districts are proposed to have a maximum setback that is generally 10 feet deeper than the minimum. The proposed transit corridor zoning districts have a minimum setback of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. The purpose of this is because the present CC zoning district requires a 15-foot setback, therefore most existing uses have a 15-foot setback. Furthermore, the new 400 South sidewalks are only 8 feet wide and are immediately adjacent to a travel lane. Therefore staff believes it is best to continue with minimum setbacks to encourage additional pedestrian space along the sidewalk. Presently,the Planning Commission has the authority to modify setback requirements as a part of the planned development approval process. The Planning Commission may also modify individual design requirements as pact of the conditional use process,to accommodate unique designs/situations in existing districts where maximum setbacks are used. The planned development process and the conditional use"out"are also included within the proposed transit corridor zoning districts. • Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 4 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission • The entire façade is proposed to be subject to a maximum setback in the proposed Transit Corridor TC districts. Whereas, some of the other proposed districts included within the "walkable communities"proposal merely require a percentage of the façade to be setback (similar to the present G-MU zone). Orientation Another major design concept of transit oriented development is the building orientation to the street. The City presently encourages this several ways in certain other zoning districts: 1) Requirements that the main entry be oriented to the public sidewalk, and 2) Requirements for minimum percentage of glass on the ground level, facing the street, to encourage pedestrian interaction with the building. There is also a statement in the general provisions of the residential section of the zoning ordinance requiring that all residential structures have an entry that orients to the street. This was included to discourage "box car"style apartments where the main entry is oriented to the side-yard. All residential zones are presently required(listed within the general requirements)to orient their front entry, windows, balconies etc. to the street. This presently applies to the RMU and RB zoning districts. Similarly,the D-1,D-4, CSHBD and GMU zones presently require minimum percentage of glass at the ground level. The proposed transit corridor zoning districts include these basic regulations to encourage orientation to the street. Application of zoning districts Staff recommends applying the TC-75 District to areas presently zoned CC Commercial Corridor,between 200 and 700 East along 400 South and applying the TC-45 District to areas presently zoned CC Commercial Corridor, between 700 East and 1000 East along 400 South. The numbers "75"and "45"relate to the proposed maximum heights for the new zoning districts. These heights are also consistent with adjacent residential zoning where they are proposed to be mapped. Affordable Housing Some have discussed the issue of affordable housing as it relates to transit. The draft as presented makes no specific reference to affordable housing. Some zoning districts within the City encourage affordable housing through a bonus provision,however, there needs to be a limitation in order to have a bonus. For example, the GMU zoning district allows extra height in exchange for affordable housing. Additional height may be appropriate in the GMU zoning district,but may not be appropriate in the TC districts. Therefore the Planning Commission should discuss whether the height be lowered to allow for a bonus, or if the proposed maximum height is appropriate. The RMU zoning district located on either side of the proposed TC-75 (along 400 South)already has a (• height limit of 75 to 120 feet. The zoning adjacent to the proposed TC- 45 (proposed for Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 5 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission the eastern portions of 400 South)ranges from 35 feet to 60 feet in height. In addition, a small portion of the area(500 to 600 East, north side of 400 South) is governed by historic preservation regulations,which allow the Historic Landmarks Commission to limit height of development to ensure compatibility. The other properties along 400 South that are within the historic district are zoned CS and are not art of this petition. Therefore staff is uncertain how effective height bonuses for affordable housing would be or whether it would allow the City to meet important planning goals for transit oriented development and historic preservation. Affordable housing can also be encouraged through density. The proposed draft already has unlimited density. One alternative is to include the density limitations of the RMF-75 and 45 zoning districts within the TC 75 and 45, then offer a density bonus when affordable housing is provided. The staff is looking for input from the Planning Commission if they wish to pursue the affordable housing bonuses. Department Review Copies of the proposed ordinance have been sent to the following departments for review: Transportation, Engineering,Public Utilities,Fire,Police,Business Licensing, Building Services, Housing and Inspection. Transportation,Police and Public Utilities responded. Transportation stated that their issues would be addressed at the development stage. The Police depai intent indicated no opinion. Public Utilities stated that they were not opposed to the rezone but would address capacity issues on a case-by-case basis. Other input Changes from the draft presented to the Community Council include: The addition of Hotels as a conditional use in the TC-45 Zoning district. This was done at the request of Chase Suites Hotel, so as to avoid non-conforming their facility. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Manor were changed from permitted to conditional. Language was also added regarding the emphasis of the planned development process. This comes at the request of several business interests. It was done in concert with proposed changes to the "walkable communities"ordinance, to emphasize flexibility in the ordinance. The changes are italicized in the attached draft. The Planning Staff also took the proposed draft to the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) on November 7, 2001 for their review. The HLC recommended adding language defining the reflectivity of glass and the depth of the windows(to eliminate blank walls behind glass).Staff incorporated these suggestions into the draft ordinance.. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. • Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 6 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Discussion: The proposed zoning amendments involve both a text amendment to the zoning ordinance (to created the Transit oriented districts) and a map amendment. The text changes were modeled after the proposed "walkable communities " ordinance (previously approved by the Planning Commission). The new zoning districts are intended to facilitate development that is focused on pedestrian and transit access. The proposed area to be mapped as "transit corridor"is adjacent to the new UTA University Light rail line, which opens on December 15, 2001. The 400 South light rail corridor has traditionally been a low-density auto oriented commercial corridor. The draft of the Central Community Master Plan acknowledges the need for transit oriented zoning along the 400 South Corridor. The draft master plan also encourages the stabilization of adjacent neighborhoods (particularly in the eastern portion of the corridor). Allowing extra density along the transit corridor (where housing is presently not allowed) decreases pressure to increase densities within the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Futures Commission report calls for the design of streets that are pedestrian friendly and developing a multi-modal transportation system that encourages alternatives to cars. The East Downtown Master plan encourages high-density housing in the general area. The plan also calls for the replacement of the current auto-oriented strip commercial along 400 South with a more pedestrian and transit-oriented form of development. The Transportation Master Plan reflects the desire of the public to shift the emphasis of Salt Lake City's resources from meeting the needs of the single occupant automobile to mass transit and multiple forms of transportation. Findings: The proposed transit corridor zoning districts and the rezoning of existing CC zoned properties, as applied on 400 South, are consistent with the appropriate Master Plans and the Futures Commission report. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Because of light rail construction, the 400 South corridor is presently making a dramatic shift away from an exclusively automobile oriented street to a transit corridor. While no existing uses are non-conformed, the proposed ordinance will affect existing land uses by encouraging an increased pedestrian orientation and by allowing increased housing in an area that previously has not encouraged it. The present CC zoning district has a height limit of 30 feet or two Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 7 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission stories. The increased height allowance will allow for more residential development within immediate walking distance of mass transit. The draft ordinance provided to the Community Council did not include hotel/motels as a permitted or conditional use in the TC-45 district. It has since come to the staffs attention that this would non-conform the Chase Suites Hotel. The draft has been modified to include hotels as a conditional use in the TC-45 zone. Findings: The proposed zoning district, applied to the 400 South corridor, will affect change in the corridor. However, the master plan encourages a transition to higher densities and more pedestrian orientation. No present land uses are non- conformed,making the transition less impactful for existing uses. Height limits are consistent with the height limits of adjacent residential zoning districts. Landscaped buffers are required adjacent to residential properties. Parking is discouraged in the front of buildings. Pedestrian and transit access is encouraged. The ordinance will accommodate change harmonious with the goals of the master plan. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The intent of the ordinance is to encourage density along transit corridors. To the extent that increased densities may be accommodated in the corridor, rather than in adjacent neighborhood (some of which are designated historic), the City may facilitate residential growth with out affecting existing neighborhoods. Traditional "walking streets" as often found in denser cities such as Seattle or Vancouver are only made possible by densities that create a sufficient market for the commercial areas to survive. By focusing the retail and the density on 400 South,it is intended to create a walking retail street that is complimentary to the neighborhood at large. Height limits in zoning districts adjacent to the area where the proposed TC-75 zoning district is proposed to be mapped vary between 35 and 325 feet. Height limits adjacent to the TC-45 vary between 30 and 75 feet(see attached map). Therefore the proposed height limits of the TC-75 and 45 are consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. Because housing has traditionally been discouraged in the CC zoned auto-oriented corridor, the new emphasis on encouraging housing will provide opportunities for growth that have previously been focused on adjacent residentially zoned land. Findings: By focusing density along the transit corridor,the transit zoning should have a positive affect on the adjacent residential areas by both relieving development pressure and creating a"walking retail street". Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 8 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed zoning districts (as applied on 400 South)will coincide with the Central City Historic District(500-600 East north side) and the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Zone (all portions of 400 South). The proposed design controls will actually encourage design more in keeping with historic guidelines. The increased height allowance may or may not be compatible with historic structures (the average historic apartment building in the area is approximately 45 feet tall), however, the proposed zoning is located on 400 South,where existing land uses have long since displaced most historical land uses. The majority of 400 South frontage within the historic district is actually zoned CS and would not be affected by this zone change. The Historic Landmarks Committee ultimately has the jurisdiction to regulate height it is compatible with historic resources in the district. The Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Zone requires all new development be sensitive to groundwater protection regardless of the base zoning district. The Public Utilities Department reviews and administers the program in conjunction with the building pennit process. Findings: The proposed zoning will work in harmony with the Central City historic district overlay by encouraging more traditional development patterns. The proposed zoning changes have no direct effect on the groundwater protection process. 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: Public Utilities has indicated that utilities are adequate, however each project must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Public Utilities will also review for groundwater protection. The Police depaitulent indicated no opinion. Transportation also indicated they would review individual developments on a case-by-case basis. New utilities have be constructed along 400 South as part of light rail construction Findings: Public facilities along 400 South have recently been upgraded as part of light rail construction. The departments that commented had not objections to the zoning change,but will require site review on individual projects. Petition 400-01-I2 and 400-01-48 9 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of the proposed TC-75 and TC-45 zoning districts as well as the associated zoning amendments and sign table. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone all CC Commercial Corridor properties on 400 South between 200 East and 700 East as TC-75, and all CC Commercial Corridor properties on 400 South between 700 East and 1000 East to TC-45. Doug Dansie, AICP Community Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Draft Ordinance. Exhibit 2— Other Division Recommendations. Exhibit 3—Detailed map of affected area. Exhibit 4—Citizen Comments. Exhibit 5—Minutes from the"walkable communities"discussion Petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48 10 December 13,2001 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Exhibit 1 Draft Ordinance 21A.26.073 TC-45 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-45 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian automobile oriented commercial, residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors arterial and major collector stePts. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-45 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review:Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections • may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: Seventy five Fifty feet (75' 50'). DE. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'). 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: Ten feet(10'). None required 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. EF. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title. FG. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non-residential portion of a mixed-use building, shall exceed twenty five thirty feet (25' 30')_or two(2) stories,whichever is less. GH. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed forty five feet(45'). Hi. Restrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas, parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least thirty feet (30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. The facades of such first floors shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty five foot(25') landscaped setback. 3. Accessory And Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. IJ. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two feet(2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent(18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title,if the Zoning Administrator finds: (A) The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or (B) The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. JK.Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. KL. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). LM. Density: There is no maximum residential density. 21A.26.077 TC-75 Transit Corridor District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TC-75 Transit Corridor District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive automobile transit and pedestrian oriented commercial, residential and mixed-use development along major transit corridors arterial and major collector streets. The design guidelines are intended to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to emphasize that pedestrian and mass-transit access is the primary focus of development. B. Uses: Uses in the TC-75 Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review:Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: Seventy five Fifty feet (75' 50'). DE. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: Fifteen feet (15'), except as authorized as a conditional use,subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: Ter fePt (10'). None required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirement of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum building setback: 25 feet, except as authorized as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle, to the street. Where an arcade facing the street is provided, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors,not the facade of the arcade level. EF. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet(15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C of this Title, except as authorized as a conditional use,subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. FG. Maximum Non-residential Building Height: No non-residential building, or non-residential portion of a mixed-use building, shall exceed thirty feet(30') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. GH. Maximum Residential Building Height: No residential building shall exceed seventy five feet (75'). Building heights in excess of sevnty five (75) feet, but not more than one hundred twenty feet(120 feet) may be approved as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title and conformity with applicable Master Plan policy. HLRestrictions On Parking Lots And Structures: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above ground parking facilities. 1. Block Corner Areas: Within block corner areas, surface parking lots and structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least sixty feet (60') from front and corner side lot lines. 2. Mid-Block Areas: Within the mid-block areas, parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least thirty feet (30') from front and corner side lot lines. A modification to this requirement may be granted as a conditional use, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V,Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Parking structures shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. and consistent with the associated retail or office portion o4 th e b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. Mid-block surface parking lots shall have a twenty five foot(25') Iandscaped setback. 3. Accessory and Commercial Parking Structures: Accessory parking structures, built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. 4. Below ground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below ground parking facilities. 5. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 6. Conditional Use Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this Section may be granted as a conditional use,subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to design review. If. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings, or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of two feet(2'). All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. The reflectivity in glass shall be limited to eighteen percent(18%) as defined by ASTA Standards. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested Special Exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: (A) The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or (B) The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. JK.Doors and Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street.Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. ILL. Maximum Length of blank walls: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). LM. Density: There is no maximum residential density. 21A.44.040.C.7 TC-45 District a. All parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by twenty five percent (25%)within the TC-45 Zoning District. 21A.44.040.C.8 TC-75 District a. For non-residential uses in the TC-75 district, no off-street parking shall be required for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area. For all non-residential uses with more than five thousand (5,000) square feet,the parking requirement shall be one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area, including the initial five thousand (5,000) square feet. b. All residential parking requirements listed in Table 21A.44.060F are reduced by fifty percent(50%)within the TC-75 Zoning District. 21A.48.080.C.12 TC-45 and TC-75 Districts. Lots in the TC-45 and TC-75 Districts which abut a lot in a residential district, shall provide a ten (10) foot landscaped buffer. 21A.54.150.E.4 Planned developments within the TC-45 and TC-75. Planned developments within these zoning districts may be approved subject to the following general conceptual guidelines: • The development shall be primarily oriented to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot, • The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and mass transit, • The facade shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, • Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building, • Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, • Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods, • Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure, • Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. Other sections of the zoning code should be updated consistent with the new land use table. District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres FR-3/12,000 Foothills residential District 5 acres R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet SR-1 Special Develo0pment Pattern Residential District 9,000 square feet SR-2 Special Development Patter Residential Reserved SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District 20,000 square feet Commercial Districts CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet CG General Commercial District 1 acre _1'C-45 Transit Corridor No minimum required TC-75 Transit Corridor No minimum required -------- - --- -------- Manufacturing District M-I Light Manufacturing District 2 acres M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres Downtown Districts D-1 Central Business District 2 acres D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre Special Purpose Districts RP Research Park District 10 acres BP Business Park District 10 acres FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres AG Agricultural District 10 acres AG-2 Agricultural District 4 acres AG-5 Agricultural District 10 acres AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres A Airport District 2 acres PL Public Lands District 5 acres I Institutional District 5 acres UI Urban Institutional District 1 acre OS Open Space District 2 acres MH Mobile Home Park District 10 acres El Extractive Industries District 10 acres 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BY DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C = Conditional Use P=Pennitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHB CG TC-45 TC-75 DI Residential Assisted living P p p p p center, large Assisted living P P p p p center, small Dwelling units, P P P P P p p p including multi- family dwellings, above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Dwelling: Single C p Room Occupancy5 Group home, large C C C P (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title) Group home, small P P P P P P p p (see Section 21A.36.070 of this Title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the Uniform Building Code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes (see C C Section 21A.36.110 _ of this Title) Living quarters for P P P P P P P P caretaker or security guard Multi-family P P P residential Nursing home P P P P P Residential C C C substance abuse treatment home, large (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Residential C C C C substance abuse treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.100 of this Title) Transitional C C C treatment home, large (see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional C C C C treatment home, small (see Section 21A.36.090 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C ' home, large(see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Transitional victim C C C C home, small (see Section 21A.36.080 of this Title) Office And Related Uses Financial institution, P P P P P C with drive-through facilities Financial P P P P P P P P institutions,without drive-through ' facilities Medical and dental P P P P P P P P clinics Offices P P P P P P P P Veterinary offices, P P P P P C C operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping animals overnight only for treatment purposes Retail Sales And Services Auction sales P P Automobile repair, P C P C major Automobile repair, C P P P P P P P minor Automobile P P sales/rental and service Boat/recreational P P vehicle sales and service Car wash as P P P P P C accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas