Loading...
07/08/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 8, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Deputy Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Chris Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Greg Hawkins, Assistant City Attorney; Janet Wolf, Mayor's Director of Youth Programs; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Jeffrey Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Executive Director; Roger Evans, Building Services and Licensing Director; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Karen Wiley, Housing and Neighborhood Development Grant Financial Administrator; Sandi Marler, Housing and Neighborhood Development Community Development Program Specialist; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:41 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said Item B-2, "El Dia de Los Ninos" presentation, a list of presenters had been given to the Council. She said Item C-2, water shortage contingency plan, a revised ordinance had been presented to the Council. She said the revision eliminated the option of terminating service after the fifth violation. She said staff would be available to answer questions. She said Item G-3, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Synagogue, the date was moved to August 12, 2003 at the request of the petitioner. See file M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW WENDY L. RENDON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Ms. Rendon said she had served on the board for the past three years and had a better understanding of funding needs. She said she felt the board worked well together and looked forward to continued service. Councilmember Turner asked what improvements could be made in his district regarding community development. Ms. Rendon said outdoor swimming pools were needed on the west side. She said the Northwest Multipurpose Center had enough property to construct a pool. Councilmember Saxton asked if the process for reviewing applications had changed during Ms. Rendon' s service. Ms. Rendon said no. Councilmember Saxton asked about the process the board used to determine funding priorities. Ms. Rendon said a review sheet was used to prioritize applications based on certain criteria. She said an open house 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 8, 2003 was held so the board could meet potential applicants. #3. INTERVIEW JAMES MORENO PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL. Mr. Moreno said he had been a performer in Salt Lake City since 1989 and had received various grants. He said he enjoyed serving on the board and wanted to contribute to the community. #4. INTERVIEW DAVID ASMAN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL. Mr. Asman said he was a professional musician and a music educator and had served on the board for three years. He said the Arts Council generated a lot of activity with limited resources. Councilmember Christensen asked how additional funding would be spent. Mr. Asman said grant programs were needed. Councilmember Lambert said Olympic Legacy projects had been created in each Council district and he wanted the Arts Council to present suggestions to the Council. #5. INTERVIEW HUBERT CHANG PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE SISTERS CITY BOARD. Mr. Chang said serving on the board was rewarding and looked forward to another term. He said he learned a lot and wanted to apply that knowledge through continued service. Councilmember Saxton said conflicts could be created with sister city applicants and asked if the board had considered that. Mr. Chang said he did not think there would be any problems. #6. INTERVIEW MAE RENDON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE MULTI-ETHNIC COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARD. Ms. Rendon said she lived in the Popular Grove area and was involved in the community. She said she was not familiar with the board's functions but would learn as she went along. She said she wanted to be involved with the community and work with minorities. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE HEALTH ORDINANCE. View Attachment Greg Hawkins and Gary Mumford briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about letting someone else set City law and asked if that was normal. Mr. Hawkins said the City had done this consistently for many years specifically with ordinances relating to building, housing and fire codes. He said it was done in technical areas where expertise was needed beyond the City's general knowledge. Mr. Hawkins said the practice was legal as long as the elective body prescribed the parameters in which the rules and regulations could be implemented and defined the area of authority. He said in areas of disagreement, the Council had the right to make limited changes due to recent State legislation. Councilmember Buhler asked if City and County ordinances were in conflict, would the specific law take precedent over the general law. Mr. Hawkins said that was correct, but he was not aware of any conflicts. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked if there was a mechanism where the Council could be notified when new regulations were enacted by the Health Department. Mr. Hawkins said the regulations were on the internet and when a new 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 8, 2003 regulation was proposed there was a comment period before adoption. He said staff could watch for proposed changes and notify the Council or members of the Health Department Board could be asked to update the Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked if language could be put in the ordinance requesting proposed changes be sent to the Council' s consent calendar. Mr. Hawkins said yes, but the Council did not have power to require them to do anything. Councilmember Jergensen asked how conflicting health codes would be handled. Mr. Hawkins said the City would enforce the ordinance it enacted. Councilmember Jergensen said he understood the County enforced laws on behalf of the City. Mr. Hawkins said that was generally true but City police had the power to enforce all City ordinances. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the City could have a level of independence from the County in certain cases. Mr. Hawkins said as of July 1, 2003, there were questions regarding authority because the Legislature made the Health Department part of the County. Councilmember Jergensen asked how those issues would be resolved. Mr. Hawkins said the City and County were holding discussions to ensure City interests were kept in mind. Councilmember Jergensen said the health board consisted of 15 members. He said four were appointed by the City and asked what the makeup was of the remainder. Mr. Hawkins said he did not know. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she would get more information. Councilmember Lambert asked if other cities in the County were adopting similar ordinances. Mr. Hawkins said he did not check on that specific issue. Councilmember Saxton asked if County health regulations had been reviewed and were in agreement with the City. Mr. Hawkins said he compared several regulations with other states and cities. He said he believed the regulations adopted by the County were in the City' s best interest. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Council wanted to adopt the proposal as presented or ask for a more in-depth review. The majority of the Council was in favor of the ordinance as proposed. Councilmember Christensen said the item would be placed on a future agenda for formal consideration. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE YOUTH CITY GOVERNMENT BOARD AND THE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. View Attachment Rick Graham, Janet Wolf, and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said a number of questions raised in the staff report were not included in the proposal. Mr. Graham said he was not sure how they were overlooked but the issues needed to be addressed by the Administration. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about expanding City recreation programs. Mr. Graham said the City would not be providing recreation programs but clarification was needed about the City's oversight responsibilities. Councilmember Love asked if the new board was already operating. Mr. Graham said there were discussions but no meetings were held. Councilmember Love asked about the merger and how many people would serve on the board. Mr. Graham said the Youth City Government Board (YCGB) and the Recreation Advisory Board (RAB) each had nine members. He said the new board would have 14 members. He said both boards currently lacked members and additional names would be submitted for consideration. Councilmember Christensen asked if 14 members were too many. Ms. Wolf said they had an aggressive agenda and felt there was enough work for 14 people. She said they wanted to ensure people were included from various organizations including council and school districts and recreation centers. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 8, 2003 Councilmember Saxton asked what issues would be included on a typical agenda. Mr. Graham said a standing item would be a County report regarding current and future planning initiatives. He said other items would include global art ways, youth programs, development oversight, and recommendations. Councilmember Saxton asked what role the Youth City Government Coordinator would have in the board. Mr. Graham said that person would serve as the main staff resource to the board. Councilmember Saxton asked about the intent for creating the new board. Mr. Graham said the original ordinance did not include all functions and responsibilities which existed in City government. He said the board' s role needed to be expanded to better manage those responsibilities. Councilmember Saxton asked if a document existed outlining the responsibilities between the City and County regarding youth programs. Mr. Graham said an interlocal agreement existed which authorized the County to act as the City's recreation programmer and manager and defined the different roles. Councilmember Saxton said she wanted to understand the different responsibilities so when funding requests were made the Council had a clearer picture of how to allocate funds. She said she was concerned about duplicating services and wanted the Council to request the information from the Administration. Councilmember Christensen said the agreement primarily related to recreation facilities. He said if the proposal was adopted, he wanted the board to analyze recreation and youth programs for gaps and overlaps and report back to the Council by March so budget impacts could be considered. Councilmember Turner asked if Youth City Government programs would continue after the new board was created. Ms. Wolf said Youth City Government was part of the proposal and would continue. Councilmember Turner asked about ways to increase School Board participation in Youth City Government. Ms. Wolf said there had been a lot of success with school district partnerships. She said she wanted to see students receive academic credit for involvement in youth programs. Councilmember Love said she was concerned that youth programs would receive more emphasis than recreation programs when the new board was created. She said she wanted the Administration to be creative about providing recreation programs. Councilmember Christensen asked about the use of school district boundaries. Mr. Graham said only Council districts boundaries would be used. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned about the policy shift from recreation to youth and family programs and the number of proposed board members. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Administration agreed with changes proposed by Council staff. Mr. Graham said there was a question about the oath of office requirement. He said the ordinance required new members to take an oath. Councilmember Buhler asked if the oath was required by all committees and boards. Mr. Sears said no. Councilmember Christensen asked if State law required oaths. Ms. Gust- Jenson said staff would get more information for the Council. Councilmember Love asked about staffing and activity of the recreation board. Mr. Graham said his office provided staff support but the board had not been as active as it needed to be. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about potential conflicts when the merger took place because some board members favored either recreation or youth programs. Mr. Graham said he did not think there would be a problem and felt the members would work well together. Council Members wanted information regarding the responsibilities of the City and County and the purpose of the ordinance. Councilmember Christensen suggested 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 8, 2003 establishing a subcommittee to discuss the issues. Council Members were in favor of Council Members Saxton, Love, and Jergensen serving on the subcommittee. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. View Attachment Roger Evans and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Weeks said the Police Department was neutral on the issue. Councilmember Love asked if the proposal only applied to the Central Business District (CBD) and not the rest of the City. Mr. Evans said that was correct. He said the outdoor dining fee was $25. He said the fee to install a physical barrier on City property was several hundred dollars. He said the City had not received any applications for barriers since the Council met about this issue last year. Councilmember Buhler asked if there was anything different since the request was made last fall. Mr. Evans said the proposal established three-foot minimum and four-foot maximum height limits. Mr. Weeks said the previous version of the ordinance did not limit the proposal to CBD. Council Members were in favor of advancing the proposal. Mr. Weeks suggested the Council review options before the formal meeting. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS (PETITION NO. 400-03-07) . View Attachment Ray McCandless, Lynn Pace, Janice Jardine, Doug Wheelwright, and Alison Weyher briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the issue was complicated due to conflicting ordinances. Mr. Pace said ordinances in different sections of the City Code appeared to have conflicting impact on subdivision approval. He said the Site Development Ordinance (SDO) prohibited construction on slopes steeper than 30%. Mr. Pace said the ordinance was later amended so steep slope areas could not be included in calculating minimum lot size. He said when he discussed his concerns with the Planning Department they indicated an escape clause was built into the ordinance which allowed steep slope areas to be included through a planned development process. He said he later became aware planned development requirements in the zoning ordinance required a minimum of five or more acres for development. He said he felt the net effect of the conflicting requirements created the possibility that City ordinances could deny someone virtually all economic use of their property. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned ordinances were intentionally drafted to make it difficult for people to build. Mr. Pace said he was concerned someone could take the City to court with the complaint the City's arbitrary rules prohibited development which he felt would be a hard case to defend. Councilmember Buhler said he felt a case could be made for safety and esthetics issues regarding foothill slope restrictions. Mr. Pace said the City felt slopes steeper than 30% were inherently unstable. Councilmember Saxton asked if the City allowed 40% slopes in the past. Mr. Wheelwright said 40% was allowed from 1982 until 1994 when it was changed to 30%. Councilmember Saxton asked about buildable areas on lots which were half flat and half slope. Mr. Wheelwright said the issue was whether the 30% slope area counted toward the minimum zoning requirement. Mr. Wheelwright said the concept of a transitional area was introduced in 1994 which required setbacks because people were building right up to the steep slope angle. Councilmember Saxton asked how the proposed change benefited Salt Lake residents. Mr. 03 — 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 Pace said it gave property owners a half acre of buildable area. Councilmember Saxton asked about disadvantages. Mr. Pace said there was a question regarding exposure to the City from those regulations. Ms. Gust-Jenson said a small number of lots in various foothills districts would become developable which could or could not be considered a disadvantage. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about erosion in the foothills by allowing layers of development to continue up the mountain. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Administration's recommendation contained a number of policy aspects which the Council needed to consider. Councilmember Jergensen asked about potential lots becoming buildable if the proposal was adopted. Mr. Wheelwright said there were approximately four properties. Discussion was held on locations of potential sites. Councilmember Jergensen asked about unintended consequences of the proposal. Mr. Wheelwright said he was not aware of any. Mr. Pace said the City could not be certain there would only be four new lots and there were risks which could not be anticipated. He said the Council needed to decide what the best regulations were to control development. Councilmember Jergensen said he supported the provision which required properties to front existing streets. Councilmember Jergensen asked how the requirement to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods would be interpreted. Mr. Pace said the provision was intended to provide flexibility. Discussion was held on the Planning Commission's role in the process. Mr. Pace said applications could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the direction of the City Attorney. He said he was concerned about an ordinance which did not provide an escape provision for cases which should be approved. Discussion was held on the role of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Christensen said he felt the City would be more vulnerable to litigation by sending cases to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Saxton said she felt the Council could make a decision concerning the four lots and include that in the ordinance. She said she did not want a conditional use or review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pace said the ordinance contained a provision for the Planning Commission because they were the body with the authority to approve subdivisions. Councilmember Saxton said she understood the four lots had already gone through the subdivision process. Mr. Pace said platted lots had been through an approval process, he said these by definition were not platted lots. He said under State law subdivision approval went through the Planning Commission. Councilmember Christensen asked about the Council delegating authority to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pace said he would provide information to the Council concerning an analysis which had been done on the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and how much could be delegated to them. Councilmember Lambert asked how the proposal applied to potential annexations. Mr. Pace said potential lots could be created if future streets were established where property fronted the street. He said the Council could make the ordinance more restrictive by including a cut-off date. Councilmember Jergensen asked if a lot had been declared unbuildable would it remain that way. Mr. Wheelwright said unbuildable areas could be designated as common areas or attached to lots and then restricted by an easement or some other mechanism. Councilmember Christensen said after the public hearing the Council would decide future action on this issue. #11. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING/REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND 03 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8. An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for sworn statement and tape. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. sc 03 — 7 c?)>_CO'C • SALT e \a_;C TjYt G©RR RATIOI j OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City&County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday,July 8,2003 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.,some Council Members may dine together in Room 343 at the City&County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION:5:30 p.m.,Room 326,City&County Building,451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m.will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. Report of the Executive Director,including review of Council information items and • announcements. 2. The Council will interview Wendy L.Rendon prior to consideration of her reappointment to the Community Development Advisory Committee. 3. The Council will interview James Moreno prior to consideration of his reappointment to the Arts Council. 4. The Council will interview David Asman prior to consideration of his reappointment to the Arts Council. 5. The Council will interview Hubert Chang prior to consideration of his reappointment to the Sister Cities Board. 6. The Council will interview Mae Rendon prior to consideration of her appointment to the Multi- Ethnic Community Resource Board. 7. The Council will receive a briefing regarding amendments to the Health ordinance. 8. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Youth City Government Board and the Recreation Advisory Board. 9. The Council will receive a briefing regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs. 10.The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding standards by which subdivisions may be approved in Foothill Zoning Districts.(Item G- 2) 11.The Council will consider a motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss pending/reasonably imminent litigation,pursuant to Utah Code Ann.§§52-4-4 and 54-4-5(I)(a)(iii). B. OPENING CEREMONY: • 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Presentation by members of the"El Dia de Los Nifos"Salt Lake City Committee. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 11 TELEPHONE:S01-535,600,FAX:B01.535-7651 C� wv �e.-ee- Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,July 8,2003 • C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance: Petition No.400-03-06, rezone property located at 1341 South State Street Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning property located at 1341 South State Street,from Commercial Corridor(CC) and Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35),to Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential(RMF-45),pursuant to Petition No. 400-03-06.(Laurelwood Apartments) (P 03-14) Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. 2. Ordinance: enact new Sections relating to the preparation and implementation of a water shortage contingency plan and related civil fines Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting new Sections 17.16.092 and 17.16.792,relating to the preparation and implementation of a water shortage contingency plan and related civil fines. (0 03-9) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. D. COMMENTS 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None.) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: authorize a loan from Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund to Morse Health and Housing Inc. in partnership with Utah Non-profit Housing Corporation,Inc Consider adopting a resolution authorizing a loan from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund to Morse Health and Housing Inc in partnership with Utah Non-profit Housing Corporation,Inc for the rehabilitation of the Laurelwood Apartments located at 1341 South State Street. (R 03-5) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. • 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,July 8,2003 S 2. Ordinance: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 2.80.080,Salt Lake City Code, relating to meetings of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board; and amending Section 2.80.120,Salt Lake City Code, relating to powers and duties of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. (0 00-3) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. 3. Ordinance: Police Civilian Review Board Consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 2.72 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Police Civilian Review Board. (0 97-23) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. 4. Resolution: Private Activity Bonds/Industrial Revenue Bonds Consider adopting a resolution amending Resolution No. 91 of 2001 Private Activity Bonds. (R 01-21) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. • 5. Board Appointment: Babs DeLay,Planning Commission Consider approving the appointment of Babs DeLay to the Planning Commission for a term extending through July 1,2007. (I 03-22) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. 6. Board Appointment: Craig Galli,Planning Commission Consider approving the appointment of Craig Galli to the Planning Commission for a term extending through July 1,2007. (I 03-22) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. 7. Board Reappointment: Robert(Bip)Daniels,Planning Commission Consider approving the reappointment of Robert`Bip"Daniels to the Planning Commission for a term extending through July 1,2007. (I 03-22) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. S 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,July 8,2003 • G. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Set date—Budget Amendment No. 1 Set the date of August 7, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 33 of 2003, which adopted the revised tentative budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document, for fiscal year 2003-2004. (B 03-8) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 2. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No.400-03-07, amend the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the standards by which subdivisions may be approved in Foothill Zoning Districts Set the date of August 7,2003 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the standards by which subdivisions may be approved in Foothill Zoning Districts,pursuant to Petition No.400-03- 07. (P 03-15) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 3. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No. 400-03-12,rezone property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business to Single Family Residential Set the date of August 7,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business to Single Family Residential,pursuant to Petition No.400-03-12. (Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Synagogue) (P 03-16) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 4. Resolution: Authorize the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for Salt Lake County Fire Department Paramedic educational requirements. (C 03-411) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. 5. Board Reappointment:Diane Etherington,Library Board Consider approving the reappointment of Diane Etherington to the Library Board for a term extending through June 30,2006. (I 03-7) • Staff Recommendation: Approve. 4 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,July 8,2003 • 6. Board Reappointment:John Johnson,Arts Council Consider approving the reappointment of John Johnson to the Arts Council for a term extending through July I,2006. (I 03-25) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 7. Board Appointment:Daniel Greenwood,Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Consider approving the appointment of Daniel Greenwood to the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term extending through December 29,2003. (I 03-5) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 8. Board Appointment:Derek Thomas Payne,City&County Building Conservancy&Use Committee Consider approving the appointment of Derek Thomas Payne to the City&County Building Conservancy&Use Committee for a term extending through July 16,2007. (I 03-26) Staff Recommendation: Approve. • H. ADJOURNMENT: Dated: July 3,2003 By: C Deputy City Recorder STATE OF UTAH : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 3rd of July 2003,I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view,at the following times and locations within the City&County Building,451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m.in the City Recorder's Office,Room 415;and 2. At 5:00 p.m.in the Newsroom,Room 315. • Deputy City Recorder 5 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,July 8,2003 • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3`1 day of July 2003. Notary Publi re ding in the State of Utah NOTARY PUBLtC _ `'; STATE OF UTAH MyCommission ExoireS Approval: Zr1� 01 2005 i EE'EREifJONES 451 Sc.L:c St.e,:;Rm.415 Executiv irector Access agendas at http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/agendas/default.htm.A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphones can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign language interpreters;please allow 72 hours advance notice. TDD Number 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute,City Ordinance and Council Policy,one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. • • 6 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE - July 3,-2003 Sumer: Update of the City's Health Ordinance AFFECT ED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. City Attorney's Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Greg Hawkins,Assistant City Attorney KEY ELEMENTS: The City Attorney's Office has noted some updates to the City's Code relating to the County Health Department The proposed amendment will: • Reflect the name change of the Health Department • Clarify that the rules and regulations of the Health Department are the health ordinances of Salt Lake City • • Prescribe the penalties for violation to be a Class C misdemeanor MATTERS AT ISSUE AND QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: The 2002 State Legislature gave all health department operations to counties. The County changed the name of the Health Department from Salt Lake City-County Health Department to Salt Lake Valley Health Department The proposed amendment stipulates that the rules and regulations of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department are the health ordinances of Salt Lake City. The City can criminally prosecute health ordinance violations of Health Department rules and regulations that occur in the City if the City adopts the health department rules as City ordinances. The amendment provides the criminal classification for violations of Health Department regulations. Violations that don't identify a specific penalty will be Class C misdemeanors. A defendant is not allowed to request a jury trial when charged with a Class C misdemeanor. At the briefing Council Members may wish to ask about the coordination and cooperation of . the Health Department and whether there are any practical problems relating to enforcement or prosecution of Health Department rules and regulations. OPTIONS: 1. Forward the ordinance to a future Council meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional written information or refer to a work session for further discussion. 3. Do not advance the ordinance. sq BACKGROUND: • Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County entered into an agreement in August 1969 to consolidate the City and County's health departments. The joint health department was known as the Salt Lake City-County Health Department. The City appoints four board members. Three of the board members are recommended by the Mayor with approval of the City Council. The fourth board member is the Mayor or the Mayor's designee. The combined Health Department acted as the City's instrument for specifying and solving health issues. Health Department employees are the City's enforcement officers,but the City has no direct control over Health Department employees. Both the City and the County have operated under that agreement and its amendments for over 30 years. In 2002,the State Legislature removed the requirement that municipalities join with counties to create local health departments. The legislation requires county governments to create health departments to serve both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Because of the 1969 interlocal agreement,the County recently informally agreed that the City will retain the power to appoint 4 of the 15 members of the board of directors through the end of the 50-year contract period. The City doesn't have any other control over the Health Department. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Greg Hawkins,JD Baxter • • S RIN172O3 A 111 ����my/\!.' O�►T�t V+ RDSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON *REG R. HAWKINS LAW DEPARTMENT MAYOR SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY EDWIN P. RUTAN, II CITY ATTORNEY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL To: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Greg R. Hawkins Assistant City Attorney DATE: May 30, 2003 SUBJECT: The City has not updated its health ordinance since 1988. Since then, the name of the local health department has changed, and powers given to local health departments by the state legislature have also changed. A review of our ordinance suggests that we should update our ordinance. Recommendation: The City Attorney's Office recommends adoption of the ordinance • to make it clear that the City adopts the current health department regulations as the City's health ordinances. This ordinance provides the basis to make violations of the regulations enforceable by criminal prosecution, if necessary. Funding: This will have no budget impact. Background/Analysis/Alternatives: The City and the County entered into an agreement in the 1960's which consolidated the City and County's Health Departments into one department. City oversight was by appointment to the board of directors. That arrangement continues today. The state law has changed over the years, and changes have been made to the structure and power of local health departments. Local heath departments are generally countywide. The expertise in adopting regulations and in enforcing matters relating to public health resides in the local health department, now known as the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. Pursuant to the power given to health departments by the state, and also pursuant to the City and County contract, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department has adopted various regulations governing many subjects. The City last adopted an ordinance in 1988 giving the Salt Lake City County Health Department power to adopt rules and regulations for the public health as necessary. • The health department has changed its name to reflect the current status of its 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 �YRecrcEo rnrew . Rocky Fluhart May 30, 2003 • Page 2 obligations to the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. We need to change our ordinance to reflect that change. Legislative Document: The Document attached is an amendment to an existing ordinance. It changes the name of the health department and provides the criminal classification for violations of health department regulations. Contact Person: Greg Hawkins, City Attorney's Office, 535-7788. Submitted by: / �% 3REG,R. AWKINS Assistant City Attorney • G:\HG4501\MEMOS\Health Department Ordinance Submission Ltr.doc • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending Chapter 9.02 of the SALT LAKE CITY CODE Regarding Salt Lake City-County Health Department Regulations Adopted by Reference) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.02,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SALT LAKE CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS,TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE NAME OF THE LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ADOPTING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS BY REFERENCE. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 9.02 of the SALT LAKE CITY CODE,pertaining to Salt Lake City-County Health Department Regulations,shall be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 9.02.010 Authority To Prescribe-Regulations Adopted (Deleted:Until ;' otherwise provided l ! under Salt Lake City The Salt Lake Valley Health Depad nient is authorized to prescribe such rules and t ordinances,t Deleted:City- regulations as it may deem necessary for the protection of life and public health. The rules and County Deleted:as have presently been regulations of the Health Department,shall be the health ordinances of Salt Lake City. , I adopted and as currently exist are adopted by reference 9.02.020 Violation of Health Regulations by the City,three copies of which shall be filed for use and Violation of any of the rules and regulations adopted by the health department to carry examination by the public in the Office of the Recorder of out the purposes of Section 9.02.010, or its successor, shall be punished,is Class C I Salt Lake City Deleted:with the misdemeanors unless otherwise specified. I same penalties jprescribed in Section 100-13-601,or its successor,of the Health Department Uniform Ordinances, a copy of which is on file in the Salt Lake ! City Recorder's t Office SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DA11,. That this ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: ❑Approved DVetoed MAYOR ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003 Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Chapter 9.02-SLC-Co Heahh Dept Regs(Draf).doc 2 • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 3,2003 SUBJECT: Recreation Program Advisory Board and the Youth City Government Advisory Board Consolidation AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Public Services Department, Rick Graham KEY ELEMENTS: The Administration is proposing that the City Council repeal chapter 2.70 of the City Code and amend Chapter 2.37 of the Salt Lake City Code. The amended chapter would be titled Youth and Family Program Advisory Board. The Administration has discussed the possible blending • of the Recreation Program Advisory Board and Youth City Government Advisory Board with each of the boards. Both boards have agreed that the two boards should be combined because the roles are similar in form and function and because budget and program efficiencies are possible. If the Council accepts the proposed revisions, formal action would take place at a future Council meeting. ➢ OPTIONS 1. Forward the ordinance to a future Council meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional written information or refer to an additional Council work session. 3. Do not advance the ordinance. ➢ POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS As noted in the transmittal, it is not the intent of the Administration to reduce or diminish the responsibilities of the existing boards once the consolidation occurs. The newly created board will advise the City on youth and family services and programs.Section 2.37.010 of the proposed ordinance states the new proposed policy of the City. There are policy changes in the proposed ordinance. Currently Ordinance 2.70 states that the City policy is to provide for a youth city council and youth mayor to interact with the City Council,neighborhood organizations, schools and citizens. The goal of the Youth City Government policy, as stated in Section 2.70.010,was to prepare young people to be future leaders, to provide positive role models and to provide opportunities for youth to play an active role in promoting solutions to community problems. • The new proposed ordinance does not have the same language relating to youth city government and lists youth city government only as a youth activity that the City may provide. Page 1 The Council may wish to clarify their position on youth city government and decide if they are comfortable with the proposed level of emphasis on Youth City Government.The City currently employs one FTE to staff the Youth City Government program. • Currently Chapter 2.37 of the Salt Lake City states that it is the policy of the City to provide recreational services and programs. The proposed policy statement wording is changed to read "youth and family". The current wording of the ordinance states that the City will provide and coordinate recreational programs in Salt Lake City and will coordinate with and supplement other entities that provide recreation, whereas the new language changes the sections dealing with recreation to youth programming. The current ordinance addresses the assessment of recreational and program needs and establishing criteria and guidelines for that assessment, whereas the proposed ordinance does not refer directly to the assessment of recreational needs but instead focuses on youth and family programming. Recreational programming may be included in the proposed ordinance but is not specifically identified. The Council may wish to discuss whether or not references to recreation should be changed to youth and family in the proposed policy statement and ordinance. Sections of the proposed ordinance still refer to community events,sports and facilities. The Council may wish to clarify that the proposed revisions to Chapter 2.37 do not affect the Golf Enterprise Fund or the Golf Advisory Board.The revision adds a section on Youth Programs. The proposed revision to the Recreation Board Ordinance changes the membership of the recreation board. The new Youth and Family Board would not include the Mayor,City Engineer or a representative of the Salt Lake City School District as ex officio nonvoting members. The Director of Youth Programs, the City Attorney and the Chief of Police will be ex officio nonvoting members. Additionally,seven members of the proposed 14 member Youth and Family Board would • represent the seven City Council and School Board districts, one member for each district. The Council may wish to note that the City Council and Salt Lake City School Board districts do not have the same boundaries.Additional members of the board would represent the Salt Lake City School Board, Salt Lake City Community Education Program, and communities served by recreation and community program facilities throughout the City. It is proposed that two high school age members be appointed to the board. The Council may wish to ask for clarification on what the Salt Lake City Community Education program is. The proposed ordinance also requires that board members sign an oath office. This oath is required by law and is to be signed by City officials and filed with the City Recorder. The Council may wish to clarify that it is the policy of the City that advisory board members sign the oath of office and that all City advisory board members are required to do the same. The proposed ordinance also addresses meetings and having a quorum present to conduct business. The Council may wish to note that proposed language in the ordinance that allows the chairperson of the board to poll the board by telephone to transact board business in the absence of a quorum is not consistent with the electronic meeting language adopted by the City Council. City Ordinance 2.84 states that boards,commissions or committees of the City must have a majority of a quorum physically present to conduct business by telephone.The City Council must have a quorum physically present to conduct business. • Page 2 ➢ BUDGET RELATED FACTS The City Council on June 24, 2003 adopted the revised tentative budget for fiscal year 2003-2004. Within the adopted budget there were several program transfers and program consolidations. The Youth and City Government program was transferred to the Department of Public Services and combined with the existing Youth and Family program. The leadership of the combined program has been consolidated and the organization structure for the department updated.The new, combined program will be responsible for staffing the proposed Youth and Family Board. Although the transmittal from the Administration does not identify budget reductions for this consolidation, efficiencies relating to board appointments and program staffing are noted. cc: Rocky Fluhart, Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin, Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom and Janet Wolf File location: Michael\Staff Reports\ • S Page 3 JUN 2 6 2033 RICHARD GRAHAM Si` 1 �i` , � ��® IVN ROBS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR June 20, 2003 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administration Officer FROM: Rick Graham,Director Al Public Services Department SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment to blend the Roles of the Recreation Program Advisory Board and the Youth City Government Advisory Board. STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham 535-7774 Janet Wolf 535-7712 • DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT: No Impact DISCUSSION: In July 2002,the Administration submitted an ordinance amendment to the City Council that recommended several significant changes to the existing Recreation Program Advisory Board. The most notable change,beyond several housekeeping items,was a change in board membership. Attached, you will find a copy of July 2002, Council Transmittal,which will detail the purposes behind the ordinance amendment. No action was ever taken by the City Council. Prior to any scheduled briefing, City Council and Administration staff held a non-specific discussion about the challenge of filling positions on Advisory Boards, and opportunities that might exist to combine boards that had similar functions. In a similar fashion, administrative personnel from the Mayor's Office and the Public Services Department began discussing the value of blending the Youth City Government programs funded within the Mayor's Office with youth programs funded within the Public Services Department. The discussion had a very positive tone so it was decided that the topic be introduced to the governing boards of both the Youth City Government Advisory and the Recreation Program Advisory 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 80 1•535-7789 RECYCLED PAPER Board. The result of the discussion was agreement of both boards that the roles are similar in both form and function, and that budget and program efficiencies could be created by combing both the program management and advisory board functions. The Mayor's recommended Budget for fiscal year 2003/2004 includes a recommendation to combine all youth programs within the Public Services Department. The final puzzle piece to this reorganization is the combining of the two advisory board functions. Attached, is the ordinance work that amends the Recreation Advisory Board Ordinance and repeals the Youth City Government Advisory Board. The new board that is to be created will be called the Youth and Family Program Advisory Board. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the two existing boards are not lost or diminished under the new board. PUBLIC PROCESS: This recommendation has been thoroughly reviewed by, and has the support of both the Recreation Program Advisory Board and the Youth City Government Advisory Board. Attachments cc: Janet Wolf Rosanita Cespedes • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Youth City Government Advisory Board) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.70 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE YOUTH CITY GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.70 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Youth City Government Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, repealed. .ck�, 70 YOUTH CET-' CO\ RNME NT n ORY �r n �I) ✓�- CS7"i"i1'i7 • • • . •. , government and be better infbrmcd and prepared to be4e'tiers in the American free enterprise systet =he-eity--eeimeii-de-elafe-s it to-be-in-the city's interests to • • ctive role in promoting solutions to £ nn}un•ity problems. Fuftl e tit e•sty-c ouneil-dee aces-it-to-be-a-policy-of-the cite • • youth of the city to interact with the city council, neighborhood organizations, schools and citizens. (Ord. 81.-95 § 1, 1995) Advisoryovernment •ty • Board:• • youthThere is created the city government -199-5) 2,14h030-114embershipA. The board shall consist of nine (9) voting members appointed by the mayor-Twith4he-adviee--and-eonsent of the council. B. Board members-shall be individuals who are actively interested in the growth and potential of the city's youth. C. The mayor, city attorney, chief of police, and a city staff member designated by the mayor as the director ofLthe-touth-eity-govefnment-s:hall all be ex-ectie-i-o-membe , D. The term of each voting member shall be three (3) years. Voting members may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full three (3) year terms. -Any-partial term-shall not he-included in the-dete---rmination-of any person's etigibility-to-serve two (2) conseetttive-full-terms:-At-the-initial-efeation-of-the boafd,-the-mayor-shall-designate three (3) members to serve one year partial terms, three (3) meml--yers to serve two G2-)-year--paitt-i-a-l-t-efm-s-ancl-three (-3)-members to se-r-ve4U11--Mitia-1-th-yee-(-3-)-ye-ar-terms,*(44,-8-t-9-5-§-1., 1995) 2.70.040 • 2 The board shall annually elect a chair and a vice chair who shall serve for a term of one year each. The chair or vie • • • • • consecutive terms in the same office. The board shall be chaired by the director of youth • createty government. The board may such committees • as t deems appropriate and advisable to study, consider and make recommendations on matters-withih-the beard's authority-40r€144-9-5-§-1, 1-995) 2,104150-Powers-And4411ties1 The board shall have the -Mowing powers and duties: A. Create and oversee the election and operation of a youth city government whose officers are to be elected from among junior high and high school students and other students, under eighteen (18) years of age, in nontraditional educational programs residing in the city; and -Goordinate-the-youth-eity government-programs-with-other govermental and private entities such as the Salt Lake City school district, the city council, neighborhood and community councils and such others as may be apiproffiate,(Ord. 81 95 § 1, 1-99-5-) :• *• A. The board shall meet at least teii--(40)-times-each-ealendap-year, B. The meetings shall be held in complianec with the provisiowi-of-the open-anfl-public meeti-n-gs-aet-and the-reeorkts-shall-be-maintained • . • . • - • 3 • C. No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the board � i oft-lie ,A--a-quorum of five (5)-voting members. A simple-majority of the voting members present at the meek at which a quorum is present shall-be required for any action taken. (Ord. 81 95 § 1, 1995) SECTION 2. This ordinance ;hall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action:[Approved [Vetoed MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Repealing Chapter 2 70 re Youth City Gov Advisory Board-5-21-03 draft • 4 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Youth City Government Advisory Board) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.70 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE YOUTH CITY GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.70 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Youth City Government Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, repealed. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action:(Approved OVetoed MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office (SEAL) Date (VM j • Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinance 03\Repealing Chapter 2.70 re Youth City Gov Advisory Board-6-18-03 final 2 111/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Recreation Advisory Board Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,pertaining to the Recreation Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.37 RECREATION-YOUTH AND FAMILY PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD 2.37.010 Purpose A. The Mayor and the Salt Lake City Council, hereinafter City Council, declare it to be a • policy of the City that the City be a provider of recreational youth and family services and programs in Salt Lake City, under the direction of the Recreation Division of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services, either through its own resources or by contract. The DepartmentDivisien shall coordinate all recreational youth program services that are operationally funded by the City's general fund. In addition, the DepartinentDivision will cooperate with and supplement other entities providing rccr tion youth programming, including but not limited to Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake County, and religious,.and civic, and volunteer youth organizations in providing these services and programs. B. The DepartmentRecreation Division may provide the following services, among others, in Salt Lake City: • 1. Community events. Activities that introduce recreation youth and family offerings to the public and promote community unity and involvement. Such activities include special events, festivals, sporting events,youth activities, and the Corporate Games. 2. Sorenson Multi-CulturalGlendale Youth Recreation Center. Direct, operate, program, and maintain the Sorenson Multipurpose CulturalGlendale Youth Recreation Center. Coordinate with the Glendale and Poplar Grove communitiescommunity in providing services and programs. 3. Sports. Activities that facilitate competition among participants, including programs, leagues, clinics, tournaments, and events. Coordinate the reservations of all athletic fields owned by Salt Lake City. Collaborate with community based youth sports Organizations that use City facilities. Supervise the Children's Garden, Liberty Park Tennis Center, and Dee Smith Tennis Center. 4. Salt Lake Sports ComplexSteiner n guatic Conte, Direct, operate,program, and maintain the Salt Lake Sports ComplexSteiner Aquatic Center. Coordinate with the Salt Lake City School District on the use of the Salt Lake Sports ComplexSteiner Aquatic Center for high school swimming and other athletic programs. 