Car wash, with or P P P C without gasoline sales Department stores P P Equipment rental, P P C C indoor and outdoor Furniture repair shop P P P P P C C Gas station (may P P P P P P C include accessory convenience retail and/or"minor repairs" as defined in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title) Health and fitness P P P P C P P facility Liquor store C C C C C C Manufactured/mobil P e home sales and service _ Pawnshop P Restaurant,with C P P P P P C drive-through facilities Restaurants, without P P P P P P P P drive-through facilities Retail goods C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail goods P P P P P P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Retail services C P P P P P C establishments with drive-through facilities Retail services P P P P P P P P establishments without drive- through facilities Truck repair, large P Truck sales and P P rental, large Upholstery shop P P P P P C Value P retail/membership wholesale Institutional Uses (sites< 2 acres) Adult daycare center P P P P P P P P Child daycare center P P P P P P P P Community P P P P P P P P recreation centers on lots less than 4 acres in size Government P P P P P P P P facilities (excluding those of an industrial nature and prisons) Museum P P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P P Places of worship on P P P P P P P lots less than 4 acres _ in size Schools, P P P P P P P P professional and vocational Commercial And Manufacturing Bakery, commercial P Blacksmith shop P Blood donation C P centers, commercial and not accessory to a hospital or medical clinic Cabinet and p woodworking mills Commercial p laundries, linen service and dry cleaning Industrial assembly P Laboratory; medical, P p P P dental optical Laboratory; testing C C P Mini-warehouse P P C Motion picture P P p p studio Photo finishing lab P p p P P Plant and garden C C C C C P C P shop,with outdoor retail sales area Sign P painting/fabrication , Warehouse P p Welding shop P Wholesale P P distributors Recreation, Cultural And Entertainment Amusement park P P Art gallery P P P P P P p P Art studio P P P p p p P P Commercial indoor P p p P p p recreation Commercial outdoor C P C recreation Commercial video I P P P P P arcade Dance studio P P P P P P P P Live performance P P P P P P theaters Miniature golf P P P P P Movie theaters P P P P P Natural open space C C C C C C C C and conservation areas Parks and P P P P P P P P playgrounds,public and private, on lots less than 4 acres in size Pedestrian pathways, P P P P P P P P trails, and greenways Private club C C P P P C Sexually oriented P businesses Squares and plazas P P P P P P C C on lots less than 4 acres in size Tavern/lounge/brew P P P P C P pub; 2,500 square feet or less in floor area Tavern/lounge/brew C C P P C pub;more than 2,500 square feet in floor area Miscellaneous Accessory uses, P P P P P P P P except those that are specifically regulated in this Chapter,or elsewhere in this Title Ambulance services, P P P P C P dispatching, staging and maintenance conducted entirely within an enclosed building Ambulance services, P dispatching, staging and maintenance utilizing outdoor operations Auditorium P P P P P P Auto salvage p (indoor) Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast P P P P P P C p inn Bed and breakfast C3 C3 P P P C P manor Bus line terminals P P C Bus line yards and P repair facilities Commercial parking C P P C garage or lot Communication P P P P P C p towers Communication C C C C C C C towers, exceeding the maximum building height Contractor's C P yard/office (including outdoor storage) Farmers'market C C P C Flea market (indoor) P P P P C Flea market p (outdoor) Funeral home P P P P C Homeless shelter C Hotel or motel P P P C C Kennels P Limousine service, P utilizing 4 or more limousines Limousine service, C C P utilizing not more than 3 limousines Micro brewery P Park and ride lots C C C P P C Park and ride, P P P P P P P parking shared with existing use Pet cemeteries4 P Off-site parking; as P C P C C per Chapter 21A.44 of this Title Outdoor sales and C P C P P C display Outdoor storage C P Outdoor storage, C P public Precision equipment P P repair shops Public/private utility C C P P C P P P buildings and structures Public/private utility P P P P P P P P transmission wires, lines,pipes and poles2 Radio, television C P P P station Recreational vehicle C park (minimum 1 acre) Recycling collection P P P P P P station Reverse vending P P P P P P P P machines Taxicab facilities, P dispatching, staging and maintenance Temporary labor P hiring office Vehicle auction use P Wireless telecommunications facility(see Table 21A.40.090E of this Title) Qualifying Provisions: 1. Development in the CS District and CSHBD District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. 2. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this Title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources (see subsections 21 A.24.010S of this Part and 21 A.26.010K of this Chapter). 4. Subject to Salt Lake City/County Health Department approval. 5. Subject to location restrictions as per Section 21A.36.190 (Ord. 38-99 § 6, 1999: Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 19-98 § 2, 1998: amended during 5/96 supplement: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 84-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26- 95 § 2(13-7), 1995) 21A.26.090 Summary Table Of Yard And Bulk Requirements-Commercial Districts: Distr District YARD AND BULK REGULATIONS ict Name Lot Mini Maxi Maxi Maxi Mini Mini Mini Requi Lands Sym Area mum mum mum mum mum mum mum red cape bol Regul Lot Build Distri Build Front Interi Rear Lands Buffe ations Widt ing ct ing Or or Yard cape r h Size Size Heigh Come Side Yard Yards t r Side Yard 1 Yard CN Neighb No None None 90,00 25'or 15' No 10' Front 7' orhood mini 0 sf 21/2 mini and Comme mum stone mum come rcial Maxi s r side mum yards lot area: 16,50 0 sf CB Commu No None Up to None 30'or No No 10' Front 7' nity mini 15,00 2 mini mini and Busines mum; 0 sf stone mum; mum come s lots 1st s other r side over floor; wise yards, 4 or 15' if acres 20,00 parki provi are 0 sf ng ded condi total setba tional floor ck uses area penmi tted> is a condi tion use CS Commu 60,00 150' None None 45' or 30' 15' 30' The 15' • nity 0 sf 3 first Shoppi mini stone 15' of ng mum s front exclu and ding come pad r side sites yards CC Corrido 10,00 75' None None 30' or 15' No 10' Front 7' r 0 sf 2 mini and Comme mini stone mum come rcial mum s r side yards; 15' CSH Sugar No None 20,00 None 90' or No No None None 7' BD House mini 0 sf 6 mini mini Busines mum permi stone mum mum s Multi tted s requir - > Condi ed famil 20,00 tion- y: 0 sf is al: 9,000 a maxi sf for condi mum II3 tional 150' units use or 10 plus stone 500 s sf/uni t CG General 10,00 60' None None 60'or 10' No 10' The 15' Comme 0 sf 4 mini first rcial mini stone mum 10' of mum s front or come r side yards TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front 10' 45 Corrid 0 sf resid and or-45 mini ential Corn mum 25' er resid side ential yards 45' TC- Transit 10,00 50' None None Non- 15' None None Front 10' 75 Corrid 0 sf resid and or- 75 mini ential Corn mum 30' er resid side ential yards 75' condi tional 120' Additional Regulations: General provisions for all commercial districts: building height modification-building height may be modified up to 10 percent of maximum height, as a special exception. Modifications of more than 10 percent, but not more than 1 additional story may be approved on a sloping lot as a conditional use pursuant to subsection 21A.26.010J of this Chapter. CS District-access restrictions: driveways onto public streets shall be limited to 1 per 150 feet of frontage on arterial and major collector streets. Footnotes: 1. See Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. (Ord. 35-99 § 29, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(13-8), 1995) STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSIT COORIDOR DISTRICTS(TC-45 and 75) Types Of Signs Maximum Area Per Maximum Height Minimum Number Of Limit On Permitted Sign Face In Square Of Freestanding Setback 2 Signs Permitted Combined Feet Signs In Feet I Per Sign Type Number Of Signs 3 Flat sign(storefront I.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note 1 below) N/A 1 per business or None orientation)' ft. of store frontage 5 storefront Flat sign(general 1.5 sq.ft.per linear (see note 1 below) N/A 1 per building None building orientation) ft. of building face 5 face Projecting business 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per business None storefront sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the entry to the to 2 feet in height face of the street building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Projecting parking 4 sq.feet per side; (see note 1 below) May extend 4 1 per driveway None entry sign 8 sq.feet total Sign face limited feet from the or parking lot to 2 feet in height face of the entry building,but no more than 2 ft.from back of curb 6 Marquee sign Subject only to I per storefront None subsection 21 A.46.070.0.of this Chapter Awning/canopy signs 1 sq.ft.per linear ft. (see note I below) May extend 6 1 per first floor None of storefront(sign ft.from face door/window area only) of building, but no more than 2 ft. from back of curb 6 Monument sign 100 sq.ft. 12 ft. None 1 per street frontage Construction sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 2 per building None Political sign 32 sq.ft. 8 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Real estate sign 64 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per building None Private directional 8 sq.ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. No limit None sign New development 80 sq.ft. 12 ft. 5 ft. 1 per None sign development Window sign 25%of total frontage (see note I below) N/A No limit None window area per use Public safety sign 8 sq.ft. 6 ft. 5 ft. No limit None Nameplate, 3 sq.ft. 8 ft. N/A 1 per building None identifying building name Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs,see subsection 21A.46.070J of this Chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. The total number of signs permitted from the sign types combined. 4. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 5. A single tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct one larger sign. 6. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. (Ord. 83-98 § 11 (Exh. F), 1998) Exhibit 2 Other Division Recommendations STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ".row m i 4,1 "...0� ®I!`®„1 ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR __ COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Barry Walsh,Transportation Craig Smith,Engineering Brad Stewart,Public Utilities Brad Larsen,Fire Sergeant Larry Thorum,Police Edna Drake,Business Licensing (� FROM: Doug Dansie,Planning Diliision ) DATE: August 23,2001 ;. RE: Petition No.400-01-12.Thei-eation of transit oriented districts Please find attached information regaading proposed amendments to the zoning code regarding the creation of Transit Oriented Distict(s)'.(TOD)along 400 South. Would you please review the attached ordinance and provide any input youmay have. If you have any question please call,me at 535-6182. I ,.ail 4 f { cj ()pi Q 6r -_ 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-61 74 RECYCLED..PER I � I sliT1I C{I 1lTmy/N�Yu• �(j{j �.\yi(�■/ Ir'{6 1i �I li( • • riA�►i 1, ( POLICE DEPARTMENT ,I �VIV� CHARLES F. "RICK" DINSE ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDER. CHIEF OF POLICE MAYOR lin 12 p w ! ; i t to August 29, 2000 ! rAUG :i ► 2001 III Doug Dansie,Planner Planning Division : Re: Petition#400-01-12 Dear Mr. Dansie: In consideration of this petition the Liberty Patrol division where most of this location is situated I do not see or anticipate any impact on the delivery of police services by the action of this petition. We therefore make no recommendation to oppose this petition. Sincerely; Lt. A. Healey Division Commander 315 EAST 200 SOUTH,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-799-3000 FAX:801-799-3557 :� aEerEo P.vc.e Dansie, Doug From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:16 PM To: Dansie, Doug Cc: Cowles, Vicki Subject: Petition to create transit oriented districts Doug, - Public Utilities has no objections to the suggested language for"transit oriented districts". Please note, however, that allowing the densification of existing urban areas will create greater demands on the water and sewer delivery systems. At some point developers may be required to provide off-site improvements (at their expense)to meet the water and sewer demands of their development proposals. As always we will look at each proposal on an individual basis. Brad 1 Exhibit 3 Detailed map of affected area. .. Corridor Commercial, _______„ ,......_,---- ----"-- ___Ulf T _� _L_, __ _ , __, , 11 --r'-w 7_ , , silea" ■ ■■ r R �. o ii �r 17 . i J Ir . �Rt I i 119N sirl ( Dr I "30 _! soo r .1�.! ■ III I 3 - oo H - 32 ' T ■� M--��■� o— _,-I. E•� '� �i Mi R l= e e C 9■■111a• , s '6 wren Al'��r _'-+ a P _ �_ I : � " ?moA, o rV�s '>M M,Oair'm,, i seenna _L�_— l— ri r p,, 'rt 14 Nai:a ' i%ael ''t i,x'd fii`"ta 7` n mo w 1 •r Atld IRail BillS t,' --I- 1 1----' i -1-- PL uo 45' Al PL • mri ;. (35'-7 ') ( 5'- 25) - 0 1 - `;�.� _ ► •-1� 2,r �. A..eallii-elp,, -..k VI Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent current height limits 0 MAP LEGEND r ` 4 "� TC-75 is proposed to replace CC from 200 E to 600 E.r P P p TC-45 is proposed to replace CC from 700 E to 950 E Salt Lake City Planning Division Geographic Information System December 2001 Exhibit 4 Citizen Input Dansie, Doug From: Julia Robertson Uroberts@doh.state.ut.us] Sent: Wednesday,June 06, 2001 6:54 PM To: Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: RE: Community Council Agenda Thanks. I like the idea, we will see what others think. >>> "Dansie, Doug"<Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us>06/06/01 03:58PM >>> That will work I will bring drafts then Before anyone begins speculating too much, let me clarify clarify that all I am dealing with is the existing CC zoning district and how to allow mixed use in those areas I know Robert had talked about transit districts on a larger scale-that is for another day Thanks Doug Original Message From: Julia Robertson [mailto:jroberts@doh.state.ut.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:18 PM To: Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: RE: Community Council Agenda Our next meeting will be July 18. Same time/same place. Thanks. Julia >>>"Dansie, Doug" <Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us> 06/06/01 01:51 PM >>> I have a previous committment to the Capitol Hill Community Council that night which I must attend Doug Original Message From: Julia Robertson [mailto:jroberts@doh.state.ut.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:13 PM To: Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Re: Community Council Agenda The ECCC executive board would like to place this issue on its agenda for June 20th. Would you be available? We meet at Friendship Manor, board room, level L. Meeting starts at 7:00P.M. You will be interested in the agenda, Lincoln White properties, Cancer Wellness House and Unit Legalization issues. Julia 583-5663 >>>"Dansie, Doug"<Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us> 06/04/01 03:19PM >>> Hello I work with the Planning Division and have a petition from the SLC Planning Commission to rezone 400 South form commercial C-C to a new transit zoning district. I would like to talk about transit oriented zoning along 400 South at the next East Central Community Council. Would you let me know if you have space and when the meeting/time would be. Thank You 9/24/01 i ubv 1 Vl I Dansie, Doug From: Julia Robertson llroberts@doh.state.ut.usj Sent: Tuesday,July 17, 2001 5:15 PM To: Doug.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: stephen.goldsmith@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: ECCC Agenda East Central Community Council Executive Board Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 2ool 7:oo-9:oo P.M. Friendship Manor, Board Room, Level L 1320 East 5th South Agenda 7:00 Approval of Minutes- Kathy Scott, 322-5288. (3 minutes) Action: Recommendation. 7:03 Discussion of smaller area for the Master Plan -Stephen Goldsmith (535-7757)SLC Planning Director. (40 minutes) Action: Discussion. 7:43 Nextel Wireless Communication wishes to install a Temporary(for the Olympics) Lightweight Fiberglass Shelter on the roof of Friendship Manor. Jacob Reeves (514-1123) (15 minutes) Action: Recommendation. 7:58 Doug Dansie, (535-7757)Salt Lake Planning Department will be discussing issues of Transit Oriented Zoning. (20 minutes) Action: Educational. 8:18 White Cottages Task Force Update by Cindy Cromer(355-4115) (5 minutes) Action: Recommendation. 8:23 What to do with the reimbursement of$15,000 from Friends of Gilgal?Julia Robertson, 583-5663. (5 minutes) Action: Recommendation. 8:28 Sustainable Communities Committee will distribute the first draft of a statement and a list of markers for your review-Margaret Brady, 521-8377 (3 minutes) Action: Educational. 8:31 Central City's request for ECCC sponsorship of"Get in the Games: Youth Art, Sport and Music Festival- Julia. (3 minutes) Action: Recommendation. 8:34 Update on Smith's 9th and 9th request for gas station-Kathy Scott(5 Minutes) Action: Recommendation. 8:39 Distribution of letter regarding Cancer Wellness House-Julia (3 minutes) Action: Educational. 8:43 Announcements-All 9:00 Adjourn 9/24/01 1a ,c I vl I Dansie, Doug From: Julia Robertson [jroberts@doh.state.ut.usj Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 2:19 PM To: doug.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Many thanks Your presentation last evening vas much appreciated. Expect some email from our group as we have been very concerned about the transit corridor district and I didn't allow enough time for questions. This group could have kept you all night had I let them! Many thanks and it was good to meet you, Cindy Cromer speaks so highly of you. Julia 9/24/01 Dansie, Doug From: Julia Robertson Broberts@doh.state.ut.us] Sent: Friday,August 03,2001 9:39 AM To: Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: RE: Many thanks Our membership meets again in September, but I don't think it is necessary to take this to them. I've been on vacation and have not talked with our board members about their comments (I left a few days after the meeting you presented at and just got back on Wednesday and find it hard to get back in the swing of things) . Will get working on this ASAP. Julia 1 Agenda Community Council Chair Meeting September 6, 2001 7:3o am 7:3o - Welcome Diana Karrenberg 535-7931 7:35 - Open Discussion Mayor/Council Chairs 7:55 - Olympic News John Sittner 535-7744 8:10 - Transit Oriented Districts Doug Dansie 535-6182 8:25 - Proposed Visitability Ordinance Jennifer Seelig 535-7936 Karen Denton 535-7738 8:35 - Grant Writing Training Barry Esham 535-7971 8:45 - Adjourn WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS Via Facsimile(801) 535-6174 September 25, 2001 Mr.Doug Dansie,AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 W 00 DFIN Re: Rezoning of Existing CC to TC Zoning SUITE HOTEL Dear Mr. Dansie: I represent the ownership of the Chase Suite Hotel, located at 765 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. I have reviewed the information which was sent by you to 400 South property owners regarding the proposed rezoning of the existing CC Commercial : Corridor properties to a new Transit Oriented Zoning District (TC). Upon reviewing your information I wanted to address an issue which arises from uses in proposed Transit Corridor District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080, as attached to your letter. In this Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts, under the heading of Miscellaneous, "Hotel or Motel" is a Permitted Use in the CC zoning district, yet as proposed it is a Conditional Use under TC-75 zoning and neither a permitted nor a conditional use under the TC-45 zoning. As written,the zoning for our ,, /` ; existing hotel would be down zoned or would become a non-conforming use which would be very detrimental to our property. Since I do not believe that is the intent of CHASE SUITS HOTEL this proposed zoning change, I would ask that the Table be amended to have Hotel or by Woodfin '; Motel as a permitted use in both proposed TC zoning categories. If you have a problem with this request or need to contact me, my telephone number is 858-794-2338. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. 3 Sincerely, jdet4, 7-etAa..-• Judith S.Fabion Vice President—Real Estate i Woodfin Suite Hotels 12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 250 • San Diego, California 92130 858-794-2338 • FAX 858-794-2348 • www.woodfinsuitehotels.corn Reservations 800-WOODFIN 'TZ,Iffi"./ -17FP October 3,2001 VIA FAX Ross C.Anderson,Mayor,Salt Lake City Stephen A.Goldsmith,Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 306 Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Community&Economic Development FAX: 801-535-7I27 Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 FAX: 801-535-6174 Brent B.Wilde,Deputy Planning Director mug Dansie,AICP,Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Salt I Ake City Corporation Community&Economic Development Community&Economic Development Planning Division Planning Division 451 South State Street,Room 406 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 FAX: 801-535-6174 FAX: 801-535-6174 RE: Desire to respectfully request you exclude The Family Center®at East Downtown from your proposed change of zoning from CC Commercial Corridor Zoning to Transit Oriented Zoning District(TOD) Gentlemen: We write you and sincerely request you eliminate The Family Center®at East Downtown from your proposed zoning change as captioned above. We started the acquisition of these properties literally approximately fifty years ago. We worked with the City to create attractive,value-oriented facilities in the form of The Family Center®. The reception by the residents of Salt Lake City has been overwhelming as indicated by the success of these projects. We also worked with the City and Transit Authority in enabling the transit tine on 4th South even though many observed and we also felt that 3`"South may have been a less expensive and better alternative. On this rezoning we are strongly opposed as we feel it will interfere with the fifty-year track record of The Family Center®success. We know and acknowledge all of the great people in Salt Lake City are bright and capable. Our Family Center facilities of a full block between 4th and 5rn South and 6th East,and about a half of a block between 6th and r East and 44'South have been built to operate and function as a Family Center. In our long-term team,we ' have over 150 years of experience in planning and developing 28 The Family Center®projects throughout the intermountain west,and it is our strong consensus that this would not be good for The Family Center®at East Downtown. We trust our project is of sufficient size that you can proceed with your change to the other properties, and we respectfully request you - . - • as is. Yours v j•cere die 1 A4 .401M2t->e'llie.-A _,.•', .::,--...--'_'. ••—-'""'"-- ",,,,k ,r,,,0°... 4*.ApV . P7," In beh a Family Center®at East Downtown Owners of The Family Center®at East Downtown NSV:ms Cc: Mr.Steve Koch,Transwestern Property Co. Mr.Robert Currey-Wilson,Fred Meyer 101 Stewart Street,Suite 1111 - Seattle,WA 98101 Tcl(206)956-4600 - Fax(206)956-4603 INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT GROUP 27 March, 2001 Mr. Doug Dansie, Community Planner Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Doug, I am in receipt of your 2/28/01 letter, written after your presentation to our International Council of Shopping Centers (I.C.S.C)Mountain States committee on January 18, 2001. Our organization provides strong direction to its members regarding what we can and cannot do in representation of I.C.S.C. Therefore,I write to you as a Salt Lake City "retail"developer and a property owner along the 4th South corridor and not as an I.C.S.C. State Officer. While I understand Salt Lake City's direction regarding a zone ordinance change,I can not agree with or support your efforts at the time. I feel that continued study, cooperation, and communication are necessary before changes are made which could adversely affect and/or damage the property owners in any TOD zone located anywhere in the city. One of my goals as a 3-year state director for our organization was to increase the cooperation between the development community and the municipalities along the Wasatch front. We have included city mayors,development directors, and planners to our committee as well as to our functions. We would ask the same of Salt Lake City. Please let our spokesmen (and experts) discuss these critical issues with your spokesmen (and experts) before approving ordinance which will have a lasting and possibly difficult effect on our tenants. We have questions and concerns. Don't think that silence indicates our agreement. Many of us just don't know how to approach city leadership at this time. Doug, all of this might be a little bold,but I assume that you,Mr.Goldsmith, and the mayor want to hear about our concerns. My associates (many of whom are much bigger developers than myself) and I would be pleased to discuss our thoughts at any time. Sincerely, d -/,„ 7/4,, oyd Hatch 1939 South 300 West,Suite 200•Salt Lake City,Utah 84115•Phone:801 994-3512• Fax:801 994-3518 Exhibit 5 Minutes from the "walkable communities" discussion SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the meeting held Thursday,November 16, 2000 451 South State Street, Room 126 Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Judi Short, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Mary McDonald, and Craig Manger. Arla W. Funk was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen J. Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Margaret Pahl, Doug Wheelwright, and Doug Dansie. PUBLIC HEARING— Petition No. 400-00-52 from the Salt Lake City Administration regarding parking in front of commercial buildings, between the building and the street, within all neighborhood oriented commercial zones (RB Residential Business, RMU Residential Mixed Use, MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CS Shopping Center, CC Commercial Corridor, SHBD Sugar House Business District). The petition requests eliminating parking in the front yard (between the front property line and the building) and to adopt other neo-traditional town planning concepts to encourage a more walkable community throughout Salt Lake City. Mr. Jonas is a managing member of a company that owns some RMU Zone property, and disclosed this information to the Commission. After some discussion, the Commission felt that the presence of Mr. Jonas was acceptable in the situation. Mr. Doug Dansie described that in order to encourage walkable communities, the Administration is requesting that all new commercial developments within neighborhood oriented commercial zones follow neo-traditional design principles and not be designed as traditional strip malls have been generally designed in the post World War II era. Neo-traditional development patterns favor commercial development located near the street, with the entry oriented to the street and the parking be generally located behind the primary building. The Commission then asked questions of Mr. Dansie relating to the case: Ms. Barrows asked whether this petition prevents any parking lot from ever being built at the street line. Mr. Dansie replied "No." Ms. Arnold asked for the area where this petition would apply. Mr. Dansie replied, "basically 2"d East, to 4th West." Ms. McDonald addressed the problem of parking lot lights. Mr. Dansie explained that restricted lighting rules will apply because of the nearby housing. Mr. Jonas asked about the "interior side yard" concept. Mr. Dansie explained an "interior" yard meant interior to the block,with private property, not a street on each side. Ms. Arnold questioned minimum yard requirements listed at 21A.26.030 CB Community Busines District, E. The sentence should read, "No minimum yard is required." Mr. Jonas questioned 21A.26.050 C Corridor Commercial District, D., 6. Mr. Dansie clarified that the first sentence should read "(35%)." Ms. Arnold expressed a need for back entrances to stores. Mr. Jonas pointed out that more doors lead to more problems with security, etc. Mr. Smith used the Oasis Restaurant as an example of how security problems were dealt with. Ms. Arnold agreed, and added that glass should be present in the back as well as front. Mr. Smith asked about trash disposal problems. Mr. Daniels described how this arrangement worked in an area of Sugar House. Mr. Wilde expressed the theory that diagonal street parking slows down traffic. Ms. Arnold wondered why shoppers couldn't angle park in the center of the street. Mr. Smith opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Kadee Neilson, of the West Point City Council, expressed concerns regarding difficult traffic at the corner of 9th and 9th, because of the angled parking. She was concerned about how this planning would eventually affect the West side of the City. She opposed the back parking idea because of shoplifting problems. She wondered how the back parking would affect handicapped individuals, and shoppers at night. She felt that the concept would be very unappealing, and inconsistent with buildings already present. Ms. McDonald asked Ms. Neilson if she'd ever seen the area of Sugar House Commons. Ms. Neilson had not experienced the shopping in that area, and Ms. Arnold then asked her where she goes to shop. Ms. Neilson replied that she goes to Valley Fair Mall, and Bountiful City. Mr. Jeff Schindewolf was opposed to parking in the back of shops. He suggested using parking in the center of shops, to enable the walkabout feeling. He felt that Salt Lake City is a commuting city, and people are constantly driving into, and around the city, instead of parking somewhere and walking around. He expressed a concern regarding street width. Ms. Short answered Mr. Schindewolfs question about street length, adding that everything being discussed this evening is only a part of the entire plan. Ms. Chamonix Wilson disagreed with the comments stating that people don't shop in the downtown area. She felt a need to investigate what Planning can do to promote downtown shopping, and expressed an example of how she feels unsafe walking from Barnes and Noble over to a nearby store. She suggested pedestrian connections which would make walking around downtown easier. Mr. Smith closed the public hearing and turned the discussion over to the Planning Commission. Ms. Barrows asked a question about opt out features which are available to builders. She was concerned that specific locations may be prime examples of why this should not be done, and worried that getting architects to plan in these areas may be more difficult than its worth. Mr. Dansie detailed how, with the building up of the west side, this area would be identical to the east side, and more suitable for this type of design. Ms. Barrows wondered if Redwood Rd was such an area where this design would falter. Mr. Smith brought up the point that significant housing is being built up on Redwood Rd. Ms. Arnold agreed that a store such as Target would draw more crowds in outlining areas, than in downtown, and Mr. Smith argued that this is true for how we presently view Target stores. He then went on to describe a Target store plan involving housing above the store, and how this design could eventually occur in the future. Ms. Arnold added that while she wouldn't go downtown at lunch right now, the addition of a light rail near her office would allow her to do so very easily. Mr. Manger couldn't see how any major downtown changes, such as putting tracks down North Temple, could affect Redwood Rd. He disagreed with the concept of applying these ideas on a zone wide basis. He felt that this regulation did not apply to every Commercial Corridor. Mr. Smith wanted to approach this issue another way. He felt that very few places exist where this plan would not work, and that maybe the Commission needed to sit down and investigate all possibilities. Mr. Jonas accepted these regulations, but was under the impression that many of them will not be used in the near future. Mr.Manger acknowledged that this plan would not work for all downtown planning. Ms. Arnold made the motion to accept the recommendation, except for CC zoning. Mr. Daniels proposed an amendment regarding CS zoning. Ms. Barrows expressed a desire to give Staff guidelines on the other two zones. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Manger, Mr. Jonas, Ms. Short, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonald, voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as chairman,did not vote. The motion passed. Mr. Dansie wondered if he should forward this petition onto the City Council, or hold it. The Commission decided to hold onto it now and come back to it after the first of the year. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Christine Wade, Secretary SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Held Thursday, January 18,2001 - 451 South State Street, Room 126 Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Kay (berger)Arnold, Robert"Bip"Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Craig Manger, Mary McDonald and Judi Short. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde,Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce, Ray McCandless, and Doug Wheelwright. FINAL DECISION -Petition No. 400-00-52 from Salt Lake City Administration regarding parking in front of commercial buildings,between the building and street, within all neighborhood oriented commercial zones (RB residential Business, RMU Residential Mixed use, MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CS Shopping Center, CC Commercial Corridor, and the SHBD Sugar House Business District.) The petition requests eliminating parking in the front yard (between the front property line and the building) and to adopt other neo-traditional town planning concepts to encourage a more walkable community throughout Salt Lake City. Mr. Dansie presented the staff report. He explained that since he last met with the Planning Commission on this issue, he has met with various realty groups or professional organizations to explain what the City is trying to accomplish with this issue. The input from the community has been mostly positive. Mr. Dansie explained that when this issue was brought before the Commission in November, the Planning Commission asked two things: 1) that the CC and CS zones be looked at again and; 2) include language regarding a threshold as to when these become effective. Mr. Dansie illustrated where the CC and CS zones are via the map on the wall. He explained that as the issue was examined, it became obvious that it wasn't so critical that all the urban design principles be included in the CS zones. All new construction in the CS zone is conditional use, so review is occurring anyhow. One of the sites that is not fully built out is the Sutherland site on North Temple. Another is the frontage along 300 West,that is owned by RDA,which they have been marketing. The last site is the Smith's store in the avenues. That is in a historic district so it has Landmark review and it is also in a CS zone, so any new construction that is done has to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dansie continued by saying that in terms of the CC zone, the greatest portion is on the west side along Redwood Road and North Temple. After the November meeting, Mr. Dansie said he started looking at what could be done regarding the CC zone. In the ordinance there is a South State Street overlay which overlays the CC zone along State Street. When the zoning rewrite was done in 1995, the overlay was placed on State Street because the CC zone required a 15-foot landscape setback, but most of the development on State Street is not set back. That overlay exempted State Street from the setback so you could build right up to the property line. By writing all of the design concepts that were discussed into the overlay zone, all of the area has been covered. However, there is one caveat in that the old overlay zone did not include the west side of Main Street. This area wasn't included because the majority of the commercial properties there are converted homes, so they are set back from the street. Thus, the landscape setback was retained. There are some that are built out to the street. By including the west side of Main Street in the overlay it effectively allows building out to the street. Mr. Dansie went on to describe the other CC zones, including a group in Sugar House which includes the Walgreen's corner. In the staff report there is a recommendation that the Planning Commission may want to initiate a petition to rezone this. The Sugar House Business District is to the east of the CC zone; immediately to the west of it is CB. On 400 South there is a draft of the transit- oriented district which includes high density/medium density along 400 South. Since this is in the works, it will take care of this zone upon adoption. Another area is the corner of 300 West and North Temple. Capitol Hill, in their master planning process, is reviewing some implementation policies in that area. In the staff report Mr. Dansie has recommended that as long as the review is in process, that this corner be examined and perhaps a recommendation be made to deal with this area. The remaining area is the Commercial Corridor on North Temple and Redwood Road where design concepts are not included. The message Mr. Dansie got from the Commission the last time this was discussed, is that they did not want this included. At such time that light rail is extended out North Temple, there will be some transit districts in the code. It will be a matter of rezoning at that point.. Mr. Goldsmith added that there is a critical issue here that he wants the Commission's recommendations on. The City Council, along with the Mayor and the Sugar House neighborhoods, have made it abundantly clear that until the TOD ordinance is adopted, the City is at risk. One of the things that came up was the idea of a moratorium in the CC zones to give = us the six-month period to get the TOD in place. Mr. Goldsmith explained that he doesn't know if this can be done by specifying specific portions of the CC zone, or if it would have to be done in all CC zones. He asked if the moratorium was put in place,would it have to be in all CC zones or can selected areas in the CC zone be designated? Mr. Dansie responded that in the staff report he recommended initiating a rezone petition. So, if there is an active petition on these,there is justification for a moratorium. Mr. Goldsmith asked that the Commission recommend that the City proceed with a rezone of the transit oriented development corridor along 400 South. He went on to say that he would like to explore another mechanism for the CC zone in Sugar House as well,but he doesn't know what the language is as yet. Another issue he would like to have the Commission consider is the one relating to community shopping. Even though it is true we have only a few isolated areas,he would like some language considered that says in areas where it is zoned as community shopping, if the land use in the surrounding quarter mile exceeds 60 percent residential, that community shopping area is subject to the same requirements cf the new zone. The question was raised as to rebuild vs. remodel. Mr. Dansie explained that in the new draft it includes that the regulations become effective when the project is increased in size by 50 percent. The 50 percent is either square footage or parking requirements. Mr. Jonas stated he was not clear as to what the Commission is being asked to do. Mr. Goldsmith explained that he wants to make sure that we get the community shopping around the Smith's location included in this ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Dansie had mentioned there is a control mechanism in place that anything that happens in that location has to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dansie explained that it is a CS zone so any new construction,not necessarily remodel, come to the Commission. However, even external remodel goes to Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Goldsmith said he doesn't think there is any mechanism that would require that you build out to the curb. Mr. Dansie agreed and pointed out that the Landmark Commission had the same dialog on 400 South Market. The Landmark Commission was trying to get them to pull out more than what happened,but they didn't have the teeth in the ordinance to do it. Ms. Short asked what the zoning of Circuit City is. Mr. Dansie informed her it is CB, so that is already folded in. Mr. Jonas stated there is a sizable CS zone at 400 South and 700 East where Hostess is located. Ms. Short asked for an explanation of a moratorium. Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commission doesn't recommend moratoriums. Mr. Wilde explained that in most cases what we are talking about are map amendments. For example,in Sugar House, if you initiated a petition, it would be to change that CC zone into either Sugar House or CB. It would require only a map amendment; it wouldn't necessitate a text change. Ms. Arnold asked if a mortorium is placed on the area, does that mean everything comes to a halt. Mr. Goldsmith responded that he has discussed this issue with the Mayor and a moratorium would be done in such a way that any commercial development along that corridor would include a residential component. It would not require a residential development within that six- month period. Mr. Wilde explained that another approach during the interim would be to offer a permit if they comply with the new standards. Ms. Arnold asked if that affects a remodel. Mr. Wilde said that the moratorium ordinance could actually define what it controls; the threshold could be created wherever the Commission wants _ it to be. He went on to explain that in the CC zone areas, the Commission doesn't want to impose the new standards in a blanket approach. They could selectively deteiniine other mechanisms to force the building to adhere to the new standards. Ms. Arnold addressed the issue of 400 South again stating that the Neff building and those buildings to the west have all been vacated clear to the Executive Building. If there is something in the works to get that cleaned up, will a moratorium foul that up? Mr. Jonas responded that he thinks the owner of that building intends to get a demo permit for the Neff Building. Ms. Arnold asked if they were planning to build again, do they have to have a plan before they can do a demo. The answer is that they could landscape the area. Mr. Wilde stated that they are going to present the issue to the City Attorney and ask that along the 400 South corridor the CC zone not be changed. We intend to adopt a transit-oriented zone. If we created a petition to v iitiate a transit-oriented zone, but yet have these new zoning proposals in the CB draft as a basis for interim permits, that would be a way to provide an interim solution for those developments that are willing to adhere to these standards. Whether the City Attorney will be comfortable doing this is not known. You need a complete set of development standards to regulate it so that in the interim, the CB zone could be referred to as the underlying standard. Mr. Manger stated he doesn't see a problem with it because all you're doing is saying that in the interim you have to comply with this set of standards that you're drawing from a different zoning district. At this point Mr. Jonas said that whomever prepared the map did a terrific job. It is the clearest, most concise map they have had to work with. Mr. Manger stated he said he thinks the recommendations made by staff(1,2,3)with the moratorium, if one were to be recommended, accomplishes what Mr. Goldsmith is talking about with one exception, and that is the Smith's property up on Sixth Avenue. If you were going to try to do something there,you would have to initiate a petition to rezone that property. Right now,we are doing a petition to rezone something subject to a moratorium that applies a design standard during the interim. He stated, that to his knowledge there is no suggestion of rezoning that property into something different. Mr. Manger asked for a better understanding of what is being proposed for the Smith's property. Mr. Goldsmith explained that in those areas that fall within the CS zone, if the surrounding land within one quarter mile exceeds 50 or 60 percent residential occupancy, then that CS zone falls within the same criteria as the other walkable zones. Mr. Mariger asked if that only applies to that one parcel. Mr. Goldsmith answered that from his fairly close look at the issue,he thinks that is the case. The question was asked if Trolley Square would fall within that category. Mr. Goldsmith responded that there are certain edges where that would be the case,but he said he doesn't have a problem where it applies to those edges if they are separate parcels. Mr. Manger commented that he doesn't know if that satisfies the reason we had the issue in the first place. Wasn't the initial reason because the people on the west side wanted to have the ability to have stores and services that they don't think they are going to be afforded the opportunity to have if the developer has to comply with these restrictions. Mr. Goldsmith informed that him it wouldn't apply to the CC, only to the CS. Mr. Manger asked about the Sutherland site. Mr. Goldsmith told him that site is not 60 percent residential. Mr. Wilde explained that if you go north from that point, it will be 100 percent residential,but if you go east, south or west, it is commercial. Ms. Short stated that, therefore, it is an average of the corridor,not the full circle. Mr. Wilde answered in the affirmative. Mr. Smith stated he is very sympathetic with what is trying to be accomplished here,but is the Commission walking a fine line by introducing this at this point after a public hearing when it is not on the agenda? Is that an issue? Mr. Smith asked if there is anything imminent for Sixth Avenue and G Street? Mr. Wilde explained that with the exception of Smith's, the CC zones have been on the table. He continued by saying that if the Planning Commission is really bold,under standards for conditional use in a planned development,which Smith's would be, there are sufficient standards to accomplish compatibility through a planned development process. Mr. Smith suggested that, since there doesn't appear to be anything on the immediate horizon, staff look at this issue and bring it back to the next meeting when it can be put on the agenda. Ms. McDonald said that Smith's might be on the immediate horizon. She has heard that they are starting up again. Mr. Goldsmith stated that for the record a moratorium cannot be placed on Smith's. Mr. Jonas referred back to the map and the TOD that is being looked at. He asked what the zoning of the Salt Lake Clinic is. Mr. Dansie informed him the Salt Lake Clinic is institutional; it is not in the CC. Mr. Goldsmith said it could be included in the TOD. Mr. Manger reiterated that we are just showing what CC zoning will get changed. Mr. Dansie explained that where we are going with the TOD now is a higher density. Obviously,we could live with higher heights and density at the west end than at the east end. There would probably be at least two districts. Mr. Jonas said he had a couple of comments on the language. On South State Street overlay district, he felt Paragraph D (maximum building height exemption) was very confusing. Does this mean it exceeds the base by six feet or six stories, or can it only go to a maximum of six stories? Mr. Dansie explained that it means six stories or 90 feet, whichever is less. But someone may do a four-story building that's 90 feet if they build higher stories. Mr. Jonas asked if the wording should be changed to "not to exceed a height of six stories or 90 feet"? Mr. Dansie agreed. Mr. Jonas asked if the language on Paragraph E shouldn't also be changed to include the west side of Main Street. Mr. Dansie explained that in the original draft he had it in bold to change that. Mr. Wilde explained that we could do text amendments without property owner notification. But we cannot do map amendments without property owner notification. Mr. Smith stated that at this meeting a petition could be initiated to make the change,but it can't be changed here until you go through the process. Mr. Wilde explained that all that is being done tonight is creating a petition to begin the process. Mr. Smith stated that on Page 15 there has been discussion that the 15-foot front yard or corner side yard setback might be changed to less. He asked if he is correct in his conclusion. Also he wondered if this is an opportune time to do that. Mr. Dansie replied it is a possibility. He stated that right now there is a 15-foot minimum setback, and it has been there for years. Mr. Dansie explained that, for example he had a woman come in dealing with the corner of 600 East and 600 South which is a CN zone. Historically the small commercial building is out to the property line. If it went to Landmarks, they would probably say that is what you should build. Language could be added, similar to what has been done in other situations,where a maximum setback has been established. Through the conditional use process, the Planning Commission could alter that. At the present time, to waive that 15-foot minimum you would have to go to the Board of Adjustment and prove a hardship. A hardship is difficult to prove on a square, flat lot. Mr. Smith stated he had a question on the item on Page 9 relating to screening all building equipment in service areas including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment ***. We had one recently where we go back an alley and turn 90°into the service area which is an overhead door. If it is a service area,you can't further screen it. Mr. Dansie stated that, in his mind, a garage door is a screen. Mr. Jonas asked if lightproof fencing means solid fencing. Mr. Dansie said it does but he didn't want to specify masonry or chain link with slats, etc. Mr. Dansie said he just wanted to assure fencing that would block car lights from shining in a neighbor's yard. Mr. Dansie stated that in each of the zones it is designated what percent of the facade has to be out towards the front. The percentages vary from as little as 25 percent in the RMU zone to up as high as 80 percent in the Sugar House zone. He said he has tried not to make it one size fits all but adjust it to the zones. He just wanted to ask the Commission if they are comfortable with the percentages. Mr. Jonas said his personal feeling is that Mr. Dansie has thought it through well, and that his presentation last time made a lot of sense. Motion for Petition 400-00-52 Ms. Short made a motion for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to rezone CC Commercial Corridor District along 2100 South,between 700 East and 900 East, to Sugar House Business District. Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jonas made a motion that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to create a transit- oriented zoning district to replace the CC zoning on 400 South and that in the interim,until standards are developed for this TOD zone, that the CB standards be used. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Manger suggested that Mr. Jonas include in his motion the statement"To create a transit- oriented zoning district to replace the CC zoning on 400 South and to be placed on other appropriate properties." The idea is that transit-oriented district might be broader. Mr. Jonas accepted the change to his motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jonas made a motion that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to amend the boundary of the South State Street Corridor Overlay District to include properties that front on the west side of Main Street between 1300 South and 2100 South; the process is targeted to be completed within 12 months. Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Mariger and Ms. McDonald voted"Aye." Ms. Short opposed. Mr. Smith, as Chairman, did not vote. Ms. Short stated that Main Street, through the area in question, is one of her favorite streets, and she doesn't like the idea of seeing it changed. Ms. McDonald made a motion to initiate a petition for the CS zones that are surrounded by 60 per cent residential properties within one-quarter mile to fall within the same criteria for the walkable zones. Ms. Short seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jonas made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the attached zoning modifications as presented by the staff, including the South State Street Overlay District,but not including the CC or CS zoning districts, and that the adoption also incorporate a change to Paragraph B of 21A.24.090 for clarification and also incorporate the change that was discussed on Paragraph D of 21A.26.020 so that a conditional use can be granted for less than a 15-foot minimum front or corner side yard. Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Mr. Smith asked a vote on the issue. The motion was unanimously passed. There being no further business the Commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm. Mary Mascaro, Secretary _ Agenda and Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of Salt Lake City, Utah will hold a regular public meeting on Thursday, December 13,2001,at 5:45 p.m. at 451 South State Street, Room 315. The Agenda is as follows: AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 12+of the City& County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, December 6, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-48, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition 400-01-12, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning (TOD). Application of the TOD zones is proposed to include properties fronting on 400 South, between 200 and 950 East, that are currently zoned CC (this includes all frontage properties except the 4th South Market, Family Center and Wonder Bread blocks, which are zoned CS). This will replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor zoning. (Staff— Doug Dansie at 535-6182) b. b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m. -Petition No.410-562, by Construction Recycling Inc., requesting conditional use approval to develop a concrete and asphalt crushing, recycling and sales facility located at approximately 620 South Delong Street(2350 West)in a Light Manufacturing"M-1"and Heavy Manufacturing"M-2"zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) c. c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.400-01-51, by SLHNET Investment, LC, requesting to declare a portion of 200 North (between 400 and 500 West)as surplus property, in exchange for property along 500 West(between North Temple and 300 North)to facilitate the widening of 500 West Street, the subject property is zoned M-1. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6954) d. d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.-Petition No.410-548, by Matrix Power Development Company, requesting a conditional use approval to allow for the development and construction of a natural gas-fired, electric generation facility to be operated as a"peaking plant"on the property located at 4951 West 200 South in a Light Manufacturing"M-1"zoning district. (Staff—Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) e. e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:20 p.m.-Petition No.410-568, by Pacificorp/Utah Power and Light, requesting -'conditional use to construct three natural gas-fired electric power generators at the Gadsby electric power plant located at approximately 1359 West North Temple Street in a Light Manufacturing "M-1"zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535- 7282) 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. a. Final clarifications to the walkable communities Ordinance to be discussed immediately after the Transit Oriented Development Ordinance hearing. b. b. Discussion of receiving testimony in a timely manner. 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. On Thursday,December 13,2001 I personally posted copies of the foregoing notice within the City and County Building at 451 S. State Street at the following locations: Planning Division, Room 406; City Council Bulletin Board, Room 315; Community Affairs,Room 345. A copy of the agenda has also been faxed to all Salt Lake City Public Libraries.-- Signed: STATE OF UTAH ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me on Thursday,Decembe :so COUNTY OF SALT LAKE NOTARY PUBLIC residing in Salt Lake Co SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 5:51 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Laurie Noda, Kay (berger) Arnold, Prescott Muir and Peggy McDonough. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Greg Mikolash, Doug Dansie, Jackie Gasparik, Janice Lew and Ray McCandless. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-48, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District and Petition 400-01-12, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning (TOD). Application of the TOD zones is proposed to include properties fronting on 400 South, between 200 and 950 East, that are currently zoned CC (this includes all frontage properties except the 4th South Market, Family Center and Wonder Bread blocks, which are zoned CS). This will replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor zoning. Mr. Dansie presented the staff report. He noted that the City presently has design controls in most of the Downtown and Gateway zones, which encourage pedestrian oriented development. These changes were instigated in 1995 and 1998. They are derived from a philosophy that within mixed-use areas, zoning should focus less on the specific land use, as traditional zoning does, and more on the general design and compatibility of uses. The general design controls that Salt Lake City has adopted thus far elsewhere in the zoning ordinance are minimal, involving setbacks, parking location and sidewalk interface. This specific ordinance uses parking location restrictions, maximum setback, 40% glass at the ground level, front door orientation and density increases to achieve its goals. Mr. Muir asked why a portion of 400 South is zoned CS and not included in the proposal to rezone the CC zoned property. Mr. Dansie explained that the original petition created by the Planning Commission made in January 2001, was to rezone the CC district. Mr. Jonas stated tha; he didn't make the distinction when the petition was initiated in January 2001. He felt that the 400 South corridor should include the full strip and not just sections of 400 South. Mr. Muir felt that homeless shelters should be included as a conditional use in the ordinance. Mr. Chambless felt the large billboard sign was inappropriate on 400 South. Mr. Jonas asked why gas stations were allowed in the zone. He felt they were inappropriate in the zone. Mr. Muir stated that gas stations are a contradiction in a walkable neighborhood. Mr. Wilde stated gas stations could be taken out of the TC zone. Mr. Jonas felt concerned about the 75-foot height allowance. He stated the height allowance could cause a wall of huge buildings on a narrow strip. He asked why department stores are not allowed as a conditional use. Mr. Dansie stated the Planning Commission could recommend department stores as a conditional use in the CC zone. Department stores are defined as being over 100,000 square feet. He stated that staff wanted to encourage department stores closer into the downtown area. Retail is limited to the lower 30 feet of the building, and anything taller needs to have residential included on the upper floors. Mr. Jonas asked why mini-warehouses were allowed as conditional use in the CC zone. Mr. Dansie explained with the large higher density residential area, people might need a mini-warehouse for storage purposes. Mr. Dansie stated that he had received calls from the Wilshire condos regarding view blockage. However, when looking as the topographic map, it was unlikely that a 45-foot tall building would block views because they only TC-45 zoning for the block was at the opposite side of the block and at a much lower elevation. Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing. Cindy Cromer, resident, felt the changes have improved the ordinance. Debra Lawler, resident, stated she was concerned about the increased height limit, with buildings obstructing the view and natural light from her apartment. Mr. Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Prescott asked Mr. Dansie to explain what level of development or remodeling triggers a complete upgrade on a piece of property. Mr. Dansie explained that there is a lot of flexibility as to what level of development or remodeling constitutes a complete upgrade on a piece of property written into the ordinance. Mr. Jonas asked why a flexible façade is not allowed in the CC zone. Mr. Dansie explained that staff wanted to make this a more pedestrian oriented. The ordinance allows a 15 to 25-foot setback, which allows a courtyard for outdoor dining. Mr. Wilde explained that planned development provisions in other zones states that all new construction of principle buildings, uses or additions, that increase the floor area or parking requirement by 25%, trigger a review. He felt this should be incorporated into the CC zoning ordinance to clarify the threshold. Mr. Muir agreed with Mr. Wilde. Ms. McDonough asked if the height should be lowered to allow for a bonus, in terms of motivation for affordable housing. Mr. Dansie explained that this concept has been used in the Gateway zone, but it has its limitations. Ms. McDonough felt that Salt Lake City may not be ready for this concept. Mr. Daniels felt that developers are interested in this concept and bonuses should be offered to them. Mr. Muir felt that there currently is a market for affordable housing. He stated there is a need for inducements for market rate housing. Mr. Jonas felt conce►Aed about creating a bonus for extending over 75 feet, in the TC-75 zone. Mr. Muir would like more flexibility in residential building height. Mr. Wilde explained that the TC-45 zoning ordinance allows for 45-foot heights for residential use. He stated that the height of 15 feet per story was established in the 1995 ordinance. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to allow three (3) or four (4) story residential buildings in the CC zone. Mr. Muir stated that the building code was specific; three (3) stories, stick framed and 50 feet. He felt the ordinance should have the same limit as the building code. Mr. Jonas asked why no rear yard is required in the TC-45 zone. Mr. Dansie stated no rear yard is required in the case where commercial use backs on to a commercial use. If a commercial use abuts a residential use, there is a 10-foot buffer required. Mr. Jonas felt the wording in TC-45, I, should be changed to "restrictions on parking lots and parking structures". Mr. Muir felt the section on parking ramps should be included in the suggestion section of the ordinance. Mr. Dansie explained this section is incorporated into the ordinance because developers don't have to go through the development process. This would pertain to those who get over-the-counter permits. Mr. Jonas stated that he thought the ordinance already required 40% glass. Mr. Dansie explained this was written so corner properties would be allowed one (1) operable door on one street as long as there is 40% glass. Motion for Cases #400-01-12 and 400-01-48: Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, for Petition 400-01-48, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of the proposed TC-75 and TC-45 zoning districts as well as the associated zoning amendments and sign table (to create Transit Oriented zoning districts (TOD)). Conditions of Approval: 1. Height in Section 21A.26.073 G, the non-residential building height be increased to 30 feet from 25 feet and Section 21A.26.073 H, the residential building height be increased to 50 feet from 45 feet. 2. The word `Parking' (Parking Structures) be included in 21A.26.073 I, in two (2) places. 3. Include the wording, "All new construction, or any additions that consisted of 25% increase in square footage, or 25% increase in the parking requirement." 4. Eliminate gas stations as a conditional use in the TC-75 zone. 5. Include department stores as a conditional use in the TC-75 zone. Ms. Arnold second& the motion. Mr. Jonas, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact, as stated in the staff report, Petition No. 400-01-12, to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone all CC Commercial Corridor properties on 400 South between 200 East and 700 East as TC-75, and all CC Commercial Corridor properties on 400 South between 700 East and 1000 East to TC-45. Ms. Arnold secondeu the motion. Mr. Jonas, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion to Initiate a Petition: Mr. Jonas made a motion to initiate a petition to the possibility of creating TC-75 and TC-45 zones in the existing CS corridor between 500 East 800 East. Ms. Arnold seconded the motion. Mr. Jonas, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Muir voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. McDonough excused herself from the rest of the meeting. Historic Landmark input to Planning Commission [Staff report to Historic Landmark Commission not included because it is nearly identical to Planning Commission Staff report] Agendas and Minutes Nov 7, 2001 Jan 2 2002 Jan 30, 2002 AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street November 7, 2001 at 4:00 P.M. FIELD TRIP 1. Field Trip will Lave promptly at 3:00 P.M. for staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission. MINUTES 2. Approval of the minutes from the October 17, 2001 meeting. PREVIOUS BUSINESS 3. Case No. 020-01, at 464 South 600 East, by Doug Holmberg of Total Property Asset Management, requesting to review the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding the demolition of the "Bill and Nada McHenry" house, located in the Central City Historic District. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6260) NEW BUSINESS 4. Case No. 026-01, at 451 South State Street, by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, iequesting to review the proposed installation of a water-wise demonstration garden, as part of the Washington Square Water Efficiency Project. The City and County Building with the surrounding Washington Square is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6260) 5. Case No. 027-01, requesting input and a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council regarding Petition No. 400-01- 48, which is a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District, and Petition No. 400-01-12, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning, between 200 and 900 East Streets. (Staff, Cheri Coffey at 535-6188) OTHER BUSINESS 6. Discussion of the upcoming Historic Landmark Commission Citizens Awards ceremony. (Staff, Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) PLEASE NOTE: THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING OR THE CASE WILL NOT BE REVIEWED. The next ASC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 28`h in Room 126. The next HLC meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 126. Notification will be provided if there are any changes. SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126 November 7, 2001 A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Doug Dansie, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight. Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Doug Dansie, Planner. Case No. 027-01, requesting input and a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council regarding Petition No. 400- 01-48, which is a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District, and Petition No. 400-01-12, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning, between 200 and 900 East Streets. Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Doug Dansie, a Principal Planner on the Planning Staff, who presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staffs recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie used a briefing board to pinpoint the boundaries of the area that was being discussed. He gave some background information and presented an overview of the issues. Mr. Dansie said that the two new zoning districts would replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor district along 400 South. He said that they have been named TC 75, which would allow buildings up to 75 feet tall, and TC 45, which would allow buildings only up to 45 feet tall. Mr. Dansie referenced the staff report which was a "strike and bold" edition as he further identified and analyzed the issues. He said that taller height maximums would be allowed adjacent to the 400 South corridor west of 700 East, and allow the shorter buildings between 700 and 1000 East. Mr. Dansie said that the only blocks that lie within the Central City Historic District are between 500 East and 700 East Streets along the 400 South corridor. He stated that there would be density limitations based on the square footage. Mr. Dansie said that he believed this 400 South corridor would be the only place where this TOD zoning would occur. Mr. Dansie stated that historically many of the Salt Lake City neighborhoods have been "streetcar subdivisions", where the neighborhood developed in response to mass transit access (i.e. Forest Dale). He pointed out that many traditional commercial areas in the city have also been developed with transit and pedestrians as the focus. Mr. Dansie said that post World War II era, the automobile began to dominate the landscape and affected land use policies as new shopping areas were designed with the automobile as the primary focus. Mr. Dansie said that with the renewed focus on mass transit along certain corridors, it is the City's intent to increase densities and pedestrian orientation of these areas which had been automobile oriented. Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments: • Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by saying that usually transit districts encompass a one-quarter mile perimeter around a transit station, rather than a single corridor. He asked if the City had given that much consideration. He added that other zoning types were compatible with Transit Oriented Development. Mr. Dansie said that the City has considered that possibility. He pointed out that the mixed use zones allow non-residential uses on the ground. Mr. Dansie said that early on in the discussions relative to this matter, another planner proposed TOD areas within one-quarter mile of each light rail station and set them up as overlay districts. He said there were so many other neighborhood issues going on, such as automatically increasing the density or decreasing the parking for a single-family home that was not oriented into this transit corridor, that they caused consternation with some of the neighbors. Mr. Simonsen was concerned that the limited area would not be large enough to generate the desired outcome with the adjacent zoning. Mr. Dansie said that RMU already allows a 75 to 120-foot building. • Ms. Giraud talked about the historic properties in the location where the proposed zoning change would take place and the surrounding areas. Mr. Dansie stated that the City would allow housing in commercial areas where housing was not allowed before; therefore, it would reduce the pressure to demolish single-family homes. • Mr. Littig inquired about parking in the proposed zoning location. Mr. Dansie stated that there is a parking section in the proposed zoning ordinance for residential and retail purposes. Mr. Simonsen said that it would be interesting if the City could apply maximum limitations like in the downtown zone. Mr. Dansie pointed out that all parking requirements were listed in the tables accompanying the staff report and are reduced by 25% in the proposed zone. Mr. Dansie said that the City would not be forcing the owners to build parking lots. Mr. Littig said that it is a great idea in theory, but buildings such as the Brigham Street Apartments is — suffering due to the lack of parking. Mr. Dansie indicated that 400 South will have light rail on this major corridor. Mr. Dansie stated that some lending institutions get "really nervous" about areas that do not "over park". He added that parking lots can become very expensive and the City does not want to discourage development because of the high cost of structured par;cing. • Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich referred to the glass requirement on the street level of buildings in specific zones. She spoke of a building on the corner of 200 South and West Temple where the street level windows have sheet rock walls right behind the mini blinds. Mr. Dansie agreed there should be a stricter ordinance requiring properties to have a greater interaction between the sidewalk and the building by using non-obscure glass. However, he said that there was no way to write a code addressing all possible permutations. There was much discussion regarding the grades and shades of glass that could be used as other buildings in the downtown area were pointed out where the interaction between the sidewalk and the building was prohibited. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she believed the code should address the opaqueness of the glass. Mr. Simonsen said that condition could be augmented by requiring 40% glazing, but 90% of that had to be transparent with a maximum shading percentage. • Mr. Young said that department stores would not be allowed in the TOD zoning. Mr. Dansie said that a department store is defined in the zoning ordinance as a building requiring 100,000 square feet with multiple department uses, such as Sears and Fred Meyer. There was some discussion regarding those outlets as well as others that were rumored to be in historic districts. • Mr. Parvaz inquired how the change of zoning along the 400 South corridor would effect the historic overlay district. Mr. Dansie said that the overlay district would take precedence. Mr. Simonsen said that the proposed change would be more compatible with historic development patterns and would be a "huge improvement". Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any contributing buildings in the proposed TOD district and Ms. Giraud said that there were not. Mr. Parvaz introduced the subject of setback requirements in the proposed new zone. Mr. Dansie said that in some zoning regulations, a minimum setback requirement was eliminated, but along 400 South, the minimum setback would be 15-feet, with a 25- foot maximum. He added that 400 South would be a multi-lane highway with transit in the middle with only eight-foot sidewalks. Mr. Dansie indicated that the minimum and maximum setback requirement would be an extension of the sidewalk, which would create an open plaza area that would accommodate more outdoor dining for restaurants in the corridor. Mr. Dansie said that the Planning Commission could modify the language in the ordinance regarding the setback issue. There were other issues discussed relative to height limitations and setback regulations. Mr. Dansie thanked the Commissioners for their ideas and _ suggestions. Mr. Simonsen commended the City for being pro-active, especially when the zoning change will follow closely to the completion of the light rail. (Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich was excused at 5:30 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.) Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting. Executive Session There was further discussion regarding the issues pertaining to the zone change. The conversation turned to the wording of the motion. Motion: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission for Petition No. 400-01- 12 and 400-01-48. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown suggested amending the motion to include a provision that would have some control about what goes on behind the glass. Amended final motion: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-12 and 400-01-48. Further, the approval should include a provision that is worded in such a way that the City would have some control about what is allowed behind the glass windows on the street level of a building. Mr. Young's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion concerning Petition No. 400-00-52, Walkable Communities. Mr. Doug Dansie, a planner on the City Planning Staff, also presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition on January 18, 2001, but has not been transmitted to the City Council to be finalized. He indicated that he wanted to discuss how walkable communities would interface with historic preservation. Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Petition No. 400-00-52 on January 18, 2001. He said that the petition would create design guidelines within specific zoning districts in order to facilitate a walkable community. Mr. Dansie noted that since the Planning Commission's action, several business owners approached the Administration and asked that the ordinance be slightly modified to allow for more design flexibility. He indicated that their specific request is to allow the planned development process to exempt proposals from specific design requirements if they met the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said that the Administration is requesting that the Planning Commission consider this proposal. Mr. Dansie stated that the zoning districts that will be affected are RB, RMU, MU, CN, CB, CS, and SHBD. He added that industrial and general commercial districts would not be affected by the change. Mr. Dansie said that the districts were selected to discourage strip malls by adding a maximum 20-foot setback requirement, but for a parking lot, the maximum setback would be 30 feet. Mr. Dansie pointed out that a developer would have to pay less for landscaping when the parking is in the 'ear of a building. He also stated that there would be a 40% glass requirement on the ground level, which has already been included in several zoning districts. Mr. Dansie added that on downtown Main Street, the requirement is 60%. He said that one other requirement is a door in the building facing the street. Mr. Dansie stated that when the Fourth South Market was developed on 400 South, the City did not have the strength in the zoning ordinance to require maximum setbacks so buildings would be built closer to the street. A short discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding the walkable communities. Mr. Parvaz thanked Mr. Dansie for his presentation. Shirley S. Jensen, Secretary Amended AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street January 2, 2002 at 4:00 P.M. FIELD TRIP 1. Field Trip will leave promptly at 3:00 P.M. for staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission. MINUTES 2. Approval of the minutes from the November 7, 2001 meeting. 3. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED - Approval of the minutes from the December 19, 2001 meeting. COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION 4. Comments will be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. (Comments will be limited to two minutes.) PREVIOUS BUSINESS 5. (CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 19, 2001 MEETING) Case No. 028-01, in Liberty Park, by the Salt Lake City Parks Division, requesting approval for removal of existing trees, planting new trees, realignment of sidewalks, and installation of new landscaping along the north-south corridor through the middle of the park, at approximately 600 East. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. (Staff, Janice Lew at 535-7625) 6. (CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 19, 2001 MEETING) Case No. 001-01, at 631 No. West Capitol Street, by Jim Oliver, requesting approval of revisions to previously approved plans for a new duplex in the Capitol Hill Historic District. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6?60) NEW BUSINESS 7. Case No. 001-02, at 178 South 1200 East, by Tim and Shelly Fletcher, requesting legalization of vinyl fencing installed in 1998 in the front and side yards without a permit. The property is located in the University Historic District. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6260) 8. Case No. 002-02, at 613-615 East 500 South, by Total Property Asset Management, L.L.C., represented by Doug Holmberg, requesting the initial review of an application for economic hardship to demolish the duplex, and the selection of a person to serve on the Economic Review Panel to represent the Historic Landmark Commission and the City. The property is located in the Central City Historic District. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6260) SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126 January 2, 2002 Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Noreen Heid was excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, and Cheri Coffey, Principal Planners. COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION Mr. Parvaz stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Ms. Cindy Cromer stated that she has been a resident in the East Central City neighborhood for 30 years. She talked about an agenda item that was recently approved by the Planning Commission regarding the TC (Transit Corridor) zoning district along 400 South. Ms. Cromer said that the Planning Commission increased the maximum height for new construction another five feet, which makes the maximum 50 feet. She said that she thought that the 45-feet limit was too high. Ms. Cromer pointed out that there is no compatibility review process in place. She said that a section of 400 South falls into the Central City Historic District, but only between 500 and 700 East, where this Commission would have the purview. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission would review any project for compatibility that would be abutting historic properties. Ms. Cromer said that the Bryant neighborhood is on the National Register of Historic Places and the Bennion neighborhoods' petition is pending. She mentioned that beca,:se these two neighborhoods are not listed on the City register, this Commission has no purview over those neighborhoods. Ms. Cromer indicated that the issue of compatibility has been in the East Central Community Master Plan since 1994. She stated that the same day when the Planning Commission took action on the TC zone, Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, the City's Planning Director, said not to expect a compatibility review any time soon for those neighborhoods. Ms. Cromer said the petition would be going to the City Council with the height proposed at 50 feet and no compatibility review in place. She commented that on the north side of 400 South in the proposed TC zone, there are many single- family dwellings and duplexes that are historic and those could literally be in the shadow of infill development most of the year. Ms. Cromer invited the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to either call the petition back and deal with the historic preservation issues or, at least, send the City Council a message that the this Commission did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations. She talked of her commitment to stop the petition for the TC zone until there is some kind compatibility review to protect the historic properties on the north side of 400 South. Ms. Cromer stated that the Planning Commission seems to be very unsympathetic to the existing residents between 700 and 900 East. She said that the City Administration seems to be more in favor of new development rather than the people who have been living in their historic homes for many years. Ms. Cromer stated that this was not acceptable. Ms. Giraud suggested discussing this issue at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Parvaz was concerned about the timing factor. She introduced Ms. Cheri Coffey, on the Planning staff, who was more knowledgeable about the petition. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commission approved the petition on December 13, 2001. She explained the paperwork that has to be completed before the petition was ready for a public hearing at a City Council meeting. Ms. Coffey believed it would be several months before the petition would be transmitted to the City Council. Mr. Parvaz asked staff to study this further and bring it to the Commission for discussion. Motion: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Transit Corridor Zoning District be discussed at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed. There were no further public comments to the Commission. Shirley S. Jensen, Secretary Amended AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street January 30, 2002 at 4:00 P.M. FIELD TRIP 1. Field Trip will leave promptly at 3:00 P.M. for staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission. MINUTES 2. Approval of the minutes from the December 19, 2001 meeting. 3. Approval of the minutes from the January 2, 2002. PREVIOUS BUSINESS 4. Case No. 019-01, at 340 South 600 East, by Overland Development Corporation, represented by Ken Holman, requesting a review of the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of the Juel Apartments in order to construct a 200-unit apartment building complex. (Staff, Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) NEW BUSINESS 5. Case No. 003-02, at Pioneer Park, by the Salt Lake City Planning Division, requesting to permit the installation of a sculpture by a Greek artist, Pavlos Kougioumtzis, on the northeast corner. The park is located on Block 48, between 300 and 400 Scz:ith, and 300 and 400 West streets. Pioneer Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. (Staff, Janice Lew at 535-7625) 6. Case No. 004-02, at 452 East 500 South, by the owners, requesting comments regarding the nomination of the "Joseph and Marie McRae" house to the National Register of Historic Places. (Staff, Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) OTHER BUSINESS 7. Discuss the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to the height limits in the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District along 400 South between 700 and 900 East. This issue was raised by a citizen at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, and the Commission requested further information from Planning Staff. (Staff, Ne/son Knight at 535-6260) 8. Review the draft of the new Historic Landmark Commission signage policy. (Staff, Nelson Knight at 535-6260) PLEASE NOTE: THE A PLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING OR THE CASE WILL NOT BE REVIEWED. The next ASC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 23`d in Room 126. The next HLC meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 126. Notification will be provided if there are any changes. SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126 January 30, 2002 A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight. Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Held, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen and Alex Protasevich were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey and Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisors, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Principal Planner, and Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to the height limits in the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District along 400 South between 700 and 900 East streets. This issue was raised by a citizen at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, and the Commission requested further information from the Planning Staff. Mr. Knight stated that when the Commission was briefed regarding the TC- Transit Corridor Zoning District, the discussion focused on the portion of 400 South that lies within the Central City Historic District. He said that at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, an interested citizen, Cindy Cromer, introduced the issue of the historic structures being overshadowed by high rise buildings between 700 and 900 East along 400 South streets if the new zoning was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Knight said that area is on the boundaries of two proposed National Historic Districts and would not ordinarily be subjected to a Historic Landmark Commission review. Mr. Knight asked Ms. Coffey of the Planning Staff to attend this meeting to address any issues that the Commissioners may have. Ms. Coffey stated that Ms. Cromer was concerned about the 50-foot height allowance in the proposed TC zoning district because a building that high would overshadow the many historic structures north of 400 South Street. She said a property that is shadowed by a high-rise building would not be prone to demolition any more than a property that is not shadowed. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Staff believes that the additional height allowance along 400 South may benefit the preservation of other historic resources in the area because it might take the development pressure off of those historic structures. She circulated some photographs of the historic structures. Ms. Coffey continued by saying that the issue was raised at the Planning Commission meeting and the Commission did not support a rear yard setback requirement in the TC zone, however, a required ten-foot landscape buffer when it is adjacent to a residential zoning district, was written into the ordinance, which would encompass most of the area of concern. She said that addition, as well as the idea that the buildings would be built closer to the street with parking in the back, would supply some relief for shadowing. She cited some examples of large trees in the vicinity that cast shadows on neighboring historic properties that could remain because they were inclusive of the ten-foot landscaping buffer. Ms. Coffey noted that most historic apartment buildings in the area are four stories (less than 45 feet in height)with the first story partially underground. She said that the 50-foot height allowance was recommended because the first floor would be used commercially so it would need to be at grade. She said that concrete between the first and second floors would be required. Mr. Simonsen said that extra height would also allow for a parapet. Ms. Coffey also referred to the neighborhood parking issue by saying that most developers would increase the parking requirements for any new development. = Therefore, she said there would be a separation between the new building and the rear property line. Ms. Coffey concluded that many of the historic apartment buildings throughout the neighborhood are next to smaller single-family dwellings and is a typical pattern in the area. Ms. Coffey said that from the Planning Staffs point of view, this is not a preservation issue. However, when the proposal is transmitted to the City Council, this concern will be addressed and the City Council would have to balance the issue of protecting the historic structures to the north of 400 South from shadowing. Mr. Littig stated that he believed that livability was a preservation issue. He said that if a residential structure is so overshadowed where it is not livable, it would fall into bad repair and deteriorate, then the building would be demolished. Mr. Littig said that historic structures needed to be protected from encroachment, whether it would be from setbacks or heights of buildings. Mr. Parvaz clarified that the height allowance in the TC zone went from 45 feet to 50 feet. Ms. Coffey said that the height allowance in the existing TC zone is 30 feet. She noted that in the Planning Staff recommended raising the height limit to 45 feet, but the Planning Commission raised the height limit to 50 feet. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe that anything higher than a four-storied building could be constructed with the height allowance of 50 feet. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commissioner's thoughts were the same. Mr. Parvaz suggested that the issue would be compromised by allowing the 45- foot height limit and requiring the new building to be stepped back. He referred to the briefing the Commission had regarding the Sugar House Master Plan, where that requirement was recommended on 2100 South Street for the very same reason. Mr. Young said that some states have adopted solar access laws. He said that the key issue would be that the building could be built five feet higher and not disturb that access if a back yard setback is required. Mr. Young added that the buildings also could be staggered. Ms. Coffey again stated that any recommendations made by this Commission would be transmitted to the City Council. Even though this was a discussion and not a public hearing, because of the interest surrounding this issue, Mr. Parvaz opened the meeting for public comment and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she wanted to explain, from a neighbor's perspective, the piece of the puzzle that was missing. She stated the following: "Since 1984, we have anticipated getting a compatibility review process for this part of our neighborhood, (the north end of East Central), where we have a high concentration of old houses and some opportunities for infill redevelopment. All of our contemplation of this TC zone from the time the City presented it to us was that the Administration had finally committed to a capability review...therefore, we could think about turning these buildings [new buildings] so that they would not damage or reduce the livability of the small structures to the north. We found out on the same day that this went to the Planning Commission that we did not have a compatibility review on the horizon..." Ms. Cromer stated that she was told if the neighborhood wanted a compatibility review, the citizens would have to go to the City Council to get some legislative intent. Ms. Cromer said that her concern was not just the fact that the Planning Commission increased the height by five feet, but that it would create a 100-foot shadow during the winter months and the fact that the compatibility review process was lost. Ms. Cromer talked about the complication of addressing the members of the City Council and convincing them that the "issue was not ready for their attention and please send it back". She suggested that the proposal would be "damaging" to the planned National Register district to be approved that way it is proposed because it is not sensitive to the small dwellings that are owner/occupied. Ms. Cromer said that north of 400 South Street between 700 and 900 East Street, are one of the most vested parts of the neighborhood and possible developers should be made aware of this issue. She concluded by saying that she was "absolutely committed to protect these small very historic late nineteenth century properties...lt would be very unfortunate to drive the present occupants out and to degrade them by placing them in a shadow". Ms. Cromer said that the Planning Commissioners were very insensitive to this issue and much more concerned about lost opportunities for developers rather than the people who had made a commitment to this area. Mr. Ashdown asked Ms. Cromer if the development had design review, would she feel better about this? Ms. Cromer said that she would because the neighborhood is not "freaked out" about density but is asking that the buildings be oriented north/south rather than east/west. Mr. Simonsen said that he agreed with Ms. Coffey that the height of a building is not a preservation issue, but he said that the compatibility issue should be part of the ordinance. He said that there is no shortage of apartment buildings next to small residential structures because they are part of the historic fabric of the downtown area. Mr. Simonsen said that the matter of scaling, materials, and textures are more detrimental factors than height. He suggested design guidelines that would address adjacent properties, setbacks, landscape buffers, open spaces between buildings, and so on. Ms. Rowland said that backs of these buildings are going to degrade this neighborhood. She said that the design review should take into account the small residential structures and the surrounding development areas. She said that perhaps it would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Littig said that he did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission should advocate the maximum height issue. Mr. Knight suggested that if the Commission believes that a compatibility and design review is warranted in the proposed TC zone, the members could request that the Planning Division initiate a petition addressing these issues. Ms. Coffey made another suggestion. She said that in lieu of a compatibility review the Commission could recommend that the TC zones be subjected to a conditional use so the Planning Commission would have to review the site and make certain it would be compatible to the adjacent properties. Ms. Giraud said occupants who want open space, downtown, Capitol Hill, or the Avenues areas might not be where they should live because of the closeness of adjacent properties. She said that for years, the Juel Apartment building on 600 East has cast a shadow on the historic Mumford house. Ms. Giraud said that the shadow issue is a "huge conflict" and the ordinance could end up being extremely subjective. The discussion continued with members of the Commission expressing his/her view of the issues. Mr. Ashdown was not certain the Planning Commission would be the appropriate body for a compatibility review. Mr. Simonsen was "struggling"with the shadow issue because there could be no end to the concept and could open the door for more complex issues. He said that some people love historic districts because of the tight knit fabric of structures. He added that is the way cities were built many years ago. Mr. Wilson also questioned the preservation issue. Mr. Parvaz was looking for ways to justify design review, acting in the general interest of preservation. Ms. Mickelsen wondered why the issue of a compatibility design review was not required for the entire city and not just certain areas. She said that the compatibility issue is built into the city's master plans. Mr. Knight talked about the process of the overall issue and different neighborhood concerns. Ms. Coffey said that some homeowners would consider a compatibility design review too restrictive. Ms. Giraud discussed how the compatibility design review was not supported by the City Council in the past because of the affect it would have on constituents. Ms. Coffey said that an option would be that the Commission could request that specific types of guidelines be put into the TC zoning text, in addition to the conditional use concept. Ms. Giraud said that the compatibility design review issue is very complex and deserves much more study than the time allotted at this meeting. She said that Mr. Knight's suggestion of recommending a study for the subject area for a compatibility design review was a good one, but said that another option would be some sort of built-in design mechanism not to allow a solid block wall of buildings constructed at the maximum height. She said that the Commission could make recommendations in a letter that would be forwarded to the City Council. Motion: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that they consider incorporating a conditional use requirement for developments within the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District and they also consider the development of design guidelines, which would help provide further clarification of the compatibility issue. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed. Shirley S. Jensen, Secretary Original Petition PETITION NO. L (' -C/- 19_ PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 311.54____ Petition delivered to Planning 3/2:1 V Petition assigned to: )i,;t c3 is s,e— 1 2-I i 3 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover a Chronology • :`7 s . __ Property Description (marked with a post it note) AMP 1 c Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 41A p % % _�__ Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils Mailing Postmark Date Verification -2 Planning Commission Minutes ',T) ''' t-x "' Planning Staff Report f _\ --_ Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. �-�' "� Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 3/a CT � ;,,,� Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 1,0 DVS 4 erg e- Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition i Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office Memorandum Date: January 25, 2001 To: Brent Wilde, Deputy Director From: Doug Dansie, AICP (W Subject: Transit Oriented Zoning At the January 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, as part of the discussion of petition 400-00-52, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to rezone the land located along the 400 South, from 200 East to 900 East, from CC Commercial Corridor(and other appropriate zones) to a new Transit Oriented zoning district(or districts). REMARKS • • Petition • . 4nQ_07_12 By .S/l ��rnn�nr� rcrmmL 7iran� �t O2-Lenivr/ 7nnJnry In-t..t-ia.tecI a pei..Lt Lon t o 2ezon' -the .hand .eoca.tecl along .the 400 South, /tom 200 Ca6.t .to 900 Caz.t, /tom CC Comme2c.La� CoAA do4 (and o.the2 app' opzLa zonez) .to a new 7Aan.61..t 02.ien .d zoning (o2 di�t2ict�) ; Date Filed Address ,(\'1 } �^ APR 0 2002 S '' €, t STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH I gt 'lorry G-®RPO-°')e$ ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL °/(/) TO: Rocky Fluhart. Manage ent Services Direc or TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/.2q/a FROM: Ma r _t o unity and Economic Development Director RE: Petition 400-00-52 From the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department requesting that parking lots be required to be located behind buildings, and not occupy street frontage, in all community oriented commercial and mixed-use zones. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner 535-6182 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning amendments. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget impacts associated with the text amendments. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The formal petition was initiated by the Salt Lake City Administration on September 14, 2000. Analysis: The proposed changes affect the RB Residential Business, R-MU Residential Mixed-Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CSHBD Sugar House Business District,MU Mixed Use zones and the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay zoning districts. The proposed changes do not affect the CS, CC, CG, Manufacturing, Downtown or other Special Purpose zoning districts (besides MU). The changes affect maximum building setback,percentage of glass along the front façade and other design controls. Some of the design controls affect the screening of parking and parking lot lighting from adjacent residential areas. The changes affect design only. There are no changes proposed for the types of permitted uses allowed in each zone or the number of parking "paces required. Parking lot location is being affected by the proposed text changes. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE:B01-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 C.