5. Youth Programs. Design and jDrovide youth programs pertaining to activities after school and during the summertime. Activities may include Youth-City-Government, after school/summer, employment, Global Artways and technology. C. This chapter is enacted and intended for the purpose of establishing a Salt Lake City Rec;reatien--Youth and Family Program Advisory Board for the general purpose of establishing criteria and guidelines for assessing the City's recreational and--youth and family program needs • and to recommend eat-ienal program priorities, as well as to monitor any joint youth or family 2 recreational agreements between the City and other entities. The more specific powers and duties of the board shall be as set forth in Section 2.37.120 of this chapter or its successor. 2.37.020 Definitions "Board" means the Salt Lake City Recreation Youth and Family Program Advisory Board created under this chapter. "City" means and refers to Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. "Council" means the Salt Lake City Council. Department of Public Services. "County"means the Parks &Recreation Division of Salt Lake County, a governmental entity organized under the laws of the state of Utah. "Department" means the Salt Lake City Public Services Department. "Director of Youth Programs"means a person appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council who is duly qualified and acting head of the Youth and Family Services program. "Mayor" means the duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. "Member" means a person appointed by the Mayor who is duly qualified and an acting, voting member of the board. "Person" means an individual. Public Services to serve as the director of the Division of Recreation within the Department o f Public S 3 "School Board"means Salt Lake City Board of Education. 2.37.030 Board Created There is created the Salt Lake City Recreation Youth and Family Program Advisory Board, hereinafter referred to as "the board,"which body shall consist of nine fourteen(14) appointed voting members. The- Mayer Director of Youth Programs, the recreation director of Public Services, the city attorneythe-�eng�� d .. r tat; f the Salt r C•, -� �,-a��a�rr cua��2 rn School District and the chief of police shall be ex officio nonvoting members. The voting members shall consist of the following: A. Seven members representing the seven City Council and School Board districts, one member for each district. B. One member representing the Salt Lake City School Board. • C. One member representing the Salt Lake City Community Education Program. D. One member representing the communities served by the Salt Lake City Sports Complex and Fairmont Park swimming facility. E. One member representing the communities served by the Northwest Community Center and the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. • F. One member representing the communities served by the Central City Community Center and Kiwanis Boys and Girls Center. G. Two high school age members representing the youth of the City. 2.37.040 Appointment of Members—Oath of Office A. Appointments. All appointments of members of the Reefeation Youth and Family Program Advisory Board shall be made by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. The seven City Council District members shall be appointed to a term of office for four 4 • years. All other board members shall be appointed to a term of office for two years except the two youth representatives that will serve 1 year terms each. In making initial appointments of the seven City Council District members, the Mayor shall, with the advice and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years, twothree members to serve three years, and twotee members to serve four years. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Thereafter, all appointments shall be made for a four-year term. In making initial appointments of the other five board members, the Mayor shall, with the advice and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years and two members to serve one year. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Each member's term of office shall expire on the applicable third Monday in January, but he or she shall continue to hold that office until his or her successor is appointed and qualified. B. Compensation- Immunity from Liability. Each member shall perform service on a voluntary basis without compensation and on such basis shall be immune from liability with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of those services as provided by Utah Code Annotated, Section 63-30-1, et seq. (1953) as amended, or successor sections. However, this shall not restrict the payment of reasonable compensation to a member when he or she renders authorized administrative, professional, or other bona fide services to the board pursuant to written contract in a capacity other than as a board member. C. Vacancies. Midterm Vvacancies occurring in the membership of the board shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council for the unexpired term. In exercising his or her discretion in making appointments to the board,the Mayor shall, where advisable. take into consideration the geographic diversity within the City. • 5 D. Oath of Office. Members shall sign the oath of office required by law to be signed by city officials and file the same in the office of the city recorder. Every member who shall fail within ten(10) days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the city recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully, honestly and impartially the duties of the office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed in this chapter. 2.37.050 Removal from office. Any member may be removed from office by the mayor for cause,prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such member was appointed. If any member of the board engages in conduct that, in the opinion of the board, is prejudicial to the best interests of the board, the board may recommend removal of such member to the mayor. Any member of the board who shall be absent for one half of the meetings of the board in any consecutive 12-month period may be removed from the board by the mayor. 2.36.060 Members' ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the city's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of this code, or its successor. Any violations of the provisions of said chapter, or its successor, shall be grounds for removal from office. 2.37.070 Eligibility for membership. A person, to be eligible to be appointed as a member of the board, shall meet the following prerequisites: A. Be not less than eighteentwenty one years of age, except for the two high school student representatives referred to below; • B. Be a resident of the state of Utah and of Salt Lake City; 6 • C. No person shall be eligible to serve on the board as a member while actively engaged or employed in any commercial recreational venture. D. The two high school student representatives shall be attending a high school in the Salt Lake City boundaries and are not held to the age restriction. 2.37.080 Meetings. A. The board shall convene for regular meetings to be held not less than monthly throughout the year. To the extent that the meetings of the board are governed by Chapter 4 of Title 52, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, or its successor, said meetings shall be conducted in compliance with said state law. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the board, the chairperson, or the mayor. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the member calling such meeting and,unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the • order for such special meeting must be given not less than 24three hours notice. Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at the City & County Building, Room 148, the parks and recreation building, or at such other public place as maybe designated by the board. A majority of the board positions filled members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board may act officially by an affirmative vote of the quorumuny six of the members. Under exceptional circumstances, the chairperson may poll the board by telephone to transact board business in the absence of a quorum. • 7 • B. The board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the city recorder. The board shall record the yea and nay votes on any action taken by it. C. The board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting. The board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. 2.37.090 Election of officers. Each year the board at its first regular meeting after the third Monday in January shall select one of its members as chairperson and another of its members as vice-chairperson, who shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. No • member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairperson. The recreation director shall make available a secretary to the board when required. 2.37.100 Review of action-Powers of mayor. All actions taken by the board shall constitute recommendations to the mayor do director and shall not constitute official action. The mayor shall have the power to review, ratify, modify or disregard any recommendation submitted by the board, or to refer the matter to the city council, if appropriate. No action shall be implemented until the board is notified in writing that it has been ratified by the mayor, or, if referred to the council, that the council has adopted an ordinance implementing the recommendation of the board, or that the recommendation was modified and adopted by the mayor or council, as appropriate, and in such event it shall be implemented as modified. • 8 • 2.37.110 Committees. The board may designate such committee or committees as it desires to study, consider and make recommendations on matters which are presented to the board. In the event the board desires non-board members to serve on such a committee, the board may request the recreation director of public services to make such appointments.Members of such committees shall also serve without compensation. 2.37.120 Powers and duties. The board shall have the following powers and duties except with respect to the John W. Gallivan Utah Center: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable; provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not • be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall from time to time deem in the public interest and most likely to advance, enhance, foster and promote recreational--youth and family activities, for the conduct of the business ofef, and the use and operation of recreational, youth and family services facilities within Salt Lake City and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; C. Recommend planning, establishment and approval of all construction and expansion projects for city recreational programs and facilities. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all other approval of other city departments required by law or city • policy; 9 • D. Recommend broad matters of policy regarding the operation and management of city recreational, youth and family services programs and facilities, which may include, but need not be limited to, the following: 1. Expansion of city recreational facilities, 2. Timing and progress of such expansion, 3. Establishmenting of-rate structures for services or facilities furnished by city recreational, youth and family services facilities to the public or to any person, firm or corporation, public or private, and for leasing of space or facilities, or for granting rights, privileges or concessions at city recreational facilities, 4. Determination of the number ander type of concessionaires, services, or facilities at city recreational facilities; • E. Review and make recommendations annually on the budget for the division of youth and family services program recreation within the department of public services; F. Coordinate with Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City School District, and other citizen boards, nonprofit groups, and other service delivery organizations that work with the City in delivering recreation programs and other youth program services. G. Annually recommend program evaluation, performance oversight, and use and development of facilities throughout the city. H. Meet and communicate with community constituency, elected officials, and any interested parties about available programs. I. Respond to special requests as identified by the mayor's office or city council. J. Review city park use policies and practices, and make recommendations on how • park resources can better support the recreation needs of the city. 10 • KF. Assist the recreation director of public services in the continuing orderly development and promotion of city recreational facilities in order to best serve the citizens of the Salt Lake Ccity. 2.37.125 Contracts Neither the board nor any member nor officer of the board shall have power or authority to bind the City by any contract or engagement or to render it liable pecuniary for any purpose or for any amount. 2.37.130 Staff . A. Attorney for the Board: The Salt Lake eCity attorney or his designee and the city engineer shall serve as be-the attorney and engineer,respectively, for the board and shall be an ex officio nonvoting member. • B. Board Staff: The division of youth and family services staff shall serve as staff of the board and shall be available to keep minutes or to provide ministerial services. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 11 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: [Approved [Vetoed MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Recreation Advisory Board Amendments 5-21-03 Draft doc • 12 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Recreation Advisory Board Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,pertaining to the Recreation Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.37 YOUTH AND FAMILY PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD 2.37.010 Purpose A. The Mayor and the Salt Lake City Council, hereinafter City Council, declare it to be a policy of the City that the City be a provider of youth and family services and programs in Salt Lake City, under the direction of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services, either through its own resources or by contract. The Department shall coordinate all youth program services that are operationally funded by the City's general fund. In addition, the Department will cooperate with and supplement other entities providing youth programming, including but not limited to Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake County, and religious, civic, and volunteer youth organizations in providing these services and programs. B. The Department may provide the following services, among others, in Salt Lake City: 1. Community events. Activities that introduce youth and family offerings to the public and promote community unity and involvement. Such activities include special events, • festivals, sporting events, youth activities, and the Corporate Games. 2. Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. Direct, operate,program, and maintain the Sorenson Multipurpose Cultural Center. Coordinate with the Glendale and Poplar Grove communities in providing services and programs. 3. Sports. Activities that facilitate competition among participants, including programs, leagues, clinics, tournaments, and events. Coordinate the reservations of all athletic fields owned by Salt Lake City. Collaborate with community based youth sports organizations that use City facilities. Supervise the Children's Garden, Liberty Park Tennis Center, and Dee Smith Tennis Center. 4. Salt Lake Sports Complex. Direct, operate, program, and maintain the Salt Lake Sports Complex. Coordinate with the Salt Lake City School District on the use of the Salt Lake Sports Complex for high school swimming and other athletic programs. • 5. Youth Programs. Design and provide youth programs pertaining to activities after school and during the summertime. Activities may include Youth-City-Government, after school/summer, employment, Global Artways and technology. C. This chapter is enacted and intended for the purpose of establishing a Salt Lake City Youth and Family Program Advisory Board for the general purpose of establishing criteria and guidelines for assessing the City's youth and family program needs and to recommend program priorities, as well as to monitor any joint youth or family agreements between the City and other entities. The more specific powers and duties of the board shall be as set forth in Section 2.37.120 of this chapter or its successor. 2.37.020 Definitions "Board" means the Salt Lake City Youth and Family Program Advisory Board created • under this chapter. 2 • "City" means Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. "Council" means the Salt Lake City Council. "County"means the Parks &Recreation Division of Salt Lake County, a governmental entity organized under the laws of the state of Utah. "Department"means the Salt Lake City Public Services Department. "Director of Youth Programs"means a person appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council who is duly qualified and acting head of the Youth and Family Services program. "Mayor" means the duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. "Member" means a person appointed by the Mayor who is duly qualified and an acting, voting member of the board. • "Person" means an individual. "School Board"means Salt Lake City Board of Education. 2.37.030 Board Created There is created the Salt Lake City Youth and Family Program Advisory Board, hereinafter referred to as "the board,"which body shall consist of fourteen(14) appointed voting members. The Director of Youth Programs, director of Public Services, the city attorney, and the chief of police shall be ex officio nonvoting members. The voting members shall consist of the following: A. Seven members representing the seven City Council and School Board districts, one member for each district. SB. One member representing the Salt Lake City School Board. 3 • C. One member representing the Salt Lake City Community Education Program. D. One member representing the communities served by the Salt Lake City Sports Complex and Fairmont Park swimming facility. E. One member representing the communities served by the Northwest Community Center and the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. F. One member representing the communities served by the Central City Community Center and Kiwanis Boys and Girls Center. G. Two high school age members representing the youth of the City. 2.37.040 Appointment of Members—Oath of Office A. Appointments. All appointments of members of the Youth and Family Program Advisory Board shall be made by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. • The seven City Council District members shall be appointed to a term of office for four years. All other board members shall be appointed to a term of office for two years except the two youth representatives that will serve 1 year terms each. In making initial appointments of the seven City Council District members, the Mayor shall, with the advice and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years, two members to serve three years, and two members to serve four years. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Thereafter, all appointments shall be made for a four-year term. In making initial appointments of the other five board members, the Mayor shall,with the advice and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years and two members to serve one year. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Each member's term of office shall expire on the applicable third Monday in January, but he or she shall continue to hold that office until his or her successor is appointed and qualified. 4 • B. Compensation-Immunity from Liability. Each member shall perform service on a voluntary basis without compensation and on such basis shall be immune from liability with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of those services as provided by Utah Code Annotated, Section 63-30-1, et seq. (1953) as amended, or successor sections. However, this shall not restrict the payment of reasonable compensation to a member when he or she renders authorized administrative,professional, or other bona fide services to the board pursuant to written contract in a capacity other than as a board member. C. Vacancies. Midterm vacancies occurring in the membership of the board shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council for the unexpired term. In exercising his or her discretion in making appointments to the board,the Mayor shall, where advisable, take into consideration the geographic diversity within the City. • D. Oath of Office. Members shall sign the oath of office required by law to be signed by city officials and file the same in the office of the city recorder. Every member who shall fail within ten(10) days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the city recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully,honestly and impartiallythe duties of the office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed in this chapter. 2.37.050 Removal from office. Any member may be removed from office by the mayor for cause,prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such member was appointed. If any member of the board engages in conduct that, in the opinion of the board, is prejudicial to the best interests of the board, the board may recommend removal of such member to the mayor. Any member of the • 5 • board who shall be absent for one half of the meetings of the board in any consecutive 12-month period may be removed from the board by the mayor. 2.36.060 Members' ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the city's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of this code, or its successor. Any violations of the provisions of said chapter, or its successor, shall be grounds for removal from office. 2.37.070 Eligibility for membership. A person, to be eligible to be appointed as a member of the board, shall meet the following prerequisites: A. Be not less than eighteen years of age, except for the two high school student representatives referred to below; • B. Be a resident of the state of Utah and of Salt Lake City; C. No person shall be eligible to serve on the board as a member while actively engaged or employed in any commercial recreational venture. D. The two high school student representatives shall be attending a high school in the Salt Lake City boundaries and are not held to the age restriction. 2.37.080 Meetings. A. The board shall convene for regular meetings to be held not less than monthly throughout the year. To the extent that the meetings of the board are governed by Chapter 4 of Title 52, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, or its successor, said meetings shall be conducted in compliance with said state law. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the board, the chairperson, or the mayor. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the • member calling such meeting and, unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the 6 • order for such special meeting must be given not less than 24 hours notice. Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at the City& County Building, Room 148, or at such other public place as may be designated by the board. A majority of the board positions filled board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board may act officially by an affirmative vote of the quorum. Under exceptional circumstances, the chairperson may poll the board by telephone to transact board business in the absence of a quorum. B. The board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the city recorder. The board shall record the yea and nay votes on any action taken by it. C. The board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are • to be held. The board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting. The board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. 2.37.090 Election of officers. Each year the board at its first regular meeting after the third Monday in January shall select one of its members as chairperson and another of its members as vice-chairperson, who shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. No member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairperson. The recreation director shall make available a secretary to the board when required. 2.37.100 Review of action-Powers of mayor. All actions taken by the board shall constitute recommendations to the mayor and • shall not constitute official action. The mayor shall have the power to review, ratify, modify or 7 • disregard any recommendation submitted by the board, or to refer the matter to the city council, if appropriate. No action shall be implemented until the board is notified in writing that it has been ratified by the mayor, or, if referred to the council, that the council has adopted an ordinance implementing the recommendation of the board, or that the recommendation was modified and adopted by the mayor or council, as appropriate, and in such event it shall be implemented as modified. 2.37.110 Committees. The board may designate such committee or committees as it desires to study, consider and make recommendations on matters which are presented to the board. In the event the board desires non-board members to serve on such a committee, the board may request the director of public services to make such appointments. Members of such committees shall also • serve without compensation. 2.37.120 Powers and duties. The board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall from time to time deem in the public interest and most likely to advance, enhance, foster and promote youth and family activities, for the conduct of the business of, and the use and operation of recreation, youth and family services facilities within Salt Lake City and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided, however, that such rules and • 8 • regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; C. Recommend planning, establishment and approval of all construction and expansion projects for city recreational programs and facilities. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all other approval of other city departments required by law or city policy; D. Recommend broad matters of policy regarding the operation and management of city recreation, youth and family services programs and facilities,which may include,but need not be limited to, the following: 1. Expansion of city recreational facilities, 2. Timing and progress of such expansion, • 3. Establishment of rate structures for services or facilities furnished by city recreation, youth and family services facilities to the public or to any person, firm or corporation, public or private, and for leasing of space or facilities, or for granting rights, privileges or concessions at city recreational facilities, 4. Determination of the number and type of concessionaires, services, or facilities at city recreational facilities; E. Review and make recommendations annually on the budget for the division of youth and family services program within the department; F. Coordinate with Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City School District, and other citizen boards, nonprofit groups, and other service delivery organizations that work with the City in delivering recreation programs and other youth program services. • 9 • G. Annually recommend program evaluation, performance oversight, and use and development of facilities throughout the city. H. Meet and communicate with community constituency, elected officials, and any interested parties about available programs. I. Respond to special requests as identified by the mayor's office or city council. J. Review city park use policies and practices, and make recommendations on how park resources can better support the recreation needs of the city. K. Assist the director of public services in the continuing orderly development and promotion of city recreational facilities in order to best serve the citizens of the city. 2.37.125 Contracts Neither the board nor any member nor officer of the board shall have power or authority to bind the City by any contract or engagement or to render it liable pecuniary for any purpose or for any amount. 2.37.130 Staff. A. Attorney for the Board: The Salt Lake City attorney or his designee shall serve as the attorney for the board and shall be an ex officio nonvoting member. B. Board Staff: The division of youth and family services staff shall serve as staff of the board and shall be available to keep minutes or to provide ministerial services. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2003. • 10 • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: nApproved ❑Vetoed • MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake ity Attorney's Office Date & 1 �. sv /,_711116ffil G:\Ordinance 03\Recreation Advisory Board Amendments 6-18-03 final • 11 • rRICcARvDic GRAHAM su REcron S�� `�`©�(jl C@RPORATIONE ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYON July 1,2002 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administration Officer FROM: Rick Graham,Director Department of Public Services SUBJECT: Recreation Program Advisory Board Ordinance Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham—535-7774 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance • BUDGET IMPACT: No impact DISCUSSION: The Mayor and City Council have declared through ordinance and practice that it is the policy of the City to be a provider of recreational services and programs in Salt Lake City under the direction of the Public Services Department. Operational funds required to fund recreation facility maintenance and program management come from the City's general fund,grants,and donations. hi addition,the City also cooperates with,and supports other entities that provide recreation programs and facilities,such as Salt Lake County,Salt Lake City School District,non-profit groups,religious institutions and youth volunteer organizations. Through effective partnering,City residents enjoy greater opportunities to participate in recreation programming and facility use,and the City benefits by not having to fund and manage these programs. Until 1996,Salt Lake City funded,managed,and operated a comprehensive recreation program for children and adults. This responsibility also included the operation of swimming pools,the Liberty Park Tennis Center,and the Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center. During this same period of time,Salt Lake County funded,managed, and operated a similar program,but at a much larger scale. Several County programs and facilities were operated in the City to serve City residents. In 1997,the decision was made to consolidate the City and County programs together to achieve economy of scale • savings and to eliminate duplication of services. Under an agreement the County now provides recreation programming at the same level the City provided,and it operates and 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 145,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 5411 I TELEPHONE:SO1-S35-7775 FAX:S01-53,77U9 • manages City owned facilities,including the Salt Lake Sports Complex,Steiner West Swimming Pool,and the Liberty Park Swimming Pool. The City retained the responsibility to operate and program the Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center. Chapter 2.37 of the Salt Lake City Code,is the City ordinance that relates to the Recreation Advisory Board. This Board has been in existence since the mid-1980s. At the current time the membership of the Board is made up of nine(9)voting members, with seven(7)representing each Council District and two serving at-large positions. The Department and the Board feel that the current ordinance does not adequately reflect the role the Board needs to play,nor does it meet the advisory and oversight needs of the residents of Salt Lake City. With a resolve to better serve the residents,the Department and Board are recommending that changes be made to the current ordinance. An ordinance amendment has been prepared by the Attorney's Office,and is attached. The amended ordinance recommends the following changes. It should be noted here that the Department and the Board strongly support these changes. 1. Necessary housekeeping matters that change department,facility,and employee names;definition changes;and other minor word changes. 2. Board membership has changed from nine(9)members to twelve(12)voting members. The new board will have seven(7)members representing the seven • City Council Districts;one(1)member representing the Salt Lake City School Board;one(1)member representing the Salt Lake City Community Education Program;one(1)member representing the communities served by the Salt Lake City Sports Complex and Fairmont Park Aquatic facility;one(1)member representing the community served by the Northwest Community Center and Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center;and one(1)member representing the Central City Community Center and Kiwanis Boys'and Girls'Center. 3. Changes to the term of office of the board members. 4. Add an Oath of Office procedure. 5. Change the age of eligibility requirement from 21 years of age to 18. 6. Add to and change,several powers and duties of the board. In this section,the most notable changes are the duty to coordinate with other recreation service delivery organizations that work with the City;and to review City park use policies and practices,and make recommendations on how park resources can better support the recreation needs of the City. 7. Create a"Rules and Regulations"guideline for the conduct of the Board and its members. • • Of all the changes included in the amendment,the most significant is the change to Board membership. In addition to the resources and programs funded annually by the City,Salt Lake County,and the Salt Lake City School District,operate recreation facilities and sponsor programs within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The public will be better served if more attention is given to partnering,collaboration,and cooperation among these major recreation program providers. The recommended Board membership change creates the framework for partnering and cooperation to exist. Additionally,by adding representatives from facility user groups,the Board becomes linked closer to the community who is using the facilities and participating in the programs. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the ordinance. Attachments. • • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Recreation Program Advisory Board Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE RECREATION PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.37, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,pertaining to the Recreation Program Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.37 RECREATION PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD 2.37.010 Purpose • A. The Mayor and the Salt Lake City Council, hereinafter City Council, declare it to be a policy of the City that the City be a provider of recreational services and programs in Salt Lake City, under the direction of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services, either through its own resources or by contract. The Department shall coordinate all recreational services that are operationally funded by the City's general fund. In addition, the Department will cooperate with and supplement other entities providing recreation, including but not limited to Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake County, and religious, civic, and volunteer youth organizations in providing these services and programs. B. The Department may provide the following services, among others, in Salt Lake City: 1. Community events. Activities that introduce recreation offerings to the public and promote community unity and involvement. Such activities include special events, festivals, • sporting events, youth activities, and the Corporate Games. 1 • 2. Sorenson Multipurpose Cultural Center. Direct, operate,program,ro and maintain P the Sorenson Multipurpose Cultural Center. Coordinate with the Glendale and Poplar Grove communities in providing services and programs. 3. Sports. Activities that facilitate competition among participants, including programs, leagues, clinics, tournaments, and events. Coordinate the reservations of all athletic fields owned by Salt Lake City. Supervise the Children's Garden, Liberty Park Tennis Center, and Dee Smith Tennis Center. 4. Salt Lake Sports Complex. Direct, operate, program, and maintain the Salt Lake Sports Complex. Coordinate with the Salt Lake City School District on the use of the Salt Lake Sports Complex for high school swimming and other athletic programs. C_ This chapter is enacted and intended for the purpose of establishing a Salt Lake City • Recreation Program Advisory Board for the general purpose of establishing criteria and guidelines for assessing the City's recreational and program needs and to recommend recreational priorities, as well as to monitor any joint recreational agreements between the City and other entities. The more specific powers and duties of the board shall be as set forth in Section 2.37.120 of this chapter or its successor. 2.37.020 Definitions "Board" means the Salt Lake City Recreation Program Advisory Board created under this chapter. "City" means Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. "Council" means the Salt Lake City Council. 411 "County" means the Parks &Recreation Division of Salt Lake County, a governmental entity organized under the laws of the state of Utah. • "Department"means the Salt Lake City Public Services Department. "Mayor" means the duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. "Member" means a person appointed by the Mayor who is duly qualified and an acting, voting member of the board. "Person" means an individual. "School Board"means Salt Lake City Board of Education. "Youth and Family Services director"means a person appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council who is duly qualified and acting head of the Youth and Family Services program. 2.37.030 Board Created There is created the Salt Lake City Recreation Program Advisory Board, hereinafter 411/ referred to as"the board,"which bodyshall consist of twelve (12) appointed voting members. The Youth and Family Services director, director of Public Services, and the city attorney shall be ex officio nonvoting members. The voting members shall consist of the following: A. Seven members representing the seven City Council and School Board districts, one member for each district. B. One member representing the Salt Lake City School Board. C. One member representing the Salt Lake City Community Education Program. D. One member representing the communities served by the Salt Lake City Sports Complex and Faiiiiiont Park swimming facility. • E. One member representing the communities served by the Northwest Community Center and the Sorenson Multipurpose Cultural Center. 3 F. One member representing the communities served by the Central City Community Center and Kiwanis Boys and Girls Center. 2.37.040 Appointment of Members—Oath of Office A. Appointments. All appointments of members of the Recreation Program Advisory Board shall be made by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. The seven City Council District members shall be appointed to a term of office for four years. All other board members shall be appointed to a term of office for two years. In making initial appointments of the seven City Council District members, the Mayor shall, with the advice and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years, two members to serve three years, and two members to serve four years. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Thereafter, all appointments shall be made for a four-year term. • In making initial appointments of the other five board members, the Mayor shall, with the advice Y and consent of the Council, designate three members to serve two years and two members to serve one year. Any fraction of a year in the initial appointment shall be considered a full year. Each member's term of office shall expire on the applicable third Monday in January, but he or she shall continue to hold that office until his or her successor is appointed and qualified. B. Compensation- Immunity from Liability. Each member shall perform service on a voluntary basis without compensation and on such basis shall be immune from liability with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of those services as provided by Utah Code Annotated, Section 63-30-1, et seq. (1953) as amended, or successor sections. However, this shall not restrict the payment of reasonable compensation to a member when he or she renders authorized administrative, professional, or other bona fide services to the board pursuant 4111 to written contract in a capacity other than as a board member. 4 • C.Vacancies.Midterm vacancies occurring in the membership of the board shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council for the unexpired term.In exercising his or her discretion in making appointments to the board,the Mayor shall, where advisable,take into consideration the geographic diversity within the City. D.Oath of Office. Members shall sign the oath of office required by law to be signed by city officials and file the same in the office of the city recorder.Every member who shall fail within ten(10)days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the city recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully,honestly and impartially the duties of the office,shall be deemed to have refused such appointment,and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed in this chapter. 2.37.050 Removal from office. • Any member may be removed from office by the mayor for cause,prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such member was appointed. If any member of the board engages in conduct that,in the opinion of the board,is prejudicial to the best interests of the board,the board may recommend removal of such member to the mayor. Any member of the board who shall be absent for one half of the meetings of the board in any consecutive 12-month period niay be removed from the board by the mayor. 2,36,060 Members'ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the city's conflict of interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44 of this code,or its successor.Any violations of the provisions of said chapter, or its successor,shall be grounds for removal from office. • 5 2.37.070 Eligibility for membership. A person, to be eligible to be appointed as a member of the board, shall meet the following prerequisites: A. Be not less than eighteen years of age; B. Be a resident of the state of Utah and of Salt Lake City; C. No person shall be eligible to serve on the board as a member while actively engaged or employed in any commercial recreational venture. 2.37.080 Meetings. A. The board shall convene for regular meetings to be held not less than monthly throughout the year. To the extent that the meetings of the board are governed by Chapter 4 of Title 52, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, or its successor, said meetings shall be • conducted in compliance with said state law. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the board, the chairperson, or the mayor. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the member calling such meeting and, unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than 24 hours notice. Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at the City & County Building, Room 148, or at such other public place as may be designated by the board. A majority of the board positions filled shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board may act officially by an affiiiiiative vote of the quorum. Under exceptional circumstances, the chairperson may poll the board by telephone to transact board business in the absence of a quorum. 411 • B. The board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the city recorder.The board shall record the yea and nay votes on any action taken by it. C. The board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held.The board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting.The board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. 2.37.090 Election of officers. Each year the board at its first regular meeting after the third Monday in January shall select one of its members as chairperson and another of its members as vice-chairperson,who shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson.No • member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairperson.The recreation director shall make available a secretary to the board when required. 2.37.100 Review of action-Powers of mayor. All actions taken by the board shall constitute recommendations to the mayor and shall not constitute official action.The mayor shall have the power to review,ratify,modify or disregard any recommendation submitted by the board,or to refer the matter to the city council,if appropriate.No action shall be implemented until the board is notified in writing that it has been ratified by the mayor,or,if referred to the council,that the council has adopted an ordinance implementing the recommendation of the board,or that the recommendation was modified and adopted by the mayor or council,as appropriate,and in such event it shall be implemented as • modified. 7 • 2.37.110 Committees. The board may designate such committee or committees as it desires to study, consider and make recommendations on matters which are presented to the board. In the event the board desires non-board members to serve on such a committee, the board may request the director of public services to make such appointments. Members of such committees shall also serve without compensation. 2.37.120 Powers and duties. The board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; 41110 B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall from time to time deem in the public interest and most likely to advance, enhance, foster and promote recreational activities, for the conduct of the business of, and the use and operation of recreation, youth and family services facilities within Salt Lake City and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law; C. Recommend planning, establishment and approval of all construction and expansion projects for city recreational programs and facilities. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all other approval of other city departments required by law or city policy; 8 • D. Recommend broad matters of policy regarding the operation and management of city recreation, youth and family services programs and facilities,which may include, but need not be limited to, the following: 1. Expansion of city recreational facilities, 2. Timing and progress of such expansion; 3. Establishment of rate structures for services or facilities furnished by city recreation, youth and family services facilities to the public or to any person, firm or corporation, public or private, and for leasing of space or facilities, or for granting rights, privileges or concessions at city recreational facilities, 4. Determination of the number and type of concessionaires, services, or facilities at city recreational facilities; • E. Review and make recommendations annually on the budget for the division of youth and family services within the department; F. Coordinate with Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City School District, and other citizen boards, nonprofit groups, and other service delivery organizations that work with the City in delivering recreation programs. G. Annually recommend program evaluation, performance oversight, and use and development of facilities throughout the city. H. Meet and communicate with community constituency, elected officials, and any interested parties about available programs. I. Respond to special requests as identified by the mayor's office or city council. J. Review city park use policies and practices, and make recommendations on how • park resources can better support the recr eation ieation needs of the city. 9 • K. Assist the director of public services in the continuingorderlydevelopment and promotion of city recreational facilities in order to best serve the citizens of the city. 2.37.125 Contracts Neither the board nor any member nor officer of the board shall have power or authority to bind the City by any contract or engagement or to render it liable pecuniary for any purpose or for any amount. 2.37.130 Staff. A. Attorney for the Board: The Salt Lake City attorney or his designee shall serve as the attorney for the board and shall be an ex officio nonvoting member. B. Board Staff: The division of youth and family services staff shall serve as staff of the board and shall be available to keep minutes or to provide ministerial services. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediatelyuponthe date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: TO CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt Lake APPROVEDS Ci AAttor Moe Date 6 �: ttificte • 10 • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: nApproved (Vetoed MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: • G:\Ordinance 02\Recreation Advisory Board Amendments,6-13-02 Clean 11 RECREATION PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD Rules and Regulations for the Conduct of the Board The Mayor and the City Council declare it to be a policy of the City that the City be a provider of recreation services and programs in Salt Lake City,under the direction of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services. Chapter 2.37,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to the Recreation Program Advisory Board has been enacted for the purpose of establishing a Salt Lake City Recreation Program Advisory Board for the general purpose of establishing criteria and guidelines for assessing the City's recreational and program needs and to recommend recreation priorities. Under Section 2.37.120,Powers and Duties,the Board may determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the Board as the members shall deem advisable;provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with Chapter 2.37 or its successor,or other City, State or Federal law. The Board has established the following rules and regulations for the conduct of the Board business: • Offices A. Principal Office: The principal office of the Board shall be in Salt Lake City, County of Salt Lake,State of Utah. The location of the office shall be at the City& County Building,Room 138,Department of Public Services,unless otherwise designated by the Board. Board Officers A. Officers and Terms: The officers of this board shall be a chairperson and a vice-chairperson. The term of these positions shall be one year. No person shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairperson. The vice- chairperson may be reelected one or more times successively. There shall be no automatic succession of the vice-chairperson to the chairperson. B. Nomination and Election 1. Any Board member may nominate any other Board member for the positions of chairperson and vice-chairperson. The Board may nominate and elect members to other offices as deemed appropriate by a majority of the Board. Nominations from the floor as well as written nominations shall he accepted. Written and oral nominations shall be made in the December Board meeting. All nominees,both from • written and oral nominations,shall have been contacted and shall have • stated their availability and willingness to serve prior to being placed in nomination. 2. Election shall be by written ballot. Immediately following the December Board meeting,the secretary shall mail to all Board members a ballot,listing nominees for each position. Ballots shall be returned to the Board at the commencement of the January Board meeting. Proxy votes shall not be allowed. Officers shall be elected by an affirmative majority vote of the Board. The vice-chairperson and one other member of the Board who is neither an officer nor a nominee shall count ballots at the beginning of the January Board meeting. The officers-elect shall assume their duties on February I. C. Duties: The duties and powers of the officers of the Board shall be as follows: 1. Chairperson. The chairperson shall preside at the meetings of the Board and shall be a member ex officio of all committees with right to vote. The chairperson shall see that all orders and resolutions of the Board are carried into effect. The chairperson shall ensure that written records of all meetings are maintained as a public record. The chairperson shall also perform such other duties and have such other powers as are necessarily incident to the office of chairperson or as my • from time to time be directed by the Board. 2. Vice-chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall also perform such other duties and have such other powers as may from time to time be directed by the Board. • D. Removal and Vacancies: Any officer elected or appointed by the Board may be removed by the affirmative majority vote of the Board. Any vacancy so created shall be filled without undue delay at a regular meeting of the Board or at a special meeting called for that purpose. The remaining officers may provide nominations for such vacancy,and nominations from the floor shall also be accepted. All nominees under these circumstances shall have been contacted and shall have stated their availability and willingness to serve prior to their being placed in nomination. Election shall be by an affirmative majority vote of the Board. Meetings A. Regular Meetings: The Board shall convene for regular meetings to be held not less than once monthly throughout the year. The regular monthly meetings of the Board shall be held on the fourth Wednesday of each month. • The Board shall make any changes in the regular monthly meeting schedule during the first monthly meeting of each calendar year. Meetings shall be • held at the City&County Building,Room 138,or at such other public place as may be designated by the Board. B. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by a majority of the Board,the chairperson,or the Mayor,or the Salt Lake City School Board. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the member calling such meeting and,unless waived in writing,each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than 24 hours notice.Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Special meetings shall be held at Public Services or at such other public place as may be designated by the Board. C. Open Meetings,Closed Meetings 1. Open meetings.Every Board meeting is open to the public unless closed pursuant to law. The Board will comply with the Utah Opening Meetings Act. 2. Closed meetings. Closed Board meetings shall be permitted after an affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of the Board present at an open meeting where a quorum is present for any of the following purposes: 41 a. Discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b. Strategy sessions with respect to collective bargaining, litigation,or purchase of real property; c. Discussion regarding the deployment of security personnel or devices;and d. Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. The reason or reasons for holding a closed meeting and the vote,either for or against the proposition to hold such meetings,cast by each member by name,shall be entered on the Board minutes. E. Notice: The Board(or chairperson or a selected member of the Board)shall give public notice at least once each year of its annual meeting schedule, including date,time and place of such meetings. The Board shall give not less than 24 hours public notice of the agenda,date,time,and place of each of its • meetings. Public notice shall be satisfied by(1)posting written notice at the • City&County Building and(2)providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City. When because of unforeseen circumstances it is necessary for the Board to hold emergency meetings to consider matters of emergency or urgent nature,these notice requirements may be disregarded,and the best notice practicable may be given. No such emergency meeting of the Board shall be held unless an attempt has been made to notify all Board members and a majority vote in the affirmative to hold the meeting. F. Voting: Each voting member of the Board shall be entitled to vote on any issue presented to the Board;provided,however,that there shall be no proxy votes allowed. A member of the Board who is present at a meeting of the Board at which action on any matter is taken shall be presumed to have assented to the action taken unless so indicated in the written minutes of the meeting. G. Minutes—Open Meeting,Closed Meeting: Written minutes of all Board meetings shall be kept. Said minutes shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Salt Lake City Recorder within a reasonable time after the meeting. The chairperson shall see that minutes are kept in accordance with City ordinance and these rules and regulations. However,this duty may be • delegated to the vice-chairperson. 1. Written minutes shall be kept of all open meetings.Such minutes shall include the following: a. Date,time,and place of the meeting. b. Names of the members present and absent. c. Substance of all matters proposed,discussed,or decided,and a record of votes of each individual member. d. Names of all citizens who appeared and the substance in brief of their testimony. e. Any other information that any member requests to be entered into the minutes. 2. Written minutes shall be kept of all closed meetings. Such minutes shall include the following: a. Date,time and place of the meeting. • b. Names of the members present and absent. c. Names of all others present except when such disclosure would infringe on the confidence necessary to fulfill the original purpose of the closed meeting. H. Rules of Procedure: All actions by the Board shall be by motion. A member prior to a vote shall second the motion. A motion that has been seconded shall be adopted by an affirmative majority vote of the Board. The Board may suspend the rules of procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the Board who are present at the meeting. The Board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which the suspension of the rules occurs. Committees A. Purposes and Formation: The Board may designate such a committee or committees as it desires to study,consider,make recommendations,and oversee matters that are presented to the Board. In the event the Board desires non-board members to serve on such a committee,the Board may request the • director of Public Services to make such appointments. Members of such committees shall also serve without compensation. B. Committee Chairperson: Each committee of the Board shall have one chairperson. Said committee chairperson shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board. Committee chairperson shall serve for the lesser of one year or the duration of the existence of the committee. C. Written Minutes: The chairperson of every committee shall be responsible to provide and maintain a written record of the activities and recommendations of each committee meeting. Adoption and Amendments A. Procedure Required: These rules and regulations shall be adopted by an affirmative majority vote of the Board. These rules and regulations may be altered,amended,repealed,or new rules and regulations adopted by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Board at any regular or special meeting. B. Severability: The invalidity of any provision of these rules and regulations shall not affect the other provisions hereof,and in such event • these rules and regulations shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid provisions were omitted. CERTIFICATI ON , in my capacity as chairperson of the Recreation Program Advisory Board do hereby certify that the foregoing documents is a complete, accurate, and current copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Recreation Program Advisory Board. CHAIRPERSON STATE OF UTAH ) ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the day of 2002 personally appeared before me,who being by me duly sworn, did say that he/she has read • the foregoing document and has executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County,Utah My commission expires: MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS Upon motion duly made and seconded and by unanimous vote of the Board at is regularly scheduled meeting on , the Rules and Regulations of the Recreation Program Advisory Board, dated , 2002 were formally adopted. • CHAIRPERSON d La Wit,Slafik IR 2 ,7 2003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. WHEREAS,the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas,ingress and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises and persons outside the premises; and WHEREAS,the City Council has now determined that those height requirements 111 i are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the public way; and WHEREAS,the City Council has now determined that a reduced height requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way,in connection with private clubs,would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein 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 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property in the Central Business District and in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum iof three(3') feet high and a maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the Central Business District and in the public ways ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet(5')high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. All The barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances,the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ID CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-Mar 27,2003.doc C(mo MR 2 7 2003 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. WHEREAS,the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas,ingress and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises and persons outside the premises; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that those height requirements • are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the public way; and WHEREAS,the City Council has now determined that a reduced height requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way, in connection with private clubs,would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein 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 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property in the Central Business District and in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum 411 of three (3') feet high and a maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the Central Business District and in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers • which are a minimum of five feet(5')high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. All barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances,the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: S CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER SEAL 6 .._.. .. -27-! Bill No. of 2003. ;, ��„� o%Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-Clean-Mar 27,2003.doc • 4110 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 3,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance:Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Roger Evans,Linda Cordova,Alison McFarlane,Gary Mumford This memorandum addresses a proposed ordinance to amend City Code Section 5.50.170 regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs.The proposed ordinance is a revision of an earlier proposed ordinance that the City Council first discussed in September 2002.The proposed ordinance would lower outdoor barriers on sidewalks around private clubs in the Central Business District from five feet high to a minimum of three feet high or a maximum of four feet high. The revised proposal does not contain a transmittal letter from the Administration. • However,the original transmittal letter and proposed ordinance are attached to this memorandum. POTENTIAL OPTIONS - • Adopt the proposed ordinance. • Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. • Adopt the proposed ordinance with one or all of the following amendments: 1. Clarifying that the"Central Business District"means the traditional CBD bordered by North Temple,200 East,500 South,and 200 West streets. 2. Modifying the"Central Business District"to create an"Expanded Central Business District"bordered by North Temple,200 East,600 South and 600 West streets: 3. Adding a requirement that the City's Planning Director or Building Services Director review the design of any proposed barrier for aesthetics and compliance with City ordinances with the City's Property Management Director before a barrier can be approved. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance. • I move that the City Council not adopt the ordinance. • 1 • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance with the following amendment:That after the sentence ending with the words"four(4)feet high"the following sentence be • inserted:The Central Business District is bordered by North Temple, 200 East, 500 South and 200 West streets. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance with the following amendment:That the words"Central Business District"be changed to"Expanded Central Business District," and after the sentence ending with the words"four(4)feet high"the following sentence be inserted: The Expanded Central Business District is bordered by North Temple, 200 East:500 South and 600 West Street. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance with the following amendment:That after the sentence,"All barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances,the building code,and all other applicable City ordinances,"the following sentence be inserted: The City's Planning Director or Building Services Director shall review the design of any proposed barrier with the City's Property Management Director for aesthetics and compliance with City ordinances and regulations before a barrier receives final approval. DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND As mentioned,the proposed ordinance would lower outdoor bathers on sidewalks around private clubs in the Central Business District from five feet high to a minimum of three feet high or a maximum of four feet high. The proposed ordinance would modify City Code Section 5.50.170 titled Private Club— 4111 Membership Restrictions.Paragraph B of the section reads:Barriers Outdoors:"In outdoor areas,ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet(5')high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises.The barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances,the building code,and all other applicable City ordinances." The Administration first proposed amending the ordinance a year ago to address the potential for private clubs to have outside seating on sidewalks as part of an effort to enliven sidewalk life,particularly in the downtown.The proposal stemmed in part from an apparent oversight in which barriers in the public way at two private clubs downtown were approved even though the bathers did not meet the requirement of building bathers five-feet-high. The Administration briefed the City Council on the proposed ordinance last September. At that briefing the City Council said the original proposal was too broad because it would affect the regulation of barriers outside private clubs citywide.The City Council said it would consider a revised ordinance that limited lower barriers to the Central Business District.It also said it would consider an ordinance that allowed lower barriers elsewhere Wan ordinance like that received approval from community councils in neighborhoods that would be affected by it. In late March 2003 the Administration submitted a revised ordinance that would allow barriers outside private clubs and in the public way to be as low as three feet high or as high as four feet high within the Central Business District. • 2 7' Council staff has written three potential options to amend the proposed ordinance. The first option would define"Central Business District"by adding a sentence naming its borders.The only reason for proposing the option is to clarify the boundaries of the traditional Central Business District.If everyone is clear on the boundaries of the traditional Central Business District,the option is not necessary. The second option would define an"Expanded Central Business District"that stretches west to 600 West Street.The option first appeared last year during City Council consideration of sidewalk vending carts.Council staff included the option because it appears to comport with the intent of the 1998 Gateway Speck Plan to make the area bordered by North Temple,400 West, 600 South and 600 West streets an entertainment area.However,it should be noted that the City Council was clear in its direction to the Administration last September that the Council would only consider an ordinance that allowed lower barriers in the Central Business District—unless community councils in other areas first approved the proposal.It does not appear that community councils that would be affected by the second option have considered the concept of private clubs with outdoor seating on sidewalks. The third option involves a final review of designs for outdoor barriers by either the Planning Director or the Building Services Director and the Property Management Division Director before a design received final approval.It is Council staff's understanding that the Property Management Division would have final approval of an outdoor bather because the division manages City sidewalks.The option is proposed merely as a final point of coordination before designs for an outdoor bather receive approval.According to a City Council staff memorandum dated September 13,2002,under standard practice,a business that would like to • build a bather applies to the Property Management Division.Property Management then reviews the application with the City Design Review Team.Once the review is complete,Property Management enters into an agreement with the business,and the application is completed.If the City Council feels that the standard practice is adequate,then the option is not necessary. For further background Council staff has attached its September 13 memorandum and the Administration's original transmittal and ordinance. Ask Attachment No. 1 SALT 1 a�4'Grty y ° e�iIOI MARGARET HUNT ....gamma. sewn l ,APO-ma a - },s vD�at7i:� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer' DATE: July 1 2002 FROM: MargaretHunt CED Di jegtor RE: An ordinanncce/amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs. STAFF CONTACT: Roger Evans, Director of Building Services &Licensing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: In 1998, a City team, consisting of the Police Department, Attorney's Office, and Business Licensing, recommended several changes to the ordinance governing private clubs. One of these changes was to require a five-foot(5') • high barrier for any outdoor areas of private clubs. The current wording of the ordinance is: Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas, ingress and egress into any private club Shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet(5) high and Which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. The barriers shall in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances. After doing some research on the ordinance, it was found that the intent of this section was to provide a means of controlling entry into a private club. While this ordinance may work for clubs that have a backyard or side yard area that needs to be fenced off and are located on private property, it poses a problem for clubs in the downtown area that wish to establish an outdoor area on public sidewalks. Having a five-foot(5')high barrier (fence) on downtown sidewalks would be contrary to current attempts to make the area more pedestrian friendly and attractive. The Police Depai lucent is neutral on this issue. The Downtown Alliance voted to support the proposal, as did the City's Business Advisory Board. The Police Depai tuient does not believe that the ordinance change will present any problems. S 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 941 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO1-535-6230 FAX: S01-535-6005 RECYCLED PAPER . July 8, 2002 TO: Margaret Hunt FR: Bob Farrington Executive Director RE: Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees Action on Outdoor Barriers At the June 18 meeting of the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees, the Board unanimously voted to approve the changes presented by Roger Evans regarding outdoor barriers. The Board approved the proposal which stated that"ingress and egress into any 110 private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three feet(3')high and a maximum of four feet(4')high if the barriers are located on City property." We welcome the opportunity to review and comment on city ordinances and policies that impact downtown businesses,property owners, and their customers and tenants. • Minutes from Business Advisory Board June 24, 2002—Cannon Room Attending: Greg Gruber, Tony Caputo, Yolanda Sanchez,Alison McFarlane, Sally Jones Zoning/Ordinance Request: Roger Evans, Building and Zoning Director,requested a change to Private Club-Membership Restrictions (5.50.170). It was requested that for outdoor areas, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of 3 feet high and a maximum of 4 feet high. The existing ordinance is for barriers to be a maximum of 5 feet high. All present members of the Business Advisory Board agrees with the change to 4 feet high, following slight discussion of the aesthetic advantages of a lower barrier. It was determined that for private clubs who have put higher barriers to discourage patrons from jumping over the barrier thereby entering the establishment without paying at the entryway, it is an enforcement issue for the establishment to address rather than a barrier- height issue. Not enough members of the Business Advisory Board were in attendance for a quorum, a vote was not taken, but the three members agreed with the proposed change to the ordinance. III Review of Board Membership: The remainder of the meeting was directed toward discussion of the board's composition and effectiveness. Several names were recommended to fill four open board positions. Alison will submit those names as well as others recommended by division directors of CED to Diana Karrenberg in the Office of Community Affairs. Intermodal Hub. An overview/update of the intermodal hub was postponed from the June meeting to July so that more board members will see the presentation. Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:30—8:30 am Room 542—City and County Building • Attachment No.2 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. WHEREAS, the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas, ingress and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises and persons outside the premises; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that those height requirements • are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the public way; and WHEREAS,the City Council has now determined that a reduced height requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way, in connection with private clubs,would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein 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 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three (3') feet high and a • maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the public way,ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet (5')high and which are capable • of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. All bathers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) _ . •. .. . ----- Bill No. of 2002. E Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-Clean-June 19,2002.doc • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Section 5.50.170 of the Salt Lake City Code Regarding Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.170 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR BARRIER REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS. WHEREAS, the City's current ordinance requires that in outdoor areas, ingress and egress in any private club must be controlled by barriers which are at least five feet high and which are capable of preventing contact between persons inside the premises and persons outside the premises; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that those height requirements • are not necessary when the outdoor area in question is located on City property in the public way; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined that a reduced height requirement for outdoor barriers located in the public way, in connection with private clubs, would help to make those areas more attractive and pedestrian friendly; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment set forth herein 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 5.50.170.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Barriers Outdoors: In outdoor areas located on City property in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of three (3') feet high and a maximum of four(4') feet high. In outdoor areas not located in the public way, ingress and egress into any private club shall be controlled by barriers which are a minimum of five feet(5')high and which are capable • of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises. All The barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances, the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02Wmending Code re Outdoor Barrier Req-June 19,2002.doc • Attachment No. 3 • MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13,2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Proposed Ordinance to Amend City Code Pertaining to Outdoor Barrier Requirements for Private Clubs CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt, Roger Evans, Stephen Goldsmith, David Dobbins, Alison McFarlane,Linda Cordova, Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright, Gary Mumford, Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance to amend City Code Section 5.50.170 regarding outdoor barrier requirements for private clubs.The proposed amendment is scheduled for a briefing on September 17.The proposed amendment is supported by the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees and those in attendance at a Business Advisory Board meeting where the issue was presented. • OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed amendment. • Do not adopt the proposed amendment. • Adopt the proposed amendment but restrict its effect to the"traditional"Central Business District of South Temple,200 East, 600 South and 400 West. • Adopt the proposed amendment but restrict its effect to an area bordered by South Temple, 300 East,600 South,and 600 West. • Adopt the proposed amendment with a requirement that the City's Planning Director and Building Services Director review the design of a barrier for compliance with City ordinances and aesthetics. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Should the proposed amendment be applied citywide? • Who should be responsible to determine if a barrier meets standards outlined in the proposed ordinance? • Should the City determine the aesthetics of a planned barrier built in the public way by a private club? DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND The proposed amendment to Section 5.50.170 regarding outdoor barrier requirements for • private clubs apparently arose from two sources: 1.)The Administration's efforts to bring activity to sidewalks downtown. 2.)For some reason,the current ordinance's requirement of a five-foot- 1 high barrier was overlooked in the approval of two barriers in the public way around entrances to private clubs. As the Administration's transmittal letter indicates, Section 5.50.170 apparently originally was adopted to control access into private clubs from outdoor areas.The current ordinance requires that barriers in outdoor areas should be five feet high and be"capable of preventing contact between persons inside the licensed premises and persons who are outside the licensed premises" According to the Administration's transmittal letter,although the"ordinance may work for clubs that have a back yard or side yard area that needs to be fenced off and are located on private property, it poses a problem for clubs in the downtown area that wish to establish an outdoor area on public sidewalks." It is City Council staff's understanding that three downtown private clubs have built barriers on public sidewalks downtown to accommodate club patrons. Apparently,two of the barriers were approved although they did not meet the current ordinance's height requirement of five feet.Under standard practice, a business that would like to build a barrier applies to the Property Management Division. Property Management then reviews the application with the City Development Review Team. Once the review is complete, Property Management enters into an agreement with the business, and the application is completed. With respect to private clubs, at least one of the private clubs was told by a City Building Services inspector that the barrier did not meet the ordinance's five-foot-high height regulation after a barrier had been built. Perhaps three items should be noted: • According to state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department Attorney Earl Dorius, State law regulating private clubs has no provision regulating barriers on public sidewalks to control access to the clubs. The closest provision involving the issue is a provision in the regulation of restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages to submit any change in a restaurant's floor plan to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission for approval. According to Mr.Dorius,the Commission has the authority to take into account the layout, design,and physical characteristics of a restaurant in its consideration of granting a liquor license to the restaurant. State law requires that restaurants submit any change to floor plans, including having tables outside a restaurant,for approval by the Commission because the Commission relied on the original floor plan in granting a restaurant a liquor license.No similar provision exists in State law regulating private clubs,he said. However,the common practice of reviewing changes of floor plans in restaurants might apply to private clubs,he said. The second item involves whether the proposed ordinance amendment should be applied citywide. As the proposed amendment is written, it would apply citywide. According to a list of private clubs provided by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department,there are about 85 private clubs in Salt Lake City. Of those, about 35 private clubs are located in the"traditional"Central Business District bordered by South Temple, 200 East,600 South,and 400 West streets. About 10 of the private clubs are located in hotels within those boundaries.If the east and west boundaries of the traditional Central Business District were expanded to 300 East and 600 West, perhaps another five private clubs would be included with the 35 clubs already in the district. Council Members may wish to consider whether the proposed amendment should apply throughout the City or only to the Central Business District. 2 The third item involves approval of barrier designs,particularly on public sidewalks.The • current and proposed ordinances require that"barriers shall be in conformity with the City's planning and zoning ordinances,the building code, and all other applicable City ordinances."The City Council may wish to consider adding language that designs for barriers be reviewed by the Planning Director,the Building Services Director,or both for conformity to planning and zoning ordinances,the building code and other ordinances before the barriers are built. That raises two issues: 1.)Should division directors be involved in the design of the barriers,or should review remain with the City Development Review Team?2.) Should designs be reviewed for aesthetics as well as conformity with City ordinances? Council staff has attached three photographs depicting a barrier on private property and two barriers on City sidewalks downtown. • • 3 Attachment No. 4 '' a if t 0 f yi -4 ,, V .011I..2-,\,-;,' ;i.RiL'.-'-I-'''F24,Tf,.,:,,"' { ( I1 i r 7 fsF IP'r ,...,,,,,,, • , ttif 1..w f e!ii' j�� , 1 -- 1 fir', C, t . 1 _ -. }-,; - ;,�,„, ..3 c' , 'ifl* f y -. k --.� ^.:` (��ItR_7iRk iRk --kkki(#� s €€€ "tt #' 1 1 11 E f 1 ': i 3; 11 = 1 ,11 i l!l Yji _, 1 F Y4.8 k.<+6�i iei fill Ail 111Ei;}e ` a Wi ' ' { "5 y -a z - -a a T 4' gD ,, 2> \ g� F g— R+S . v� -- - •"``i3,, , y- .:4 `.. ' `. `! kS `�� �� ��m � fS �g�w S rl,�,#- : fr � I 1.�.Nz ` 4.-y'.wa �F4°% 5ag € - c ,y.� �',?0. �.5 kz'i�'*'''; ,;:xv' 1(� F ' $l.k#,r�; f v : - esr , �`, +>:': F .ar`,a %i�� i ,1c rzr LL S =fix. , ry ":.at - 0 ..;44f0.4/ 4.'1444, . _ ,4444,.,„7",,P, 't`,".,---,—. 1,o,, ��`-2- -.• , - s : : -f �.�'-;n`+fir��nzR = c3s« E-,, - , 'zx-,c^ .za,--- - ' ,�� .»,,'��.i i`�.--h�,�_ �ii:. ,L. ax,.tr? �``�>Y:^a k;? - . x �-)- siz ,. � � - ^SS ..A'rx"3yL%faa,E4`.�tiA25, . • iiI • . }• ��44 e 3 gs • f. r :i'.. � •+•. "tea..,f, # 1, t '.°`, t-$6`; ,- -,,, ' �, :-, r- 3 3<f'$�� ��1-, ,,,,„....-.:#, ��k-j� }���'� dt J� ,� , „ x., F a "f €{{� YFZ .� T f4 E € 4 Fi ' 0 0 MEMORANDUM • DATE: July 3,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Petition No.400-03-07—Amending the Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts CC: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Roger Evans,Harvey Boyd,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,Lehua Weaver,Gwen Springmeyer,Annette Daley Given limited time for Council staff review on this issue a staff report was not prepared. The following includes a brief summary of key issues relating to the proposed amendment and questions Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration. KEY ELEMENTS: • A. This action is intended to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. The Administration notes this issue was raised by the City Attorney's office during a review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. B. The Administration's transmittal notes"The discrepancy must be corrected to reasonably limit a potential takings claim exposure for the City." A letter dated January 15,2003 from the City Attorney's office to the Acting Planning Director notes that based on the existing requirements in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances"...foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council,505 U.S. 1003 (1992)." Please see the attached letter from the City Attorney's office for additional details. Attachment A C. The Site Development Ordinance states"Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." (Sec. 18.28.30.B.11.c.) The planned development conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is 5-acres. (Table 21A.54.150.E.2.) D. The Administration has provided the following example,a lot in the FR-2 zone may have the zone • required lot area of 21,780 square feet,but in order to enter the Planned Development review process to count slopes over 30%toward the lot minimum, 5 acres are required. 1 E. In a related matter,on January 22,2003,the Planning Commission granted preliminary subdivision • approval of a one lot.35-acre foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. On April 2,2003,the Land Use Appeals Board approved a motion to the overturn the Planning Commission decision recommending that the subdivision request be remanded back to the Planning Commission until such time that the City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. Please refer to the attached Land Use Appeals Board minutes for additional details. Attachment B F. Options presented to the planning Commission by Planning staff developed over several meetings included: 1. Follow the City Attorney's recommendation to remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that refers to the planned development process. 2. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that requires the planned development review process and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration. 3. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that specifies slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property to require larger lot minimums,if appropriate. 4. Require the City Attorney's office to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum planned development size based on a determination of a substantial risk of successful taking claim and based on the Attorney's determination the application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission under one of the following options: a. Zoning district and subdivision regulations,or b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance minimum planned development size to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. 6. Not amend the existing language in the Site Development Ordinance,but add a new section that would create a process that allows the Planning Commission the discretion to review parcels: a. that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,and b. to include slopes over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone based on specific minimum criteria. (Please refer item G.below for the specific criteria.) G. The Planning Commission is recommending Option 6 above with the following additional criteria. 1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,the Planning Commission may count sloped over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the planning commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street. b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30%or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line,as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly for the street. • MEMORANDUM • DATE: July 3,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Petition No.400-03-07—Amending the Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts CC: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer,Alison • Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Roger Evans,Harvey Boyd,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,Lehua Weaver,Gwen Springmeyer,Annette Daley Given limited time for Council staff review on this issue a staff report was not prepared. The following includes a brief summary of key issues relating to the proposed amendment and questions Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration. KEY ELEMENTS: • A. This action is intended to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. The Administration notes this issue was raised by the City Attorney's office during a review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. B. The Administration's transmittal notes"The discrepancy must be corrected to reasonably limit a potential takings claim exposure for the City." A letter dated January 15,2003 from the City Attorney's office to the Acting Planning Director notes that based on the existing requirements in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances"...foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council,505 U.S. 1003 (1992)." Please see the attached letter from the City Attorney's office for additional details. Attachment A C. The Site Development Ordinance states"Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." (Sec. 18.28.30.B.11.c.) The planned development conditional use section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is 5-acres. (Table 21A.54.150.E.2.) D. The Administration has provided the following example,a lot in the FR-2 zone may have the zone • required lot area of 21,780 square feet,but in order to enter the Planned Development review process to count slopes over 30%toward the lot minimum, 5 acres are required. 1 E. In a related matter,on January 22,2003,the Planning Commission granted preliminary subdivision • approval of a one lot.35-acre foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. On April 2,2003,the Land Use Appeals Board approved a motion to the overturn the Planning Commission decision recommending that the subdivision request be remanded back to the Planning Commission until such time that the City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. Please refer to the attached Land Use Appeals Board minutes for additional details. Attachment B F. Options presented to the planning Commission by Planning staff developed over several meetings included: 1. Follow the City Attorney's recommendation to remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that refers to the planned development process. 2. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that requires the planned development review process and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration. 3. Remove language from the Site Development Ordinance that specifies slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property to require larger lot minimums,if appropriate. 4. Require the City Attorney's office to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum planned development size based on a determination of a substantial risk of successful taking claim and based on the Attorney's determination the application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission under one of the following options: a. Zoning district and subdivision regulations,or b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development • 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance minimum planned development size to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. 6. Not amend the existing language in the Site Development Ordinance,but add a new section that would create a process that allows the Planning Commission the discretion to review parcels: a. that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,and b. to include slopes over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone based on specific minimum criteria. (Please refer item G.below for the specific criteria.) G. The Planning Commission is recommending Option 6 above with the following additional criteria. 1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development,the Planning Commission may count sloped over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the planning commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street. b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30%or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line,as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly for the street. • d. The applicant must present a construction plan,acceptable to the Planning Director,which • demonstrates the ability to manage staging from construction in manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas. e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A. The proposal would amend the text of the Site Development Ordinance only. Because the issue is a result of a conflict between the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances,Council Members may wish to consider: 1. Amending the Zoning Ordinance Planned Development and Foothill Residential zoning districts sections to include reference to the new requirements in the Site Development Ordinance. 2. Current practices used by the Administration to ensure review of existing ordinances,building and fire codes for compatibility with proposed amendments. a. The Planning staff report notes: o As the proposed revisions do not impact city infrastructure or operations,review by other City departments is not necessary. o New foothill development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The amended site development and zoning ordinances will not affect roadways,parks,and recreational facilities,police and • fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. b. It is Council staffs understanding that Public Utilities has current data regarding a foothill development boundary in which Utilities can reasonably provide services for water and sewer. Council Members may wish to ask whether this has been addressed in this process and,if not, whether it could add value to the review process. c. Is it anticipated that the City's watershed could be impacted? If so,were the City Boards or Commissions such as the Public Utilities Advisory Committee or Metropolitan Water Board involved in the review process? What type of comments or input was received? B. Due to the significant interest and concern about foothill development,Council Members may wish to discuss whether or not current minimum notification requirements are adequate to ensure broad public participation or whether any additional notification or follow-up is desirable. 1. Community Council Chairs were notified as required,but no Community Council presentations were requested or conducted. The Planning staff report notes that notices were mailed to all Community Council chairpersons requesting input on the City Attorney's recommendation. Staff received no comments. Following the comment period,staff developed a second option but since it had not been included with the original notice to Community Councils,the City Council staff recommended that an open house be held to gather input. Following that recommendation,an open house was held on April 29,2003. The proposed ordinance changes were discussed at length. The options are derived from comments brought up at the open house and discussions with the City Attorney's Office. 2. Prior to the Planning Commission meetings and after the open house meeting,Planning staff 411 developed additional options that were presented to the Planning Commission. Planning staff indicated to Council staff that additional input from Community Councils and other interested 3 parties was not requested after the open house. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was mailed to Community Council Chairs and people attending the open house. 3. The Planning staff report notes the Liberty Wells Community Council is concerned that the notification and meeting schedules for the comment period and open house did not coincide with their regularly scheduled meetings. Section 21A.10.020.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,however,only requires a 14 day notification period for ordinance amendments. Nothing specific towards this issue was mentioned in the letter. 4. The Administration's transmittal letter notes: a. The Planning Commission first reviewed this petition on May 28,2003.The Planning Commission heard comments from the public,closed the public hearing and continued the item until June 11,2003 to allow the Planning Staff time to prepare revised language as directed by the Planning Commission. Several concerns were raised by adjoining neighbors as indicated in the attached Planning Commission minutes,e-mails and letters. b. Given concerns raised after the June 11,2003 Planning Commission meeting and a request from a concerned neighboring property owner to re-open the hearing, staff inquired whether the Planning Commission would consider re-opening the public hearing process at its June 25,2003 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission,by a majority vote,decided not to re-open Petition No.400-03-07 pertaining to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance. It was the Commission's view that there were no procedural or substantive missteps made in its review of said Petition. The Commission felt that it had given adequate opportunity for public comment and that it gave due consideration to all view points presented. The Planning Commission directed staff to forward its recommendation to the City Council for review and action. C. The proposed text change contains specific criteria that require a construction plan,acceptable to the • Planning Director,which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas. Given the controversial nature of foothill developments,Council Members may wish to consider requesting that additional criteria be added that addresses the minimum requirements for construction staging. For example,Council Members may wish to clarify whether the Administration would intend to allow staging on adjacent private or public property or adjacent 30%slopes with a revegetation commitment or in the public right of way(street, sidewalk,park strip). Further,Council Members may wish to consider whether it would be prudent to include criteria in the ordinance. This would provide advanced notice to property owners,contractors and the public of what the minimum standards are. D. The Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes discuss Planning staff research relating to standards for establishing minimum planned development project sizes. (This was an issue raised at the Planning open house. Please see the attached meeting notes for details. Attachment C) The Planning Commission minutes note that Planning staff received information from the American Planning Association's Planners Advisory Service. The minutes state"...research found about 12 zoning ordinances that had some restriction on entering a planned development process that was based on a project size. This would suggest that it is a relatively uncommon practice." Council Members may wish to consider initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration reevaluate the minimum project size for planned developments specified in the Zoning Ordinance and provide options for Council consideration. E. Council Members Jergensen and Lambert received a briefing from Planning staff and the City Attorney's office on Monday,June 23`d. As a result of the briefmg with Administrative staff,Council Members Jergensen and Lambert requested that additional language be drafted for Council consideration that would reference the"current development limit in the foothills"as an item to be • considered by the Planning Commission under"the net cumulative impact"condition in the proposed 4 ordinance. The City Attorney's office indicated to Council staff that they will provide alternative • ordinance language for Council consideration prior to the Council's briefing on this issue. (Please see the attached ordinances, Attachment D—Planning Commission Recommendation and Attachment E—Alternative ordinance language requested by Council Members Jergensen and Lambert) F. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration steps taken to address issues that continue to be raised relating to the proposed text change. Please see the attached letter from Dona and James DiSario and Dennis L. and Dianne R.Nielson to Mayor Anderson and Council Member Jergensen(Attachment F)and the Planning staff report, Section 8—"Materials Distributed to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff'for details. Ms.DiSario has indicated that she would like a written response to many questions she and others have raised. • • 5 YAM�/���rr���f Rtn�r]1J ATTACHMENT A SW _... �!.-fff(.1)J y 11 I RD99 C.-ROCKY^nNDE R9ON yMN N.PACE LAW DEPARTMENT -••• wow -•• EDWIN P.RUTAN, • January 15,2003 Brent Wilde,Acting Planning Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: Salt Lake City Foothill Development Ordinances Dear Brent: The purpose of this letter is to address a legal issue in the City's site development and zoning ordinances_ As you are aware,the City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code_ Since 1994,that site development ordinance has • prohibited construction in foothill areas on properly which has a slope in excess of 30 percent_ The site development ordinance refers to this steep slope property as"undevelopable area-" In March 2001,the City amended the site development ordinance to make various changes. One of the changes provided that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." (See section I8.2830.B.I l.c, emphasis added.) The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. (See Table at section 21A.54.150.E.2- The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval_ As you are aware,the Salt Lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes,but it would be very unusual to find a five-acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas. As you are also aware,there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build,but which are significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development. Thus,the application of these two ordinances,in their present form,could deny a property owner the • •5i SOUTH STATE STREET.ROOM SOS.SALT LAKE COY.UT Call i TELEPNUNE_ 00,-535.77BB FAX_ 00.535-76A0 ability to develop foothill properly,not because-it is too steep or too small to build upon,but because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas,unless Viik owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development appro111111 \ r Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. { South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). This issue was discussed with the Planning Commission in November 2002. In response E to that discussion,the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances. While that petition is being processed,I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 18.28.30.B_1 I.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval,as follows: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. In this manner,the development of foothill properties will still be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission,but would not be prohibited by the requirements for planned • developments. By so doing,the City can still maintain appropriate review of foothill development,without creating a risk of an unconstitutional taking. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please let me know. • Sincerely yours, ,./&_ ynn H_ ace • LHP/ns cc: Cindy Gust-Jensen • • ATTACHMENT B SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS BOARD City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 April 2,2003 The meeting of the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board was held on Wednesday,April 2,2003 at 5:30 p.m. at the City and County Building,451 South State Street,in Room 315. Board Members present were Chairperson Denise Dragoo,Mark Hafey,and Mary Woodhead. Staff Members present were David Dobbins,Administrator for the Land Use Appeals Board and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board become effective on the date the vote is taken. Any person adversely affected by any final decision by the Land Use Appeals Board may file a petition for review with the District Court within 30 days after the decision is rendered. Mr. Dobbins called the meeting to order and explained the procedures for the meeting. The Board approved the minutes of March 10,2003 as presented. NEW CASES • Case No.03-006 -David Deisley,representing neighborhood residents,appealing the Planning Commission's preliminary subdivision approval of a one lot.35-acre foothill subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr.David Deisly was in attendance and presented the appeal. Mr. Deisly reviewed his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in FR-3 zoning district. Mr. Deisley stated that there is clearly a prejudicial procedural error as well as failure of findings of fact applicable to the standards by the PC's decision.Mr.Deisley said the property approved for development disputes the applicable zoning restrictions in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr.Deisley explained that the ordinance states property must have a minimum lot.size of 12,000 square feet and the undevelopable area should not be used to determine the minimum lot size and steep slopes are designated as undevelopable area requiring the slope to be less than 30%for the 12,000 square feet. Mr. Deisley stated that the area of the lot with steep slopes was not excluded as mandated by the slope restriction ordinance,and with the proposed structure of 1,700 square feet in size, it would consume all of the buildable area on the lot thus contrary to the stated purpose of the FR-3/12,000 Foothills District. Mr.Deisley said in the findings of fact presented at the January 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting where itttates the zoning ordinance and the site development ordinance were in compliance are inclusive and not supported by 1 Land Use Appeals Board April 2,2003 fact. Mr. Deisley believes that City Staff and PC attempted to get around the site development ordinance requirement. Mr. Deisley stated that the section of the ordinance that is applicable states that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." Mr. Deisley said that in their decision,the PC decided to strike through the planned development review process to obtain the language in the ordinance in order for the property to qualify for consideration under the planned development review process. Mr. Deisley said that in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district, a planned development requires a minimum 5-acre lot and this lot is only 0.35 acres not qualifying for the planned development review process. Mr. Deisley stated that the PC does not have the authority or discretion to amend the statute or the ordinance in that way. Mr.Deisley said that the ordinance states that it is the discretion, power and authority of the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance and thus restricts the authority of the PC to initiate amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Deisley stated that at the meeting in January,the PC usurped the authority expressly granted to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance and that the PC exceeded its authority and failed to apply the appropriate standards to the facts as set forth on the record. Mr. Deisley stated that the decision on this matter should have been deferred until the City Council exercised its authority to amend or not amend the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Doug Wheelwright,City Deputy Planning Director and Jackie Gasparik,City Planner . were present representing City Staff and Planning Commission positions. Staff advised that there were three ordinances considered in the approval and that the Planning Commission is the approval body for both Foothill subdivisions and planned development. Staff contends the PC does have the authority to make decisions regarding the conflict of the ordinances. Staff said the zoning ordinance states that the minimum lot size in the district is 12,000 square feet and the lot is 12,000 square feet. Staff advised that in 2001 the City amended the site development ordinance creating a conflict with the zoning ordinance. Staff asked City Attorney's Office for an interpretation on how to proceed. Staff said the PC exercised its discretion to accept the recommendation from the Attorney's Office that the ordinance be interpreted to require PC approval without requiring the 5 acre minimum planned development size. Staff said by this recommendation,the PC considered all the facts based on the staff report and public testimony to make their decision. Mr. Bruce Baird,Attorney,representing Mr.Amir Cornell approached the table and stated that the Planning Commission did not have to follow staff recommendation. Mr.Baird said the PC determined it was the appropriate decision at the time with the ordinance pending, and that the City Attorney advised the PC correctly. Mr. Baird said the conflict was created after Mr. Cornell purchased the property. Mr. Baird said Mr. Cornell purchased the property before he was suddenly told that 90%of the property didn't count. Mr. Baird advised that in regard to the conflict in statutes,the rule in Utah is that any ambiguity in the statutes are construed in favor of the private property owner because zoning statutes are in derogation of long standing private property rights. Mr. Baird stated that by definition, • 2 Land Use Appeals Board April 2,2003 • there is one ordinance making it perfectly developable and the other ordinance making it undevelopable, so there is the necessity to agree with the PC and that the findings are adequate. Mr. Baird believes the PC made a rational decision in light of the ordinance conflict. Mr. David Deisley reapproached the table and stated that the amended site development ordinance was adopted in March 2001 and the initial preliminary subdivision filing of the property did not incur until September 2001 after the adoption of this rule. Mr. Deisley said that the deed for the purchase of the property was not recorded until August 2002, a year and a half later. Mr. Deisley stated he disputes the idea that there is a conflict with the ordinances. Mr. Deisley said it is clear the planned development process creates a special mechanism to allow the development of property. Mr. Deisley said it is intentional on the part of the City Council that they would not allow the PC to waive the requirements of the zoning ordinance undevelopable area—steep slopes to not be included to determine the minimum lot size except through the planned development process. Mr. Deisley stated that the record shows the developable area for the property is 1700 square feet and that all the buildable area is consumed by the structure, consequently,ending up with a house jammed between a road and a hill and this is not consistent with the purpose of protection by the Foothills requirements. . Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney,was present and stated that the site development ordinance deletion of the requirement for the planned development process approval was interpreted in a short-hand way to make reference to the entire planned development section of the code which includes minimum acreage. A discussion followed by the Board and Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms.Dragoo and Mr.Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances,the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the planned development process requires a 5 acre lot and does not see any way around what the ordinance states without an amendment to the ordinance. Ms.Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the PC could have delayed the decision until the City Council had an amendment of the ordinance,and the Board did not feel the PC findings were reasonable. Ms. Woodhead indicated that she believed the PC decision was supported by the ordinances and that only the process of the planned development ordinance applied to the property. THEREFORE,Mr. Hafey made a motion for the Board to overturn the Planning Commission decision with the Board-recommending that it be remanded back to the PC until such time City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. All voted Aye except for Ms. Woodhead who opposed. Two to overturn,the motion passes. 411 There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. 3 ATTACHMENT C April 29,2003—Planning Open House • Foothill Development-Site Development/Zoning Ordinance changes Council staff summary A. Background information: 1. The Site Development Ordinance does not allow un-developable property(property with 30% slope or more)to be used as part of the minimum lot size required in a zoning district unless specifically approved by the Planning Conunission through the planned development review process. 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 5-acres for planned developments in foothill districts. 3. Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office has indicated the net effect of the two existing provisions is that: • Foothill property with a slope in excess of 30%may not be used to calculate minimum lot size unless the property owner owns enough property to meet the minimum 5-acre requirement for planned developments. • The application of the two ordinances would deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property because they may not have the 5-acre minimum. • This conflict creates the potential for a takings claim against the City. B. Additional information attached: 1. Information from the Planning staff mailed prior to the meeting 2. A list of meeting participants C. Open house discussion items focused on: 411 1. Site specific issues relating the property in District 3 located at 1085 E.North Bonneville Drive owned by Amir Cornell. 2. Legal implications regarding the conflict between existing language in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances relating to foothill developments. 3. The need to provide property owners an escape or opportunity for relief from the City's requirements. 4. The need to identify the number and location of properties affected by existing ordinance requirements. • Evaluate the potential cost to the City relating to legal and/or acquisition costs. • It may not be necessary to change the ordinances because the Cornell property may be the only property that is affected by the existing ordinance language. • The City could consider acquiring the properties through assistance from non-profit conservation groups such as the Trust for Public Lands or Audubon Society and state or federal government funding sources. 5. Options discussed: • City attorney's recommendation (see attached document) o Allow un-developable property to be included in lot size calculation based on approval by the Planning Commission. (Removes language requiring the planned development process.) • Planning staff recommendation (see attached document) o Reduce the minimum lot area for a planned development to match the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts. (For example,in the FR 3/12,000 district the minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. With this proposal,the planned development size would be reduced from 5 • acres to 12,000 sq. ft.) • Add standards/criteria to the attorney's recommendation that would provide the Planning Commission objective criteria on which to base their decision. • Provide a rational,objective basis for reducing the planned development minimum acreage recommended by Planning staff or any future adjustment of the staff's recommendation. o It was noted that there may be a need to adjust the required planned development size but,there should be an objective evaluation and rational basis to support whatever that figure may be. • Need to reevaluate the planned develop acreage requirements comprehensively for all other zoning districts. o It was noted that it does not appear equitable to address only the foothill zones and not the other residential,commercial, institutional zones, etc. • Research 'best practices',other cities requirements and professional planning literature for models or alternative processes for dealing with slope and planned development issues. • Do not change the existing ordinance language and create a process to deal with exceptions. Depending upon the results of an inventory and evaluation of properties affected by the existing ordinance requirements: o Consider not changing the existing ordinances. o Notify affected property owners that development potential would be eliminated. o Establish a process for a case-by-case evaluation and exemption. The affected property owners could present information and identify reasons why their property should be exempt from the existing requirements and allowed to be developed. • • SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OPTIONS: Option 1 -City Attorney's Office Recommendation Amend Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Site Development Ordinance as Follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission . Approval shall only be allowed under the following conditions. The buildable area is on a slope less than 30% and within the required setbacks of the zoning district. • Option 2-Planning Staff Alternative Amend Table 21 A.54.150E2. of the Zoning Ordinance so that the minimum lot area for a planned development matches the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts as follows: Table 21 A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential 5 acres 43,560 sq. ft. District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 21,780 sq.ft. FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 12,000 sq. ft. FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres 16 acres Open House—Site Development Ordinance April 29, 2003 Name Address Phone Number • 1. Ray McCandless 451 South State Street(Planning staff) 535-7282 Doug Wheelwright " 535-6178 Jackie Gasparik CL535-6354 2. Dona Disario 1099 East North Bonneville Drive 359-6941 3. Wayne Martinson 549 Cortez 364-2971 4. Deb Sawyer 549 Cortez 364-2971 5. Dave Mortensen 2278 Signal Point Circle 581-4719 6. Shawn McMillen 1855 South 2600 East 359-8862 x114 7. Jerry Bergosh 1961 Scenic Drive 486-4000 8. Gwen Springmeyer Mayor's Office 535-6338 9. Cindy Cromer 816 East 100 South 355-4115 10. Dianne R. Nielson 1096 East North Bonneville Drive 359-3155 11. Janice Jardine Council Staff 535-7614 12. James Disario 1099 North Bonneville Drive 359-6941 13. Andrea Barrows 2119 Lakeline 486-7154 • ATTACHMENT D PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS,it has become apparent that under certain circumstances,the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS,after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.l l.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning • Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas;and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. • SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • ATTACHMENT E Alternative Ordinance language requested by Council Members Jergensen and Lambert (see item c.2.e on page 2) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning • Districts; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that under certain circumstances, the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning . Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant has presented a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. For the • purposes of this section, any proposal which, if approved, would result in additional development beyond the perimeter of existing foothill development, as opposed to infill development, shall be deemed to have a material net cumulative adverse impact upon the City as a whole. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON • 2 ATTACHMENT F June 16, 2003 • To: Mayor Rocky Anderson Salt Lake City, Utah Councilman Eric Jergensen Salt Lake City Council CC: Gwen Springmeyer Mayor's Office • From: Dona and James DiSario 1099 E. North Bonneville, Salt Lake City 359-6941 donadisario@hotmail.com Dennis L. and Dianne R. Nielson 1096 E.North Bonneville, Salt Lake City 359-3155 drnielso@msn.com Re: Salt Lake Planning Commission Petition No.400-03-07 Procedural and Substantive Problems The purpose of the memorandum is to request your assistance in addressing problems concerning the above-referenced petition to amend the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance, as well as actions of the Planning Commission regarding the Petition. 1. No opportunity was provided for public comment regarding the proposed option prior to action by the Planning Commission on 06/11/03 to accept the option and submit it by petition to the Salt Lake City Council. On May 28, 2003,the Planning Commission considered three options for changing the ordinance and provided a severely limited opportunity for public comment with only three minutes per presentation. The issues are far too complex to be adequately addressed by the public within the three-minute limit. The Planning Commission should have continued the hearing to allow a complete discussion of the issues of their sponsored petition. After a motion to accept one of the options failed, the Planning Division agreed to analyze further options, and the matter was continued to the June 11, 2003,Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting,the Planning Division recommended a new option for revising the Site Development Ordinance. No opportunity was provided for review by Community Councils, and no opportunity was provided for public comment at the • Planning Commission meeting. Instead,the Planning Commission discussed and revised the option, and approved it to be submitted to the City Council as Petition No. 400-03-07. • Since this petition was initiated by the Planning Commission at the request of the City Attorney, it is vital to an effective planning process to seek public input to their recommendation to the City Council prior to making their decision. Without a complete public discussion on this issue, it appears that the Planning Commission had predetermined their decision when they sponsored Petition Number 400-03-07. The impact of their recommendation will have a significant change in the method that Salt Lake City uses to regulate foothill development. We ask that before this Planning Commission recommendation is presented to the City Council, the Anderson Administration determine if the process that led to the Planning Commission recommendation was"fair"with full disclosure to the public. We believe that the facts will show that the public was deliberately excluded from comment. This petition should either be remanded to the Planning Commission for a full public hearing process(as required by law) or rescinded by the Planning Commission enabling existing laws regulating foothill development to be enforced. 2. The Petition will have the effect of creating a single-lot subdivision with a "usable area"of as little as 4500 square feet(approximately 1/10th of an acre), which is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Under current site development and zoning ordinances,the minimum lot sizes in the • three Foothills Residential Districts are 43,560 square feet(FR1), 21,780 square feet (FR2), and 12,000 square feet(FR3). Land with 30%or steeper slope cannot be counted toward the minimum lot size. Under the existing ordinance, a lot's minimum "useable area" (footprint of the house, plus required setbacks or yard area of 20/20/40 feet(front/side/rear)for the FR1 and FR2 zones or 20/10/20 feet for the FR3 zone, plus area of the property with less than 30%slope,i.e.,the area where construction and landscaping can occur)would be 12,000 square feet or 0.275 acre(FR3). Under the Petition option approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, the minimum lot size remains the same,but land with slopes steeper than 30%can be counted toward the minimum lot size so long as certain other conditions are satisfied. One of these conditions establishes a minimum footprint for the home of 1500 square feet. Under this option, a lot's minimum"usable area" is required to be only 4500 square feet or 0.103 acre(minimum house footprint of 1500 square feet, plus setbacks or yard area). The remaining portion of the lot can be entirely comprised of land with slopes greater than 30%. Because these steep slopes cannot be disturbed or landscaped,the apparent lot size will be that of the"useable area." The visual effect created by building on such a small lot is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, because of the small size of the"useable area," it will be very difficult to construct a home on such a lot without disturbing the adjacent steep slopes, • 2 adjacent lots, or the adjacent street. Establishing a staging area on a nearby lot will . serve only to establish an equipment storage area,also not consistent with the surrounding residential area. This is a substantial change in public policy regarding foothill regulations that is being directed by the City Attorney because of a fear of a"takings" challenge. The case that has provoked this change in the ordinances of Salt Lake City is not a case worthy of such change. Some foothill properties will simply never be able to comply with laws that were adopted to balance private property rights with public good. Again, we ask that Mayor Anderson receive a full briefing from the staff and the interested public and read the Planning Commission minutes prior to submitting Petition 400-03-007 to the City Council. We believe that the facts will justify the Administration to intervene in this matter and study its worthiness and desired affects on the residents of Salt Lake City living in the foothills. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these significant planning issues for Salt Lake City with the Administration and Council member Jergensen before the full City Council receives the Petition for consideration. Please contact one of us to schedule a meeting convenient to all of us. Thank you for your consideration. • • 3 • • • .........••••••• •• ......................•.•.•.•.•.•.•.••••.••.•.•.•.•. .. ....................... .•...•...•.•••.•• .•.•..•• • • :.:::::: ::•:•:•: •••• ..•.•. ....... ... .•...•.• ... ...•.•.• .•.•.••. .•.•.•. . •.• .•.•.•.• . . .•.•.•.• .•...•.• . ..• ...... .•.•.•.• .•..• .•.•.•.• .•. •.• .•.•.•.• .• .•.• •:•:•:•: •.•.....: ..•...• .•.••.• .......• . • .. • .• • . • • .•..... .... C5 ................•.•...•.•.••••••.•.•....•..••••• 1 120 ft • Figure 1 A Figure lA and lB Under the current Ordinance for the FR3 zone,the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet or 0.275 acre. Land with slopes steeper than 30%is not included in the minimum lot size. Useable area Figure 2 (yard area including house footprint and setbacks)equals 12,000 :':': square feet or 0.275 acre. 70 ft 70 ft Figure 1B Figure 2 COMPARISON OF USEABLE LOT SIZES UNDER CURRENT SALT Under Petition No.400-03-04,the minimum LAKE CITY ORDINANCE AND Useable Area lot size is also 12,000 square feet,but land with slopes steeper than 30%is included in UNDER PETITION NO. 400-03-04 Area to include footprint of house the minimum lot size. The minimum FOR THE FOOTHILLS II footprint for a house is 1500 square feet RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FR3 ::..::: Setbacks(FR3 20/10/20) Useable area(yard area including house footprint and setbacks)can equal as little as Steep Slope Area 4500 square feet or 0.103 acre. Because the steep slope area is not landscaped,the visual effect is a lot size of i Greater than 30%slope,no disturbance 4500 square feet. Prepared by DR Nielson,6/30/03 allowed ALISOIaEW oa HER MEMO CRY CEORPoi�AT+0 ! ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 2 TO: Rocky Fluhart,C11ief Administrative Officer DATE: June 27,2003 FROM: Alison Weyher � t, RE: Petition 400-03-07:A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11 c.(Developable Area Limitation)of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2.(Minimum Planned Development Size)of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless,Principal Planner 535-7282 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance i BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION:During the review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1 085 East North Bonneville Drive,the City Attorney's Office raised concern over a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance that prevents lots that,although meeting the minimum lot size required by the zoning district, do not contain the minimum lot size,consisting exclusively of less than a 30%slope to be approved as a planned development,as required by the City's Site Development Ordinance.These lots meet the minimum lot size required by the zoning district but are not large enough to meet the minimum project size for planned development consideration and are therefore excluded from entering any review process(see attached letter in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 15,2003).As an example,a lot in the FR-2 zone may have the zone required lot area of 21,780 square feet,but in order to enter the Planned Development review process to count slopes over 30%toward the lot minimum,5 acres are required. This discrepancy was discussed at the November 7,2002,Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission initiated a petition for staff to review and propose appropriate changes(see attached minutes).The discrepancy must be corrected to reasonably limit a potential takings claim exposure for the City. The Planning Commission made its recommendation pursuant to section 21A.50.050 of• the City's Zoning Ordinance. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-6230 FAX:801-535.6005 ®n.,.cco.ncac Findings of Fact: Based on Section 21A.50.050 (Standards for general amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed • ordinance text amendment is appropriate based on the following findings of fact as discussed in the staff report to the Planning Commission: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The master plans uniformly express concern regarding protection of slopes greater than 30%. Another common goal is to ensure that development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood and environmentally sensitive. The proposed options discussed in the staff reports to the Planning Commission support these goals. Findings: The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable master plans. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed revisions will create a more uniform and consistent standard by which proposed developments can enter the development review process. Consistent standards will lead to foothill development that is compatible with both existing development and with the natural environment. 1110 Findings: The proposed amendments are harmonious with the overall character of the foothills. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: This standard does not apply. Findings: The proposed amendments will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The foothills are located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Larger lots as characterized by foothill development pose less threat to aquifer recharge areas than smaller lots commonly found throughout the City. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the • Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. • 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: New foothill development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This standard does not apply. Findings: The amended site development ordinance will not affect roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Public Process: The Planning Commission first reviewed this petition on May 28, 2003. The Planning Commission heard comments from the public, closed the public hearing and continued the item until June 11, 2003 to allow the Planning Staff time to prepare revised language as directed by the Planning Commission. Several concerns were raised by adjoining neighbors as indicated in the attached Planning Commission minutes, e-mails and letters. Given concerns raised after the June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and a request from a concerned neighboring property owner to re-open the hearing, staff inquired whether the Planning Commission would consider re-opening the public hearing process at its June 25, 2003 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by a majority vote, decided not to re-open Petition No. 400-03-07 pertaining to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance. It was the Commission's view that there were no procedural or substantive missteps made in its review of said Petition. The Commission felt that it had given adequate opportunity for public comment and that it gave due consideration to all view points presented to it. The Planning Commission directed staff to forward its recommendation to the City Council for review and action. Section 21A.10 requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to amendments to ordinance text. Newspaper advertised notice is required prior to consideration by the City Council. A draft notice has been provided in this transmittal packet. Relevant Ordinances: Section 18.28.30.B.1 lc. of the Site Development Ordinance Section 21A.54.150.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance TABLE OF CONTENTS 41) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing A. Notice of City Council Hearing Newspaper Publication Draft B. Newspaper Publication Transmittal C. Mailing List and Labels 4. Agendas of the Planning Commission Hearings for May 28, 2003 and June 11, 2003. 5. Staff Report for the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Including: 0 A. Staff Report for the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. B. Planning Commission Minutes for the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. C. Follow up letter for the June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Planning Commission Minutes for May 28, 2003 and June 11, 2003 Hearings. 7. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices. 8. Material distributed to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff A. May 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. B. June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. C. Miscellaneous correspondence. • 1. CHRONOLOGY • PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 7, 2002 Petition initiated by the Planning Commission. • January 15, 2003 Letter from Attorney's Office regarding discrepancy between the Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. • March 5, 2003 Petition assigned. • March 14, 2003 Letter mailed requesting community council comments. • April 14,2003 Notices for April 29, 2003 open house mailed to Community Council chairpersons. • April 29, 2003 Open house. • May 13, 2003 Notices mailed for the May 28,2003 Planning Commission Hearing. • • May 28, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing. • May 29, 2003 Planning Commission agenda mailed to open house attendees and Community Council Chairpersons. • June 11,2003 Planning Commission Hearing(Continued from May 28, 2003) • June 17,2003 Ordinance requested from Attorney. • June 24,2003 Ordinance received from Attorney. . • June 25,2003 City Council Transmittal Completed by the project Planner. 1111 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE II No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning 4111 Districts; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that under certain circumstances, the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning III Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. . SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CH[N F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 2 Transmitted to the Mayor on • Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER _ _ 6- 2Y- o3 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Amending the SLC Site Dev Ord-Clean-June 24,2003.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance regarding the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE APPROVED IN FOOTHILL ZONING DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-07. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance contains certain regulations regarding the conditions required for the approval of subdivisions in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance contains regulations concerning the standards for the approval of planned developments in Foothill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that under certain circumstances, the requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance may conflict with the requirements of the City's planned development regulations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments to the City's Site Development Ordinance are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • c.1. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning III Commission through the planned development review process. 2. For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street; b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. III SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER III 2 • Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: . • G:\Ordinance 03\Amending the SLC Site Dev Ord-June 24,2003.doc III 3 • 3. NOTICES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING • 3. A. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DRAFT • Posted By NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is reviewing Petition 400-03-007 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. The City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition request. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: ROOM 315 0 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Mr. Ray McCandless at 535-7282. Monday through Friday. II 3. B. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION TRANSMITTAL • MEMORANDUM To: Lynn Valdez Newspaper Corporation From: Salt Lake City Council's Office Re: SPECIAL NOTICES -010—CLASSIFIED ADS Date: Please run the following ad,one time only,on , in both papers NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING An amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. On , the Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing to consider Petition 400-03-007 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11 c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. • The public meeting of the City Council begins at p.m. in Room ,City and County Building,451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah.For more information or special arrangements,call Mr.Ray McCandless at 535-7282. • r 3. C. MAILING LIST AND LABELS Ana Archuleta Tom Bonacci Beth Bowman 204 Fast Herbert Avenue 1024 S. 1500 E. 1445 East Harrison Salt Lake City Utah 841 1 1 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Mk Byrne Tim Dee Doug Foxley Vir Foothill Drive 1575 Devonshire Drive 1449 Devonshire Drive Salt Lake City UT 84108-1353 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2552 Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Samantha Francis Katherine Gardner Carol Goode 70 Van Buren Avenue 606 DeSoto Street 823 South 1000 East Salt Lake City UT 84115-5322 Salt Lake City UT 84103-2808 Salt Lake City Utah 84102 Wynn Johnson Boris Kurz Shawn McMillen 852 Northcliffe Drive 1203 South 900 East 1855 South 2600 East Salt Lake City Utah 84103 Salt Lake City Utah 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84108 David Mortensen Jeffrey Mullins Krneth Neal 2278 Signal Point Circle 873 Woodruff Way 1071 N Topaz Salt Lake City UT 84109 Salt Lake City UT 84108-1459 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Catherine New Kadee Nielson _ Helen Peters Box 521744 44-I0 Baroness Pla€e 2803 Beverly St ake City UT 84 1 52-1 744 Salt Lake City UT 84116-1402 Salt Lake City Utah 84106 Ellen Reddick John Storrs Paul Tayler 2177 Roosevelt Avenue 1028 West 500 South 1 165 Oak Hills Way Salt Lake City UT 84108 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2025 Chris Viavant Angie Vorher Jillene Whitby 404 South 400 West 1988 Sir James Drive 846 West 400 North Salt Lake City UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City Utah 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84 1 1 6-3440 LC Plc( Erin Willson Mike Zuhl Sr �i,5 1303 South Stewart Street 2676 Comanche Drive An, �Av rrt`-LG"`tress 'Is( 5 Sn-rE Q� 4C6 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City UT 84108-2809 s L L 4n1N Stec PCeq .�4 - v AT-re 3RFN i to.cbc St S- S .t ttrriK Hr<r brMA L Jai c-S OtsAi(p Rq E_ rtra2rk 7Nr,eyrt_tF Diziw SLC f WA-14 2,4(63 cow, pc_ 3I711.In2 Sarr., r.r 7 Site Developme rdinance Wayne Martinson Deb Sawyer ( etrHetrse b/tc 144c,.,.� 549 N Cortez Street 549 N Cortez Street "- 9 Z$ t oo3 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Dave Mortensen Shawn McMillen Jerry Bergosh 2278 S Signal Point Circle 1855 South 2600 East 1961 S Scenic Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Cindy Cromer Dianne R. Nielson Andrea Barrows 816 East 100 South 1096 E North Bonneville Drive 2119 S Lakeline Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Anne Osborn & Ronald E. Poelman Amir Cornell SA-T [AKF�Irlt LAP. 702 N Saddle Hill Road 1025 E North Bonneville Drive Gwen Springmeyer Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Mayor's Office/C.1,0404.11 AFFAi4S SS 4Sc S. sT,ol-t- sT. s�C tAn& 434UU ► c r (A Kc C t ry CocWctc c c� Janice Jardine City Council Office 4S 1 s S•rrTE ST. 2M 304 t-c Ctnic-t Wl 1 • AVERY'(= Address Labels Laser 5160® 'Fax. Pc S'2a(o3 Sur zs�z 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,May 28,2003,at 5:30 p.m. • The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:15 p.m., in Room 126.During the dinner,Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,May 14,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Terry Sieter/Suntree Development and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to grant two easements for underground water and sewer mains to be locate within the right of way of two existing Salt Lake City owned drainage canals. The sites are located on the West side of Redwood Road on the North and South sides of Interstate Highway 1-215 at approximately 2600 North Redwood Road,in Davis County. b. Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake Public Utilities Department—requesting Salt Lake City Public Utilities to exchange certain deeds of easement for existing utility facilities. Public Utilities would release an easement for a waterline which has been relocated to a public street,and the Housing Authority would receive the release of a private sewer line easement granted to the City by mistake. Both easements relate to the recent development of the Jefferson School Apartment project, located at 1099 South West Temple,in a Residential/Mixed Use(RMU)zoning district. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 4. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-02,Proposed text amendment to Section 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv),(Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission)of the Historic Preservation Overlay(H)zoning district of the Salt Lake City ordinance. Proposed revisions would require that decisions be sent to applicants within ten working days after the Historic Landmark Commission adopts its minutes,rather than ten days following the Historic Landmark Commission's decision as the ordinance currently requires. (Staff—Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-09,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,requesting to modify the sign ordinance to allow outdoor television monitors on buildings. The proposal would allow a large screen television to be placed • on the lower two floors of any building located in a Downtown(D-1 and D-4)zoning districts of Salt Lake City that is the home of a view-for-free FCC licensed television station(not pay cable,satellite,or closed circuit). (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.410-631,by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett,located at 734 East 200 South requesting Conditional Use and Planned Development approval to reconfigure the previously approved site plan for an existing reception center,and modify the landscape buffer requirements to accommodate a new parking area on a land-locked parcel to the rear of the property. The property is located in a moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential(RMF-45)zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) 0PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-07,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission(Arta Funk)requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.6.11c.Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2.Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:30 p.m.—Petition No.410-634,by the St.Catherine's Newman Center,requesting a Conditional Use/Planned Development approval for an expansion to an existing place of worship at 170 South University Street and 169 South 1300 East. The new addition will include additional worship space and underground parking. The planned development application requests modifications to building setback and grade change requirements for this project. The property is located in a Residential Multi-Family(RMF-45)zoning district. (Staff-Joel Paterson at 535-6141,joel.paterson(afslcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. The Ballet West is requesting an extension of time for conditional use No.410-587,which granted approval for the construction of a new school and rehearsal facility at 1201 East Wilmington Avenue,in the Sugar House Business District(C-SHBD zone). The Commission granted conditional use planned development approval for development of the new facility on May 16,2002. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the •meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,June 11, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. • The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, May 28,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Pinecreek Properties, LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for existing signs and landscaping,which were previously allowed under lease to Oceans Restaurant, on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle(approximately 4800 South)in Murray City, Utah. b. Wasatch Front Bar&Grill and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for overflow and emergency parking; and a dumpster, located on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle(approximately 4800 South)in Murray City, Utah. There has been a similar least in the past to Oceans Restaurant at the same location. c. Utah Power and Light/PacifiCorp. and Salt lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a standard utility permit for a new buried electric power line to be installed under the East Jordan Canal Extension Right-of-way, located at 7200 South 1300 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 4. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES Presentation by Sharen Hauri of Swaner Design on the Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan. The project is a partnership between Envision Utah, Utah Mitigation Commission and Salt Lake County,with financial support from Chevron and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (Staff-Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:15 p.m.—Continuation of Petition No.410-586, by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 S. 600 East as part of the Family Center(Fred Meyer) planned development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development(Petition No.410-135)to incorporate the McHenry home site(11,730 square foot pad site). This planned development includes a request for modification of zoning ordinance standards. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements,front yard parking and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial"CS"Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District. (Staff-Everett Joyce at 535-7930) THIS ISTEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED, b: PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m,—Petiti'on No 410-635 by Qwest Corporation,requesting;Condifional Use aiiprovat to,install a ground Mounted communications equipment cabinet at 2030 So,Foothill,D'rive_ Ttie proportjt is located in a Single_Fainily Residential R 700,0"zoning'dietilot: (staff-Janice Lei i°ats3576r25) r c. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-05 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting the Planning Commission declare as surplus property,approximately 620 acres of land located between 6300 and 7400 West,between 1300 and 2700 North and exchange it for a 116 acre parcel of land at approximately 2252 North, 3200 West. The Airport property is in Salt Lake City and is zoned Open Space(OS)/Lowland Conservancy(LC). The property located at 2252 North 3200 West is in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) aUNFINISHED BUSINESS Continued,discussion,of Petition.No:400-03-07,by the Satt Lat*City Planning Commission°(Aria Fu"nk).requesting an amendment to the Salt LakeCi:ty Site.©evelopmentand/or Zoning"Ordinance to correct,Idiscr""epancy'betvveen Section, 1848.30.B.11c. Developable Area:Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table2lA.54150: ,2.,Minimum,' s Planned Development.Size'al fhe'Zor>ing;Ordinance relattng to nrntmum lqt size and,deveiopa#le.area'requrtements"" in thilfzoriing�,distriots::(Staff'-ttay Mc,Cancllessat535-7282) ; . Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the • meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 • • 5. STAFF REPORT FOR THE MAY 28, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING INCLUDING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND FOLLOW UP LETTER FOR THE JUNE 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • • • 5. A. STAFF REPORT FOR THE MAY 28, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE MAY 28, 2003 MEETING CASE#: 400-03-07 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission PROJECT LOCATION: Foothill Areas, Citywide • PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: N/A COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District # 3 District # 6 District # 7 REQUESTED ACTION: Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.1 1 c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. PROPOSED USE(S): N/A APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 18.28.30.B.l 1 c. of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21 A.54.150.E.?. of the Zoning Ordinance 411 - SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: N/A • SURROUNDING LAND USES: N/A MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: There are several master plans applicable to this proposal: Capitol hill Community Master Plan, December 2001 -The Capitol Ilill Master Plan stales that "All of the_privately owned residentially zoned land in the Capitol Hill foothills has either been subdivided or development is severely limited due to site constraint regulation such as lot size and excessive slope". Related Policies: • Maintain and strictly enforce existing regulations which prohibit development of land with 30%or greater slope. • Maintain minimum 16 acre land requirements for residential development in the FP Foothill Protective Overlay Zone. • Require that negative impacts of residential development on foothills are minimized and,where necessary,that dainage to adjacent open space is mitigated. East Bench Master Plan,April 1987-1he maxivauna developable slope was 40%when • this master plan was adopted.The plan identified three general areas with a potential for foothill development,the Romney property at the mouth of Parley's Canyon, the Sr ewe Drive and Mohawk Drive area and Spring Canyon. In 1998, the Arcadia Heights Benchmark,&H Rock Small Area Plan was adopted which addressed the Scenic Drive/ Mohawk Drive area.The developable area was significantly reduced when the maximum developable slope was changed to 30%. Related Policies: • New residential development in the foothills should he restricted to low density. • Recommended densities for foothill development - maximum density of 4 units per acre or less. Single family homes or planned unit developments with single family densities are recommended. Arcadia heights,Benchmark, & N Rock Small Area Plan, October 6, 1998- This plan was developed after the 30% maximum slope was adopted. Privately owned potentially developable lots were defined and specific recommendations regarding lot densities are listed. Related Policies: • It is the intent of this plan to reaffirm the principles and standards pertaining to foothill development contained in the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance • and Zoning Ordinance. This recommendation applies to interpretation of 30% . slopes as well as to all other foothill development standards. • The current 30% slope restriction should be maintained. Avenues Master Plan, July 1987 - This plan was also developed prior to the adoption of the 30% maximum developable slope. Related Policies: • The City should consider modifying the Site Development Ordinance and the "F- 1" Overlay Zone to reflect the recommended changes. The need for larger lot sizes is discussed but no specific minimums are recommended. The Master Plan states "In some areas where slope and other geologic problems are prevalent, or in exclusive areas where "estate" types of developments are anticipated, lot sizes approaching an acre may be appropriate. In other areas, smaller lots may be more suitable. in general, future lot sizes in these sensitive foothill areas should be larger than those that have been developed in the past...". Open Space Plan, October 1992 - This plan identifies open space opportunities throughout the city. The plan identifies numerous corridors that extend between the mountains and the Great Salt Lake. The corridors typically follow major stream channels and are identified on a series of maps. The Bonneville Shoreline trail along the east bench serves as a transitional boundary between the foothills and urban environment. • Refer to specific plans for details. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: N/A ACCESS: N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: During the review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive, the City Attorney's office raised concern over a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance that prevents lots that although meeting the minimum lot size required by the zoning district, do not contain the minimum zoning required lot size consisting exclusively of less than a 30% slope to be approved as a planned development. These lots meet the minimum lot size required by the zoning district but are not large enough to meet the minimum project size for planned development consideration and are therefore excluded from entering any review process _ (see attached letter dated January 15, 2003). As an example, a lot in the FR-2 zone may have the zone required lot area of 21,780 square feel, but in order to enter the Planned Development review process to count slopes over 30% toward the lot minimum, 5 acres are required. This was discussed at the November 7, 2-002, Planning Commission Meeting where the Planning Commission initiated a petition for staff to review and propose appropriate • 3- changes (see attached minutes). The discrepancy must be corrected to reasonably limit potential takings claims exposure for the City_ Site Development Ordinance-Since 1994,The City's Site Development Ordinance has • prohibited constniction in foothill areas on slopes steeper than 30 percent.The ordinance refers to these areas as "undevclopable area". In March 2001, the Site Development Ordinance was amended. One of the changes to the ordinance provided that "undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process " (See section 18.28.3013.11 e., Site Development Ordinance,emphasis added.) Zoning Ordinance - Table 2IA.54.150.L.2. of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the minimum planned development project size for a foothill subdivision is five acres. According to the attached letter from the City Attorney's Office, these two ordinances conflict as they"could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill ffoperty,not because it is too steep or too small to build upon but because the City ordinance refuses to recognize the ownership of s(en)slope areas,jinless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligble to apply.ibr planned development approval COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: On Nlarcli I-I, 2UO3. notices were mailed to all Community Council chairpersons • requesting input on the City Attorney's recommendation. Stall received no comments. Following the comment period,Staff developed a second option,but since it had not been included with the original notice to Community Councils, the City Council Staff recommended that an open house be held to gather input. Following that recommendation, an open house was held on April 29, 2003. The proposed ordinance changes were discussed at length.The options below are derived from comments brought up at the open house and discussions with the City Attorney's Office. 1.COMMENTS As the proposed revisions-do not impact city infrastructure or operations,review by other City departments is not necessary. Community Councils- The Liberty Wells Community Council is concerned that the notification and meeting schedules for the comment period and Open ]louse did not coincide with their regularly scheduled meetings (sec attached letter). Section 21A.10.020.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, however, only requires a 14 day notification period for ordinance amendments.Nothing specific towards this issue was mentioned in the letter. # • 4 - • 2.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The challenge is to correct the ordinance(s) which prevents property from being considered for any development by the Planning(.'ommission. Following the Open House on April 29, 2003, the Council Staff inquired about the number of potentially developable lots left in the foothills. Below is a table showing the location of stub streets and potential number of developable lots remaining. These are estimates only. Street/Zoning Description Owner Sidwell Estimated Nu rnbers Number of Potential Lots. I Scenic Drive/ ��--Stub SIT eet Robert 16-23-226- 0 lots T��-- Benchmark Drive Carson/ 004-4001 and East of. Romney 4002 Benchmark Lumber/Mel Solid reisron Romney 2982 F. Benchmark Drive St.County 2_ Scenic Dine Stub Street r iaty Multiple I lot 1935 South Scenic Williamson Parcels Dove i Others • 1-I .. _. Lekclum Umr Smb Snot S1,n 16 11.376-02 I loa- 1829 South t.akeline Tutvillc Drip FR-2 4. Mohawk Dr_ Stub Street Salt Lake 16-14.306-029 I lot 1805 Mohawk Way County/ 16-14-306-030 Victoria Multiple _ EP Manson Parcels 5 Spring Canyon Stub Street Spring Multiple 0 lots r 3052 F.Sherwood Canyon Parcels Drive Associates/ Huntsman SL County Corp__ - -_ 6. Virginia Street North Side of Multiple Multiple 2 lots 399 North Virginia Street Not Owners Parcels street Developed FR-3 7. t'enys Hollow Rd. Stub Street Dr.Chen Multiple 7 lots 675 N.New Park, Parcels Bonneville Place FI' 8. Chandler Dv Both Sides of Multiple Multiple I lot Street Nor Owners parcels _Developed_ 9. I ilb Avenue Uphill Side of Abuts City tI 0 tots - Street Nor Property Abuts City • FR-2 DeveloEd Property • 5 10. Edgehill Drive Stub Street Stubs into 09-29-326-001 0- Stubs into 765 E Edgehill Dr. City City Property Property FR-3 11. 18th Avenue Stub Street Stubs into 0- Stubs into • City City Property OS Property 12. Columbus& Desoto Stub Street Christopher 09-30-351-034 5 Unit Planned Robinson Development FP 45 ac. Potential Arcadia Heights Master Plan recommendation is for not more than 4 lots at the end of Scenic Drive and no lots east of Benchmark Drive. Given a recent court order, this property will likely be developed in Salt Lake County using Salt Lake City water, 17-19 lots possible. 2 Application is currently being processed. } Likely to be developed in Salt Lake County at 6 to 20 lots. The remaining number of potentially developable lots in the foothills is not significant. Given the discussion at the April 29, 2003 open house, and discussions with the City Attorney's Office, there are three options suggested by Staff to be considered by the Planning Commission. These options are as follows: Option 1: Eliminate Section 18.12.30.B.11 c. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property if appropriate to require larger lot minimums. 1111 Section 18.12.30.B1 lc. of the Site Development Ordinance would be eliminated as follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, u fanned development-review process. Discussion: This option eliminates Section 18.12.30.B.1 1 c. of the Site Development Ordinance, thereby eliminating the conflicting standard and allowing lots that meet the zoning required minimum lot size to enter a review process. This option would effectively reverse the Site Development Ordinance text change/made in 2001. This option does not eliminate the 30% maximum buildable slope requirement as it is a Zoning Ordinance standard, but slopes greater than 30% would be counted toward the zoning minimum lot size provided that the proposed lot contained a minimum buildable area located adjacent to the existing or proposed street, containing at least 1500 square feet. The remaining potentially developable foothill property could be reevaluated in the future to determine if properties need to be rezoned to require a larger minimum lot size. • 6 Under this option, the Planning Commission is the approval body for foothill subdivisions but any future rezoning decision would be the City Council's. City • Council approval is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance. Option 2. Eliminate the words "through the planned development review process" from Section 18.28.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration. Section 18.12.30.B11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone-i--uutess—specifically app unless the Planning Commission finds that the lot: 1. Fronts on either side of an existing dedicated public street, 2. Has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area which shall not include the required zoning setbacks or transition area, and 3. City sewer and water services are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street. Discussion: This option allows the Planning Commission to count steep slopes toward meeting the required zoning lot minimum provided the lot fronts onto an existing dedicated street, has a minimum net buildable area of 1,500 square feet and • has access to city water and sewer services. Planning Commission approval is required for all foothill subdivisions. Option 3: Attorney triggered escape to a Planning Commission consideration. Discussion: This option requires that the City Attorney's Office determine on a case- by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum Planned Development project size based on a determination of a substantial risk of a successful takings claim. Upon completion of the City Attorney's determination, the application would be reviewed under one of the following options: Option 3a. Under zoning district and subdivision regulations, or Optiono3b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development. Following a determination from the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission would review either the subdivision using foothill development standards or planned development using conditional use standards. The problem with this option is that it puts the Atorney's Office in a difficult situation with pressure to forward the item to the Planning Commission. • • 7 . • Amendment to Table 21A.54.150E2 - Minimum Planned Development Size. Staff had initially discussed amending the minimum planned development project size in the foothill districts (Table 21A.54.150E2) to equal the required lot minimum. However, it was brought up at the open house that all zoning districts should be looked at comprehensively and not just the foothill districts. Table 21A.54.150E2 specifies the minimum project size needed to enter the planned development process which has been problematic in the past, particularly in the residential zoning districts. It is not clear how many cities use project minimums to enter the planned development process. Staff has contacted the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service and has requested information regarding how • many cities require a project minimum standard to enter the planned development process. This information will be available prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Upon discussing this at the open house and in-house among the Planning Staff, The best solution would be to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. Table 21A.54.150E2 is proposed to be amended as follows: Table 21A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) • District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-l/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential 5 acres 2 acres District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres I acre FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 24,000 square feet R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential S acres 24,000 square feet District R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet 14,000 square feet District R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet District SR-I Special Development Pattern 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District SR-2 Special Development Pattern Reserved Residential District SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family 9,000 square feet 4,000 square feet Residential District 8 R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential 10,000 square feet District . RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family 9000-sq }are fec 10,000 square feet Residential District RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi- 20,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Family Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet 1 8,000 square feet District RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet R-MU Residential/Mixed Use 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Planning Commission review is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance and / or Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. In its review, the Planning Commission must use the following standards. It is staffs considered opinion that Option l best meets the standards for general amendments in this situation. 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. • .A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The master plans uniformly express concern regarding protection of slopes greater than 30%. Another common goal is to ensure that development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood and environmentally sensitive. The proposed options and modifications to Table 21A.54.150E2 of the Zoning Ordinance support these goals. Findings: The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable master plans. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character ' of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed amendments will create a more uniforin and consistent standard by which proposed developments can enter the development review process. Consistent standards will lead to foothill development that is compatible with both existing development and with the natural environment. Findings: The proposed amendments are harmonious with the overall character of the foothills. 111 C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. • Discussion: This standard does not apply. Findings:The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The foothills arc located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Larger lots as characterized by foothill development pose less threat to aquifer recharge areas than smaller lots commonly found throughout the City. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of die Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. 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. New foothill development proposals kill be reV erred on a case-br-case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. this standard does riot apply. Findings: The amended site development and zoning ordinances will not affect roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments,analysis and findings noted above,Staff recommends approval of Option 1, eliminating Section 18.12.30.B.1 lc. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30%carmot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property on an as needed basis for the following reasons: 1. It resolves the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development Ordinance standards making it cleaner and simpler to administer. 2. It acknowledges that the previous ordinance went too far and returns the standard to how it was administered for 20 years. 3. It provides a means whereby lots that meet the zonigig minimum lot area can be processed. • to Staff also recommends adoption of the proposed revisions to Table 21 A.54.150E2 as • discussed in this Report. • • 11 • 0 5. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION • MEETING Ir the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved to forward a recommendation to thity Co ncil not to close a portion of 500 West with the findings of fact outlined in the stall-report. • Jenni rr Seelig seconded the motion. Findings of Fa 1. The propos. would not deny access to any other nearrcel. 2. The property wo. d be transferred to the Redeye! ment Agency to sell as a development site. of the purpose of the ale is to generate revenue to construct the 200 South to 400 South .rrtion of the 5 West blocks. 3. Closing the subject property r co Crary to the Master Plan policies for the areas, as identified in the Gateway Mas • n and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate change in .opted policy. 4. Public policy does n support the closure_ •ny closure should be accompanied by a corresponding endment of the master plan. Ms. Arnold, M . Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDo 'ugh, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seeli voted "Aye." Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motio carried_ Mr. de clarified that the first motion was a recommendation to the Mayo so the Planning • Cmmtssion is not the final decision maker The second motion is a recomm ndation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Foothill Subdivision, requested by Amir S. Cornell, for a preliminary subdivision approval of a one-lot foothill subdivision, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. This property is located within the Foothill Residential "FR-3" zoning district. This item was postponed. Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney's Office, explained that this matter was postponed due to a conflict with the ordinance, and Mr. Pace was prepared to discuss solutions. He explained that the ordinance arises out of re-codification of the site development ordinance from March 2000. It was previously incorporated by reference. Then the City adopted a slope restrictions ordinance which was later codified in the ordinance_ The site development ordinance deals with developable slopes and undevelopable slopes in excess of 30%, and that concept is integrated throughout the ordinance_ Historically, people have been allowed to include undevelopable slopes within a lot area if the area they intended to build on was • Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 7,2002 developable. Mr_ Wheelwright explained that the Foothill Subdivision in the past could have a buildable area as small as 1,500 square feet located adjacent to the street. if the zone required a half acre, the steep portion of the property could be included in the lot for the lot size calculation_ The change purposely made a year and a half ago did not allow the steep slope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone, a half acre is needed excluding the 30% slope or the lot cannot be approved_ Mr_ Pace read from Subsection C of the ordinance: "Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process." He used examples explaining how the language applies. There is serious concern that this provision, applied with the planned development minimum standards, would mean that a perfectly flat buildable area could not be built on because there is not a large enough piece of ground for a planned development_ He believes this could subject the City to a claim that it has taken away the value of the property_ He stated that this provision in the site development ordinance as drafted is not enforceable in all settings. Either the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate a petition to amend the ordinance, and he recommended that they do so. He explained that this petition was postponed due to this issue Once a petition is initiated and the matter is resolved, they will return with this item at a later date. Mr Jonas recalled that the reason for initiating the change was to review these things, and they did not anticipate an overriding chart that required five acres_ Mr_ Wheelwright stated that it was a purposeful change to toughen the requirement, but it resulted in an arbitrary decision on how large the lot should be. Mr_ Pace explained that, if a petition to amend the ordinance is brought forward, the Planning Commission would have a chance to look at it again_ He believed there was a legal problem with the ordinance and was prepared to say that the petition postponed this evening needs to be processed notwithstanding the legal problem. Arta Funk moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to change this ordinance and for Staff to return with a recommendation as to what should be done. Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss agendaltems under Other Business before Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 7,2002 • LETTER FROM ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: } SA I.tAM%WI QORi_rORAT1011( NDEw9o, LAW OFFA.,..,CLIT January IS,2003 Brent Wilde,Ac nag Planning Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South Slate Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 1 Re: Salt Lake City Foothill Development Ordinances Dear Brent: The purpose of this letter is to address a legal issue in the City's site development and zoning,Of dmanccs As you are aware,the City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in Chapter I8 28 of the Salt Lake City Code Since 1994,that site development ordinance has • probrhrlr d cominiruim nr 14,011111 hi(h has a slope ur exr-e-ss r,f i0 percent "fhe site development ordinance refers to this steep slope properly as"undevelopable area." In March 2001,the City amended the site development ordinance to make various changes. One of the changes provider]that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission thr_ough the plan development review process." (See section 1 8.28.30.B.t1.e, emphasis added.) The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. (See Table at section 21A.54.150.E_2_ The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the properly owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. As you are aware,the Salt lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes,but it would be very unusual to find a five-acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas. As you are also aware,there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build,but which are significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development. Thus,the application of these tsvo ordinances,in their present form,could dgny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property,not because it is too steep or too small to build upon,but because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas,unless the di owner has a minimurn of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the properly for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). This issue was discussed with the Panning Cornmtssnon in November 2002. hit response to that discussion,the Planning Comm isston initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances- While that petition is being processed,I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 1828.30 B-1 h c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval,as follows: Unde:velopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission-tiuough-Nre p4anncd r'le-veloprnent-review-process In this manner,the development of foothill properties will still be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission,but would not he prohibited by the regnircntents lot planned 111, lot clopmcne, Ity so dontf„the City can still maintain appropriate review of foothill development,without creating a risk of an unconstitutional taking. 11 you have any questions concerning this matter,please let inc know. Sincerely yours, /72 /76(71/,‘A___ ynn l-l.�ace LILY/ns cc. Cindy Gust-Jensen • COMMUNITY COUNCIL NOTICE AND RESPONSES: SALE' r a_;ci TY�C�CIRPO °�,‘ICIA A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .tea„ e,m„rr ,1y �,��s ,,�,..�1.. ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR . BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING 'LNG, ZONING DIVISION DE curt PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, A!CP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR To: Salt Lake City Community Council Chairpersons 4._ From: Ray McCandless, Salt Lake City Planning Division V Re: Proposed Revision to the Site Development Ordinance Date: April 14, 2003 On March 14, 2003, a letter was mailed to Community Council chairpersons requesting input on Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance relating to foothill development. The letter requested that community councils respond by March 31, 2003, however, no responses were received. The request included a letter from the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office outlining the issue with a recommendation on how to resolve it (see attached letter dated January 15, 2003 • mailed earlier)- During the comment period. howe\er, the Planning Staff came up with a second option. Because it was not included with the March 14, 2003 letter, the City Council staff requested that the Planning Division hold an open house to address noticing requirements and give people an opportunity to discuss the issue with the Planning Staff. The current options are included with this letter. Please be aware, that other options may develop- as the issue is forwarded through the Planning Commission and City Council processes. This item will be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing some time in the future. Please check your Planning Commission agendas for the time, date and place. The open house will be held: Tuesday, April 29, 2003, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. - Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 126 Salt Lake City, Utah Please contact Ray McCandless or Doug Wheelwright at 535-7757 if you have any questions. Thank You. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 11 - TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 EAX:1801-535-6174 • SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OPTIONS: Option I - City Attorney's Office Recommendation Amend Section 18.28.30_13.1 1.c of the Site Development Ordinance as Follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through-t -la development process. Option 2 - Planning Staff Alternative Amend Table 21 A.54.150E2. of the Zoning Ordinance so that the minimum lot area for a planned development matches the minimum lot area regirilement in each of the foothill zoning districts as follows: Table 21 A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential 5 acres 43,560 sq. ft. District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 21,780 sq.ft. FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 12,000 sq_ ft. FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres 16 acres • • . . -- Liberty Wells Community Council A Utah Nonprofit Organization of residents, businesses & property owners • within the Salt Lake City area of 900 South to 2100 South; State Street to 700 East Post Office Box #521744, Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 04.15.03 Mr. Ray McCandless SLC Planning Division 451 South State Street #406 SLC 84111 Mr. McCandless: Liberty Wells Community Council "gets out the word" about planning division matters by circulating correspondence, notices, agenda at our regular monthly meetings for years those Liberty Wells regular monthly meetings have taken place on the second Wednesday of each month. Your 04.14.03 letter regarding "Proposed Revision to the Site Development Ordinance" highlights a problem that planning division communications have been out of synchrony with Liberty Wells Community Council's calendar. Here's the most recent problematic sequence: 03.14.03 Liberty Wells regular monthly meeting 03.14.03 mailing date for letter to CCs requesting inputby uestin 03.31.03 03.31.03 date by which "no responses were received" 04.09.03 Liberty Wells regular monthly meeting 04.15.03 received your 04.14.03 notice of open house scheduled 04.29.03 _ 04.29.03 open house scheduled 05.14.03 Liberty Wells next scheduled regular monthly meeting Liberty Wells Community Council needs your assistance with the timing of"requests for response," open house notices, and similar time-sensitive tasks. Please advise. Respectfully, ,( xit,(pAy._Jz_)___D Catherine New, Chairperson 2002-2004 copy: Barry Esham, Mayor's Office of Community Affairs Liberty Wells Community Council Board of]Directors • 1 July 2002—30 June 2003 Catherine New,Martha Manzano,Betty H.Eatchel,Robert Skraznas,Jim Fisher Leslie Jo Abplanap,Jay Deuel,Marlene Hardy,Robert Hartvigsen,Christian Herrmann,Marie Lupo, Marilyn Oblad,Sandi Roundy,Damn Sanders,Pam Skraznas,Brian Watkins,Carol Watts,Orson West • • OTHER: Sc2racv if 28.30 gttc lot area of a flag lot,the square footage included in the access strip shall not be counted. • 11. Developable Area Limitation_ a_ The Planning Commission shall review each proposed foothill subdivision and,using "ten-foot averaging",shall determine the extent of significant steep slopes within the subdivision. ')-he Planning Commission shall require all such undevelopable portions of proposed subdivisions Io be identified by placement of a development Iiinit line and legal description upon the final plat. Such limitation shall also be made a part of the subdivision restrictive covenants. In addition to protecting significant steep slopes,development limit lines may also he established to protect natural vegetation, special natural topographic features_faults,or unique views. b. Significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall he designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration or encroaclunent by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat. ]n no event shall roads traverse such slopes. c. Indeve lop able area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. d_ Once established on Itie subdivision plat, the development limit line shall be • delineated on all budding permit site phns_ and 'ball he i.I,ikc,t in the field prier tit construction on any lot affected by the development limit line_ 12. Fences arid Walls. Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a building permit subject to the standards of this subsection. a. Site plan submittal_ As part of the site plan process,a fencing plan shall be submitted which shall show: Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; 1ilaterial specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with specific subdivision approval limitations and, the standards of this section. b_ Field fencing of designated undevelopable areas. Fencing on areas identified as "undevelopable areas" or "transitional areas" on any subdivision platted after November 4, 1994 or any lot previously platted which identifies "undevelopable area"or"tranSitioilal areas"shall be limited to the following- Low visibility, see-tluvugh type, ownership boundary • Salt Luke Ciry Site Development Regulanon, 12 OPE-As t-01 ittS 06f4srel 045'92"" Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 The Salt Lake Planning Commission proposed an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site • Development Ordinance, Section 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Ordinances, in November 2002. This proposed modification is being considered as Petition No. 400-03-07. The purpose of this statement is to present the reasons that the Salt Lake City Community Councils and the Planning Commission should oppose Petition No. 400-03-07 and should recommend to the City Council that Petition No. 400-03-07 not be approved. The specific provision of the Site Development Ordinance that Petition 400-03-07 proposes to change is Section 18.28.30.B.1 1.c, which provides: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. The text in bold type is the language that Petition No. 400-03-07 proposes to delete from this section of the Site Development Ordinance. Background — Process for Amending the Salt Lake City Ordinances The Planning Commission has an important role to play in the administration of the Salt Lake City Ordinances as expressly described in Section 21A.06.030 of the Salt Lake City Oidinances. Of importance to the pending Petition is the authority of the Planning Commission "to initiate amendments to the text of this title and to the zoning map pursuant to the provisions of Part V. Chapter 21 A.50, Amendments, Section 2l A.50.020." Part V of the Ordinance expressly provides that "the text of this Title and the Zoning Map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Chapter." In contrast to the authority of the City Council to adopt ordinances amending the Ordinances, the Planning Commission's role is limited to initiating petitions, Section 21A.50.030, holding public hearings, Section 21A.50.040.E, and making a recommendation to the City Council whether to approve or deny the petition. Section 21 A.50.040.F. Section 21 A.50.050 of the Ordinance specifies that: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,. objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City; S . . . . . Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 2 B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall • character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties; D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. For the reasons set forth in this Statement, we believe that Petition No. 400-03-07 is contrary to each of the factors identified in Section 21 A.50.050. Background — Context of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinances To understand the importance of the modification proposed by Petition No. 400-03-07, the basic context of Salt Lake City's zoning ordinances must be explained. On August 1 8, • 1981. in Bill No. 61 of 1981, the Salt Lake City Council formally adopted Site Development Regulations for the Clt). Be Cih Council took this action "to piotect the general health, safety, and welfare, and to promote the continued orderly growth of the City." The Site Development Ordinance was codified in Section 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Ordinances. The Salt Lake City Ordinances also include Titles pertaining to Building and Construction, Title 18; Subdivisions, Title 20; and Zoning, Title 21A. Together these Titles govern the development of and construction of buildings on real property within Salt Lake City. Regarding the interpretation of Title 21A, Section 21A_04.020.A of the Ordinance states: All regulations shall be construed as the minimum requirements necessary to promote the public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the City. Among the provisions of the Ordinances that regulate the development of property in the City's foothills are the following: Section 18.28.30.B.1 1.a and b, which designate as "undevelopable" all "significant steep slopes". • 11111 Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 3 Section 18.28.20.A.41 which defines "significant steep slope" as "an area of 30% or greater slope, as determined using ten-foot averaging, which is intended to be protected • from development or other disturbance. ' Section 21A.24.040.C, which requires lots located in the FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District to have a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. Section 21 A.54.150, Table, which requires planned developments in the Foothills Residential Districts to be a minimum of 5 acres in size. These provisions of the Ordinance, considered together with the provision that Petition No. 400-03-07 seeks to amend, mean that property in the foothills districts that is smaller than 5 acres in size cannot be developed, if the "buildable area" (area with slopes less than 30%) on the lot does not satisfy the minimum lot size established by the Ordinance. In the resolution adopting the provisions of the Ordinance that Petition No. 400-03-07 seeks to amend, the City Council recognized that: On November 1, 1994, in Ordinance 98 of 1994, the Salt Lake City Council amended certain provisions of the Site Development Ordinance after finding that the amendments were in the best interest of the City in developing its foothill areas and that the amendments properly balanced private property rights with legitimate City concerns regarding slope stability_ fire protection. aesthetics. traffic_ drainage and flood protection; • and that one of the amendments in Ordinance No. 98 of 1994 changed the development limitation for slopes from 40% to 30% after research showed that landslides, surficial slope instability, slope failure, and soil erosion threats significantly decreased on slopes which are 30% or less. Thus, the restrictions on the development of property in the foothills area have been determined by the City Council to be necessary to legitimate interests of the City and to achieve a proper balance with private property rights. Arguments of the Planning Commission In support of Petition No. 400-03-07, the Planning Commission asserts that the amendment is necessary "to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance relating to foothill development." Memorandum of Ray McCandless, March 14, 2003. The McCandless Memorandum includes a letter dated January 15, 2003 from Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace to Brent Wilde, Acting Planning Director, which further explains the "discrepancy" found by the Planning Commission. The Deputy City Attorney explains the heart of the problem as follows: 41111 Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 4 As you are aware, the Salt Lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes, but it would be very unusual to find a five- • acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas. As you are also aware, there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build, but which are significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development. Thus, the application of these two ordinances, in their present form, could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property, not because it is too steep or too small to build upon, but because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas, unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval. The Deputy City Attorney then proceeds to conclude that this situation would deny property owners "all reasonable and economic use" of their property and would constitute a taking requiring just compensation by Salt Lake City. Arguments Against the Position Taken by the Planning Commission and the Deputy City Attorney The Deputy City Attorney's conclusions are faulty in several respects. The error of these conclusions is evident from the text of Ordinances and the bases on which the City Council adopted the Ordinances. • The Ordinances As Adopted Do Not Preclude Del elopment of Properties that Meet the Requirements of the Ordinances The Deputy City Attorney incorrectly asserts that the application of the current Ordinances "could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property, not because it is too steep or too small to build upon." (Emphasis added). In fact, the only situation in which the Ordinances prohibit a property owner from developing a foothill property is if the property does not contain sufficient area with slopes less than 30% to meet the underlying minimum lot size area. The Ordinance creates three Foothills Residential Districts that vary in the required minimum lot size: FR-1/43,560; FR- 2/21,780; and FR-3/12,000. Salt Lake City Ordinance Sections. 21A.24.020, 21 A.24.030 and 2l A.24.040. Regardless of the overall size of the property, these sections of the Ordinance require there to be at least 43,560 square feet, 21,780 square feet, or 12,000 square feet, respectively of"buildable area" (area with slopes less than 30%) within the property. As noted above, the decision of the Salt Lake City Council to prohibit construction on slopes of 30% or more was based on research that showed that landslides, surficial slope instability, slope failure, and soil erosion threats significantly decreased on slopes that are 30% or less. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Deputy City Attorney provide any evidence contrary to the evidence on which the City Council reasonably relied in adopting the prohibition against construction on steep slopes. Nor do the Planning Commission and the Deputy,City Attorney present any evidence to suggest that the minimum lot sizes established by three Foothill Residential Districts are 4111 Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 5 inappropriate in any manner. Given that construction on steep slopes is not permitted, excluding the area of such slopes from the determination of the "buildable area" of a 411 property is entirely consistent with the objectives of the Ordinance and the City Council in adopting the Ordinance. The current Ordinance prohibits development of a property only when the property is "too steep" (has slopes of 30% or more) and is "too small" (buildable area does not satisfy the minimum lot size requirements). Using the Planned Development Process to Authorize Exceptions to the Ordinance Requirements is Consistent with the Language and Intent of the Ordinance The Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission can waive the prohibition against using "unbuildable area" in determining if a property satisfies the minimum lot size requirements, but requires that the Planning Commission use the Planned Development process to do so. In the Foothills Residential Districts. the Ordinance requires that a property be at least five acres in size to qualify for consideration under the Planned Development process. Salt Lake City Ordinance 21 A.54.150, Table. Contrary to the argument of the Planning Commission and the Deputy City Attorney, the decision of the City Council to require the use of the Planned Development process to consider relief from the requirements of the Ordinance is not "a discrepancy." In fact, the use of the Planned Development process is the proper procedure for varying from fundamental minimum requirements established by the Ordinance, such as the lot size requirement and the prohibition against building on steep slopes. The Planned Development process is codified in Section 21 A.54.1 50 of the Ordinance. Section 21A.54.150.A explains the purpose for the Planned Development process: • A planned development is a distinct category of conditional use. As such, it is intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovation in the planning and building of all types of development. Through the flexibility of the planned development technique, the City seeks to achieve the following specific objectives: I. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations; 2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities; 3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships; 4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion; • Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 6 5. Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically • significant or contribute to the character of the City; 6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment; 7. Inclusion of special development amenities; and 8. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation. Section 21A.54.150.0 grants the Planning Commission broad authority to "change, alter, modify or waive any provisions of this Title or of the City's subdivision regulations as they apply to the proposed planned development." The authority granted to the Planning Commission under this Section is conditioned on findings by the Planning Commission that such "change, alteration, modification or waiver": 1. Will achieve the purposes for which a planned development may be approved pursuant to subsection A of this Section; and 2- Will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Section 21 A.54.150.D further restricts the authority of the Planning Commission under • Section 21 A.54.150 C No change, alteration, modification or waiver authorized by subsection C of this Section shall authorize a change in the uses permitted in any district or a modification with respect to any standard established by this Section, or a modification with respect to any standard in a zoning district made specifically applicable to planned developments, unless such regulations expressly authorize such a change, alteration, modification or waiver. Section 21 A.54.150.E.l requires that any property proposed for planned development have a "minimum net lot area" as-set forth in the Table following this section. For the Foothills Residential Areas the minimum lot area is five acres. The language of Section 21A.54.150.D expressly provides that the Planning Commission may not authorize a modification of this minimum lot size requirement. The minimum lot size requirement is an essential part of the planned development process because it ensures that there is sufficient property area available to achieve the specific objectives set forth in Section 21A.54.150.A through an innovative and flexible planning process. In the Foothills Residential District, the City Council has determined that the minimum lot size necessary to allow the application of an innovative and flexible planning process is five acres. On property smaller than fine acres, the City Council has determined that there is not sufficient land available to apply an innovative and flexible • Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Page 7 planning process and, thus, the express rules of the Ordinance must be applied. The Planning Commission and the Deputy City Attorney present no evidence to suggest that this determination by the City Council lacks merit. • Indeed, the specific case that the Planning Commission says prompted Petition No. 400- 03-07 illustrates the merit and wisdom of the City Council's determination. In this case, the project proponent seeks to build a 1,700 square foot house on a lot that has only 1,700 square feet of buildable area. The remainder of the property is comprised of area that has a slope of 30% or more. If the Planning Commission is permitted to waive the Ordinance requiring that steep slopes or unbuildable area be excluded when determining if a property satisfies the minimum lot size established for the zone in this case, there is no case in which the Planning Commission would deny a waiver. The property in this case is less than five acres in size, thus there is not sufficient land available to achieve the objectives of the Ordinance or the planned development process through an innovative and flexible planning process. For example, approving a waiver in this situation does not preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features, and prevent erosion as required by Section 21 A.54.150.A.4. To the contrary, approving a waiver results in the construction of a structure that consumes all of the buildable area of the property and is wedged between the street and the steep slopes. The goal of the City Council in adopting the Developable Area Limitation, part of which Petition No. 400-03-07 proposes to amend, is evident in the text of the Ordinance which provides that significant steep slopes "if retained within the subdivision, shall be • designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration or encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat." Salt Lake City Ordinance Sections 18.28.30.B.1 1.b and 18.28.30.D.3.a. The City Council clearly intends that steep slopes within subdivisions be dedicated as open space. If a developer chooses to remove a property from a subdivision to avoid the requirement of these sections to dedicate steep slopes to open space, then the developer does so at the risk that the property may not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the zone. The Ordinance should not be construed or amended to circumvent the clear intent of the City Council in adopting the Developable Area Limitation requirements of the Ordinance. For these reasons, please advise the Planning Commission and the City Council of your opposition to the approval of Petition No. 400-03-07. • • 0 5. C. FOLLOW UP LETTER FOR THE JUNE 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING S' ` '�'. . a_;0cr' 1,11 C��RPORA�CNf A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ...,� .j��. .►<�� ROSS C. ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BR ENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: June 2, 2003 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner RE: Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. This issue was continued by the Planning Commission from the May 28, 2003 to the June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to allow additional time for Staff to further analyze options regarding Petition No. 400-03-07 (Refer to staff report dated May 19, 2003). At the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented three options with a recommendation to approve Option 1 including a recommendation to modify the Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance. However, based on the discussion and comments at the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting- and further discussions with the City Attorney's Office, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the following revision to the Site Development Ordinance: Section 18.28.30.B.1 le. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows: c.l Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning • Commission through the planned development revie\\ process. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8411 1" c.2 For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30`/° toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street, b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street and, d. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. This language establishes a means by which the Planning Commission can review lots which do not meet the minimum lot area required for planned development approval but meet the required zoning lot minimum by allowing steep slopes to be counted toward the required zoning lot minimum provided specific standards are met which allow infill development consideration. Staff is no longer recommending that Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size be amended. • • 6. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f`IItl:.i L 3Afie"£.ROE'j Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Aria Funk) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11 c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. Ms. Seelig returned to the meeting at this point. This hearing began at 8:36 p.m. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright presented a history of the Foothill regulations in Salt Lake City. In the summer of 1976, a flash flood in the upper Avenues filled some basements with mud. In response to that, the City adopted a six month moratorium on Foothill subdivision approvals above the 5,200 foot contour level. During that moratorium period, some new zoning districts were developed. In the first part of 1977, two new zones were added to the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. The first was the F1 Overlay District. The F1 zone did not change the underlying density of the original zoning, but did require special geologic and soil studies to be conducted as a part of any Foothill subdivision approval. The second zone added was the P1 Foothill Preservation zone. This zone had a 16 acre minimum lot size. It also required the special studies. At that time, the City also adopted site development regulations or the Site Development ordinance. These regulations included the subdivision standards and requirements, such as street width, blocks and cul-de-sacs, etc. Those ordinances were administered until 1982, when the City Council amended the site development regulations to include a 40 percent slope as undevelopable area. Slope of streets were limited to 12 percent, and the height of cuts and fills were limited relative to road construction. It provided for a 1500 square foot minimum buildable area in a Foothill district. Most of the Foothill subdivisions have been developed under this standard. In 1994, a petition was filed to amend the site development regulations to change the 40 percent undevelopable slope requirement to 30 percent. That petition passed. Additional building height restrictions were looked at as well. In 1995, the zoning rewrite project totally revamped the zoning of the City. Instead of an overlay zone that required special studies and one Foothill district that required a 16 acre lot, four Foothill zoning districts were created with a 12,000 square foot lot density, half acre, one acre, and a 16 acre density. The City also developed the Open Space zone that did not allow a house to be built. In 2001, the City Council amended the site development regulations and adopted a provision that said land that was 30 percent or steeper could not be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that these regulations have evolved over a 20 year period and have generally become more restrictive. In considering a project on North • Bonneville Drive most recently, the City Attorney advised the Planning Division that he thought there was a problem with the ordinance. The Planning Division responded by having the Planning Commission initiate this petition. Regarding the Council IIIresidence, on the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Division proceeded to consider a subdivision approval. The Planning Commission approved that subdivision. Area residents protested the approval to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). The LUAB found that the Planning Commission exceeded their authority in considering that subdivision project until the Planning Commission and the City Council had acted on the petition. Mr. Wheelwright stressed that although some people believed the changes were proposing a change to the 30 percent as unbuildable, that was not correct. Steep slope areas will still be prohibited from development. Mr. Wheelwright referred the Commission to an email entitled "Statement in Opposition to Petition 400-03-07 Proposed Revision of the Site Development Ordinance". In Item A, he quoted, "The proposed changes would leave every decision up to the discretion of the Planning Commission". Mr. Wheelwright said that is currently how the ordinance is written, so it is not a change. Item B says, "In other words, it is the very language that the City Attorney added to the amendment to which now he objects." The change made in 2001 said greater than 30 percent slope cannot be counted toward zone required minimum lot area. The City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission and City Council were concerned that that was too significant a change. The offer was crafted that the planned development would be the optional approach for the Planning Commission to consider. The City • Attorney was not aware of the 5 acre minimum requirement on planned developments. This combination of 30 percent slope and 5 acre minimum is creating a problem. Item E says, "Excluding parcels from the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission, thus leaving no process by which such parcels can be developed, does not constitute grounds for 'a taking'. Parcels that were approved as a subdivisions before the 2001 Ordinance took effect would be exempt from the ordinance." Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct. He quoted from the document further, "When someone purchases a parcel of land that is not and cannot be approved as a subdivision they are knowingly taking a risk that they may never be able to develop the property. Consequently claiming 'a taking' is not valid." Mr. Wheelwright did not follow the logic on that statement. Subdivision approval is a matter of property right, and to say because it has not happened yet that it can never be considered is a regulation that goes too far. There is a property right to be able to enter a subdivision process and receive an approval or denial from the City. Since the Planning Division received a decision from the Land Use Appeals Board, notices were sent to Community Councils to which there was virtually no response. An open house with the City Staff was held where a number of participants attended. Two different ways to approach the problem were discussed, and then Staff formulated three options contained in the staff report presented to the Commission at this meeting. In addition to the three options, the Planning Division proposes that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they also amend the minimum project size for residential planned developments to reduce the minimum project size for planned developments to a two lot minimum required under the zone. The idea was that at least two lots are needed to be able to do any clustering of buildings. Mr. Jonas thanked Mr. Wheelwright for his presentation and said it was very helpful. Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright to explain the logic of why they wished to reduce the minimum project size to a two lot equivalent instead of one. Mr. Wheelwright said he felt there was a belief among Staff that a minimum of two lots were needed to provide clustering flexibility. There was concern that going to one lot might conflict with the regulations the City has developed on flag lots, which requires a conditional use process. The Council Staff asked the Planning Division to try to determine how common it is amongst municipalities that a minimum project size is needed to enter a planned development. Staff contacted the American Planning Association, whose research found about 12 zoning ordinances that had some restriction on entering a planned development process that was based on a project size. This would suggest that it is a relatively uncommon practice. Mr. Chambless referred to a case brought before the Board of Adjustment for property on Devonshire near H Rock, in which there were two unbuildable lots that could be clustered to build a very large home on the two adjacent lots. Mr. Wheelwright said that was a subdivision amendment and that it had gone to the Board of Adjustment because of excess building height. Planner Ray McCandless then said that the main problem is that there are a number of Foothill properties which have sufficient developable are to build on, but are significantly smaller than the five acre minimum that is required for planned development approval. Under the current ordinance, these lots are prevented from entering any review process, which is a concern to the City Attorney's Office given the risk of a potential takings claim. Mr. McCandless went through the three options as presented in the staff report: Option 1: Eliminate Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property if appropriate to require larger lot minimums. Section 18.12.30.B11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be eliminated as follows: C. Undevelopable arga-„hall siz s required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Discussion: This option eliminates Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site 110 Development Ordinance, thereby eliminating the conflicting standard and allowing lots that meet the zoning required minimum lot size to enter a review process. This option would effectively reverse the Site Development Ordinance text changes made in 2001. This option does not eliminate the 30% maximum buildable slope requirement as it is a Zoning Ordinance standard, but slopes greater than 30% would be counted toward the zoning minimum lot size provided that the proposed lot contained a minimum buildable area located adjacent to the existing or proposed street, containing at least 1,500 square feet. The remaining potentially developable foothill property could be reevaluated in the future to determine if properties need to be rezoned to require a larger minimum lot size. Under this option, the Planning Commission is the approval body for foothill subdivisions but any future rezoning decision would be the City Council's. City Council approval is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance. Option 2. Eliminate the words "through the planned development review process" from Section 18.28.30.B.11 c. of the Site Development Ordinance and establish review standards for Planning Commission consideration. Section 18.12.30.B11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, u-n-less-sp i .ally approved b„ the Planning Commi-lion through the planned development review process. unless the Planning Commission finds that the lot: 1. Fronts on either side of an existing dedicated public street, 2. Has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area which shall not include the required zoning setbacks or transition area, and 3. City sewer and water services are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street. Discussion: This option allows the Planning Commission to count steep slopes toward meeting the required zoning lot minimum provided the lot fronts onto an existing dedicated street, has a minimum net buildable area of 1,500 square feet and has access to city water and sewer services. Planning Commission approval is required for all foothill subdivisions. Option 3: Attorney triggered escape to a Planning Commission consideration. Discussion: This option requires that the City Attorney's Office determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to waive the minimum Planned Development project size based on a determination of a substantial risk of a successful takings claim. Upon completion of the City Attorney's determination, the application would be • reviewed under one of the following options: Option 3a. Under zoning district and subdivision regulations, or Option 3b. Planned development analysis without meeting the minimum lot size requirement for a planned development. Following a determination from the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission would review either the subdivision using foothill development standards or planned development using conditional use standards. The problem with this option is that it puts the Attorney's Office in a difficult situation with pressure to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Amendment to Table 21A.54.150E2 - Minimum Planned Development Size. Staff had initially discussed amending the minimum planned development project size in the foothill districts (Table 21A.54.150E2) to equal the required lot minimum. However, it was brought up at the open house that all zoning districts should be looked at comprehensively and not just the foothill districts. Table 21A.54.150E2 specifies the minimum project size needed to enter the planned development process which has been problematic in the past, particularly in the residential zoning districts. Upon discussing this at the open house and in-house among the Planning Staff, The best solution would be to require a 2-lot minimum project size equivalent to enter the planned development process in all residential zoning districts. Table 21A.54.150E2 is proposed to be amended as follows: Table 21A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) District Minimum Planned Development Size Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate 5 acres 2 acres Residential District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential 5 acres 1 acre District FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential 5 acres 24,000 square feet District R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential 5-acres 24,000 square feet District R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet 14,000 square feet District R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet • District SR-1 Special Development Pattern 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District SR-2 Special Development Pattern Reserved Residential District SR-3 Interior Block Single-Family 9,000 square feet 4,000 square feet Residential District R-2 Single- and Two-Family 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Residential District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi- 20,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Family Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family 20,000 square feet 18,000 square feet District RO Residential/Office District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet RB Residential/Business District 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet R-MU Residential/Mixed Use 20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Planning Commission review is required to amend the Site Development Ordinance and / or Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded • to the City Council for final approval. In its review, the Planning Commission must use the following standards. It is staffs considered opinion that Option 1 best meets the standards for general amendments in this situation. 