• RECYCLED PAPER r The intent of the proposed ordinance changes is to encourage new development to emphasize the building's relationship with the pedestrian and transit,more than the auto, by encouraging buildings to be built near the front of the property (rather than the rear), have a high degree of interaction with the sidewalk (windows, doors) and place parking in a secondary position (side,rear or minimal front yards). The intent is to also allow enough flexibility that the zoning ordinance is not stifling architectural creativity and provides an outlet for those unique situations where pedestrian and transit friendly development does not work effectively. Such outlets include administrative and conditional use approval. Issues that would justify the need for an exception are negative impacts on historic character, inline additions to existing development or simply a more creative solution that meets the objective of supporting pedestrian and transit activities. The staff made a conscious decision to encourage walkable retail by using language that is already used in the zoning ordinance and expanding its use into new zoning districts, rather than introduce new concepts,which are subject to new interpretation. For example: • Maximum setbacks are presently used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 districts,the G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use district and the CSHBD Sugar House Business District. The maximum setback represents the maximum distance a new building may be set back from the front property line. Historically Salt Lake City has emphasized minimum setbacks, but not maximum setbacks. • The minimum percentage of glass is already used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 zones,the Gateway Mixed-use zone, and the Sugar House Business District zone. The intent is to increase interaction between the building occupant and pedestrians and to eliminate blank walls at the sidewalk level. Other design criteria includes the limitation of the height of parking lot light poles,when located adjacent to residential districts (to minimize light shining onto adjacent properties), and the requirement of light proof fencing between commercial and residential uses. Most of the design requirements have a conditional use waiver written into the code. This is to allow flexibility for the Planning Commission to approve building designs that meet the intent of the ordinance,but may not meet the strict interpretation of the code. The design requirements apply to new construction. Remodeling or expansion of existing uses,which do not increase the floor area or parking requirement by more than 50%, are exempt from the new regulations. While Planned Developments have always been allowed in the proposed zoning districts, the Planned Development process has been highlighted and minimum lot areas reduced to make the process more available to developers in order to facilitate more creative design solutions. Master Plan: The Urban Design Element encourages the maintenance of a pedestrian- oriented environment at the ground floor of all buildings. Public Process: October 5, 2000 The issue was presented to the Community Council Chairs at their monthly meeting with the Mayors Office. November 2, 2000 The public hearing was advertised in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. November 16, 2000 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. Dec. 2000- Jan. 2001 Various real estate organizations were briefed: • Prime Realty(1/16-17), • CB Commercial (1/11), • Colliers CRG (12-11), • National Association of Industrial and Office Properties [NAIOP] (1/18), • International council of shopping centers [ICSC] (1/18). The Business Advisory Board was also briefed on multiple dates. January 18, 2001 The Planning Commission made a final decision and recommendation to the City Council. January—December 2001 The Administration worked to resolve differences between the proposed ordinance and the business community. December 13,2001 The Planning Commission approved a revised ordinance and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-00-52, amending the RB Residential Business,R-MU Residential Mixed-Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, CSHBD Sugar House Business District,MU Mixed Use zones and the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A.50 of Salt Lake City Code. Amendments CONTENTS Chronology Proposed Ordinance City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list Planning Commission Hearing Newspaper Notice Nov. 16, 2000 Staff report Nov. 16, 2000 Agenda Nov. 16, 2000 Minutes Nov. 16, 2000 Memorandums Jan. 18, 2001 (including memo to council staff) Agenda Jan. 18, 2001 Minutes Jan. 18, 2001 Memorandums Dec. 13, 2001 (including memos for Business Advisory Board and Historic Landmark Commission meetings) HLC Agenda HLC Minute Nov. 7,2001 Agenda Dec. 13, 2001 Minutes Dec. 13, 2001 Original Petition Chronology Chronology September 14, 2000 Formal petition initiated by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department. October 5, 2000 The issue was presented to the Community Council Chairs at their monthly meeting with the Mayors Office. November 2, 2000 The public hearing was advertised in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. November 16, 2000 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. Dec. 2000 - Jan. 2001 Various real estate organizations briefed: Prime(1/16-17), CB Commercial (1/11), Colliers CRG (12-11), NAIOP (1/18), ICSC (1/18). January 18, 2001 Planning Commission made a final decision regarding the issue. January 23, 2001 The petition was forwarded to the Attorney's Office to create an ordinance. April 2001 Additional informational briefings were provided to the Business Advisory Board and various real estate interests. April 24, 2001 The ordinance was received by Planning staff January—December 2001 The Administration worked to resolve any lingering differences between the proposed ordinance and the business community. December 13, 2001 The Planning Commission approved a revised ordinance and recommendation to the City Council. December 26, 2001 The staff delivered the proposed changes to the Attorneys office. January, 2002 Minor changes to address concerns by the Attorneys were made. March 13,2002 The staff received the ordinance. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code to require that parking lots be located behind buildings, rather than on street frontage, in all community oriented commercial and mixed use zones) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REQUIRING THAT ALL PARKING LOTS BE LOCATED BEHIND BUILDINGS, RATHER THAN ON STREET FRONTAGE, IN ALL COMMUNITY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE ZONES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-52. WHEREAS,the City is anxious to encourage new development in community oriented commercial and mixed use zones which would focus upon and emphasize the buildings' relationship to pedestrians and mass transit, more than to automobiles; and WHEREAS,the proposed changes to the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance set forth herein would encourage buildings to be built near the front of the property (rather than the rear), and would encourage a high degree on interaction with the sidewalk (windows and doors), and place parking in a secondary position (in the side or rear yard); and WHEREAS,the proposed ordinance also allows flexibility for those unique situations where pedestrian and transit friendly development does not work effectively; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Salt Lake City zoning code are in the best interest of the City; NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21 A.24.160 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.24.160 RB Residential/Business District. A. Purpose Statement. The purpose of the RB residential/business district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use. Such commercial areas are intended to be primarily pedestrian and transit oriented. Building design should be focused on compatibility with a residential setting. B. Uses. Uses in the RB residential/business district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts found at Section 21A.24.190,are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.24.010 and this section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections,may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width. The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1. Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 2. Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3. Retail goods establishments,when 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. located within an existing building originally designed for residential use 4. Retail service establishments,when 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. located within an existing building originally designed for residential use 5. Offices, when located within an 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. existing building originally designed for residential use 6. A single dwelling unit located Included in Included in principle above first floor retail or office principle use. use. uses. 7. Natural open space and No Minimum No Minimum conservation areas,public and private 2 8. Public pedestrian pathways,trails and No Minimum No Minimum greenways 9. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 1 0.Municipal service uses, including No Minimum No Minimum City utility uses and police and fire stations 11.Places of worship less than 4 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. in size 12.Public/private utility transmission No Minimum No Minimum wires, lines,pipes and poles 13.Other permitted or conditional uses 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. as listed in Section 21A.24.190. E. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty feet or two and one-half stories,whichever is less. F. Minimum Yard Requirements. I. Front Yard. Twenty percent of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty-five feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the front yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 2. Corner Side Yard. Ten feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the corner side yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 3. Interior Side Yard. Six feet; provided,that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 4. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of the lot depth, but the yard need not exceed thirty feet. 5. Accessory Building and Structures in Yards. Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Part IV, Chapter 21A.36, Section 21A.36.20B,Table 21A.36.020B, Obstructions in Yards. 6. Parking in required yard area. No parking is allowed within the front or corner side yard. G. Required Landscape Yards. All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. H. Maximum Building Coverage. The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent of the lot area. I. Design Standards. All principal buildings constructed or remodeled after April 12, 1995,shall conform to the following design standards: 1. All roofs shall be of a hip or gable design, except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building; 3 2. The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained; 3. The front building elevation shall contain not more than fifty percent glass; 4. Special sign regulations of Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs; 5. Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard; and 6. Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure,unless the entire structure is resurfaced. 7. No parking is allowed within the front or corner side yard. J. New Non-residential Construction. Construction of a new principal building, parking lot or addition to an existing building for a non-residential use that includes the demolition of a residential structure shall only be approved as a conditional use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, and subject to the design standards of subsection I of this section; -provided, that in such cases the planning commission finds that the applicant has adequately demonstrated the following: 1. The location of the residential structure is impacted by surrounding nonresidential structures to the extent that it does not function as a contributing residential element to the residential-business neighborhood (RB district); and 2. The property is isolated from other residential structures and does not relate to other residential structures within the residential-business neighborhood (RB district); and the design and condition of the residential structure is such that it does not make a material contribution to the residential character of the neighborhood. K. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 2. Section 21A.24.170 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.24.170 R-MU residential/mixed use district. A. Purpose Statement. The purpose of the R-MU residential/mixed use district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown master plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity. 4 B. Uses. Uses in the R-MU residential/mixed use district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts found at Section 21A.24.190, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.24.010 and this section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width. The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width I. Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 2. Single-family attached dwellings 3,000 sq. ft. 22 ft. for per dwelling interior lot unit 32 ft. for corner lot 3. Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 4. Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 5. Multifamily dwellings No minimum 50 ft. lot area required 6. Nonresidential uses No No minimum minimum 7. Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No No minimum minimum 8. Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No No minimum minimum 9. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 10. Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations No No • minimum minimum 11. Places of worship less than four acres in size 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 12. Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No No minimum minimum 13. Other permitted or con- additional uses as listed in Section 21A.24.190 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. E. Minimum Yard Requirements. I. Single-Family Detached Dwellings. a. Front Yard. Fifteen feet. b. Corner Side Yard. Ten feet. c. Interior Side Yard. i. Corner Lots. Four feet. ii. Interior Lots. Four feet on one side and ten feet on the other. d. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet. 2. Single-Family Attached,Two-Family and Twin Home Dwellings. a. Front Yard. Fifteen feet. b. Corner Side Yard. Ten feet. c. Interior Side Yard. i. Single-Family Attached.No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet. ii. Two-Family. (A) Interior Lot. Four feet on one side and ten feet on the other. (B) Corner Lot. Four feet. iii. Twin Home.No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten-foot yard is required on the other. d. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of lot depth or twenty-five feet, whichever is less. 3. Multifamily Dwellings and Any Other Residential Uses. a. Front Yard.No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard.No setback is required. c. Interior Side Yard.No setback is required. d. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of lot depth,but need not exceed thirty feet. 4. Nonresidential Development. a. Front Yard.No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard.No setback is required. c. Interior Side Yard.No setback is required. 6 d. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet. 5. Lots legally existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 6. For multiple unit residential uses,nonresidential and mixed uses, no minimum lot area is required. In addition, no yards or landscaped setbacks are required; except where interior side yards are provided,they shall not be less than four feet. 7. For buildings legally existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title,required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 8. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is 10 feet greater than the minimum setback or 15 feet if no minimum setback is required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21 A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 9. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45')minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 2l A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy-five feet, except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections El and 2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy-five feet, up to a maximum of one hundred twenty-five feet,may be authorized as conditional uses, subject 7 to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses; and provided, that the proposed conditional use is located within the one-hundred-twenty-five-foot height zone of the height map of the East Downtown master plan. 1. Maximum Height for Nonresidential Buildings. Three stories or forty-five feet, whichever is less. 2. Maximum Floor Area Coverage of Nonresidential Uses in Mixed Use Buildings of Residential and Nonresidential Uses. Three floors. G. Minimum Open Space. For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use, not less than twenty percent of the lot area shall be maintained as open space. This open space may take the form of landscape yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. H. Landscape Yards. All front and corner side yards provided shall be maintained as a landscape yard in conformance with Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers. I. Landscape Buffers. Where a lot in the R-MU district abuts a lot in a single- family or two-family residential district, landscape buffers shall be provided as required in Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers. J. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2')deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 8 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. K. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 3. Section 21A.26.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.020 CN Neighborhood Commercial District: A. Purpose Statement: The CN Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide for small scale commercial uses that can be located within residential neighborhoods without having significant impact upon residential uses. The design guidelines are intended to reinforce the historical scale and ambiance of traditional neighborhood retail that is designed with the pedestrian as the primary user. B. Uses: Uses in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21 A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.36.010 of this Title and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required.No lot shall be larger than sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500) square feet. E. Maximum District Size: The total area of a contiguously mapped CN District shall not exceed ninety thousand (90,000) square feet, excluding all land in public rights of way. 9 F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard: A fifteen foot (15')minimum front or corner side yard shall be required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as a conditional use, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 2. Interior Side Yard:None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet(10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least sixty five percent (65%) of the building façade. The maximum setback is twenty five feet (25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion,or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. G. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval,part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of Section 21 A.48.090 of this Title. H. Maximum Height: Twenty five feet(25') or two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, whichever is less. I. Entrance And Visual Access: 10 1. Minimum First FIoor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new -- buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. J. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use,the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 4. Section 21A.26.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.030 CB Community Business District: A. Purpose Statement: The CB Community Business District is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale. 11 B. Uses: Uses in the CB Community Business District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21 A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required,however any lot exceeding four(4) acres in size shall be allowed only as a conditional use. E. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square foot floor area of the first floor or a total floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet or more, shall be allowed only as a conditional use. An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this Title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building façade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet(15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot(20')landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35')minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, 12 Chapter 2IA.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following; a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. G. Landscape Yard Requirements: If a front or corner side yard is provided, such yard shall be maintained as a landscape yard. The landscape yard can take the form of a patio or plaza, subject to site plan review approval. H. Maximum Height: Thirty feet (30') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. 13 J. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 5. Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.060 CSHBD Sugar House Business District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to provide for commercial, office and high density residential use opportunities in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. The design guidelines are intended to accomplish the design criteria identified in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: All new construction of principal buildings or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%) within the CSHBD District shall be subject to planned development review for compatibility and compliance with the design guidelines of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District strategies and recommendations plan. Planned developments shall be approved in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or lot width is required;provided,that for multi-family dwellings the minimum lot area required shall be nine thousand (9,000) square feet for three (3) dwelling units plus five hundred (500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards:No minimum yard is required. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: No minimum yard is required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least eighty percent (80%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is ten feet (10'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, 14 Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 6. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a fifteen foot (15') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty foot (30') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following; a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a first floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more shall be allowed only as a conditional use. G. Maximum Height:No building shall exceed ninety feet (90') or six (6) stories, whichever is less. Buildings higher than ninety feet(90')may be allowed in accordance with the provision of subsections G1 and G2 of this Section. 1. Conditions For Taller Buildings: Buildings may exceed the ninety foot (90') or six (6) story height limit provided they conform to the following requirements: a. Location: The site is located within the block bounded by 2100 South Street, 1100 East Street/Highland Drive, Sugarmont Drive, and McClelland Street. b. Setback: The portion of the building exceeding ninety feet(90') shall be stepped back from the front property line to mitigate potential impacts upon the existing streetscape. c. Taller Buildings Height Limit: The excess height allowance shall be limited to one hundred fifty feet(150') or ten (10) stories. 2. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in this subsection G may be granted as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. H. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor street front and front elevation on all new commercial and office buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade within the CSHBD Sugar House Business Zoning District, shall be at least forty percent (40%)nonreflective glass surfaces. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement,as a 15 routine and uncontested special exception pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. I. Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened with architecturally integrated elements of the building. J. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 6. Section 21A.32.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.32.130 MU mixed use district. A. Purpose. The purpose of the MU mixed use district is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing mixed use areas while preserving the attractiveness of the area for residential use. The district is intended to provide a higher level of control over nonresidential uses to ensure that the use and enjoyment of residential properties is not substantially diminished by nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this district shall be achieved by designating certain non-residential uses as conditional uses within the mixed use district and requiring future development and redevelopment to comply with established standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate walkable communities that are pedestrian and mass transit oriented. B. Permitted Uses. Uses in the MU mixed use district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts found at Section 21 A.32.140, are permitted subject to the provisions set forth in Section 21 A.32.010 and Section 21A.32.130. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. D. Minimum Lot Area and Width. The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Minimum Minimum Land Use Lot Area Lot Width 16 1. Single-family detached 4,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. dwellings 2. Single-family attached 3,000 sq. ft. per 22 ft. for interior lot dwellings dwelling unit 32 ft. for corner lot 3. Two-family dwellings 6,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. 4. Twin home 3,000 sq. ft. per 20 ft. dwelling unit 5. Multifamily dwellings 9,000 sq. ft. + & 50 ft. (3 to 14 units) 6. Multifamily dwellings 17,500 sq. ft. + & 80 ft. (15 or more) 7. Nonresidential uses No minimum No minimum 8. Natural open space and No minimum No minimum conservation areas,public and private 9. Pedestrian pathways, trails No minimum No minimum and greenways 10. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 11. Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations 5,000 sq. ft 50 ft. 12. Places of worship less than 4 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. acres in size 13. Public/private utility transmission No minimum No minimum wires, lines pipes, and poles 14. Other permitted or conditional uses 5,000 sq. ft 50 ft. as listed in Section 21A.32.140. Qualifying Provisions: + 9,000 sq. ft. for 3 units;plus 800 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 14 dwelling units. 17,500 sq. ft. for 15 units; plus 750 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to one acre. For developments greater than one acre 800 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit is required. &Density Bonus. When the minimum open space requirement is increased to thirty percent (30%); or when eighty percent(80%) or more of the off-street parking is structured parking within the principal building or underground; or when a combined ratio of increased open space and structured parking within the principal building or underground is provided, the minimum lot area required, subject to site plan review approval, shall be as follows: 9,000 sq. ft. for 3 units;plus 800 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 14 dwelling units. 