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. K. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The master plans uniformly express concern regarding protection of slopes greater than 30%. Another common goal is to ensure that development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood and environmentally sensitive. The proposed options and modifications to Table 21A.54.150E2 of the Zoning Ordinance support these goals. Findings: The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable master plans. L. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed amendments will create a more uniform and consistent standard by which proposed developments can enter the development • review process. Consistent standards will lead to foothill development that is compatible with both existing development and with the natural environment. Findings: The proposed amendments are harmonious with the overall character of the foothills. M. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: This standard does not apply. Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. N. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The foothills are located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Larger lots as characterized by foothill development pose less threat to aquifer recharge areas than smaller lots commonly found throughout the City. IllFindings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. O. 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. New foothill development proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as applications are filed and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This standard does not apply. Findings: The amended site development and zoning ordinances will not affect roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and-refuse collection. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, Staff recommends approval of Option 1, eliminating Section 18.12.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size) and consider evaluating rezoning foothill property on an as needed basis for the following reasons: 1. It resolves the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development • Ordinance standards making it cleaner and simpler to administer. 2. It acknowledges that the previous ordinance went too far and returns the standard to how it was administered for 20 years. 3. It provides a means whereby lots that meet the zoning minimum lot area can be processed. Mr. McCandless said Staff was also recommending adoption of the proposed revisions to the Table 21A.54.150E2, which lists the minimum lot size standards for planned development approval. Mr. Jonas asked Mr. Wheelwright to go back to where the ordinance was in 2001 and why at that time the Commission looked at making that change. Mr. Wheelwright said that with each one of the subdivision approvals from 1982 to 2001, each subdivision approval was a lot by lot consideration by the Planning Commission. The slope maps are colored between any two contour lines according to a 10 percent grouping of slopes. There were administrative rules adopted to interpret a slope map to define the build and no-build line. Some contours were as close together as 2 feet and could create an anomaly on the property. A 10 foot rule was adopted which said the City would look groupings of at least 10 feet uninterrupted of slopes that are steeper than 30 or 40 percent. The 10 foot rule was constantly debated by those for and against it. There was a belief that the 10 foot rule had not been administered uniformly throughout the years. A motion was considered to toughen up the site development regulations. • The provision to exclude the 30 percent slope from the zone required density was one of the toughening measures. The City also adopted a different way of looking at the 10 foot rule, and some provisions that related to property where grading had occurred before it was annexed into the City. Craig Hinckley was the staff member that led this effort. Mr. Jonas asked if adopting Option 1 would take the City back to where it was in 1982. Mr. Wheelwright said yes. As long as there was a minimum building size area of 1,500 square feet, located adjacent to a street, which was enough room for a building site. The zoning regulation required the rest of the lot to be counted. The 30 percent slope was still protected, but minimum building size counted towards approving a buildable lot. Mr. Jonas asked if the only time the minimum lot size recommendation of two lots would be in the case of a planned development. Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct. Mr. Muir referred to Option 1 and asked why it would not reference Table 21A.54.150E2, rather than talk about it being appropriate to require larger lot minimums. He said it was basically indicating some larger lot minimums and some lesser lot minimums. He asked if the table would now become the standard. Mr. Wheelwright said that under the ordinance since 2001, either all minimum lot size required by the zone had to be less than 30 percent, or you had to go to planned development approval for the exception. The Planning Division was suggesting • something that would not create that linkage. The two are separated because the • Planning Division thinks the Commission should change the project size regardless of which option they might select. Mr.Jonas opened the hearing to the public and invited anyone from the Community Council to come forward and speak. Mr.Wynn Johnson,Greater Avenues Community Council Chair, 1085 East North Bonneville Drive,Salt Lake City,Utah,84103,spoke next. The Community Council became acquainted with the issue in 2002 when Mr. Cornell brought his subdivision before the Council for approval. The Community Council approved Mr.Cornell's subdivision. The Council did not get involved in further commentary or the open houses because they thought the question was essentially moot. The Community Council has not discussed the change of ordinance,and were neutral on the issue. The Executive Committee of the Greater Avenues Community Council has discussed it,and hopes that North Bonneville Drive will be able to be completely finished with houses on the north side to keep the grasshoppers,bikers and hikers behind the houses. Mr.Johnson has owned property in the North Bonneville area since 1976 and has seen it get harder to develop as the years went by. He felt that the ordinance adopted in 2001 has affected one building lot and seems almost directed at that parcel to exclude it from development. He thought the 2001 change could be easily construed as a taking by a"feisty"attorney. He does not remember ever getting notice of a public hearing on the 2001 ordinance change. Mr.Jonas asked if anyone from the general public would care to speak. Mr.Bruce • Baird,Counsel for Mr.Amir Cornell,spoke next. He said someone had tried to do something positive for the whole Foothills,and it had unintended consequences that squashed someone's project. He showed the Commission pictures of Mr.Cornell's property and a rendering of what the completed house would look like. He also passed out copies for the Commissioners. Houses along a streetscape are the best protection for the Foothills. He asked the Commissioners to choose an option that would cover Mr.Cornell's situation and allow Mr.Cornell's house to be approved. Mr.Baird felt the 2001 ordinance change made no sense,and that it was arbitrary and capricious. He said that on pre-existing public streets,the concept of clustering did not make sense. On new subdivisions with new roads,he agreed with Staff that clustering made sense. He agreed with Mr.Pace that this would be a taking of Mr.Cornell's property if he were not allowed to develop. Ms.Diane Nielson, 1096 East North Bonneville Drive,Salt Lake City, Utah,84103, spoke next. She asked the Commission to oppose any of the proposed changes to the ordinance. She understood that the hearing tonight was about the ordinance and not Mr.Cornell's lot. Land ownership is not a guarantee of developability. There are sizes of buildable area that are too small to adequately develop a property and construct a home without damaging adjacent property. She recommended upholding the decision made in 2001 and to not adopt any of the three options presented. Mr. Dave Deisley, 1574 Michigan Avenue,Salt Lake City,Utah,84105,spoke next. He • represented the landowners appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to Mr. Cornell's property. He believed that none of the options presented • made logical sense in the context of the zoning ordinance. He felt the ordinance had been reasonably and intelligently developed over the past 20 years. He said the case presented by Staff was notably weak and mischaracterized the situation at hand. He said minimum lot size requirements were enforced because of concerns about density. Mr. Wayne Petty, 1016 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He spoke in support of the ordinance change. He said if Mr. Cornell's property meets the lot development standards of the adjoining lot in the zone, it should be allowed to be developed. Ms. Deb Sawyer spoke next. She lives in the Capitol Hill area and attended the open house. She was confused by the three options and suggested fourth option that would be to change the minimum lot size to the two lot size. Mr. Len Stillman, 1118 North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He said the statement made that the 2001 ordinance change "went too far" was unsupported. He disagreed with Mr. Baird's assessment that the 2001 ordinance was arbitrary and capricious. He felt there was a serious problem when one property created so much fury. An individual should not be given license to break a well thought out law. He disagreed with the idea that housing was better than open space. Ms. Pam McCullough, 674 Saddle Hill Road, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. • She felt the reason for the proposed ordinance change came about because of the dispute over Mr. Cornell building on his lot. She spoke in support of Mr. Cornell's right to build on his lot. He was issued a building permit, and she was under the impression that he had then met the requirements necessary to build. Mr. Chris Lang, 732 North Richland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He said the decision to take a single event and use it in retrospect to change ordinances that were carefully thought out is a worrisome trend to initiate. The original decision to grant the building permit was based on faulty premises and a violation of already existing ordinances. The excavation and building process has created problems for the neighbors. He was in support of not changing any ordinances. Ms. Dona DiSario, 1099 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. She asked if the hearing was to discuss Mr. Cornell's property or the proposed ordinance change. Mr. Jonas said they were discussing a proposed ordinance change. She said the ordinance did not need to regress to the same standards as was in place before the 2001 ordinance change. There is a middle ground that will protect steep slopes and be a reasonable and legal standard. That would be to increase the current setback requirement of 10 feet with a 20 foot average, and/or increase the size of the minimum building area. The current setbacks combined with the Planning Division's recommended requirement of only 1,500 square feet of buildable area does not allow enough space to construct a home without the disruption • of slopes greater than 30 percent. She requested that the Planning Division to conduct a study to reevaluate and increase the minimum setback requirements and/or minimum • buildable area requirements on steep slope lots. Nevertheless, she is in favor of keeping the ordinance as it is now. She said Mr. Cornell's lot was really a parcel, and according to the ordinances should have been left as open space. Mr. Richard Smiley, 2002 Chair of the Avenues Community Council, spoke next. He lives about three blocks from the area in question. He said ATVs denuded the lot before Mr. Cornell's building began. The home has prevented that. He saw no problem with amending the current ordinance. He felt Mr. Cornell should be allowed to continue building his house. He was in support of amending the ordinance. Mr. James DiSario, 1099 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by 15 neighbors expressing opposition to the ordinance change. Mr. Amir Cornell, 1025 East North Bonneville Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103, spoke next. He thanked the Commission for granting him a building permit in January of 2003. His house meets all the zoning requirements asked for by Salt Lake City. He asked the Commission to allow him to finish his house. Ms. DiSario clarified that the signatures on the petition were from those living in Perry's Hollow, except for four houses, and one person from Sugar House. • Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and asked the Planning Division Staff and Mr. Lynn Pace to come forward and take questions from the Commission. Mr. Jonas said he was a member of the Planning Commission in 2001 when the ordinance in question was adopted, and he did not think they were arbitrary and capricious. He also did not believe that he understood at the time the consequences of the two ordinances and how they worked together when they 2001 ordinance was passed. He asked Mr. Pace to comment on what had been heard so far. Mr. Pace reminded everyone that the matter at issue was not Mr. Cornell's lot. He believed the issue had been precipitated by the letter he wrote last Fall. The letter was not written with respect to Mr. Cornell's lot. It was written in response to a general inquiry from the Planning Staff as to what they perceived to be the impact of the two ordinances fitting together. A statement in Ms. DiSario's letter attributes Mr. Pace as saying that the "language in the current ordinance says that steep slope area will not be included in calculating the lot size except through a planned development process. The word "except" was added by the City Attorney." Mr. Pace said that was true. He added that word because the City Attorney's Office has to approve as to form any ordinance that is passed. When the ordinance came before Mr. Pace, that provision jumped out at him because it initially said it would not include steep slope areas in calculating lot size — period. Mr. Pace did not believe that would fly. Therefore, a planned development escape hatch was created. Mr. Pace did not verify what that meant, and approved the language without knowing that it created a five acre minimum lot size. He has concern that the current ordinance could create a constitutional taking in some circumstances. 111 Mr. Pace said that in approving Mr. Cornell's lot, the approval was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). In Mr. Pace's opinion, the LUAB acknowledged that there was a conflict in the ordinances, but disagreed with the fact that the City had gone forward in approving a lot without first amending the ordinance. Mr. Pace referenced the options before the Commission tonight. He did not like the third option to leave it up to the City Attorney on a case-by-case basis. He thought that was similar to what had already been done, and no one was happy with it because there are no standards or approval. There is a precedent for that in the code. In the context of the Historic Landmark Commission there is a provision that says if what the Historic Landmark Commission does could constitute a taking, the Attorney's Office can say so and that changes the rules. Mr. Pace does not particularly like that, but it is an option that has been used elsewhere in the code. Mr. Muir referenced Option 3 and said there were only three stand alone lots that would not qualify for plan development process. He felt that was minimal exposure for the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Pace agreed and said it was a viable option. If the Commission felt that was the best course of action, he encouraged them to adopt that option. Ms. Noda referred to the January 15, 2003 letter Mr. Pace had written to Mr. Wilde and said that it raised the takings issue. The takings issue is significant and is a • Constitutional issue. She felt this situation may come down to a legal issue, and if it did constitute a taking, the City would be hard pressed to let the ordinance stand. She asked Mr. Pace what the analysis of the court was regarding a takings in the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case referenced in Mr. Pace's letter. Mr. Pace said that case stood generally for the proposition that if you deny a property owner all economic use of their property, you have a takings issue on the table. Mr. Pace said there are places where the City ordinance does that and it can be justified. For instance, if all of the property is steeper than 30 percent, the owner will not be allowed to build. The decision is based upon empirical information as to why it is not safe to build there. The problem with the existing ordinance is that there is a zoning ordinance that is intended to regulate density, and another site development ordinance that says if it is steep, it is not counted toward the zoning required lot minimum. A court might ask what it is about a steep back yard that means you cannot build in the front yard. He did not believe there was any 16 acre lot in the Foothill area that is all less than 30 percent slope. If there was ten acres of flat space with six acres that are steep, a judge would hard pressed to say that was a reasonable regulation. Mr. Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright for his opinion about what the Commission should do. Mr. Wheelwright said his personal preference was Option 1. He felt that was the best approach by restoring the regulation to what the City has had for the past 20 years. He felt the City had gone too far with the change in 2001. Mr. Diamond asked if • he had seen any negative impacts in other developments. Mr. Wheelwright said this was the first subdivision they had considered for initial approval since the 2001 change. Mr. Wheelwright said someone had once said to him, "You don't want to let the court be making your land use decisions." He felt that was significant and that the City should be able to make sound land use decisions. Ms. McDonough noticed in Option 1 that the FR1 and FR2 zones were the most dramatically reduced in minimum project size requirements. She felt that created a density issue. She asked what the reasoning was in that gross of a reduction compared to the rest of the changes. Mr. Wheelwright said it was five acres across the board except for the FP district, which requires the 16 acre minimum lot size. He did not know where the five acres requirement came from. Ms. McDonough asked how they came up with reducing the size to two acres. Mr. Wheelwright said it was basically the two lot equivalent of the base zone. Staff did not believe a one lot planned development made sense. A two lot planned development would make sense most of the time. Mr. Jonas said the chronology given regarding the Foothills showed the ordinances becoming more restrictive as time went on. He wondered if Option 1 would still make the planned development slightly more restrictive. Mr. Pace said two things were happening — one was taking a certain amount of property and removing it from the • need to have a planned development. The other was reducing the planned development acreage. Lots that currently would either have to have 5 acres or be large enough to meet the minimum lot size without the steep slope could use either of those avenues for development. Mr. Muir wondered if a two lot minimum qualified for planned development, why not put in the table the minimum lot size that would qualify for planned development. Mr. Muir said the way it was written, you could have one lot that had 50 square feet of developable area, and the adjacent lot could be two acres less 50 square feet and qualify as two lots. Mr. Pace responded that one of the concerns expressed was that a planned development allows the Planning Commission to modify the zoning requirements. Making that available to an individual lot owner was a concern, because it gave them a blank check to do an end run around the ordinance when they only had one lot. If someone wanted to come in and create an artificially small second lot so that they could have the advantage of a planned development, the Planning Commission would probably deny it because the second lot would be fiction. If the second lot were sufficiently large, the land owner would be entitled to go forward under that approach. Ms. Seelig asked where Staff had come up with 1,500 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Wheelwright said that went back to 1982 and the idea of what the smallest practical size was for a single family home. Ms. Seelig asked if that was an Administrative • decision. Mr. Wheelwright said it was an Administrative decision to make that a recommendation which was actually adopted. Mr. Diamond said for the record that he had voted against Mr. Cornell's application to build. He wondered how it was allowed to pass given the problems that have arisen • since. Mr. Wheelwright said once Staff had direction from the City Attorney's to proceed with the staff report, to set aside that provision of the ordinance and operate under the directed methodology, the only thing that did not potentially comply with Mr. Cornell's application was when an undevelopable area on a lot creates a development limit line. A house built between the street and the undevelopable line has to be built no closer than 10 feet to the undevelopable line. The Cornell house was not. Further, the house has to average 20 feet back from the undevelopable line. Staff had to consider with the Cornell house how to compute that average. The average of 20 feet cannot be delineated — it has to be an activity that occurs at the site plan level because it depends on the shape of the house. Normally, that is never a consideration of the Planning Commission in approving the lot, and it is administered at the permit counter at the time someone comes in for the building permit. Staff made a justification that it was ok to trade land that was not used at the sides of the lot for buildable area to encroach towards the 10 foot line as long as it was still averaged. The Planning Commission agreed with that. Mr. Wheelwright said Ms. DiSario had suggested that there had perhaps been some excavation past the 30 percent line. He did know if that had occurred. The ordinance requires that the line be staked on the property and shown on the site plan to keep the • excavator from doing any damage beyond the line. If Mr. Cornell has excavated beyond the line, he will have to restore and revegetate the area. He will not be allowed to occupy the house until he has done that or posted a bond. Mr. Diamond was frustrated because there had not been enough clarification as to what Mr. Cornell's neighbors were upset about. He felt he could not make a decision on the petition until he heard more. Mr. Wheelwright said the issue would be brought up again in front of the City Council, who will make the final decision. Mr. Jonas said the petition was consistent with the value judgments the Commission had made in a number of cases. It had just been done in the Nancy Saxton petition about reducing a buffer along the side yard. He reminded everyone again that the Commission was not looking at a specific lot, but at an ordinance that has some conflicting issues. Mr. Pace was under the impression that the neighbors were frustrated with him. To a certain extent, citizens relied on the text of the ordinance and believed it would protect them from the development of the Cornell lot. Without regard to that lot, the City Attorney's Office issued an opinion that said they felt there was a problem with the ordinance, and by writing a letter Mr. Pace had changed the text of the ordinance. Sometimes the attorneys have to make those tough calls. He appreciated the frustration of the neighbors and regretted that approval of the lot went forward before III the ordinance was changed. He said he had never been to a Foothill subdivision IIhearing that was any less contentious than what was heard tonight. Mr. Pace was not advocating a position that might open up further development in the Foothills. He felt he had an obligation to the City and its citizens to make sure the law is observed. Ms. Noda did not believe the issues at hand were all on Mr. Pace's shoulders. The problems were simply unanticipated when the ordinances were passed. No one needs to place blame anywhere. The residents have some frustrations with Mr. Cornell's house, but others had expressed support for it. Ms. Noda did not believe 100 percent of the neighbors were against Mr. Cornell. Ms. Noda then reiterated that Mr. Cornell's house was not the issue tonight, but the proposed ordinance changes. She felt Staff had laid out the situation quite well, and Mr. Pace's legal opinion was a good one. Motion Ms. Noda moved that pursuant to Staff's comments, analysis and findings in the staff report with respect to Petition 400-03-07, that the Commission recommend approval of Option 1 as set forth in the staff report, which eliminates Section 18.12.30B.11 C of the Site Development Ordinance (slopes greater than 30% cannot be counted toward the zone required minimum lot size), and consider evaluating rezoning the Foothill property on an as needed basis for the following reasons as set forth in the staff report: 1. It resolves the conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Site Development S Ordinance standards making it cleaner and simpler to administer. 2. It Acknowledges that the previous ordinance went too far and returns the standard to how it was administered for 20 years. 3. It provides a means whereby lots that meet the zoning minimum lot area can be processed. Ms. Noda further moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed revisions to Table 21A.54.150E2 as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Muir voiced his opposition to the motion. He agreed with the position of the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council in 2001. He believed it was consistent with other zoning ordinances in the State to exclude slopes over 30 percent as qualifying as net developable acreage. He is opposed to eliminating that section of the code. He felt it was good policy to preclude steep slopes from qualifying as net developable. Mr. Jonas called for the vote: Mr. Daniels, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Scott voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold, Mr. Muir, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Seelig, Ms. McDonough and Mr. Diamond voted "Nay". Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion failed. 0 Mr. Jonas asked if the next step was for someone to file a takings lawsuit. Mr. Pace • said that was correct, unless someone wanted to make an alternative motion. He asked if the Commissioners did not want to change the ordinance or if they just did not want Option 1. Mr. Muir thought they could decouple the issues. Motion Mr. Muir moved to recommend to the City Council the change in the zoning ordinance effective on Table 21A.54.150E2 that amends minimum planned development size for appropriate zones. Ms. McDonough wondered if Mr. Muir's motion would resolve the conflicts between the ordinances. Mr. Muir said no, it would limit the risk of a taking by giving parcels that are comprised of more than two lots the opportunity through a planned development process to have some flexibility to preserve development rights. Mr. Diamond asked if that would create more density. Mr. Muir said he thought it would give the Commission more flexibility. Ms. McDonough asked if it would then be appropriate to combine it with Option 3. Mr. Muir said yes and that he would be willing to amend the motion to attach Option 3. Ms. Noda had no objection to Option 3. She asked for Mr. Pace's opinion on that. He • said it was a legitimate option and he no problem with that. Ms. Noda felt there should be some solution because the takings issue is significant. Amended Motion Mr. Muir moved to recommend to the City Council the change in the zoning ordinance effective on Table 21A.54.150E2 that amends minimum plan development size for appropriate zones and forward a recommendation for approval of Option 3 of the staff report. Ms. Noda seconded the amended motion. Mr. Wheelwright noted that Option 3 had a choice between items A or B. Mr. Zunguze was concerned that perhaps the Commission was taking some action that would take them back to the drawing board again in a month or two. Staff had looked at the issues in a sequential order, and he was concerned that the "picking and choosing" going on would have a long term negative impact. He suggested that the Commission allow Staff another opportunity to look at how best to incorporate the information heard tonight and come back with something more thoughtful changes. Mr. Muir withdrew his amended motion based upon the Planning Director's input. • • Motion Ms. Noda moved to continue Petition 400-03-07 and have the Planning Director and Staff look at the issues raised by the Planning Commission at this meeting and come back with further suggestions and/or options. The continuation of this petition will be heard by the Planning Commission without a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2003. Mr. Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. This hearing ended at 10:24 p.m. • III z"uNE fit, Z003 PLANNi id CO WV SS4O� Ali j UNFINISHED BUSINESS • Continued discussion of Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Arta Funk) requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development and/or Zoning Ordinance to correct a discrepancy between Section 18.28.30.B.11 c. Developable Area Limitation of the Site Development Ordinance and Table 21A.54.150.E.2. Minimum Planned Development Size of the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size and developable area requirements in foothill zoning districts. The hearing began at 6:36 p.m. and was heard out of sequence with the agenda. Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright and Planner Ray McCandless reviewed the petition. Mr. McCandless said that after a number of discussions among Staff, they had come up with a new recommendation, which was included in a letter dated June 2, 2003 to the Commission this evening. He said they were attempting to create a process that allows the Planning Commission the discretion to count steep slopes towards meeting the zoning required lot minimums, provided that the lot meets certain criteria. Section 18.28.30.B.11c. of the Site Development Ordinance would be modified as follows: c.1 Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. • c.2 For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street, b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street and, d. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Mr. Wheelwright reviewed the three recommendations presented to the Commission at the prior meeting. The recommendation presented tonight is a modification of the second option presented in the original staff report, with a couple of additions. Mr. • Jonas asked Mr. Wheelwright to go through the additions. Mr. Wheelwright said the changes to Option 2 is that it originally said it would take out the planned development Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 June 11, 2003 review as the other option, so that a petitioner would either meet the requirements or have to go through a process to establish three criteria. The criterion is basically the II same, except that Staff has added "D", which is a determination of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood that the Planning Commission would make. Under the new proposal there would be three ways to deal with property: 1) It would meet the ordinance requirement in that none of the lot area would be counted steeper than 30% slope towards the zone required minimum lot size; 2) If there is 5 acres, the petitioner can proceed through plan development approval; or 3) the proposed new ordinance modification above. Mr. Zunguze clarified that following the Commission's vote at the prior meeting, Staff had the strong impression that the Commission did not want to change what was previously done in 2001. The challenge then was how to deal with those parcels that do not qualify to enter the review process using the 2001 parameters. The proposed ordinance is not in any way trying to address the errors that were committed with the last case that brought them to this point. The intention was to address the long term impact of land use decisions made with respect to the Foothill area, given the 2001 ordinance and what the City Attorney said are the potential liability issues for the City for parcels that do not meet that criteria. Ms. Funk was troubled by the language in Item B saying, "The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope", and wondered if this ordinance would allow the Commission to say a petitioner could use 90% of 30% slope or better. There appeared to be no limitation of how much of a 30% grade the Commission could use. • Mr. Wheelwright suggested then that he and Mr. McCandless explain how they would arrive at that determination. They showed the Commission illustrations that helped to explain how they came up with the 30% slope calculations. The first determination made is what portion of the property is steeper than 30%. None of the proposals allow any 30% slope to be developed. It is strictly a matter of whether it can be included in the lot size or not. The line between the developable and undevelopable is called in the ordinance the "development limit line". That line is transferred onto the plat and onto the site plan. In the subdivision process, the potential lot would be further defined by establishing the required yards, which are front, rear and side. The front is 20 feet, the sides in the FR-3 zone are 10 feet and the FR-1, FR-2 and FP zones are 20 feet. If there is a steep slope area, they would also delineate the elements of the transitional area. The transitional area under the 1994 ordinance is defined as the area between the protected steep slope area and where the house structure can be built. The house has to be set back from the transitional area a minimum of 10 feet. A 10 foot line would be on the plat and site plan. The overall requirement is that the house would be set back an average of 20 feet from the undevelopable line. The area minus the front and side yard setbacks, and minus the transitional area would have to meet a 1,500 square feet minimum. If it was not, the property would be determined not to contain a buildable area large enough to be a lot. It would not be allowed to be developed. If it did meet the minimum, it could III Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 June 11, 2003 proceed to the Planning Commission for development approval. If the Planning • Commission felt that all the standards were met,it could approve the project. Mr.Pace responded to Ms. Funk's original question. He said if she was referring to the word"all",it could be changed to the word"any". It would still have the intended meaning. Ms. Funk asked for further clarification of the language stating that,"the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30%toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone". Mr. Pace said the presumption of the ordinance c1 is that you cannot count steep slopes toward the minimum lot size. Ordinance c2 is the exception,where there is small lot that does not have 5 acres to go through the planned development process. C2 is creating an"escape clause"which says under certain circumstances the Commission can consider a steep slope area as part of the lot size,if it meets criteria a,b,c and d. Mr.Jonas felt that changing the language from"all"to"any"would be very helpful. He had specifically asked Mr.Zunguze and staff to not address the previously discussed lot and whether or not it complies. This will not just apply to an individual lot,but could be applicable to other parcels in the future. He appreciated the illustrations said they had helped his understanding of the process. Ms. Funk believed the ordinance needed to be rewritten for more clarity. Ms. McDonough asked if there was confusion between c2,saying that slopes may be counted to meet the lot area,and Item B,where it talks about not counting the 30%to • the buildable area. Lot area and buildable area are two different things. Ms. Funk understood that, but thought the ordinance itself was confusing the way it was written, and that it could be made much simpler and clearer. She suggested the ordinance say that if a lot does not meet the minimum requirements for planned development,the slopes can count toward the lot area so that the Commission can consider it. Mr.Muir thought that in every case the ordinance was saying that the Planning Commission is going to count slopes over 30%relevant to lot size. In terms of density that is in the mix. He asked why then the ordinance said the Planning Commission may count slopes and wondered why that language could not be stricken. Mr. Pace noted under paragraph c1 that the current ordinance says the slopes are not counted unless they have a large enough parcel to go through a planned development process. Mr. Wheelwright said that was a change effective in 2001. Ms.Funk asked about the general easement over the 30%grade. She wanted to know why there was not a general ordinance written that that is true everywhere instead of on specific lots. Mr.Wheelwright said the zoning ordinance only provides the 30%slope development restriction in the Foothill zoning districts. Ms.Funk asked why there could not be a general Foothill 30%slope easement. Mr.Wheelwright said one reason would be that as they approve subdivisions,they basically vest each lot with the approval requirements that existed when it was approved. If there was a more general ordinance,they could be saying that if there was a steep slope in an area of a lot that • was approved as a subdivision before it was regulated,the lot owner could not use it. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 June 11,2003 Mr. Muir said the Planning Commission would want to make the opportunity to build under the criteria in c2 very rare and a real exception. He asked why they should not then amend the minimum planned development size as was previously proposed to give greater opportunities to qualify under planned development and fewer opportunities to come before the Commission on these exceptional cases. Mr. Zunguze said they could do that, as noted earlier because staff had the impression from the Commission that when that proposal was put on the table the Commission was uncomfortable with changing the minimum standards of the 2001 ordinance. He felt the majority of the Commission had believed the original ordinance was well thought out and should be left as written. Mr. Zunguze said the Commission could reopen the issue and look at it again as part of this discussion, if they wished. Mr. Muir said at the last discussion there was concern about adequate staging areas for construction. If the excessive slope areas are preservation zones, 1,500 feet is not enough level property to build a house. In his opinion, he thought twice that number would be needed — 1,500 feet for a staging area, and 1,500 feet for a building pad. He thought perhaps they should look at requiring 3,000 feet, 1,500 of which was the buildable footprint, or they come up with an alternative staging plan, such as an off-site staging area. Mr. Zunguze said that was one of the issues raised by concerned citizens in the past week. Mr. Wheelwright said ideally the lot owner would be excavating what needed to be excavated, and the only material kept on site would be the material necessary to backfill the foundation. Mr. Diamond said Mr. Muir had a good point about the size of the buildable area. The • 1,500 square foot footprint does not relate to the size of pad needed to construct something. If they say with 1,500 square foot minimum, then there should be a plan at the time a permit is issued that says how the owner will go about their excavating. It should be done properly, without disturbing everything on the property or surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Jonas said that should be added as an Item E requirement to the ordinance. The lands are sensitive, and the applicant should have to demonstrate that they can mitigate those issues. Mr. Diamond said if people wish to build on these kinds of sites, they need to understand it will be more expensive to build. Mr. Diamond asked if any of the tables, such as Table 21A.54.150e2, presented at the last meeting were going to be amended. Mr. McCandless said no. Mr. Diamond asked why not. Mr. Wheelwright said that was because they received the general feeling from the Commission that they were unprepared to change the minimum project size requirements that have been part of the ordinance since 1995. Mr. Diamond said he was concerned with the acreage size and relaxing some of them. He felt that would increase the density in those areas. He would not be an advocate of that. Mr. Jonas said Staff had done a good job of listening to what was said at the last meeting and the comments all around the table. He felt the proposed ordinance modification was a good compromise. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 June 11, 2003 Mr. Zunguze said that there was also a question raised as to circumstances leading to • the Planning Commission denying development approval of a project based on the concept that no areas over 30% slope can count toward the requested minimum lot area. Mr. Zunguze said the difference between the proposed ordinance and the 2001 ordinance is that, the proposed ordinance says that if you do not meet the 2001 requirements, instead of being simply turned down, your proposed project may be approved by the Planning Commission, provided you meet the (a, b, c, d, and possibly e) requirements. The 2001 ordinance specifically discounted the inclusion of areas with areas over 30% slopes into the minimum lot area calculation. In the proposed ordinance areas of over 30% slopes can be included in determining the lot area, but are excluded from counting towards the buildable area. Mr. Wheelwright said another option would be to change the 10 foot minimum setback requirement under item B to say "20 foot average setback". Mr. Diamond asked if it was averaged does that mean some parts of the house could be 5 feet and another 15 feet. Mr. Wheelwright said no. The 1,500 square feet buildable project size would have to exclude the area between the no build and the 10 foot line. He was suggesting that it could also say you would have to exclude both the 10 foot and the 20 foot average setback. That would make it more restrictive, and is a better reflection of how much house could actually be built on the lot. • Mr. Diamond asked if the words "undevelopable area" could be changed to "development limit line." Mr. Pace said the concern there was that the development limit line is not actually established until the subdivision is approved. Mr. Wheelwright said before this would be brought to the Commission, Staff would be able to recommend where the development limit is located. Mr. Pace said the way to address it would be to identify the line as the "proposed development limit line". Mr. Diamond said Staff should delineate that line with the applicant or developer before it comes before the Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said part of the changes made in 2001 was an attempt to eliminate some wording that caused disagreement between developers and the City. Ultimately, the line lies where the Planning Commission determines it should be. Ms. McDonough asked again about the wording "the required 20 foot average setback". The word "minimum" meant to her that it sets a line that is parallel to the proposed development line. The word "average" could be interpreted as being able to building right on the development line so that the 10 foot setback hard line setback is no longer there. The word "average" is problematic for her. Mr. Wheelwright said the 10 foot line is on the plat and they would not allow any portion of the building to be closer to the nondevelopable areas than 10 feet. In addition, the actual building has to average 20 feet of setback. Both the10 foot minimum line and the 20 foot average lines would be delineated on the plat. Ms. McDonough said the text should acknowledge both separately. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 June 11, 2003 Mr. Jonas asked if everyone was comfortable with the addition of another requirement, and asked if anyone had attempted to wordsmith it. Ms. McDonough said she would make Item D now Item E because that would be the appropriate final statement to the • sequence of subparagraphs. Mr. Pace suggested the following language for the new Item D: "The applicant must demonstrate the ability to manage the staging for construction in a manner that will not impact steep slope areas." Mr. Muir asked if the words, "as determined by the Planning Director", could be added. Mr. Zunguze said that if that was added into the ordinance it would give him more teeth to demand it, as opposed to making it an administrative element. Ms. McDonough said the language should reflect not just slope impact, but overall neighborhood access issues, adjacent property ownership impact, etc. Those kinds of staging impacts should be considered as well. Mr. Pace said they were trying to protect the undevelopable and hopefully undisturbed hillside. If someone got a permit from the City to construct and pile their materials in the street that would presumably be ok. Mr. Wheelwright said the current permitting process does not necessarily tell you where the excavator would be putting the excavated material. Ms. McDonough said they were asking for a staging plan. Mr. Wheelwright said there would be a plan approved by the Planning Director before it came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Chambless asked if the property owner could take the case to the Board of Adjustments and argue for a variance because of a hardship. Mr. Wheelwright said no. There are limited, specific matters that the Board of Adjustment is empowered to 40 consider on new lots. Mr. Pace suggested the following modified language for the new Item D: "The applicant must present a construction plan acceptable to the Planning Director, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas." Mr. Wheelwright said the words "adjacent properties" could also be added. Mr. Pace said almost any neighbor could come in and say it was impacting their property. What you want to say is that you cannot pile the excavated material on adjacent properties. Motion Ms. Funk moved to adopt the language in Petition 400-03-07 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission as contained in the staff report and the June 2, 2003 memorandum from Staff to the Planning Commission, with the adjustments that have been made to that language at this meeting, and the inclusion of another requirement regarding construction management. Ms. Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Prescott seconded the motion. Ms. Funk, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Scott, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye". Ms. Arnold voted "Nay". Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 June 11, 2003 • Amendment to Section 18.28.30.B.11 c. of the Site Development Ordinance as Modified by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2003 c.1 Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. c.2 For independently owned parcels that do not meet the minimum project size for a planned development, the Planning Commission may count slopes over 30% toward meeting the minimum zoning required lot area of the underlying zone where the Planning Commission finds that: a. The parcel fronts on an existing dedicated public street, b. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10 foot minimum setback or 20 foot average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, c. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street, d. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the Planning IIIDirector, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope area and, e. The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole. The hearing ended at 7:26 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 June 11, 2003 • • 7. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street IIIWednesday,June 11, 2003,at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1- APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, May 28,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Pinecreek Properties, LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for existing signs and landscaping,which were previously allowed under lease to Oceans Restaurant,on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle(approximately 4800 South)in Murray City, Utah. b. Wasatch Front Bar&Grill and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a lease agreement for overflow and emergency parking;and a dumpster,located on Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property located at 900 East Van Winkle(approximately 4800 South)in Murray City,Utah. There has been a similar least in the past to Oceans Restaurant at the same location. c. Utah Power and Light/PacifiCorp.and Salt lake City Public Utilities—This is a request for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities to issue a standard utility permit for a new buried electric power line to be installed under the East Jordan Canal Extension Right-of-way, located at 7200 South 1300 East in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 4. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES Presentation by Sharen Hauri of Swaner Design on the Salt Lake County Shorelands Plan. The project is a partnership between Envision Utah, Utah Mitigation Commission and Salt Lake County,with financial support from Chevron and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (Staff-Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:15 p.m.—Continuation of Petition No.410-586,by Total Property Asset Management, requesting a planned development subdivision approval to create a pad lot at 464 S.600 East as part of the Family Center(Fred Meyer) planned development. This is a request to modify the previous planned development(Petition No.410-135)to incorporate the McHenry home site(11,730 square foot pad site). This planned development includes a request for modification of zoning ordinance standards. Ordinance modifications are reduction of the front yard landscaping and setback requirements,front yard parking and a change of grade in excess of two feet at the property line. This property is in a Commercial"CS"Zoning District and in the Central Community Historic Overlay District. (Staff-Everett Joyce at 535-7930) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.410-635 by Qwest Corporation,requesting Conditional Use approval to install a ground mounted communications equipment cabinet at 2030 So. Foothill Drive. The property is located in a Single Family Residential R-1-7000 zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-05 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports,requesting the Planning Commission declare as surplus property,approximately 620 acres of land located between 6300 and 7400 West,between 1300 and 2700 North and exchange it for a 116 acre parcel of land at approximately 2252 North,3200 West. The Airport property is in Salt Lake City and is zoned Open Space(OS)/Lowland Conservancy(LC). The property located at 2252 North 3200 West is in unincorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS fr nt� ued ifit fission fi eittf Wti by t Sa f ak• t I is ng a o, f ��e " A= - ./�rw,a, ,1 ., . .,;t;aaT- sac s .�4 ✓,-sty b,�* ,� ,,,y r-� -.d..e 3,. equesting an' mend[»ent.#o- Sl _ k �ty;Site Deve o nden a l• b Zorn f +! ee. F discrepancyy etween'aectio , o283Q. c;Developa e ea>Li"ita ion o , t e a elO• . a ,Te 54 5t�E2 ni -Pan a eVero n elittri lr di_a t� x= karI . ,;_, 11 ,W ,.,.�s,?' cmq n s .oo h lA9-,113 s e c s a Ra a 3 v Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a 0 disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE-801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 ro on,r� nc • 1• 1168 Win',(11, a --- )40AS a)elS II/nog IS6 uotstnia 2mumeld,Qi7 al-el lies 1. Fill out registration card and imlicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you wit address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils wilt present their comments al the beginning of the hearing. 