17,500 sq. ft. for 15 units;plus 650 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to one acre. For developments greater than one acre, 700 sq. feet per dwelling unit is required. E. Minimum Yard Area Requirements. 17 1. Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, Two-Family, and Twin Home Dwellings. a. Front Yard. Ten feet(10'). b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard: i. Corner Lots: Four feet(4'). ii. Interior Lots: (A) Single-Family Attached:No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). (B) Single-Family Detached,Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: Four feet(4') on one side and ten (10) on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet (20'). 2. Multi-Family Dwellings,Including Mixed Use Buildings With Less Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet(10')minimum. b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'), however, if one hundred percent (100%) of the off-street parking is provided within the principal building and/or underground, the minimum required rear yard shall be fifteen feet(15'). 3. Nonresidential Development,Including Mixed Uses With Greater Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet(10') minimum. b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard:No setback is required. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%)of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet(30'). 4. Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 7, 1998, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 5. For additions to buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the building façade. The maximum setback is twenty feet (20'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: 18 a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty five foot (25')landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45')minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed forty five feet (45'), except that nonresidential buildings and mixed use buildings shall be limited by subsections El and E2 of this Section. Buildings taller than forty five feet (45'),up to a maximum of sixty feet (60'), may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, provided that the additional height is for residential uses only. 1. Maximum Height For Nonresidential Buildings: Nonresidential buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30')or two (2) stories, whichever is less. 2. Maximum Height Of Mixed Use Buildings Of Residential And Nonresidential Uses: Mixed use buildings shall not exceed forty five feet(45'). Nonresidential uses in a mixed use building are limited to the first two (2) stories. G. Minimum Ground Floor Glass: The ground floor of the building elevation fronting the street on all nonresidential buildings and uses within the MU Mixed Use District shall contain not less than forty percent(40%) and not more than seventy percent (70%)non-reflective glass surfaces. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2')deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: (A) The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, 19 (B) The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or (C) The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. H. Minimum Open Space: For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use,not less than twenty percent(20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as open space. This open space may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. I. Required Landscape Yards: All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. J. Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any residential district, a ten foot(10') landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of subsection 21A.48.080D of this Title. K. Nonresidential Use Of A Residential Structure: The conversion and remodeling of a residential structure to a nonresidential use shall be allowed only if the exterior residential character is maintained. L. New Nonresidential Construction: Construction of a new principal building for a nonresidential use that includes the demolition of a residential structure or located between two (2)existing residential uses on the same block face shall only be approved as a conditional use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title,unless located on an arterial street. M. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 2. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). 3. Screening: All building equipment and service areas,including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. N. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use,the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light 20 encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 7. Section 21A.34.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.090 SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District is to acknowledge and reinforce the historical land development patterns along South State Street between 900 South and 2100 South. B. Maximum Building Height Exemption: Buildings located within the BP Business Park Base Zoning District within the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District may exceed the height of the base zoning district to a height of, not to exceed, six (6) stories or ninety feet(90'), whichever is less. C. Maximum Floor Area Ratio Exemption: Buildings located within the BP Business Park Zoning District within the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District are exempted from the maximum floor area ratio requirements. D. Minimum Yard Requirement Exemption: 1. Front Yard: Structures located within the CC Commercial Corridor Base Zoning District and the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District are exempted from the minimum front yard setback requirement. The required fifteen foot (15') landscaped setback applies to all other uses, including open storage and vacant land. 2. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least thirty five percent (35%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty-five feet(25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21 A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50%if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 3. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty-five foot(25') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty-five foot (45')minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 21 The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. E. District Location: The South State Street Corridor Overlay District is the area generally aligned with the State/Main Street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South, within the following approximate boundaries referenced on the Zoning Map: Commencing 165 feet east of the east right-of-way line at the intersection of 2100 South and State Street, thence north to a point 165 feet east of the right-of-way line at the intersection of 900 South and State Street, thence west to a point 165 feet west of the right-of-way line at the intersection of 900 South and Main Street, thence south to the right-of-way line at 1300 South,thence east to the east right-of-way line at the intersection of 1300 South and Main Street,thence south to the intersection of 2100 South and Main Street, thence east along the north right-of-way line on 2100 South to the point of beginning. F. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D)and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. 22 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. H. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 8. The table located at Section 21A.54.150.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit"A" attached hereto. SECTION 9. Section 21A.54.150.E.4 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.54.150.E.4 Planned developments within the RB,RMU, MU, CN, CB, and CSHBD zoning districts and the South State Street Overlay. Also planned developments within the CS zoning district, when the district is adjacent to more than 60%residential zoning(within 300 feet, either on the same block or across the street). Planned developments within these zoning districts may be approved subject to consideration of the following general conceptual guidelines (a positive finding for each is not required): a. The development shall be primarily oriented to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot, b. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and mass transit, c. The façade shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, d. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building, e. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, f. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods, g. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure, and h. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. 23 SECTON 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) E. / "". Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re parking lots behind bldgs-Clean-Mar 6,2002.doc 24 Exhibit A 21A.54.150.E.2 District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres FR-3/12,000 Foothills residential District 5 acres R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet SR-1 Special Develo0pment Pattern Residential District 9,000 square feet SR-2 Special Development Patter Residential Reserved SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District No minimum required R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District No minimum required Commercial Districts CN Neighborhood Commercial District No minimum required CB Community Business District No minimum required CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet CSHBD Sugar House Business District No minimum required CG General Commercial District I acre Manufacturing Districts M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres Downtown Districts D-1 Central Business District 2 acres D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District I acre Special Purpose Districts RP Research Park District 10 acres BP Business Park District 10 acres FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres AG Agricultural District 10 acres AG-2 Agricultural District 4 acres AG-5 Agricultural District 10 acres AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres A Airport District 2 acres PL Public Lands District 5 acres I Institutional District 5 acres UI Urban Institutional District I acre OS Open Space District 2 acres MH Mobile Home Park District 10 acres EI Extractive Industries District 10 acres MU Mixed-Use No minimum required SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code to require that parking lots be located behind buildings, rather than on street frontage, in all community oriented commercial and mixed use zones) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REQUIRING THAT ALL PARKING LOTS BE LOCATED BEHIND BUILDINGS, RATHER THAN ON STREET FRONTAGE, IN ALL COMMUNITY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE ZONES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-52. WHEREAS, the City is anxious to encourage new development in community oriented commercial and mixed use zones which would focus upon and emphasize the buildings' relationship to pedestrians and mass transit, more than to automobiles; and WHEREAS,the proposed changes to the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance set forth herein would encourage buildings to be built near the front of the property (rather than the rear), and would encourage a high degree on interaction with the sidewalk (windows and doors), and place parking in a secondary position (in the side or rear yard); and WHEREAS,the proposed ordinance also allows flexibility for those unique , situations where pedestrian and transit friendly development does not work effectively; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Salt Lake City zoning code are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.24.160 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.24.160 RB Residential/Business District. A. Purpose Statement. The purpose of the RB residential/business district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use. Such commercial areas are intended to be primarily pedestrian and transit oriented. Building design should be focused on compatibility with a residential setting. B. Uses. Uses in the RB residential/business district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts found at Section 21A.24.190, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.24.010 and this section. C. Planned Development Review:Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD.Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width. The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1. Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 2. Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3. Retail goods establishments, when 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. located within an existing building originally designed for residential use 4. Retail service establishments,when 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. located within an existing building originally designed for residential use 5. Offices, when Iocated within an 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. existing building originally designed for residential use 6. A single dwelling unit located Included in Included in principle above first floor retail or office principle use. use. uses. 7. Natural open space and No Minimum No Minimum conservation areas,public and 2 private 8. Public pedestrian pathways,trails and No Minimum No Minimum greenways 9. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 10.Municipal service uses, including No Minimum No Minimum City utility uses and police and fire stations 11.Places of worship less than 4 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. in size 12.Public/private utility transmission No Minimum No Minimum wires, lines,pipes and poles 13.Other permitted or conditional uses 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. as listed in Section 21A.24.190. DE.Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty feet or two and one-half stories,whichever is less. I✓F.Minimum Yard Requirements. 1. Front Yard. Twenty percent of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty-five feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the front yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 2. Corner Side Yard. Ten feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the corner side yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 3. Interior Side Yard. Six feet; provided,that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 4. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of the lot depth,but the yard need not exceed thirty feet. 5. Accessory Building and Structures in Yards. Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Part IV, Chapter 21A.36, Section 21A.36.20B,Table 21A.36.020B, Obstructions in Yards. 6. Parking in required yard area. No parking is allowed within the front or corner side yard. FG. Required Landscape Yards. All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Gil. Maximum Building Coverage. The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent of the lot area. 141. Design Standards. All principal buildings constructed or remodeled after April 12, 1995, shall conform to the following design standards: 3 1. All roofs shall be of a hip or gable design, except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building; 2. The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained; 3. The front building elevation shall contain not more than fifty percent glass; 4. Special sign regulations of Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs; 5. Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard; and 6. Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure,unless the entire structure is resurfaced. 7. No parking is allowed within the front or corner side yard. IJ. New Nonresidential Construction. Construction of a new principal building, parking lot or addition to an existing building for a nonresidential use that includes the demolition of a residential structure shall only be approved as a conditional use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, and subject to the design standards of subsection I of this section; provided, that in such cases the planning commission finds that the applicant has adequately demonstrated the following: 1. The location of the residential structure is impacted by surrounding nonresidential structures to the extent that it does not function as a contributing residential element to the residential-business neighborhood(RB district); and 2. The property is isolated from other residential structures and does not relate to other residential structures within the residential-business neighborhood (RB district); and the design and condition of the residential structure is such that it does not make a material contribution to the residential character of the neighborhood. JK.Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 2. Section 21A.24.170 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.24.170 R-MU residential/mixed use district. A. Purpose Statement. The purpose of the R-MU residential/mixed use district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown master plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban 4 neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial,and small scale office uses.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity. B. Uses.Uses in the R-MU residential/mixed use district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts found at Section 21A.24.190,are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21 A.24.010 and this section. C. Planned Development Review:Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections,may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width.The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district arc as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width I. Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 2. Single-family attached dwellings 3,000 sq.ft. 22 ft.for per dwelling interior lot unit 32 ft.for corner lot 3. Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 4. Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq.ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 5. Multifamily dwellings No minimum 50 ft. lot area required • 6. Nonresidential uses No No minimum minimum 7. Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No No minimum minimum 8. Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No No minimum minimum 9. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 10. Municipal service uses, 5 including city utility uses and police and fire stations No No minimum minimum I I, Places of worship less than four acres in size 5,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. 12. Public/private utility transmission wires, lines,pipes and poles No No minimum minimum 13. Other permitted or con- additional uses as listed in Section 21A.24.190 5,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. DE. Minimum Yard Requirements. 1.Single-Family Detached Dwellings. a.Front Yard.Fifteen feet. b.Corner Side Yard.Ten feet. c.Interior Side Yard. i.Corner Lots.Four feet. ii.Interior Lots.Four feet on one side and ten feet on the other. d.Rear Yard.Twenty-five percent of the lot depth,but need not be more than twenty feet. 2.Single-Family Attached,Two-Family and Twin Home Dwellings. a.Front Yard.Fifteen feet. b.Corner Side Yard.Ten feet. c.Interior Side Yard. i.Single-Family Attached.No yard is required,however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet. ii.Two-Family. (A)Interior Lot.Four feet on one side and ten feet on the other. (B)Corner Lot.Four feet. iii.Twin Home.No yard is required along one side lot line.A ten-foot yard is required on the other. d.Rear Yard.Twenty-five percent of lot depth or twenty-five feet,whichever is less. 3.Multifamily Dwellings and Any Other Residential Uses. a.Front Yard.No setback is required. b.Corner Side Yard.No setback is required. c.Interior Side Yard.No setback is required. d.Rear Yard.Twenty-five percent of lot depth,but need not exceed thirty feet. 4.Nonresidential Development. 6 a. Front Yard. No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard. No setback is required. c. Interior Side Yard.No setback is required. d. Rear Yard. Twenty-five percent of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet. 5. Lots legally existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 6. For multiple unit residential uses, nonresidential and mixed uses,no minimum lot area is required. In addition, no yards orl landscaped setbacks are required; except where interior side yards are provided, they shall not be less than four feet. If',.arki„„ ; 1 + a ' ♦L f t d d f t b 'ldi th fft r o � u. vulluul�, Ll foot landscaped setback is required. 7. For buildings legally existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title,required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 8. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is 10 feet greater than the minimum setback or 15 feet if no minimum setback is required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 9. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot(45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses,subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. 7 b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. EF. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy-five feet, except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections El and 2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy-five feet, up to a maximum of one hundred twenty-five feet, may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses; and provided, that the proposed conditional use is located within the one-hundred-twenty-five-foot height zone of the height map of the East Downtown master plan. 1. Maximum Height for Nonresidential Buildings. Three stories or forty-five feet, whichever is less. 2. Maximum Floor Area Coverage of Nonresidential Uses in Mixed Use Buildings of Residential and Nonresidential Uses. Three floors. FG. Minimum Open Space. For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use,not less than twenty percent of the lot area shall be maintained as open space. This open space may take the form of landscape yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. GH. Landscape Yards. All front and corner side yards provided, up to fifteen feet in depths-shall be maintained as a landscape yard in conformance with Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers. I4I. Landscape Buffers. Where a lot in the R-MU district abuts a lot in a single- family or two-family residential district,landscape buffers shall be provided as required in Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers. IJ. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces.All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement.Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 8 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. RK. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 3. Section 21A.26.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.020 CN Neighborhood Commercial District: A. Purpose Statement: The CN Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide for small scale commercial uses that can be located within residential neighborhoods without having significant impact upon residential uses. The design guidelines are intended to reinforce the historical scale and ambiance of traditional neighborhood retail that is designed with the pedestrian as the primary user. B. Uses: Uses in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.36.010 of this Title and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required.No lot shall be larger than sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500) square feet. 9 DE. Maximum District Size: The total area of a contiguously mapped CN District shall not exceed ninety thousand (90,000) square feet, excluding all land in public rights of way. EF. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard: A fifteen foot (15') minimum front or corner side yard shall be required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as a conditional use,subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet(10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least sixty five percent (65%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty five feet(25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses,subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot(30') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. EG. Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval,part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 of this Title. 10 CH. Maximum Height:Twenty live feet(25')or two and one-half(2 1/2)stories, whichever is less. HI. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass:The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade,shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces.All first floor glass shall be non-reflective.Display windows that are three-dimensional(3-D)and are at least two feet(2')deep arc permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%)glass requirement.Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses,subject to the requirements of Part V,Chapter 21A.54 of this Title,and the review and approval of the Planning Commission.The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement,as a routine and uncontested special exception,pursuant to the procedures found in Part II,Chapter 21A.14 of this Title,if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building,or b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. 2. Facades:Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street.Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street,if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%)glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length:The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,doors,art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). 4. Screening:All building equipment and service areas,including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way,shall be screened from public view.These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact,or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. IJ. Parking lot/structure lighting.If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use,the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 4. Section 21A.26.