3. Speakers will be called by the Chair- 4. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 5. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Conwnission members may have questions for the speaker_ Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees- 6. A time limit may be placed on speakers to ensure everyone has a chance to comment The Chair will make that determination upon reviewing the number of people wishing to speak. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item Extraneous and repetitive comments shook]be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their • previous comments at this lime- 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion wit be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff tinder unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10.Meeting notices are made available 14 days in advance. If persons wish to submit written continents,they should be directed to the Planning Division at least 7 days in advance to enable Planning Commissioners to consider those written comments. Comments should be sent to: Sat Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street, Room 406 Sic,UT 84111 Note:We comply with et AEA gvidvtin.^s. s^.suet::..listening dcv«s S orercter services provided upon 24 hour advance request. '; [erl�nu'rl;fn rmrrn!'�r:nl'n1lrr l�;u!'rrr�rrlu�n�� _n'; T{-s I)-7Wtr'9•1t r{'a)-h/ 1 II ONIIIYaH aDI.LON ha hx�Y1 ��-S A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE SAL ��`Q� tl C. IJ�O.S l'��- 111Y�11{1�O*�1e\� �►��d.oca® .�-y R O S S C. A N D E R S O N PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR May 13, 2003 Dear Community Council Chairpersons: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated Petition 400-03-07 to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance, Section 18.28.30.B.11.c. and Zoning Ordinance, Table 21A.54.150E2. relating to foothill development, (see previous letters dated March 14, 2003 and April 14, 2003). On Tuesday, April 29, 2003 an open house was held and comments from community council members and residents were received and discussed resulting in several options that will be discussed and acted on at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. • The Planning Commission public hearing will be held on: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City and County Building 451 So. State Street Room # 326 Please direct any questions you may have concerning this request to Ray McCandless at 535-7282, Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street Room 406, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. To request accommodations; please call 535-7757 at least 48 hours prior to the hearing. Ill 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: BO1-535-6174 ��i .cc.a co P.,PeA • {01%K �«< .„,.:•,1'.L i`Y-'l�_£. Nnliil�iLuli: ,fl:u{Ir.Ilnnililn;nlii:Iil+u:II:�1I'I ��'� 1. f. NOTICE OF HEARING • Salt Lake City Planning Division 1 Attn.RM Q l 451 South State Street,Room 406 1 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 I Q 2013 '�I ''.: I�':ft ING DIVISION' Arru."3RE^� w.c02 y Si 5. ST-n- Q,-i Yc6 A.LOUIS ZUNG UZE SARI i MSL 1 v R (C.�� iPO.iR ATIO,f ROSS C.AN DERSON • r/' ISCI.LDY COMMUNITYNT AND ECONOMICJ DEVELOPMENT "AV""AV" BRENT B B..WILDE D ZONING DIVISION DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP To: Salt Lake City Community Council Chairpersons From: Ray McCandless,Salt I,ake City Planning Division Re: Proposed Revision to the Site Development Ordinance Date: April 14,2003 On March 14,2003, a letter was mailed to Community Council chairpersons requesting input on Petition No.400-03-07,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance relating to foothill development.The letter requested that community councils respond by March 31,2003,however,no responses were received. the request included a letter from the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office outlining the issue • with a recommendation on how to resolve it (see attached letter dated January 15,2003 mailed earlier). During the comment period,however,the Planning Staff came up with a second option. Because it was not included with the March 14, 2003 letter, the City Council staff requested that the Planning Division hold an open house to address noticing requirements and give people an opportunity to discuss the issue with the Planning Staff. The cuiTent options arc included with this letter.Please be aware,that other options may develop as the issue is forwarded through the Planning Commission and City Council processes. This item will be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing some time in the future. Please check your Planning Commission agendas for the time,date and place. The open house will be held: Tuesday,April 29,2003,from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street,Room 126 Salt Lake City,Utah Please contact Ray McCandless or Doug Wheelwright at 535-7757 if you have any questions. • Thank You. 4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 40S,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 64111 TELEPHONE:r301 S335•7777 FAX.UO1 535 61 l4 • SALT LAKE CITY FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OPTIONS: Option 1 - City Attorney's Office Recommendation Amend Section 18.28.30.B.1 1.c of the Site Development Ordinance as Follows: c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission Option 2 - Planning Staff Alternative Amend Table 21A.54.150E2. of the Zoning Ordinance so that the minimum lot area • for a planned development matches the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts as follows: Table 21A.54.150E2 (Partial Table) District Minimum Planned Development Size, Residential Districts FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential 5 acres 43,560 sq. ft. District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 21,780 sq.ft. FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 5 acres 12,000 sq. ft. FP Foothills Protection District 32 acres 16 acres • s' ` 'I ;gsvg(c%nom oNi R o L AW DEPARTMENT van .car�*�..A�• EOW17 P.RUTA N II January IS,2003 Brent Wilde,Acting Planning,Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 8411 I Re: Salt Lake City Foothill Development Ordinances Dear Brent: The propose of this letter is to address a legal issue in the City's site development and zoning ordinances. As you are aware,the City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in faChapter 18.28 of the Sall lake City Code. Since 1994,that site development ordinance has prohibited construction in foothill areas on property which has a slope in excess of 30 percent. The site development ordinance refers to this steep slope property as"undevelopable area." In March 2001,the City amended the site development ordinance to make various changes. One of the changes provided that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission throuehthe plan development reviewp.rocess." (See section I8.28.30.B.I I.c, emphasis added.) The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. (See Table at section 2IA.54.I50_F.2. The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not he included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to he able to obtain planned development approval. As you are aware,the Salt Lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes,but it would be very unusual to find a five-acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas. As you are also aware,there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build,but which are significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development. Thus,the application of these two ordinances,in their present form,could deny a property owner the • SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM SOS,SALT LAKE CITY,UT BAI 11 TLEPHONE: 001 776E TAX: 1,101-S3S,S413 ability to develop foothill property,not because it is too steep or too small to build upon,but \ because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas,unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). This issue was discussed with the Planning Commission in November 2002. In response to that discussion,the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances. While that petition is being processed,I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval,as follows: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commmission.through-the-ptanned development resvew ass: In this manner,the development of foothill properties will still be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission,but would not be prohibited by the requirements for planned developments_ By so doing,the City can still maintain appropriate review of foothill development,without creating a risk of an unconstitutional taking. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please let me know. Sincerely yours, yam H. ace LHP/ns cc: Cindy Gust-Jensen A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE SARI S_a� v, TJX(mgrromitcNT ROSS C. ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR To: Salt Lake City Community Council Chairpersons From: Ray McCandless, Salt Lake City Planning Division'Fl" Re: Proposed Revision to the Site Development Ordinance Date: March 14, 2003 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is currently reviewing Petition No. 400-03-07, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to correct a discrepancy between the City's Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance relating to foothill development. This issue surfaced during a review of a proposed foothill subdivision located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive as discussed in the attached Planning Commission meeting minutes dated November 7, 2002. The accompanying letter from the Salt Lake City Attorney's office outlines the issues and makes a recommendation for resolving the issue. Please review the letter and Planning Commission minutes and let me know if you have any concerns regarding the proposed revision. I would appreciate a written response by Monday, March 31, 2003 so that we can forward your comments to the Planning Commission. Thank You. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: 1301-535-61 74 �i Pc c.cEo P.ocA • I. the matter of Petition 400-02-12,Arta Funk moved to forward a recommendation to the ity C. ncil not to close a portion of 500 West with the findings of fact outlined in the stafLreport. Jenni -r Seelig seconded the motion. %r Findings of Fa 1. The propos would not deny access to any other near 4arcel. 2. The property w• d be transferred to the Redevelpment Agency to sell as a development site. - of the purpose of the ale is to generate revenue to construct the 200 South to 400 South..rtion of the 5 West blocks. 3. Closing the subject property t- co ry to the Master Plan policies for the areas,as identified in the Gateway Mas r• n and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate change in..opted policy. 4. Public policy does n support the closure. 'ny closure should be accompanied by a corresponding endment of the master plan. Ms.Arnold,M-Chambless,Mr.Diamond,Ms.Funk,Ms. McDo .ugh,Mr.Muir,Ms.Noda,and Ms.Seeli voted"Aye." Jeff Jonas,as chair,did not vote. The motio carried. • Mr. de clarified that the first motion was a recommendation to the May. so the Planning mmission is not the final decision maker. The second motion is a recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING-Preliminary Foothill Subdivision,requested by Amir S.Cornell,for a preliminary subdivision approval of a one-lot foothill subdivision,located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. This property is located within the Foothill Residential"FR-3" zoning district. This item was postponed. Lynn Pace,representing the City Attorney's Office,explained that this matter was postponed due to a conflict with the ordinance,and Mr.Pace was prepared to discuss solutions. He explained that the ordinance arises out of re-codification of the site development ordinance from - - March 2000. It was previously incorporated by reference. Then the City adopted a slope restrictions ordinance which was later codified in the ordinance. The site development ordinance deals with developable slopes and undevelopable slopes in excess of 30%,and that concept is integrated throughout the ordinance. Historically,people have been allowed to • include undevelopable slopes within a lot area if the area they intended to build on was Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 7,2002 developable. Mr.Wheelwright explained that the Foothill Subdivision in the past could have a buildable area • as small as 1,500 square feet located adjacent to the street. If the zone required a half acre,the steep portion of the property could be included in the lot for the lot size calculation. The change purposely made a year and a half ago did not allow the steep slope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone,a half acre is needed excluding the 30%slope or the lot cannot be approved. Mr.Pace read from Subsection C of the ordinance: "Undevelopabte area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process." He used examples explaining how the language applies. There is serious concern that this provision, applied with the planned development minimum standards,would mean that a perfectly flat buildable area could not be built on because there is not a large enough piece of ground for a planned development. He believes this could subject the City to a claim that it has taken away the value of the property. He stated that this provision in the site development ordinance as drafted is not enforceable in all settings. Either the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate a petition to amend the ordinance,and he recommended that they do so. He explained • that this petition was postponed due to this issue. Once a petition is initiated and the matter is resolved,they will return with this item at a later dale. Mr.Jonas recalled that the reason for initiating the change was to review these things,and they did not anticipate an overriding chart that required five acres. Mr.Wheelwright stated that it was a purposeful change to toughen the requirement,but it resulted in an arbitrary decision on how large the lot should be. Mr.Pace explained that,if a petition to amend the ordinance is brought forward,the Planning Commission would have a chance to look at it again. He believed there was a legal problem with the ordinance and was prepared to say that the petition postponed this evening needs to be processed notwithstanding the legal problem. Arta Funk moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to change this ordinance and for Staff to return with a recommendation as to what should be done. Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss agenda items under Other Business before • Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 7,2002 • • 8. MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING STAFF • • 8. A. MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE MAY 28, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Message Page I of 3 Castro,Kathy • From: McCandless,Ray Sent: Tuesday,May 27,2003 3:15 PM To: Castro,Kathy Subject: RN:Perry's Hollow Resident's opposition to petition 400-03-7 Categories:Program/Policy Kathy, Would you please forward this to the Planning Commissioners Thanks. Original Message From:Dona DiSario[maitto:donadisario@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 27,2003 10:15 AM To:louis.zunguze@ci.slc.ut.us;wynnjoh@aol.com;ray.mccandtess@ci.slc.ut.us;drnielso@msn.com; dnielson@dosecc.org;sattair@saltlakebandb.corn;mortensen@science.utah.edu;mcmillenslc@hotmait.com; lynnkestle@hotmail.com;LENS1 LLMAN@utah.gov; karen.burks@attbi.com;jrncrea@attbi.com; jcattwood@aol.com;janice.jardine@ci.slc.ut.us;janetgoldsteinl4@aol.com;jackie.gasparik@ci.slc.ut.us; iz@heartslc.com;gwen.springmeyer@ci.slc.ut.us;ericjergensen@cs.com;dsawyer@aros.net; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us;ddeisley@barrick.com;chrislan@vmh.com; BRUCE@crslaw.com; forbrown3@attbi.com;macleod@curti.utah.edu;Anne.Osborn@hsc.utah.edu Subject:Perry's Hollow Resident's opposition to petition 400-03-7 The following statement was created and signed by the majority of residents of Perry's Hollow Subdivision at an open house held in the neighborhood to discuss the planning division's proposed elimination of Section 18.12.30.13.1 1 c of the Site Development Ordinance.. Many of the residents would like to speak at the public hearing tomorrow night and we arc concerned that the 30 minutes allocated for this discussion(7:00 to 7:30 pm)will not allow enough time to cover this significant issue. If more time cannot he allocated we request that the public hearing be rescheduled. We would appreciate having this statement forwarded to all Planning Commissioners. Please notify me if this is not possible and I will deliver hard copies. Signatures on the statement will be provided at the public hearing. Statement in Opposition to Petition No.400-03-7 Re:Proposed Revision of the Site Development Ordinance A. The section of the ordinance which the planning division is recommending be eliminated was not capriciously developed or approved. There was a four-year process from 1997 to 2001, involving multiple public hearings and slope workshops attended by members of the City Council,Planning Commission,and Community Councils,as well as Planning Division staff and property owner representatives. 'The City Council specifically requested that slope restrictions be implemented by ordinance.The changes currently proposed nullify the ordinance and the careful and thoughtful construction of the Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinances established by the City Council. The proposed changes would leave every decision up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. 41 B. The language in the ordinance stating, "sinless approved by the planning commission through the planned development review process" was intentional and does not create a conflict as purported by City Attorney Lynn Pace.In fact,the Planning Division staff report dated February 5/27/2003 Page 2of3.. 2000 and signed by Craig Hinckley states that the City Attorney added this very language to the amendment. According to this report the Planning Division was proposing the ordinance read that undevelopable area(over 30%slope)shall not be included in calculating minimum lot size. Ai There was no modifier to this statement until the City Attorney added the line "unless Mr specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process." In other words,it is the very language that the City Attorney added to the amendment to which he now objects. C. 'Ihe Planning Division Staff and City Attorney have been aware that it requires 5 acres for a parcel to be eligible for the planned development review process. At the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting,Mr.Wheelwright explained,"The change purposelLmade a year and a half ago did not allow the steekslope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone,a half-acre is Heeded excluding_the 30%o slope or the lot cannot be approved." D. The City Councils' choice to have exceptions to the exclusion of slopes in excess of 30% considered through the Planned Development process is intentional and makes sense under the structure of the Site Development Ordinance. The Planned Development process, with its minimum lot size requirements, allows the Planning Commission broad authority to vary from the specific requirements of the Site Development Ordinance the variations will achieve the objectives of the Site Development Ordinance. However, the Ordinance recognizes that such alternative means cannot be effectively employed, unless there is a sufficient minimum area involved in the development to be "planned." Thus, the Ordinance prohibits the Planning Commission from varying the minimum lot size requirements. This is established in the very section that grants the Planning Commission the authority to consider and adopt alternative measures and was so stated in order to ensure that the alternative measures can be effective. The reference to the planned development process in the Site Development Ordinance recognizes that variations from the general rule that areas with slopes in excess of 30% he excluded when determining if a lot meets the minimum lot size required for the zone arc proper only if there is sufficient land available to meet the objectives of that requirement through other means. For example,constntction of a house on a lot where the house consumes all of the buildable area is clearly contrary to the purpose of the restrictions established by the Site Development Ordinance for the Foothills Districts. E. Excluding parcels from the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission,thus leaving no process by which such parcels can be developed, does not constitute grounds for"a taking". Parcels that were approved_as subdivisions_before the 2001 Ordinance took effect would be exempt from the ordinance. Only parcels that had not been approved as subdivisions would be subject to the ordinance. When someone purchases a parcel of land that is not and cannot be approved as asubdivision they are knowingly taking a risk that they may_never he able to develop the proper_ty. Consecpuently. claiming a taking"is not valid. F. The history of foothills subdivision regulations has been to become more restrictive during the past 25 years. At some point the remaining foothill lands in private ownership not previously approved,as a subdivision will simply not meet the requirements for subdivision development. If the requirements are based uon sound planning principles_recognized under State law the takings issues should able to be defended. At what point will our fear of a takings • claim cause us to do away with planning and zoning ordinances altogether? G. The Planning Division's recommendation of"rezoning foothill property if appropriate to require larger lot minimums" should be studied and implemented before any considered elimination of Section 18.12.30.B.Ilc,not"in the future". H. If the Planning Commission agrees with the Planning Division and the City Attorney that the current ordinance is too restrictive,we request that the Planning Division conduct a study to reevaluate minimum setback requirements on steep slope lots. The Planning Division is reconnrnending that only 1500 sq. 11. of buildable area (excluding setbacks) be required for 5/27/2003 rage 3 of 3 subdivision approval. The current setback requirement of 10' with a 20' average is not an adequate amount of space to allow construction of a home without significantly disturbing undevelopable land. Alternatively the minimum buildable area could be increased to a more reasonable size. When the objective is to protect slopes greater 30%, 1500 sq. ft of buildable area with the current setback of 10' with a 20' average will not achieve the goal. I. We are disappointed that after a lengthy open house discussion held by the Planning Division and attended by many of the community leaders that were involved in the genesis of this ordinance, including two former Planning Commissioners, several Community Council Chairs, and residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision, none of the suggestions involving this ordinance were considered. The Planning Division has chosen to recommend eliminating this ordinance in spite hearing from every participant of the open house that no one favored any weakening of the ordinance. This type of action is what discourages citizens from taking the time to participate in future civic dialogue. Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. S • 5/27/2003 The following residents of the Perry's Hollow and Sugarloaf subdivisions oppose petition • number 400-03.07 and support the attached statement May 26,2003 � vc 3� 2 ,r �� ��cc . i- f,_. �, i. L/i // . Ocyt,,,,e, c.�, c. c,r 03. I jii,n-E -I 50,rn i n G✓/`/ uikA4.---- Lb hi ILJ(A I c„cJ l/v (-0 L 3)rii-V i .SLc!, L T $1-//03 J- O✓'1'(/''/v ` :7-771 kr2 L7 ))""R'� c(-li-z" J / / %f0/ /6,/lam ' (_, Sc.(-1 , 0-r- 5'//n 3 -l1,.'e,ts V FJ161,F,€ IVLE 56'0l ALT /ociL ,,,khFi,v,,, j1,1/Lc_ . r Ck.Y ) �l��� f_ , (4_%r- XCti Lk-(.i f\ ; ltt- , Y`!(0 � �Cn Je�L, tc, r ki I, (2 ) 12)(/ 1 Dr _ )t(-i,-- - S, L ,C, ,ct1, (1(a3 ( I a C. PH-- C iDe,h0roil tcQ 1)- 1(1tc LfztclaNI i 7 7 n/ Pcn11e11II( br' 41) r'zht4 Ct 0-et.t-(it- tom. ' -'5(C-. ( -4 I i 3 CLa*6: ieck.y..1-zt.i aza,[44. - _ 0490_,L-: ?e2, I „ ,, ( 1 b(,.,>f,-1,,tL, ,.., _ tnAO-t4(n. -. (126racti-L41 ._= c___I S, cv-4 ii:kpekt,______ - C64 C h ?(,-- e, Cji71017-P pfry A -An/7(9(04 Ir— /. /4 /1 K0A-e-e-- (/' -a- - ,U • Z 3-, ,3___c L, 7- - vyos '' 7%o 4A,-,,,/,.e, scc a-r- io3 . , . -------- . ii& ' ' DA,. )cet.\-1- ,,ri (1,titAtar C (,,i-(--0,_t\ Opt/03 {<qv - ,i-. ()WCS -1 -i(I _{ i >oNA I' 74-Mvtc5 7(; ,1C iogl K . No4 zeiviev► iv Dr - i 0, oaf wz-u, SL c. 8y(o3 (Y-L- '6 - s-= — 05,21o10-tS asp v c_\ickjvIc,A1Q- cit-ve_ +t).Q___ a (12.6z,V • Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-7 Re: Proposed Revision of the Site Development Ordinance A. The section of the ordinance which the planning division is recommending be eliminated was not capriciously developed or approved. There was a four-year process from 1997 to 2001, involving multiple public hearings and slope workshops attended by members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Community Councils, as well as Planning Division staff and property owner representatives. The City Council specifically requested that slope restrictions be implemented by ordinance. The changes currently proposed nullify the ordinance and the careful and thoughtful construction of the Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinances established by the City Council. The proposed changes would leave every decision up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. B. The language in the ordinance stating, "unless approved by the planning commission through the planned development review process" was intentional and does not create a conflict as purported by City Attorney Lynn Pace. In fact, the Planning Division staff report dated February 2000 and signed by Craig Hinckley states that the City Attorney added this very language to the amendment. According to this report the Planning Division was proposing the ordinance read that undevelopable area (over 30% slope) shall not be included in calculating minimum lot size. There was no modifier to this statement until the City Attorney added the line "unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process." In other words, it is the very language • that the City Attorney added to the amendment to which he now objects. C. The Planning Division Staff and City Attorney have been aware that it requires 5 acres for a parcel to be eligible for the planned development review process. At the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Wheelwright explained, "The change purposely made a year and a half ago did not allow the steep slope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone, a half-acre is needed excluding the 30% slope or the lot cannot be approved." D. The City Councils' choice to have exceptions to the exclusion of slopes in excess of 30% considered through the Planned Development process is intentional and makes sense under the structure of the Site Development Ordinance. The Planned Development process, with its minimum lot size requirements, allows the Planning Commission broad authority to vary from the specific requirements of the Site Development Ordinance if the variations will achieve the objectives of the Site Development Ordinance. However, the Ordinance recognizes that such alternative means cannot be effectively employed, unless there is a sufficient minimum area involved in the development to be "planned." Thus, the Ordinance prohibits the Planning Commission from varying the minimum lot size requirements. This is established in the very section that grants the Planning Commission the authority to consider and adopt alternative measures and was so stated in order to ensure that the alternative measures can be effective. The reference to the planned development process in the Site Development Ordinance recognizes that variations from the general rule that areas with slopes in excess of • 30% be excluded when determining if a lot meets the minimum lot size required for the zone are proper only if there is sufficient land available to meet the objectives of that requirement through other means. For example, construction of • a house on a lot where the house consumes all of the buildable area is clearly contrary to the purpose of the restrictions established by the Site Development Ordinance for the Foothills Districts. E. Excluding parcels from the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission, thus leaving no process by which such parcels can be developed, does not constitute grounds for "a taking". Parcels that were approved as subdivisions before the 2001 Ordinance took effect would be exempt from the ordinance. Only parcels that had not been approved as subdivisions would be subject to the ordinance. When someone purchases a parcel of land that is not and cannot be approved as a subdivision they are knowingly taking a risk that they may never be able to develop the property. Consequently claiming "a taking" is not valid. F. The history of foothills subdivision regulations has been to become more restrictive during the past 25 years. At some point the remaining foothill lands in private ownership not previously approved, as a subdivision will simply not meet the requirements for subdivision development. If the requirements are based upon sound planning principles recognized under State law the takings issues should be able to be defended. At what point will our fear of a takings claim cause us to do away with planning_and zoning ordinances altogether? G. The Planning Division's recommendation of "rezoning foothill property if appropriate to require larger lot minimums" should be studied and implemented before any considered elimination of Section 18.12.30.B.11c, not "in the future". • H. If the Planning Commission agrees with the Planning Division and the City Attorney that the current ordinance is too restrictive, we request that the Planning Division conduct a study to reevaluate minimum setback requirements on steep slope lots. The Planning Division is recommending that only 1500 sq. ft. of buildable area (excluding setbacks) be required for subdivision approval. The current setback requirement of 10' with a 20' average is not an adequate amount of space to allow construction of a home without significantly disturbing undevelopable land. Alternatively the minimum buildable area could be increased to a more reasonable size. When the objective is to protect slopes greater 30%, 1500 sq. ft of buildable area with the current setback of 10' with a 20' average will not achieve the goal. I. We are disappointed that after a lengthy open house discussion held by the Planning Division and attended by many of the community leaders that were involved in the genesis of this ordinance, including two former Planning Commissioners, several Community Council Chairs, and residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision, none of the suggestions involving this ordinance were considered. The Planning- Division has chosen to recommend eliminating this ordinance in spite hearing from every participant of the open house that no one favored any weakening of the ordinance. This type of action is what discourages citizens from taking the time to; participate in future civic dialogue. Wheelwright, Doug 1110 From: Dona DiSario [donadisario@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:44 AM To: Zunguze, Louis; wynnjoh@aol.com; Jardine, Janice; Springmeyer, Gwen; ericjergensen@cs.com; Wheelwright, Doug; ddeisley@barrick.com Subject: signatures on perry's hollow subdivision statement Neighbors have suggested to me that I should have mentioned in my e-mail yesterday that all of the families in the subdivision, except for 3 families who are out of town, support and have signed our statment in opposition to petition 400-03-07. That is 15 families out of 18 families in the neighborhood. We have not had the opportunity to speak with the 3 out of town families. We will bring the signatures to the meeting tonight. If there is any reason that you would like to have hard copies of the statement or signatures before the meeting I would be happy to bring them to your offices today. • • 5/28/2003 PETITION TO SALT LAKE CITY 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION After reviewing the lot information and visiting the site of 1085 East North Bonneville Drive (house under construction) we, the residents of North Bonneville Drive, Saddle Hill Drive, and Northland Drive conclude that there is no difference between the size and elevation of 1085 East and 1099 East North Bonneville Drive lots. We believe the Salt Lake City Planning Department followed the inspection rules and regulations in issuing a permit to 1085 East North Bonneville Drive to Mr. Amir Cornell. We are urging the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to allow him to finish his house. We have seen a computer image of the completed house which is attractive and in keeping with the neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Y Ov`,-, e • Gr.,,IC,--, f 61 3 N 41, ►. �VC_ 5 3 _ 0 s i 7 3A-c A, -. C C U-0, i 10 , 0 tJ , lj o K e v. (GI -0 R . 1 3 "L 8 -- c4 3 3 S XYC !4O 5214//C'i ',P,4-5'r -#91/r 4i /Y/W- C drw1A co()N o -mod-U K7 s7'7 , tp31;i-t- D,,v, `la 7 2/ 14/m 'ov;14 - --- 3 4 q li N o� �cu- : lei{ 6'9)2 fia-t) I (iNtift-Z- A -} U l V 72 T l 3-L� ►CD T /0/2,?t-2/ i %od�- C.,'Jo7--l7-1 734-14Af 't LLB j>i`?-, 41-e -i00 D - f,5 Viaitay `, &low PoA fte--/ WO-,V-1 `i 3-6 —2 2 s' 4 ., v ,'t._ 9.5o -.Ko - f -A-�Ilut--T- ��Z:_) - 040 -tre or b -X Oa H. I `7 f 22 )or`14n1e.c, ,d --3),(;t e 3Sq-BOO ff c.7 ,f saddle_ T< (( R d .Tovik_ �z� -�� 7 '' � �31- �j4s/d 1/hr Mu /uI /' (3eiddi-e 3,7Y , 153/- T 39€ec4 j) 1,e,/ -71 `f iv NlvL" L(x- DAL S'�GI S3Z 9-7 U ;� S I /O o /v u .v n v 1/. /1-tc . ,'3 y .5 f - - „/„..;,, --- .---Pf2_ if)c.7-,A 10-E -- 0 !,52_ ,,,,,,,fantz,:nc- iv: ' 2Db (.0 - ciA., v7 0-ar e1 i .,2 v -35-1 - 067 3 Name Address Phone Number ;Phone s/-A(43 (0-aAq))a 6,77 tip, ti14,171la-,114 3(03-qi07)410 f/2466 l' '6/e 697A)Akm/ B/y /V�zrydiFzcJ SZ l z 305 fig a rfi�e� 41-(A)PiA-1, 3, <7..SS3 • • i _ it WI4. ----1 \_ i -' f r 5 _ I ,_- L [!- f ;,_ /ice" __J'is I '_ }✓� r� --- C. . 4 -----------__ , _i ,___,,)..c:,*p:1,:.:,_-;,-)i.' 7>./ y' :• ,' ■ -- t � yyl ----_ - U 1 I 1 a _ . . .. , . =---II i _ I ;."T-7 .-------....--' .:,_._ _ •. - -- - - ". ,A,.: , , 1 !••... . fii:,. - t• ., _.__ •• ... .,...-',-i . . ..1 PI ;:-"!----• , A •ir-- . _i—; ., .---. Ili,1,1 ': ., . :.-sirT; •,,-2:t.---'' i • .- . - ,:;- - : i • . - ,_ _ -1\.\„ z i il '::: • '•1.1-. .' -- -. — 4' • • ' 1.4.- ,_ •. riiii.1.1 Oh r510 -i,1411a111?itiani,1741601 5 \, -ii ill .„.,_ ,_ "•,,t,,75.. --,41 1!: -,A.-- -,•-"..„ -•:, :-, ",,.•.',.`A I I 4:°. li,r,-"....-.1 ,. .B =4 t : - ,,--.7 r,.:.-,t..2"-::',.., ,-..=.:;,<*--,,--.•'--:'._f::!,-.: :. f,„• • - • -.----,-_,,.. -.:„.v..„.-,.-;•„•.•:„,•_,,,,,_.,•,_„„;.1.. .. -•",---,-,---,,,,,,,_-,,,,,,A...-44, . -. . • . _-,_-,._,...4„,„,-.:-._,,,A.p.--;•,v,•••,...,....----4.=1-"- , '4,-,-.'••••'A"..'.!1• — -' - ='-''''W-!=,"t--=,',---',1-.S-•=,}A.,-;=--,X1:-%tie,'- '''' ' fill 1, ., • . ' rgf-lit ‘ ,--- =if, j. . i. ,1,h,!. . , -,,,-, • . , if tiltleril - _ 4.P.; • ,,..i. . . .,._I,‘%4.----1-,.„-- _1,--.-3,.2:7_70,..:--,3_,;.1. ;,----.--_,J _-,..,-„.„.-----.-15.-..--4.., ---...,,,4,-;: -..--,-.---'! -6*-••• • "-- -, " •, #.7'...g, __ 4 II• - ' ?.•',1"4: ' .. .' I''''"- • ''•-•V.3• ( - *:-.4..?-- .....brt.',4,-, k.,., _,_, • .,. - ... ' ,1"---- a - ----- ,.';, - - ," - - -..,,,,1-4,;:,,i ::- ,0:,..,,-.17.004--', • • 4,--S' •'--A - - ------, ,,...-,,,,,.-.r,.. _; - 1-,--=';'-A,-- ' :. --', jvil•-•;- ,,•,:::i.„5,,,,a,-kg-',-.▪ 5.,40- ..v.,:f,.."-.3.v:tifF4-'1'4 ,t7t4,:•,-..w,,,,,,.4 ' ---E!.--_;,----...---, ,E.g 4100 '' A;-,--',.... --- ••.:;"---,-,:ii„-i,-•-•,-_,--,„-v- -.44,",i-,,lvw_._,,,,-;...... .. ,,5,„:.,.., tc.,-.- --.J/0-- - •,....'(:::-:_ /: : _ r-1-1-; '• ItkilMr1.014h,:k,-,i!lkLA --5.'''' • - •--.4-'-':::i-5 ---11-13,14-1C..4.k.'Y'!::',; ' ''4.W 4%-----• • --'4.-,r,%.:. . 'ill.mIN-,-t-,- 7-4,-'-' ii. q 41 Ahllin i I a 41 ..-_:.:::'-,..-"=_:;--1▪ -4144'-.!',Wt:'••=:*,4.*:,. .i; ...P4.Z.Lki$, °,,,,,:kr.-- ,-,n.-td-rx. "- ''',-,:.'<-•• ',4fo4iyi ,0,4i„.-.3,01,;,d,. ....., . _ .,..",--.:,.„.-.. ,,--..,..,....-- —., .-,,..,,,,,. ' • :-'_;;;,21-3,t,t-----..:;...,.;ft---f*r.40';.11 -4;3i ,.**,,-,,t,-•104.7-1- '.,!..?,.,;,..-,..';';',,,c. . ililli3O 1‘ 151 11.1) Ila ..,' ... . . 0 4"e — ral 1 I 1lk 1 ; ,174 • 11-'''„:,V1k-f,ii ';'.'-',;.;•-:-.''...,--':."-:--,.:- :-_,I. , tillillt, . ILK .,ti-OrOtel ..."•••••,,,."..";:i - .,r,,..,, —f,,, A.41:aq.-4i -,-.,-;.':-431-;,r _ 1111111I itilrA;ir ' F.3. ---------------- , -,:m.---45.-. ..,-.A---,,_'...-1,--,-- , ,-..,•-„-.. ----, -,...mw-i.., ,-- --_ ,---,•,,,..r,4.,..7,-;.•,,..A -;,--',4-,.-,...4-.-.=.0',;- •,,-,ay-,,,,V*- ,- 'ftl 7*-''' '..i.f':,--,-.---''. '''':-:i.-- :. '6NIAtt.111.1)1 ;trt'4 ''''11 'fL r. .,- •-'-'`:--:-.':741-‘,-I'4.-.i.z'.4.7,5'`.. :-,,, ,21,4f,--,..k--.. '?,,/,,'-<-1P. ,'„, -.' '' 11.4;f, •-.2p1.,t,m. „,J,,:;13.,#It--.1,-,...,. - ,,?..4.:ii-,15.-7,?';''... Ls: ,, .._, .;.':-,:a'A-'..,;.,-- .'. t..TP;-_---•-:!:,`---A-4,1,6,-.' :•••4„,••••4: -„.,. Oil'.,5:-. --',.-e•:-..-'.5-4•--_siNgt:- --'",•;.'-'•"•C';.'"‘-...",•- .. .-'-'104.17,niia ".--:::"'"' ..." '" • . .1".• ••.,,,,'''• . 4 .. vy..., t'''''-'-cct 75.1,-.1,itj'.1.'••• .Y"'- ' ' .. ' Aelitrigiv- ruriii.:4-,01,111-goillisigil—Trpit ,11,1111.1.1 i';11ohlilItifillua§ .-_- 5tAti7,..ikatft:;. 4 -- ''.:-.::... -:-' ii‘togivr•liti t 1.1.mri iiiii,..414,gir,16 ii,...lik . -,e,-,„--,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,4„,4,-;.,,,,,,,......34:,.., . - -""...;' ' 41iiini;sl. „-,civ ..., " ..-.-...,..T._4,0.1-r4,,,,,,-;-..-7.--.A--t, • ,'--:- ..!--, . ''''" ..,-.---'• -- -• ,"--,,,--xi..-4-,v,i,-,d-,,,&_,--„,--,s-,.1, • ji.k.,--F*1.-',K.",!..‘•"1--1'3--,,,, -,-;•-i-:• . •••• •1',''7:•,'".--7-, ' •' '',".".,-.47:-.1•',.50.,„:‘,"-?: &,,,..,••4.,..;•,..„.1"..-..-1,"-q..1,-",--;.-k,--:-.:"••,:i: ;j..1' '.?„...y.-.1 :'-.`:''' ; ..i- ,-: : .-.,: ,. s,-.--5.P.-:-.,'-=,,-, -a --.- - ''''' ''-'-'''• .- - . AI --elsgsW4r .-.-r--:•- -: - .i.7.-!,--\..-; .=-":.„,,,L4,- ...+' . --.- ,,,,,i.fe.-,:•-'4_•: ;:•,,'-'• '4--. ,-,..„-rni.14.:ii••;_r•'''-' - - "--_,-'7-:::-4.tW„..'?'it-,%•-t, r,t't**,.,•11-1T-Ii.t'..-;"'-'-i---::-k.-;--- ---; • ,. '-.•, - 1 '.,_.?,-,:. ._-!,.•.. ..... i 1-1''''. f.,-- - • '--,- 11',..:1:0?---,:--"K.'-;:=.,-- .:1.=-..'-':-5--•:',-,.,..- . '• i -:-. . , . “Tic,4 -4 ...:,,..-.- -- -".-- :-.,...-.: -, -::''.---'.-.-- . .,,,--- -- .,..>"--',.-tF.,,..,..v,,,y,..;-.-..:. '..:'-'-'-`..f*.:-±',-&--'-,?::;.- f-i.',t_-_:-1ii.11;4.:1". : ' •.,. ../7 ...,.'..c',-- ,. ,.i,..: 1 - --- ---: --- -.1if,,-:.4,4-=.:-. :.--:- ...-:::'•.1.-?:4-1-71„,- ..1,:V.I.'-f- -,..,:‘,...Y.;-,=,...x,. ...:.-,:.:,....,::;.;,;:'-_-:_r-,:_FF,-f_,: . : • .-,-.--,-',..'.2::-i- - '.-s 1 - ....--:-. _._. .,NF-t-,!A,...-i.:*-:,_._..,- . •-_.:2--..-:*.wia.-:,,,f,-- .017.tim, --_,-,-;,--,,,,-.:;.-,--.,,--,--;-.,...--.-,--,-.--,, ., - L---,--:-:-.:-,i---..! -_- -1. .,,,,„ --• : . ,..x--;=,.:.=.'-x.-,,-‘,,,,,..'. -.-:.- ,.:.--.- -..,-..,-<!-‘4--:.1-.e.,r-1.,7- 4\11, 14-,,.,;..-,:,.--,J.--.-,n1.::,:,-:',.E•.•:s-.:t-4-,. . , . _ . _ t--.--_-: . • -• --,,-,{.-..1,,--,,,,,,,„: ,_ . ix,-,,,.•.;„.,i,,,..-:,-.-,A;,--_,,.__-•(..;.:,:-.•,_,:r:,-___,,-,,,,,;4. ; ;i--5. i. --- -: J Ov.,,--„,:zi':-•:::±:;,-;-;,-,.:1.;.,---..:-_wr',--,-,,,L-.;,-„ :itirit,r,". ..'f-31-'..,:A-i.V. .--;7"-g---' ci "! '-,'''- ::‘-=-2.-.--.,::::4 -...,_ ,, . - -'• -:!..-.,\,-.;_,-..-:.• • 4i3f-- :::-•=2;•,,,,4.--z---';,-„,.-,..-- ,.,..,..,-.T -...v.1,,,, . - ,.-.:•,-•,-.-,-...,..:-..,.-,,, • - . . .. .::,..:-..„,-„;-., , . .--ii-i'..-::::;7•-ti•:,-;:_'t-.,- --,,:_-:-...V_,-.4%,.. • •--,: -A...--,,,:.i.-;-_,.--...--,,,,,,,-„?•___,,,-,•---„,.- --4,,.,--:.c!I.. -. : _E,-.:- --,_ ,..- ...-. . _.;..-._•,,,,,,,It:-.,.,-.., t-15w.:;:.,_4;:,-,,-„,.,-,,:,..-5:i.,:::--,.•-__-,Le.---.-,-.,,-.--f--,*-...,,,• ' •- -,-.-.-0,-;-,--z-,,,,,,,., - • f-,•* , ,:-,--,----,--_:_..---.-f-',.---.-i•-,_,.!-,..,,,__-,!-.Ks. . , —TII .. .,.._, --- - -- :-•••••-•44.----- . . . - - xvi---- ----- - -, -; . .... . ...._ . . • ... , . . . ., .... . _ _ ..• __,•- - . .. „ . . ... . . • _ _ -„. ,..- - Ffl i-,xt)vi:,, ,;.,-.q.-_-,-.-1... -..-.fr.,-.„.•_-_,,, ,,--__;.:-., -i-_,,,;;,-"•-•;:--",_ii • :. . - "..- 'I'_.. --- __ ' ' ' --- • .T.M-4,'-_,..,:;_2:,---_-_,?.„:-.;-..-i-:.•-_-y--„-,_.--_,..,-,-_,---..4-,i-r-_-,,,-,---,-4-.1. -., • . . Message Page 1 of 3 Castro, Kathy • From: McCandless, Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:09 PM To: Castro, Kathy Subject: Site Development Ordinance Notes from the April 29, 2003 Open House Categories: Program/Policy Kathy, would you please e-mail or fax this to the Planning Commissioners. Thanks. Original Message From: Jardine, Janice Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:36 AM To: Jergensen, Eric; Buhler, Dave; Lambert, Dale Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Aramaki, Jan; Nielson, Janne; Jones, Sylvia Subject: Planning Open House re: site development/zoning ordinances changes Hi Everyone, IPI just wanted to provide a summary of my notes from the open house relating to site development and zoning ordinance changes for foothill development sponsored by the Planning Division Tuesday, April 29th. A. Background information: 1. The Site Development Ordinance does not allow un-developable property (property with 30% slope or more)to be used as part of the minimum lot size required in a zoning district unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 5-acres for planned developments in foothill districts. 3. Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office has indicated the net effect of the two existing provisions is that: • Foothill property with a slope in excess of 30% may not be used to calculate minimum lot size unless the property owner owns enough property to meet the minimum 5-acre requirement for planned developments. ■ The application of the two ordinances would deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property because they may not have the 5-acre minimum. • This conflict creates the potential for a takings claim against the City. B. Additional information attached: 1. Information from the Planning staff mailed prior to the meeting . • 2. A list of meeting participants 5/28/2003 C. Open house discussion items focused on: 1. Site specific issues relating the property in District 3 located at 1085 E. North Bonneville Drive owned by Amir Cornell. • 2. Legal implications regarding the conflict between existing language in the Site Development and Zoning Ordinances relating to foothill developments. 3. The need to provide property owners an escape or opportunity for relief from the City's requirements. 4. The need to identify the number and location of properties affected by existing ordinance requirements. • Evaluate the potential cost to the City relating to legal and/or acquisition costs. • It may not be necessary to change the ordinances because the Cornell property may be the • only property that is affected by the existing ordinance language. • The City could consider acquiring the properties through assistance from non-profit conservation groups such as the Trust for Public Lands or Audubon Society and state or federal government funding sources. 5. Options discussed: • City attorney's recommendation (see attached document) • Allow un-developable property to be included in lot size calculation based on approval by the Planning Commission. (Removes language requiring the planned . development process.) • Planning staff recommendation (see attached document) • Reduce the minimum lot area for a planned development to match the minimum lot area requirement in each of the foothill zoning districts. (For example, in the FR- 3/12,000 district the minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. With this proposal, the planned development size would be reduced from 5 acres to 12,000 sq. ft.) • Add standards/criteria to the attorney's recommendation that would provide the Planning Commission objective criteria on which to base their decision. • Provide a rational, objective basis for reducing the planned development minimum acreage recommended by Planning staff or any future adjustment of the staff's recommendation. • It was noted that there may be a need to adjust the required planned development size but, there should be an objective evaluation and rational basis to support whatever that figure may be. • Need to reevaluate the planned develop acreage requirements comprehensively for all other zoning districts. • It was noted that it does not appear equitable to address only the foothill zones and not the other residential, commercial, institWtional zones, etc. • Research 'best practices', other cities requirements and professional planning literature for . models or alternative processes for dealing with slope and planned development issues. 5/28/2003 Message rage 3 of 3 • Do not change the existing ordinance language and create a process to deal with exceptions. Depending upon the results of an inventory and evaluation of properties affected by the existing ordinance requirements: • • Consider not changing the existing ordinances. • Notify affected property owners that development potential would be eliminated. • Establish a process for a case-by-case evaluation and exemption. The affected property owners could present information and identify reasons why their property should be exempt from the existing requirements and allowed to be developed. 111 • 5/28/2003 Wheelwright, Doug From: WynnJoh@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:23 PM i To: eric.jergensen@slcgov.com; gwen.springmeyer@ci.slc.ut.us; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: PeterCorroon@hotmail.com;jsittner@sittner.org; rsmiley@attbi.com; lewandgrace@sisna.com Subject: Fwd: signatures on perry's hollow subdivision statement It is my belief that the campaign against changing the ordinance referred to in the attached email, led by Ms. DeSario and her attorney, is actually designed to defeat the one-lot subdivision next to her home which was passed by the Planning Commission some months ago on a vote of 7-2. As a matter of FACT there are virtually no more other vacant parcels on the North Bench of Salt Lake Ctiy which have street access that will be impacted one way or the other by the outcome of the debate regarding the ordinance itself. The argument is therefore moot as it pertains to the land included in the Greater Avenues and the Capitol Hills Communities. The debate is certainly worth continuing if there are sufficient areas yet to develop on the East Side ("H" Rock neighborhood, etc,)and my comments to not presume to influence issues there. Contrary to what some believe is Ms. DeSario's prime motive, many neighbors would like to see the house started by Mr. Cornell finished. His lot is almost identical to Ms. DeSario's lot,which was developed under a much less rigorous ordinance. The Greater Avenues Council voted to approve Mr. Cornell's proposal many months ago. We feel that a proper Community Council decision is being ignored and undermined by the "apparent" campaign against the ordinance itself. If the Planning Commission truly desires to take the"temperature" of the immediate neighborhood , a survey regarding the completion of Mr. Cordell's house should be conducted by a neutral party, and include the residents of the Sugarloaf Subdivision and the Northcrest Subdivision lying just west of the disputed one-lot subdivision. Greater Avenues Council Executive Board Wynn Johnson, Chair • cc: Peter Corroon, 2004 Chair John Sittner, Treasurer Richard Smiley, 2002 Chair Grace Wilson, Secretary • 5/28/2003 • • 8. B. MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE JUNE 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Castro, Kathy • From: Zunguze, Louis Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:02 PM To: Castro, Kathy Subject: FW: suggestion Categories: Program/Policy Kathy: Here is the other one! Louis Original Message From: Dona DiSario [mailto:donadisario@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:49 PM To: louis.zunguze@ci.slc.ut.us; ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us; drnielso@msn.com; saltair@saltlakebandb.com; mortensen@science.utah.edu; mcmillenslc@hotmail.com; jmcrea@attbi.com;janice.jardine@ci.slc.ut.us; jackie.gasparik@ci.slc.ut.us; gwen.springmeyer@ci.slc.ut.us; ericjergensen@cs.com; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us; BRUCE@crslaw.com Subject: suggestion June 3, 2003 To: Planning Division Staff(please forward to the Planning Commissioners) • I would like to share the following thoughts with the Planning Division and Planning Commission. Comments would be appreciated. If the planning commission agrees with the planning division and with the city attorney that section 18.28.30.B.11.c of the slope restrictions ordinance is too restrictive, it does not mean that we need to regress to the same standards that were in place before this ordinance was enacted. There is a middle ground that will protect our steep slopes and be a reasonable and legally defendable standard. That would be to increase the current setback (from slope > 30%)requirement of 10 feet with a 20 feet average. The current setbacks combined with the planning division's recommended requirement of only 1500 square feet of buildable area does not allow enough space to construct a home without the disruption of slopes greater than 30%. Issuing a building permit in such a situation is effectively issuing permission to violate the ordinance requiring that slopes of greater than 30%not be disturbed. When you set the parameters so close to the absolute minimum you are bound to exceed the limits. Additionally, as we know, compromises are often made and people will sometimes try to bend the rules. Strict interpretations are eased; a setback that is supposed to be ten feet is traded for other space. Backyards and patios that are not in the plans are often built. We need to leave space for realistic construction practices, and for the design of homes and yards that will be a welcome addition to a neighborhood. I request that the Planning Division conduct.a study to reevaluate and to increase the minimum setback requirements (from slopes> 30%) on steep slope lots. This should be done before and in conjunction with any consideration of eliminating or modifying any section of the slope restrictions ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Dona DiSario • 6/5/2003 ragetoft Castro, Kathy • From: Zunguze, Louis Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:01 PM To: Castro, Kathy Subject: FW: Planing Commission Hearing Categories: Program/Policy Cathy: Here it is! Louis Original Message From: Dona DiSarlo [mailto:donadisario@hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:33 PM To: louis.zunguze@ci.slc.ut.us; ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us; saltair@saltlakebandb.com;jmcrea@attbi.com; janice.jardine@ci.slc.ut.us; gwen.springmeyer@ci.sic.ut.us; ericjergensen@cs.com; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Planing Commission Hearing June 3, 2003 To: Planning Division, Mayor's Office, and City Council Office (it would be appreciated if the PD would forward this correspondence to the Planning Commissioners.) From: Dona DiSario, Karen Burks, Len Stillman, Deb Sawyer and Chris Lang I. There are several issues that we would like to raise with respect to the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission (PC)public hearing, concerning petition 400-03-7: • Adequate time was not provided for public discussion. Mr. Wheelwright sent an e-mail stating that "the planning commission will hear all the testimony prior to moving on the the next item." This e-mail will be forwarded on request. However when the session began the speaking time was limited to three minutes per person. Several citizens including Mrs. Nielson,Mr. Deisley, Mr. Stillman and Mrs. DiSario had prepared substantive statements dealing with the complex nature of the ordinances that required about six minutes each for presentation. These statements would have been organized accordingly had the three-minute limit been publicized in advance. • The public should have the opportunity to discuss whatever new proposals the Planning Division (PD) presents at the next PC meeting and these proposals should be made available in advance. The residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision and other concerned citizens came prepared to discuss the ordinances in question and the impact that proposed changes would have on future development. Instructions given in advance and at the beginning of the session were that this forum was for discussion of the ordinances and not Mr. Cornell's specific situation. Nonetheless, the focus of the discussion was allowed to shift to irrelevant details of Mr. Cornell's situation and the issues of the ordinances did not receive proper delineation. II. Below are corrections of some erroneous or misleading statements made at the hearing. Time for presentation of these corrections is requested at the next PC meetirt: • • The Appeals Board stated that there is not necessarily a conflict with the two ordinances. The decision dated April 2, 2003 (page 3,paragraph 4) states: "Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel 6/5/2003 there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances, the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making."Mr. Wheelwright erroneously stated that the Appeals Board agreed with the City Attorney and PD that there was a conflict or discrepancy in the ordinance. • On September 7, 1999 "The Council indicated that it would prefer that the slope standards be implemented by ordinance." (Chronology, Slope Interpretations Standards, pgl, File #O 01-2). • If the City Attorney is concerned that this ordinance could precipitate a "takings case" the analysis should be made under Utah law with reference to Utah Supreme Court decisions. There is ample Utah law to support public good over private property rights. III. As the discussion strayed from the ordinances to specifics of Mr. Cornell's situation the following points should be noted: • Mr. Cornell purchased this property against the recommendation of the PD staff. Mr. Cornell did not own the property at the time he initiated discussions with the PD. Jackie Gasparik recommended that he not purchase the property until he had approval from the PC to build. • Mr. Cornell purchased parcel #09-29-476-010 on August 1, 2002, 18 months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. (County Recorders Office) • Petition for single-lot subdivision approval was filed by Mr. Brockbank in September 2001, seven months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. • Mr. Cornell began construction with full knowledge that 16 neighbors had filed an appeal of his building permit with the land use appeals board and that if the appeal was not in his favor he risked having to demolish construction and restore the foothill to its original condition. . • Mr. Cornell's construction to date has violated the ordinance requiring that slope in excess of 30% not be disturbed. According to geologist Dennis Nielson, using a Brunton Compass, slope in • excess of 45% has been disturbed. • Parcel # 09-29-476-010 was removed from the Perry's Hollow subdivision by the PC in 1983 ( PD staff report January 2003) or 1993 (PD staff report September 2002) when the PC deemed the parcel "inappropriate for building as the buildable area was narrow and small and they were concerned about the type of home that could be built on it". According to Subsection 18.28.30_B.1 Lb of the Site Development Ordinance "significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration and encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat." • There is NO neighborhood support for construction on this parcel. Planning Commissioner Noda erroneously suggested that Mr. Cornell has neighborhood support for his project. Seventeen of the 18 households in Perry's Hollow have now signed the statement received by the PC in opposition to ordinance changes and to Mr. Comell's project. The one remaining household is still out of town and has not yet been contacted. The two households in the Sugarloaf subdivision that are directly adjacent to Perry's Hollow also oppose Mr. Cornell's project and have signed the statement in opposition. .