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.030 CB Community Business District: 11 A. Purpose Statement: The CB Community Business District is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale. B. Uses: Uses in the CB Community Business District as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21 A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance,but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, however any lot exceeding four(4)acres in size shall be allowed only as a conditional use. DE. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square foot floor area of the first floor or a total floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet or more, shall be allowed only as a conditional use. An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. EF. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard:No minimum yard is required unless parking is provided betwee„ the building and the front or corner side yard lot line, such parking shall be set back fifteen feet(15) and the fifteen foot (15') setback shall be landscaped conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.4$.090 of this Title. If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this Title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2. Interior Side Yard:None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Table 21A.36.020B of this Title. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent(75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses,subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: 12 a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot(20') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following; a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. FG. Landscape Yard Requirements: If a front or corner side yard is provided, such yard shall be maintained as a landscape yard. The landscape yard can take the form of a patio or plaza, subject to site plan review approval. GH. Maximum Height: Thirty feet (30')or two (2) stories, whichever is less. HI. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 13 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. U. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 5. Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.060 CSHBD Sugar House Business District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to provide for commercial, office and high density residential use opportunities in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. The design guidelines are intended to accomplish the design criteria identified in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District as specified in the Table ' of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts found at Section 21A.26.080 of this Chapter are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this Chapter and this Section. C. Planned Development Review: All new construction of principal buildings or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%)within the CSHBD District shall be subject to planned development review for compatibility and compliance with the design guidelines of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District strategies and recommendations plan. Planned developments shall be approved in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. 14 D. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or lot width is required; provided, that for multi-family dwellings the minimum lot area required shall be nine thousand (9,000) square feet for three (3) dwelling units plus five hundred (500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 2. Interior Side Yards: None required. 3. Rear Yards: No minimum yard is required. 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.48 of this Title. 5. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least eighty percent (80%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is ten feet(10'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 6. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a fifteen foot(15') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty foot(30') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following; . a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. F. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a first floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more shall be allowed only as a conditional use. G. Maximum Height: No building shall exceed ninety feet(90') or six (6) stories, whichever is less. Buildings higher than ninety feet(90')may be allowed in accordance with the provision of subsections GI and G2 of this Section. 1. Conditions For Taller Buildings: Buildings may exceed the ninety foot (90') or six (6) story height limit provided they conform to the following requirements: 15 a. Location: The site is located within the block bounded by 2100 South Street, 1100 East Street/Highland Drive, Sugarmont Drive, and McClelland Street. b. Setback: The portion of the building exceeding ninety feet (90') shall be stepped back from the front property line to mitigate potential impacts upon the existing streetscape. c. Taller Buildings Height Limit: The excess height allowance shall be limited to one hundred fifty feet (150') or ten (10) stories. 2. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in this subsection G may be granted as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. H. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor street front and front elevation on all new commercial and office buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade within the CSHBD Sugar House Business Zoning District, shall be at least forty percent (40%) nonreflective glass surfaces. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: 1. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or 2. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. I. Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened with architecturally integrated elements of the building. J. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 6. Section 21A.32.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.32.130 MU mixed use district. A. Purpose. The purpose of the MU mixed use district is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing mixed use areas while preserving the attractiveness of the area for residential use. The district is intended to provide a higher level of control over nonresidential uses to ensure that the use and enjoyment of residential properties is not substantially diminished by nonresidential redevelopment. The intent of this district shall be achieved by designating certain non-residential uses as conditional uses within the mixed use district and requiring future development and redevelopment to comply with established standards for compatibility and buffering as set forth in this section. The design guidelines are 16 intended to facilitate walkable communities that are pedestrian and mass transit oriented. B. Permitted Uses. Uses in the MU mixed use district as specified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts found at Section 21A.32.140, are permitted subject to the provisions set forth in Section 21A.32.010 and Section 21A.32.130. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments,which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.54.150 of this Title. CD. Minimum Lot Area and Width. The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Minimum Minimum Land Use Lot Area Lot Width 1. Single-family detached 4,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. dwellings 2. Single-family attached 3,000 sq. ft. per 22 ft. for interior lot dwellings dwelling unit 32 ft. for corner lot 3. Two-family dwellings 6,000 sq. ft. 40 ft. 4. Twin home 3,000 sq. ft. per 20 ft. dwelling unit 5. Multifamily dwellings 9,000 sq. ft. +& 50 ft. (3 to 14 units) 6. Multifamily dwellings 17,500 sq. ft. +& 80 ft. (15 or more) 7. Nonresidential uses No minimum No minimum 8. Natural open space and No minimum No minimum conservation areas,public and private 9. Pedestrian pathways, trails No minimum No minimum ' and greenways 10. Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 11. Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations 5,000 sq. ft 50 ft. 12. Places of worship less than 4 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. acres in size 13. Public/private utility transmission No minimum No minimum wires, lines pipes, and poles 14. Other permitted or conditional uses 5,000 sq. ft 50 ft. as listed in Section 21A.32.140. Qualifying Provisions: 17 + 9,000 sq. ft. for 3 units; plus 800 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 14 dwelling units. 17,500 sq. ft. for 15 units; plus 750 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to one acre. For developments greater than one acre 800 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit is required. & Density Bonus. When the minimum open space requirement is increased to thirty percent (30%); or when eighty percent(80%) or more of the off-street parking is structured parking within the principal building or underground; or when a combined ratio of increased open space and structured parking within the principal building or underground is provided, the minimum lot area required, subject to site plan review approval, shall be as follows: 9,000 sq. ft. for 3 units;plus 800 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 14 dwelling units. 17,500 sq. ft. for 15 units; plus 650 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit up to one acre. For developments greater than one acre, 700 sq. feet per dwelling unit is required. DE. Minimum Yard Area Requirements. 1. Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, Two-Family, and Twin Home Dwellings. a. Front Yard. Ten feet(10'). b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard: i. Corner Lots: Four feet(4'). ii. Interior Lots: (A) Single-Family Attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). (B) Single-Family Detached, Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: Four feet(4') on one side and ten (10)on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet(20'). 2. Multi-Family Dwellings,Including Mixed Use Buildings With Less Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet(10') i minimum w-�th-a-twenty foot(20')maximum. b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'),however, if one hundred percent (100%)of the off-street parking is provided within the principal building and/or underground, the minimum required rear yard shall be fifteen feet(15'). 3. Nonresidential Development,Including Mixed Uses With Greater Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet(10')minimum with a twe ty foot (20) b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet(10'). c. Interior Side Yard:No setback is required. 18 d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). — 4. Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 7, 1998, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 5. For additions to buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 6. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least seventy- five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty feet (20'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 7. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty five foot (25') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot(45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if ', the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. EF. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed forty five feet(45'), except that nonresidential buildings and mixed use buildings shall be limited by subsections El and E2 of this Section. Buildings taller than forty five feet (45'), up to a maximum of sixty feet(60'), may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title,provided that the additional height is for residential uses only. 1. Maximum Height For Nonresidential Buildings: Nonresidential buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. 19 2. Maximum Height Of Mixed Use Buildings Of Residential And Nonresidential Uses: Mixed use buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). Nonresidential uses in a mixed use building are limited to the first two (2) stories. FG. Minimum Ground Floor Glass: The ground floor of the building elevation fronting the street on all nonresidential buildings and uses within the MU Mixed Use District shall contain not less than forty percent (40%) and not more than seventy percent (70%) non-reflective glass surfaces. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3- D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: (A)The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, (B)The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or (C) The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. GH. Minimum Open Space: For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use,not less than twenty percent(20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as open space. This open space may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. HI. Required Landscape Yards: All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. T . Landscape Buffers: Where a nonresidential or mixed use lot abuts a residential or vacant lot within the MU Mixed Use District or any residential district, a ten foot(10') landscape buffer shall be provided subject to the improvement requirements of subsection 21A.48.080D of this Title. 3K. Nonresidential Use Of A Residential Structure: The conversion and remodeling of a residential structure to a nonresidential use shall be allowed only if the exterior residential character is maintained. KL. New Nonresidential Construction: Construction of a new principal building for a nonresidential use that includes the demolition of a residential structure or located between two (2) existing residential uses on the same block face shall only be approved as a conditional use pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title,unless located on an arterial street. LM. Entrance And Visual Access: 20 1. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 2. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). • 3. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. MN. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. SECTION 7. Section 21A.34.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.090 SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District is to acknowledge and reinforce the historical land development patterns along South State Street between 900 South and 2100 South. B. Maximum Building Height Exemption: Buildings located within the BP Business Park Base Zoning District within the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District may exceed the height of the base zoning district to a height of, not to exceed, six (6) stories or ninety feet (90'),whichever is less. C. Maximum Floor Area Ratio Exemption: Buildings located within the BP Business Park Zoning District within the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District are exempted from the maximum floor area ratio requirements. D. Minimum Yard Requirement Exemption: 1. Front Yard: Structures located within the CC Commercial Corridor Base Zoning District and the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District are exempted from the minimum front yard setback requirement. The required fifteen foot(15') landscaped setback applies to all other uses, including open storage,parking lots and vacant land. 2. Maximum setback. A maximum setback is required for at least thirty five percent(35%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty-five feet 21 (25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses,subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. 3. Parking setback. Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty-five foot (25') landscape setback from the front property line. Parking structures shall maintain a forty-five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification,which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the Zoning Administrator finds the following: a. The parking addition is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure. b. The parking addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. E. District Location: The South State Street Corridor Overlay District is the area generally aligned with the State/Main Street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South, within the following approximate boundaries referenced on the Zoning Map: Commencing 165 feet east of the east right-of-way line at the intersection of 2100 South and State Street,thence north to a point 165 feet east of the right-of-way line at the intersection of 900 South and State Street,thence west to a point 165 feet west of the right-of-way line at the intersection of 900 South and Main Street,thence south to the right-of-way line at 1300 South,thence east to the east right-of-way line at the intersection of 1300 South and Main Street,thence south to the intersection of 2100 South and Main Street,thence east along the north right-of-way line on 2100 South to the point of beginning. F. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade,shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are 22 permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional uses, subject to the requirements of Part V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may approve a modification to this requirement, as a routine and uncontested special exception, pursuant to the procedures found in Part II, Chapter 21A.14 of this Title, if the Zoning Administrator finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street,if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. H. Parking lot/structure lighting. If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use,the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. 11 SECTION 8. The table located at Section 21A.54.150.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 9. Section 21A.54.150.E.4 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.54.150.E.4 Planned developments within the RB,RMU,MU, CN, CB, and CSHBD zoning districts and the South State Street Overlay. Also planned developments within the CS zoning district,when the district is adjacent to more than 60% residential zoning(within 300 feet, either on the same block or across the street). 23 Planned developments within these zoning districts may be approved subject to consideration of the following general conceptual guidelines (a positive finding for each is not required): a. The development shall be primarily oriented to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot, b. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and mass transit, c. The facade shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, d. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building, e. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, f. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods, g. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure, and h. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. SECTON 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 24 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: . G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re parking lots behind bldgs-Mar 6,2002.doc 25 Exhibit A 21A.54.150.E.2 District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 5 acres FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres FR-3/12,000 Foothills residential District 5 acres R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 5 acres R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet R-I/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 20,000 square feet SR-1 Special Develo0pment Pattern Residential District 9,000 square feet SR-2 Special Development Patter Residential Reserved SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 9,000 square feet RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 9,000 square feet District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family District 20,000 square feet RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet RB ResidentialBusiness District feet—No minimum required R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District 20,000-squar-e--feet-No minimum required Commercial Districts CN Neighborhood Commercial District 20,000 square feet No minimum required CB Community Business District 20,000 square feet No minimum required CS Community Shopping District 60,000 square feet CC Corridor Commercial District 20,000 square feet CSHBD Sugar House Business District 20,000 square feet No minimum required CG General Commercial District I acre Manufacturing Districts M-1 Light Manufacturing District 2 acres M-2 General Manufacturing District 2 acres Downtown Districts D-I Central Business District 2 acres D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District 2 acres D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 1 acre Special Purpose Districts = RP Research Park District 10 acres BP Business Park District 10 acres FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres AG Agricultural District 10 acres AG-2 Agricultural District 4 acres AG-5 Agricultural District 10 acres AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres A Airport District 2 acres PL Public Lands District 5 acres I Institutional District 5 acres UI Urban Institutional District I acre OS Open Space District 2 acres MH Mobile Home Park District 10 acres EI Extractive Industries District 10 acres MU Mixed-Use No minimum required City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Salt Lake City Petition 400-00-52, initiated by the Salt Lake City Administration,requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance affecting parking in front of commercial buildings (between the building and the street)within most neighborhood oriented commercial zones (RB Residential Business,RMU Residential Mixed Use,MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, CB Community Business, SHBD Sugar House Business District and minor planned development clarifications to CS Shopping Center). The ordinance changes discourage parking in the front yard (between the front property line and the building) and adopts other neo-traditional town planning concepts, such as maximum setbacks and percentage of storefront glass requirements, to encourage a more walkable community throughout Salt Lake City. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing,the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Room 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please attend the meeting or call Doug Dansie at 535-6182 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Wade Williams Robert Moore Lew Swain Oths Management Prime Realty Boyer Company 0 South Redwood Rd. 6900 South 900 East 127 South 500 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 Midvale,Utah 84047 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Rad Dye Floyd Hatch Stuart CB Richard Ellis Commercial in Intermountain Development Group Colliers Caommerce CRG 170 South Main St 1939 South 300 West 175 East 400 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Kyung Chun Debbie Reverman Charlie Davis Corner Mart Prime Realty Colliers Commerce CRG 950 West 1000 North 6900 South 900 East 175 East 400 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 Midvale,Utah 84047 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Steven Price Jake Boyer Bob Moore JP Realty Boyer Company Colliers Commerce CRG 35 West Century Park Way 127 South 500 East 175 East 400 South South Salt Lake,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 �ansie 9 Bill Martin 521 N num St Colliers Commerce CRGiill GO— Sy 1 03 175 East 400 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 5111 UMW F OT5t1 tiEft5;" Ai NIAlfi'"' Bruce Alder Ana Archuleta Jim Byrne 1835 South Lakeline Drive 204 East Herbert Avenue 912 Foothill Drive Salt Lake City UT 84109-1413 Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1353 Dr.Alan Condie William Cooley Tim Dee 1375 Kristie Lane 1009 Tally Ho Avenue 1575 Devonshire Drive Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2552 Doug Foxley Samantha Francis Katherine Gardner 1449 Devonshire Drive 70 Van Buren Avenue 606 DeSoto Street Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84 1 1 5-5322 Salt Lake City UT 84103-2808 Lisette Gibson Dennis Guy-Sell Boris Kurz 1764 Hubbard Avenue 436 South 1200 East 1203 South 900 East Salt Lake City UT 84108-1340 Salt Lake City Utah 84102 Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Howard McCosh Shawn McMillen Jeffrey Mullins 257 N Redwood Road,# 19 1855 South 2600 East 873 Woodruff Way Salt Lake City Utah 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1459 Jillene Whitby Kadee Nielson Ray Pugsley 846 West 400 North 1410 Baroness Place 2171 Hannibal Street Salt Lake City UT 84116-3440 Salt Lake City UT 84116-1402 Salt Lake City Utah 84106 Ellen Reddick Richard Smiley Randy Sorenson 2177 Roosevelt Avenue 816- 16th Avenue 1184 South Redwood Dr4ive Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City Utah 84103 Salt Lake City Utah 84104 Patrick Tan Paul Tayler Edie Trimmer 566 North Sir Michael Drive 1165 Oak Hills Way 246 South 1300 West Salt Lake City UT 84116-1821 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2025 Salt Lake City Utah 84104 Chris Viavant Orson West Mike Zuhi 404 South 400 West 562 Downington Avenue 2676 Comanche Drive Salt Lake City UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2809 Beth Bowman • 1445 East Harrison Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Planning Commission Hearing Newspaper Notice Nov. 16, 2000 Staff report Nov. 16, 2000 Agenda Nov. 16, 2000 Minutes Nov. 16, 2000 Memorandums Jan. 18, 2001 (including memo to council staff) Agenda Jan. 18, 2001 Minutes Jan. 18, 2001 Memorandums Dec. 13, 2001 (including memos for Business Advisory Board and Historic Landmark Commission meetings) HLC Agenda Nov. 7, 2001 HLC Minutes Nov. 7, 2001 Agenda Dec. 13, 2001 Minutes Dec. 13, 2001 Newspaper Notice Nov. 16, 2000 Staff report Nov. 16, 2000 Agenda Nov. 16, 2000 Minutes Nov. 16, 2000 1 81) The Salt Lake Tribune Thursday,November 2,2000 050-Massage Therapy 009 Burial Plots oOC Debt 041-Escort Services i1ERA14iIDCBODY CUM 75N550. 070-Le al .7 J3UU 1 h.$35.4867084 NC4277754. g and Monuments COUITSeling * *