• There has been no evidence of any four-wheeler activity on foothills behind Perry's Hollow in at least three years. • The homeowners (Burks, Fullers and DiSarios)whose homes front the historic access to the Bonneville Trail have no complaints about the trail behind their homes. People continue to use this access despite the construction. IV. In conclusion, public discussion should be permitted at the upcoming PC meeting to discuss • the ordinance issues and the PD's new recommendations. The prior PC meeting designated to 6/5/2003 discuss these issues did not allow adequate time for public discussion and permitted the limited discussion to stray from the principal topic. June 3, 2003 • To: Planning Division, Mayor's Office, and City Council Office (it would be appreciated if the PD would forward this correspondence to the Planning Commissioners.) From: Dona DiSario, Karen Burks, Len Stillman,Deb Sawyer and Chris Lang 1. There are several issues that we would like to raise with respect to the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission (PC) public hearing, concerning petition 400-03-7: • Adequate time was not provided for public discussion. Mr. Wheelwright sent an e-mail stating that "the planning commission will hear all the testimony prior to moving on the the next item." This e-mail will be forwarded on request. However when the session began the speaking time was limited to three minutes per person. Several citizens including Mrs. Nielson, Mr. Deisley, Mr. Stillman and Mrs. DiSario had prepared substantive statements dealing with the complex nature of the ordinances that required about six minutes each for presentation. These statements would have been organized accordingly had the three-minute limit been publicized in advance. • The public should have the opportunity to discuss whatever new proposals the Planning Division (PD) presents at the next PC meeting and these proposals should be made available in advance. The residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision and other concerned citizens came prepared to discuss the ordinances in question and the impact that proposed changes would have on future development. Instructions given in advance and at the beginning of the session were that this forum was for discussion of the ordinances and not Mr. Cornell's specific situation. Nonetheless, the focus of the discussion was allowed to shift to irrelevant details of Mr. Cornell's situation and the issues of the ordinances did not receive proper delineation. • II. Below are corrections of some erroneous or misleading statements made at the hearing. Time for presentation of these corrections is requested at the next PC meeting: • The Appeals Board stated that there is not necessarily a conflict with the two ordinances. The decision dated April 2, 2003 (page 3, paragraph 4) states: "Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Haley believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances, the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making."Mr. Wheelwright erroneously stated that the Appeals Board agreed with the City Attorney and PD that there was a conflict or discrepancy in the ordinance. • On September 7, 1999 "The Council indicated that it would prefer that the slope standards be implemented by ordinance." (Chronology, Slope Interpretations Standards, pgl, File #0 01-2). • If the City Attorney is concerned that this ordinance could precipitate a "takings case" the analysis should be made under Utah law with reference to Utah Supreme Court decisions. There is ample Utah law to support public good over private property rights. III. As the discussion strayed from the ordinances to specifics of Mr. Cornell's situation the following points should be noted: • Mr. Cornell purchased this property against the recommendation of the PD staff.Mr. Cornell did not own the property at the time he initiated discussions with the PD. Jackie Gasparik recommended that he not purchase the property until he had approval from the PC to build. III •Mr. Cornell purchased parcel #09-29-476-010 on August 1,2002, 18 months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. (County Recorders Office) 6/5/2003 • Petition for single-lot subdivision approval was filed by Mr. Brockbank in September 2001, seven months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. • Mr. Cornell began construction with full knowledge that 16 neighbors had filed an appeal of his building permit with the land use appeals board and that if the appeal was not in his favor he risked having to demolish construction and restore the foothill to its original condition. . • Mr. Cornell's construction to date has violated the ordinance requiring that slope in excess of 30% not be disturbed. According to geologist Dennis Nielson, using a Brunton Compass, slope in excess of 45% has been disturbed. • Parcel # 09-29-476-010 was removed from the Perry's Hollow subdivision by the PC in 1983 ( PD staff report January 2003) or 1993 (PD staff report September 2002) when the PC deemed the parcel "inappropriate for building as the buildable area was narrow and small and they were concerned about the type of home that could be built on it". According to Subsection 18.28.30.B.11.b of the Site Development Ordinance "significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration and encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat." • There is NO neighborhood support for construction on this parcel. Planning Commissioner Noda erroneously suggested that Mr. Cornell has neighborhood support for his project. Seventeen of the 18 households in Perry's Hollow have now signed the statement received by the PC in opposition to ordinance changes and to Nlr. Cornell's project. The one remaining household is still out of town and has not yet been contacted. The two households in the Sugarloaf subdivision that are directly adjacent to Perry's Hollow also oppose Mr. Cornell's project and have signed the statement in opposition. .• There has been no evidence of any four-wheeler activity on foothills behind Perry's Hollow in at least three years. • The homeowners (Burks, Fullers and DiSarios) whose homes front the historic access to the • Bonneville Trail have no complaints about the trail behind their homes. People continue to use this access despite the construction. IV. In conclusion, public discussion should be permitted at the upcoming PC meeting to discuss the ordinance issues and the PD's new recommendations. The prior PC meeting designated to discuss these issues did not allow adequate time for public discussion and permitted the limited discussion to stray from the principal topic. June 3, 2003 To: Planning Division,Mayor's Office, and City Council Office (it would be appreciated if the PD would forward this correspondence to the Planning Commissioners.) From: Dona DiSario, Karen Burks, Len Stillman,Deb Sawyer and Chris Lang 1. There are several issues that we would like to raise with respect to the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission (PC) public hearing, concerning petition 400-03-7: • Adequate time was not provided for public discussion. Mr. Wheelwright sent an e-mail stating that "the planning commission will hear all the testimony prior to moving on the the next item." This e-mail will be forwarded on request. However when the session began the speaking time was limited to three minutes per person. Several citizens including Mrs. Nielson, Mr. Deisley, Mr. Stillman and Mrs. DiSario had prepared substantive statements dealing with the complex nature of the ordinances that required about six minutes each for presentation. These statements would have been organized accordingly had the three-minute limit been publicized in advance. • • The public should have the opportunity to discuss whatever new proposals the Planning 6/5/2003 1 Q8G J V1 V Division (PD) presents at the next PC meeting and these proposals should be made available in advance. The residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision and other concerned citizens came prepared to discuss the ordinances in question and the impact that proposed changes would have • on future development. Instructions given in advance and at the beginning of the session were that this forum was for discussion of the ordinances and not Mr. Cornell's specific situation. Nonetheless, the focus of the discussion was allowed to shift to irrelevant details of Mr. Cornell's situation and the issues of the ordinances did not receive proper delineation. II. Below are corrections of some erroneous or misleading statements made at the hearing. Time for presentation of these corrections is requested at the next PC meeting: • The Appeals Board stated that there is not necessarily a conflict with the two ordinances. The decision dated April 2, 2003 (page 3, paragraph 4) states: "Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances, the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making." Mr. Wheelwright erroneously stated that the Appeals Board agreed with the City Attorney and PD that there was a conflict or discrepancy in the ordinance. • On September 7, 1999 "The Council indicated that it would prefer that the slope standards be implemented by ordinance." (Chronology, Slope Interpretations Standards, pgl, File#O 01-2). • If the City Attorney is concerned that this ordinance could precipitate a "takings case" the analysis should be made under Utah law with reference to Utah Supreme Court decisions. There is ample Utah law to support public good over private property rights. III. As the discussion strayed from the ordinances to specifics of Mr. Cornell's situation the • following points should be noted: • Mr. Cornell purchased this property against the recommendation of the PD staff. Mr. Cornell did not own the property at the time he initiated discussions with the PD. Jackie Gasparik recommended that he not purchase the property until he had approval from the PC to build. • Mr. Cornell purchased parcel #09-29-476-010 on August 1, 2002, 18 months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. (County Recorders Office) • Petition for single-lot subdivision approval was filed by Mr. Brockbank in September 2001, seven months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. • Mr. Cornell began construction with full knowledge that 16 neighbors had filed an appeal of his building permit with the land use appeals board and that if the appeal was not in his favor he risked having to demolish construction and restore the foothill to its original condition. . • Mr. Cornell's construction to date has violated the ordinance requiring that slope in excess of 30% not be disturbed. According to geologist Dennis Nielson, using a Brunton Compass, slope in excess of 45% has been disturbed. • Parcel # 09-29-476-010 was removed from the Perry's Hollow subdivision by the PC in 1983 ( PD staff report January 2003) or 1993 (PD staff report September 2002)when the PC deemed the parcel "inappropriate for building as the buildable area was narrow and small and they were concerned about the type of home that could be built on it". According to Subsection 18.28.30.B.I1.b of the Site Development Ordinance "significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated aqd maintained as common area and • shall be protected from subsequent alteration and encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat." • There is NO neighborhood support for construction on this parcel. Planning Commissioner 6/5/2003 Noda erroneously suggested that Mr. Cornell has neighborhood support for his project. Seventeen of the 18 households in Perry's Hollow have now signed the statement received by the PC in opposition to ordinance changes and to Mr. Cornell's project. The one remaining household is still out of town and has not yet been contacted. The two households in the Sugarloaf subdivision that are directly adjacent to Perry's Hollow also oppose Mr. Cornell's project and • have signed the statement in opposition. .• There has been no evidence of any four-wheeler activity on foothills behind Perry's Hollow in at least three years. • The homeowners (Burks, Fullers and DiSarios) whose homes front the historic access to the Bonneville Trail have no complaints about the trail behind their homes. People continue to use this access despite the construction. IV. In conclusion, public discussion should be permitted at the upcoming PC meeting to discuss the ordinance issues and the PD's new recommendations. The prior PC meeting designated to discuss these issues did not allow adequate time for public discussion and permitted the limited discussion to stray from the principal topic. MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* • S 6/5/2003 June 3, 2003 To: Planning Division, Mayor's Office, and City Council Office (it would be appreciated • if the PD would forward this correspondence to the Planning Commissioners.) From: Dona DiSario, Karen Burks. Len Stillman_ Deb Sawyer and Chris Lang 1. There are several issues that we would like to raise with respect to the May 28, 2003 Planning Commission (PC) public hearing. concerning petition 400-03-7: • Adequate time was not provided for public discussion. Mr. Wheelwright sent an e- mail stating that "the planning commission will hear all the testimony prior to moving on the the next item." This e-mail will be forwarded on request. However when the session began the speaking time was limited to three minutes per person. Several citizens including Mrs. Nielson, Mr. Deisley, Mr. Stillman and Mrs. DiSario had prepared substantive statements dealing with the complex nature of the ordinances that required about six minutes each for presentation. These statements would have been organized accordingly had the three-minute limit been publicized in advance. • The public should have the opportunity to discuss whatever new proposals the Planning Division (PD) presents at the next PC meeting and these proposals should be made available in advance. The residents of the Perry's Hollow subdivision and other concerned citizens came prepared to discuss the ordinances in question and the impact that proposed changes would have on future development. Instructions given in advance and at the beginning of the session were that this forum was for discussion of the ordinances and not Mr. Cornell's specific situation. Nonetheless, the focus of the discussion was allowed to shift to irrelevant details of Mr. Cornell's situation and the issues of the ordinances did not receive proper delineation. II. Below are corrections of some erroneous or misleading statements made at the hearing. Time for presentation of these corrections is requested at the next PC meeting: • The Appeals Board stated that there is not necessarily a conflict with the two ordinances. The decision dated April 2, 2003 (page 3, paragraph 4) states: "Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms_ Dragoo and Mr. Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances,the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making."Mr. Wheelwright erroneously stated that the Appeals Board agreed with the City Attorney and PD that there was a conflict or discrepancy in the ordinance. • On September 7, 1999 "The Council indicated that it would prefer that the slope standards be implemented by ordinance." (Chronology, Slope Interpretations Standards, pgl,File 110 01-2). • If the City Attorney is concerned that this ordinance could precipitate a "takings case" the analysis should be made under Utah law with reference to Utah Supreme Court decisions. There is ample Utah law to support public good over private property rights. • III. As the discussion strayed from the ordinances to specifics of Mr. Cornell's situation the following points should be noted: • Mr. Cornell purchased this property against the recommendation of the PD staff. • Mr. Cornell did not own the property at the time he initiated discussions with the PD. Jackie Gasparik recommended that he not purchase the property until he had approval from the PC to build. •Mr. Cornell purchased parcel #109-29-476-010 on August 1, 2002, 18 months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. (County Recorders Office) • Petition for single-lot subdivision approval was filed by Mr. Brockbank in September 2001, seven months after the slope restrictions amendment was codified. • Mr. Cornell began construction with full knowledge that 16 neighbors had filed an appeal of his building permit with the land use appeals board and that if the appeal was not in his favor he risked having to demolish construction and restore the foothill to its original condition. . • Mr. Cornell's construction to date has violated the ordinance requiring that slope in excess of 30% not be disturbed. According to geologist Dennis Nielson, using a Brunton Compass,slope in excess of 45% has been disturbed. • Parcel II 09-29-476-010 was removed from the Perry's Hollow subdivision by the PC in 1983 ( PD staff report January 2003) or 1993 (PD staff report September 2002)when the PC deemed the parcel "inappropriate for building as the buildable area was narrow and small and they were concerned about the type of home that could be built on it". According to Subsection 18.28.30.B.11_b of the Site Development Ordinance"significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated and maintained as common area and shall be 1111 protected from subsequent alteration and encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat." • There is NO neighborhood support for construction on this parcel. Planning Commissioner Noda erroneously suggested that Mr. Cornell has neighborhood support for his project. Seventeen of the 18 households in Perry's Hollow have now signed the statement received by the PC in opposition to ordinance changes and to Mr. Cornell's project. The one remaining household is still out of town and has not yet been contacted. The two households in the Sugarloaf subdivision that are directly adjacent to Perry's Hollow also oppose Mr. Cornell's project and have signed the statement in opposition. .• There has been no evidence of any four-wheeler activity on foothills behind Perry's Hollow in at least three years. • The homeowners (Burks, Fullers and DiSarios)whose homes front the historic access to the Bonneville Trail have no complaints about the trail behind their homes. People continue to use this access despite the construction. IV. In conclusion, public discussion should be permitted at the upcoming PC meeting to discuss the ordinance issues and the PD's new recommendations. The prior PC meeting designated to discuss these issues did not allow adequate time for public discussion and permitted the limited discussion to stray from the principal topic. PETITION TO SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION P o ©ilk-- After reviewing the lot information and visiting the site of 1085 East North WA_S 9 i Ve>n Bonneville Drive (house under construction)we, the residents of North Bonneville Drive,--kv.fe W-e-e-0 D Z Saddle Hill Drive, and Northland Drive conclude that there is no difference between the oftO a- flipC� size and elevation of 1085 East and 1099 East North Bonneville Drive lots. PtAnn v.- We believe the Salt Lake City Planning Department followed the inspection rules and regulations in issuing a permit to 1085 East North Bonneville Drive to Mr. Amir CA 1",'4` S 1,°n Cornell. We are urging the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to allow him to finish Mt e-01 i bj- his house. We have seen a computer image of the completed house which is attractive VV and in keeping with the neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS PHONE f()a All M--(ill - IPJr4 1 �' 3�Si �S 6'77 JO. 4-) / d ar- 3(3-ii/o7) ��7' I 6/e Cliaidiv 9/V /1/9zrf/ifrer-J ) SZI- 305- d/ Ui ,'--J k !/U��iuu LU r ,<9 t.e_t_ Qi_„,_e__e_ci_,,,c,,J ._. ae_u_.,,,,„}7A,2_ ,_:) .___,/ _3----_ / -7s-ya , A le 'bfr - - 1n �i - � 1 � � r / D ( .flr /O7i .,�r il: I A a, �1 e�� ( 3 ASS 3 a ti l G S-- ,Ze kjiik.J--e'-` '‘'.- 5.7, Ai , „rkRAill(e' D71 _(fo i ��,,. /I.L�✓�,� / I Sr✓G UT �b 3 3ecf-Z1 • z -7 8 4 N a lz A\R ` - s.s s 2 ( Nit , - E � 20 if' , N ',-, S -► ,&—i0 i �� 51--C P-fIc73 423l-S77'� ga441,t,ec, Y-- _ , %- /i t e d Opt Y . -Zett3-ai-ce- le Z1.-e- ca-ft,..2_, • -7,e.-- o),M,L 'D>i-o-c-vit / —. - .� 441q _ • _ ' ? e—"7- .cl.02, 6.?.......0.-—,:: _.,24„,2--7) Nkc fi> 0 kSb))t-4ctal io 17;ii1 Dcl r ' i_ce 2- 3 S Srn' culf•e--5 ..ems a l f R r e C ■ •\\___ i !' r-•! - _ - ';',;_--- '' . \. 1 : i.0 r:i ,-, -_ - - , . P —• • PP:__: --•-• • �,Ii�r,�� i�i it .-,a_.,,,,,' :lam -.- .1 Iej?f.;n..,:„, F� . ', ;.1', .,..- . .,„ . :Mgt pr, , vy �'i;;t, 3�+',s,E� t', . _ /^^'cT y z-_' t.''"mirky e-a'?";- 3,1;43 (.fi e "" /ii lf,T 1114 i ? I p-5, i-' 4. _ -e'er„_ti `��F ,_zt ,; l° f iti■naZ> I ?i�3i1a �v��i^ t = \\ - ztit • `' °liit'1r r• , \\ ,ate' '5 l 41,4I ;i ai aitb 1 y Sias,":kr ®. _ _ " r; 0'r" E; r r ,�r, e -� L � I,�1�,:' L � Wiz. fs�l�1 ..:. "'r"' 1 Ts}; 1.j1rir.124 loa II fsi'1, 4 asII I ya�e► i �f Av�lr i',, `4`=;x5� —: . a i 1 may'bi�aI! 111111ii'1th''111111Aic,1 11:H4ejl`'f 'iI, %— -1 z ,s='' c - I�i'`L'Igi a;Z1 bp.iiiIii?i;l1.1,011i'11' �1 S'i�'SBI��1I1 F1 ,,giA'i�lti�— x €+ .s 1, ! s r a�+. 1 i i a 1.s aim z -- i �41't3''.- �,� - ; om.. s' �+� 3 €tom F .-.... ... ,.....,....; ,_„„,„„,„_:..„,..,,,,..,, .-.,,, ...,..... - . .s • I . 4 _ ,4....- „,..: - --;-- . . _ x _ „,......,.._ .,, ,m... . ,. t .: -, ,. _,....,,- -.. - - .. ... 4 x"??(It .J z� . _-- - .......--. . i 3 t 1 .;-. T I .: -.: ..:-:= . ',-_F1,..1_--- •fr,i ' -"` t--,--,0-4.•,,,,,,,n,.. --. ---,--3,--,=.,-,,..-f,,,:,,,41- . -:.. :i.- :-'-'':.--_ fr..... i' - : : --- ::.'.-i--- 1 ii-if• ---. -,_--o•, 4:' ..' i'' . .1:;!' � jn-2 Fs G i ' f � ) r d 4 Sr. •It • t it �, • r }4 ' 4 . -zt 1 i ,x# ; .f .1 �1 ar (( .. £r - j ,. .`ram i ' " - ..1'.. _ f"/ .. • x j _ _ - - a 1®1 _ r� David L. Deisley • 1574 Michigan Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 801 583-8587 davidldeisley(a,hotmail.com Dear Planning Commissioner: During the public hearing on Petition No. 400-03-07 held before the Planning Commission on May 28, 2003, Commissioner Diamond observed that the public testimony offered at the hearing suggested to him that at least some members of the public hold a substantially different view of the merits of Petition No. 400-03-07 than held by the Planning Department staff(the "Staff). Commissioner Diamond expressed interest in having further opportunity to hear the position of the public and to understand the issues raised by Petition No. 400-03-07 more fully. I am writing in response to Commissioner Diamond's expression of interest in the topic. This letter presents my personal observations and opinions on Petition No. 400-03-07 and the prior petition by Mr. Amir Cornell with respect to property located at 1 085 East North • Bonneville Drive. The letter is divided into three sections. The first two sections present objective, unbiased facts regarding the history and substance of the two petitions. The third section presents my opinions on the proper public policy decision with respect to Petition No. 400-03-07. You are free to read and consider all, any part, or none of the letter. However, I encourage you to read at least the facts so that you are able to make an informed decision on Petition No. 400-03-07. The letter is structured in this manner because I believe that the Staff has not advised the Planning Commission honestly and fairly about this situation. To the contrary, I believe that the Staffs advice is biased by their desire to achieve a result that will allow Mr. Cornell to develop his property. In my opinion, one of the reasons for public testimony is to provide an opportunity for the public to offer an opposing view to governmental administrators who often are too involved in their jobs to provide unbiased advice about matters that directly affect their jobs. I also believe that stifling such public testimony, as Chair Jonas did, by adopting unreasonably short time limits on public testimony for the public hearing on this matter is contrary to the intent of requiring an opportunity for public hearing, and is arbitrary and capricious. I encourage each of you to request that the public hearing be re-opened and additional time for testimony and questions be provided at the June 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. For your reference, copies of the Staff Reports and the Land Use Appeals Board decision referred to in this letter are enclosed. Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 2 of 7 Petition by Mr. Amir Cornell The Facts: The Staff Report on Mr. Cornell's petition establishes the following facts. The property at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive (the "Property") is 0.35 acre or 15,246 square feet in size. The Property is situated in an FR-3/12,000 zoning area. Excluding the "steep slopes" or "undevelopable area" as those terms are used in the Zoning Ordinance, the Property has a "buildable area" of 0.0395 acre or 1,700 square feet. The Property was part of the planned development under which the remainder of the properties on the street were developed, but was removed from the planned development at the request of the owner. The Commission Decision: During the May 28, 2003 public hearing, Commissioner Diamond stated that he thought the "T's were crossed and I's dotted" when Mr. Cornell's petition was presented for Planning Commission consideration. The fact is that Mr. Cornell's petition as approved by the Planning Commission, and later reversed on appeal, required the Planning Commission to act contrary to two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. First, contrary to the statement in the Staff Report, Staff Report p. 8, the Property clearly does not satisfy the minimum lot size required by the underlying zone. The FR-3/12,000 zone designation requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Ordinance § 21A.24.040. Ordinance § l 8.28.30.B.1 l.c expressly states that: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum 41 lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. If the "undevelopable area" of the Property is excluded in determining the minimum lot size, as required by the Ordinance, the lot size is 1,700 square feet, much less than the required minimum lot size. The Planning Commission may waive this exclusion, but only through "the planned development review process." Ordinance Table 21 A.54.150.E.2 provides that the minimum lot size for a planned development in the foothills district is 5 acres. Thus, the Planning Commission could not waive the exclusion for the Property, which is only 0.35 acre in size. The second deviation from the Ordinance requirements with respect to the Property involves Ordinance § 2l A.24.030.G, which the Staff Report summarized as requiring that: All faces of buildings and structures shall be set back from any nonbuildable area line, as shown on the plat if anyt a minimum of ten feet (10')and an average of twenty feet (20'). . Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 3 of 7 • Staff Report at p. 9. Mr. Cornell's plan for development of the Property does not satisfy this requirement, as stated in the Staff Report: The applicant is seeking this approval from the Planning Commission to approve the prepared plan that does not provide a strict interpretation of the average 20' setback from the nonbuildable line. Staff Report at p. 10 (emphasis in the original). What the petitioner requested, the Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission approved was a trade in which the petitioner agreed not to build on "developable area" to the side of the house (not next to a steep slope) in exchange for approval of construction on "undevelopable area" at the rear of the house (next to the steep slope). This is contrary to the express language of the Ordinance and the intent of the Ordinance. The Appeal: The appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board asserted that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed because prejudicial procedural error occurred in the decision and because the decision was not supported by the findings of fact based on the applicable standards. Ordinance § 21A.54.160.D. The focus of the oral argument and of the Board's decision was that the Planning Commission erred by deleting the phrase "through the planned development review process" from Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.c. in considering Mr. Cornell's petition. This was an error because in • amending the Ordinance, the Planning Commission exceeded the authority granted to it by the Ordinance, which expressly grants the authority to amend the Ordinance to the City Council, not the Planning Commission. See Ordinance §§ 21A.06.020.C, 21 A.50.020, 21 A.50.040.H (authority of the City Council), 21 A.06.030B.3, 21 A.50.030, 21 A.50.040.F (authority of the Planning Commission). Simply put, the Board found that the Planning Commission violated the Ordinance by rewriting § I8.28.30.B.1 I.c. to allow it to approve Mr. Cornell's petition. During the May 28, 2003 hearing, City Attorney Lynn Pace stated that the Land Use Appeals Board agreed that there was a problem with the Ordinance. The decision of the Board contains no such statement, and in fact expressly contradicts Mr. Pace's statement. A discussion followed by the Board and Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Decision of the Land use Appeals Board at p. 3 (April 2, 2003) (emphasis added). Petition No. 400-03-07 As presented by the Staff, Petition No. 400-03-7 is described as necessary "to correct a deficiency", to address "a discrepancy", or to eliminate "thte conflicting standard."In fact, • Petition No. 400-03-07 proposes fundamental changes to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 4 of 7 As Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright testified at the May 28, 2003 public • hearing, the Ordinance has evolved over twenty years as the result of thoughtful and considered planning development. The history of this evolution is described well in the preamble to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 10 of 2001 adopting the provision of Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.c. that Petition No. 400-03-7 seeks to amend. Beyond modifying Ordinance § I8.28.30.B.1 l.c., Petition No. 400-03-7 also seeks to modify the minimum lot size required for planned unit developments. These proposed modifications to the Ordinance cannot fairly be characterized as minor changes "to correct a deficiency", to address "a discrepancy", or to eliminate "the conflicting standard." Statement in Opposition to Petition No. 400-03-07 Basis for Amending the Ordinance: The fundamental basis on which the Staff supports approval of Petition No. 400-03-07 is that: these two ordinances conflict as they "could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property, not because it is too steep or too small to build upon, but because the City ordinance refuses to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas, unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval." Staff Report at p.4 (May 19, 2003). The specter of a "takings claim" clearly was of concern to Commissioner Noda during the May 28, 2003 hearing. For the reasons set forth in the following paragraphs, I believe that the "takings" concern is unfounded and that the City Attorney's summary of the situation is not persuasive. Moreover, I believe the arguments presented in the following paragraphs also demonstrate that the adoption of Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.c. did not "go too far" or create an unintended and unanticipated conflict within the Zoning Ordinance. To the contrary, the 2001 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance represents a further refinement of a coherent, integrated, and defensible Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.c. ties together three key elements of the Zoning Ordinance: the concepts of minimum lot size, protection of steep slopes, and use of the planned unit development process. Minimum lot sizes are present throughout the Ordinance and are intended to prevent overcrowding of homes and preserve open space by limiting the density of development. Protection of steep slopes is important, especially in the foothills area of Salt Lake City, because disturbance of such slopes can be very difficult to remediate and can lead to undesirable consequences such as landslides, erosion, and uncontrolled water runoff. The planned development process "is intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovation in the planning and building of all types of development." Ordinance § 21A.54.150.A. This process grants developers and the Staff extraordinary flexibility in achieving the goals and objectives of the Ordinance that would not "be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations." Ordinance § 21 A.54.150.A.I. • Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Under the planned development process, the Planning Commission "may change, alter, modify or waive any provisions of this Title or of the City's subdivision regulations as they apply to the proposed planned development." Ordinance § 21A.54.150.C. (emphasis added). The use of this broad authority must achieve the purposes of the planned development and may "not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and of any plans adopted by the Planning Commission or the City Council." Ordinance § 21A.54.150.C.1. and 2. In addition, the Planning Commission is prohibited from modifying the minimum planned development size established for each zoning district. Ordinance § 21 A.54.150.D. and Table 21A.54.150E2. The need for a minimum,planned development size is obvious. Only if there is sufficient land area available can innovative concepts be implemented in lieu of the "strict application"of the Ordinance. Prohibiting the use of "undevelopable area" in determining if a property satisfies the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zone makes sense. Since building on "undevelopable area" is prohibited in order to protect steep slopes, only the "buildable area" is available for construction. Thus, a lot that is large, but largely unbuildable, will result in construction on the limited "buildable area". This will increase density, contrary to the intent of the minimum lot size requirement. This situation is clearly demonstrated by the Cornell situation in which the proposed home will occupy 100% of the "buildable area" of the lot. • Requiring the Planning Commission to go through the planned development process to waive the exclusion of "undevelopable area" when determining if a lot meets the minimum lot size of the underlying zone also makes sense. Only if there is sufficient land available to adopt an innovative development plan can deviation from this important requirement be permitted. The conclusion that the use of the planned development process was intended, and not an error, is confirmed by the remainder of Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 10 that adopted the prohibition against using"undevelopable area" in determining if a lot meets the minimum lot size of the underlying zone. Section 11 of Ordinance No. 10 includes four sub- paragraphs, including the exclusion provisions of sub-paragraph c. Sub-paragraph a provides that the boundary of the "undevelopable area" "shall also be made a part of the subdivision restrictive covenants." Codified at Ordinance § I8.28.30.B.11.a. Sub- paragraph b mandates that: Significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration or encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat. Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 6 of 7 Codified at Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.1 l.b. (emphasis added). An identical provision was included in Ordinance § 18.28.010.3.a. by Ordinance No. 10. • The application of this provision to the Cornell Property is illustrative of the wisdom of the modifications adopted in 2001. The Property was part of the planned development under which all the other lots on the street were developed. Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.1 1.b. would have required that the steep slopes on the Property (approximately 90% of the Property) be dedicated to Salt Lake City as open space, if the Property had remained part of the planned development. To avoid this result, the developer removed the Property from the planned development. Having made this decision, the developer should not now be heard to complain about the limitations on development of the Property that flowed from the decision to avoid the application of Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.b. This analysis illustrates that there are substantial, rational grounds for the limitation adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 10. The language of the City Attorney's opinion cited by the Staff states that the ordinances "could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property, not because it is too steep or too small to build upon, but because the City ordinance refuses to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas, unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval." To the contrary, the ordinances reasonably provide that steep slopes should not be considered when applying a provision intended to manage density. Precisely because the lot contains "steep slopes" and therefore does not have enough "buildable area" — that is it is too small to build upon — development of the lot is precluded. An exception to this requirement is permitted only if the property is large • enough to accommodate the innovative and flexible concepts authorized by the planned development process. Again, this is a reasonable and defensible provision. The assumption underlying the Staffs position is that all lots must be developable. This simply is not required to be the case. The specter of a "takings" claims raised by the City Attorney seems no more applicable to Ordinance § I8.28.30.B.11.c. than to many other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that limit or preclude development of Property. For example, property that is less than the minimum lot size required by the underlying zone may not be developed. Thus, in the FRI/43,650 Foothills Estate District, property that is less than 43,650 square feet in size, even if it is perfectly flat, cannot be developed. The modifications to Ordinance § 18.28.30.B.11.c. proposed by Petition No. 400-03-07 simply are not warranted to avoid a "takings"issue. Similarly, the proposed revisions to Table 21A.54.150E2 should not be adopted. Reducing the minimum planned development area from 5 acres to an area equal to twice the size of the minimum lot size. for the underlying zone will facilitate development. However, such a change will undermine an essential prerequisite on which the flexibility and innovation encouraged in the planned development process is based. In the foothills district an area smaller than five acres does not provide.sufficient space to implement S Planning Commissioners June 7, 2003 Page 7 of 7 • flexible or innovate design concepts, but demands strict application of the rules established by the Zoning Ordinance. In summary, Petition No. 400-03-07 was born of a specific problem at a particular property. Modifying the coherent and integrated Zoning Ordinance constructed over twenty years by the City Council to permit the development of one property that clearly is not developable under the existing ordinance is not in the public interest. Instead, modifying the Ordinance in this instance would put the interest of a single individual before the public interest. I am willing to discuss any aspect of this matter with any member of the Planning Commission prior to the June 11, 2003 meeting. I also am willing and interested in appearing before the Planning Commission at the June 11, 2003 meeting to provide further public testimony on this important issue. Sincerely yours, David L. Deisley • Copies sent to: Planning Commission: Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Mayor Ross C. Anderson Planning Director Louis Zunguze Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace • SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS BOARD • City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 April 2, 2003 The meeting of the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board was held on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Room 315. Board Members present were Chairperson Denise Dragoo, Mark Hafey, and Mary Woodhead. Staff Members present were David Dobbins, Administrator for the Land Use Appeals Board and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board become effective on the date the vote is taken. Any person adversely affected by any final decision by the Land Use Appeals Board may file a petition for review with the District Court within 30 days after the decision is rendered. Mr. Dobbins called the meeting to order and explained the procedures for the meeting. The Board approved the minutes of March 10, 2003 as presented. NEW CASES • Case No. 03-006 - David Deisley, representing neighborhood residents, appealing the Planning Commission's preliminary subdivision approval of a one lot .35-acre foothill subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr. David Deisly was in attendance and presented the appeal. Mr. Deisly reviewed his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary subdivision to be located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in FR-3 zoning district. Mr. Deisley stated that there is clearly a prejudicial procedural error as well as failure of findings of fact applicable to the standards by the PC's decision. Mr. Deisley said the property approved for development disputes the applicable zoning restrictions in the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. Mr. Deisley explained that the ordinance states property must have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and the undevelopable area should not be used to determine the minimum lot size and steep slopes are designated as undevelopable area requiring the slope to be less than 30%for the 12,000 square feet. Mr. Deisley stated that the area of the lot with steep slopes was not excluded as mandated by the slope restriction ordinance, and with the proposed structure of 1,700 square feet in size, it would consume all of the buildable area on the lot thus contrary to the stated purpose of the FR-3/12,000 Foothills District. Mr. Deisley said in the findings of fact presented at the January 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting where it'Mates the zoning ordinance • and the site development ordinance were in compliance are inclusive and not supported by 1 Land Use Appeals Board April 2, 2003 • there is one ordinance making it perfectly developable and the other ordinance making it undevelopable, so there is the necessity to agree with the PC and that the findings are adequate. Mr. Baird believes the PC made a rational decision in light of the ordinance conflict. Mr. David Deisley reapproached the table and stated that the amended site development ordinance was adopted in March 2001 and the initial preliminary subdivision filing of the property did not incur until September 2001 after the adoption of this rule. Mr. Deisley said that the deed for the purchase of the property was not recorded until August 2002, a year and a half later. Mr. Deisley stated he disputes the idea that there is a conflict with the ordinances. Mr. Deisley said it is clear the planned development process creates a special mechanism to allow the development of property. Mr. Deisley said it is intentional on the part of the City Council that they would not allow the PC to waive the requirements of the zoning ordinance undevelopable area— steep slopes to not be included to determine the minimum lot size except through the planned development process. Mr. Deisley stated that the record shows the developable area for the property is 1 700 square feet and that all the buildable area is consumed by the structure, consequently, ending up with a house jammed between a road and a hill and this is not consistent with the purpose of protection by the Foothills requirements. Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, was present and stated that the site development ordinance deletion of the requirement for the planned development process approval was interpreted in a short-hand way to make reference to the entire planned development section of the code which includes minimum acreage. A discussion followed by the Board and Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey did not feel there was necessarily a conflict between the ordinances governing zoning and the planned development review process. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey believe that if there is a conflict with the ordinances, the PC should not be making decisions that City Council should be making. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the planned development process requires a 5 acre lot and does not see any way around what the ordinance states without an amendment to the ordinance. Ms. Dragoo and Mr. Hafey said the PC could have delayed the decision until the City Council had an amendment of the ordinance, and the Board did not feel the PC findings were reasonable. Ms. Woodhead indicated that she believed the PC decision was supported by the ordinances and that only the process of the planned development ordinance applied to the property. THEREFORE, Mr. Hafey made a motion for the Board to overturn the Planning Commission decision with the Board-recommending that it be remanded back to the PC until such time City Council has made a decision on the conflict with the ordinances. All voted Aye except for Ms. Woodhead who opposed. Two to overturn,the motion passes. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. • 3 0 U1-2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 10 of 2001 4110 (Amending Chapter 18.28 of the Site Development Ordinance, Adopted by Reference in Section 18.28.010 of the Salt Lake City Code, Regarding Slope Evaluation and Interpretation Standards) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.28 OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 18.28.010 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, REGARDING SLOPE EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION STANDARDS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-99-52. WHEREAS, on August 18, 1981, in Bill No. 61 of 1981, the Salt Lake City Council first adopted Site Development Regulations for the City in order to protect the general health, safety and welfare, and to promote the continued orderly growth of the City; and WHEREAS, said ordinance established, among other things, limitations on development of slopes that are steeper than 40%; and • WHEREAS; on November 1, 1994, in Ordinance No. 98 of 1994, the Salt Lake City Council amended certain provisions of the Site Development Ordinance after finding that the amendments were in the best interest of the City in developing its foothill areas and that the amendments properly balanced private property rights with legitimate City concerns regarding slope stability, fire protection, aesthetics,traffic, drainage and flood protection; and WHEREAS, one of the amendments in Ordinance No. 98 of 1994 changed the development limitation for slopes from 40% to 30% after research showed that landslides, surficial slope instability, slope failure, and soil erosion threats significantly decreased on slopes which are 30% or less; and WHEREAS, between the time the Site Development Ordinance was first adopted and the present, administrative rules and interpretations have been developed to help guide the Planning • Commission in evaluating significant steep slopes in foothill developments and in establishing development limit boundaries; and • WHEREAS, on September 7, 1999, the City Council asked that the administrative rules and interpretations be codified as part of the Site Development Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 1 8.28.20.A 16-45 of the Site Development Ordinance, adopted by reference in Salt Lake City Code Section 18.28.010, shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 16. Development Limit Line means a legally described line, determined by the Planning Commission and shown on the final subdivision plat, which defines the boundary between developable and undevelopable areas. In those portions of the plat designated as undevelopable, grading, landscaping, construction activities, and other disturbances of the land are prohibited. 17. Driveway means a way or route for use by a vehicle traffic leading from a parking area or from a house, garage, or other structure, to a road or street. l 8. Earth Material means any rock, natural soil, or any combination thereof • 19. Engineering Geologist means graduate in geology or engineering geology of an accredited university, with five or more full years of professional post graduate experience in the application of the geological sciences, of which three full years shall be in the field of engineering geology that has required the application of geological data, techniques, and principles to engineering problems dealing with ground water, naturally occurring rock and soil, and geologic hazards for the purpose of assuring that geological factors are recognized and adequately interpreted and presented. 20. Erosion means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind,water, and/or ice. 21. Excavation means any act by which vegetation, earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other similar material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated, or bulldozed, and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. 22. Existing Grade means the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the ground surface before excavation or filling. 23. Fill means any earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other Aerial,erial which is deposited,placed, • 2 replaced, pushed, dumped, pulled, transported, or moved by man to a new location and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. • 24. Fill Material means earth material free from rock or similar irreducible material exceeding 12 inches in diameter, metal, and organic material except that topsoil spread on cut and fill surfaces may incorporate humus for desirable moisture retention properties. 25. Fuel Break means a strategically located strip or block of land, varying in width, on which vegetation has been modified to provide a safer place for firefighters to work and to help reduce the rate of fire spread. 26. Grading means excavation or fill or any combination thereof and shall include the conditions resulting from any excavation or fill. 27. Insignscant Steep Slope means an area of 30% or greater slope which is located within a larger area of slope which is less than 30% as determined by ten-foot averaging. 28. Level Building Site means a site contained wholly within the buildable area, of a dimension not less than 30 feet by 40 feet, to accommodate the main structure, required off-street parking, and drainage resulting from said improvements. Slope of the Level Building Site shall not exceed 16 percent. 29. Licensed Architect means an architect who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. • 30. Natural Drainage means water which flows by gravity in channels fotnled by the surface topography of the earth prior to changes made by the efforts of man. 31. One Street Access means a street that provides the sole access to one or more other streets. 32. Parcel means all contiguous land in one ownership, provided, however, each lot confoiining to the Zoning Ordinances of Salt Lake City in a subdivision may be considered to be a separate parcel. 33. Percent of Slope means the slope of a designated area of land determined by dividing the horizontal run of the slope into the vertical rise of the same slope, measured between contour lines on the referenced contour map and converting the resulting figure into a percentage value.. This calculation is described by the following formula: S= v/Rwhere "S"is the percent of slope; "V" is the vertical distance; and "H" is the horizontal distance. 34. Permittee means any person to which a site development permit has been issued. • 3 35. Person means any person, firm or corporation (either public or private), the State of Utah and its agencies or political subdivisions, the United States of America and its agencies and instrumentalities, and any agent, servant, office, or employee of any of the foregoing. • 36. Planning Director means the Planning Director of Salt Lake City. 37. Quarry means an open excavation for the extraction of resources. 38. Registered Professional Engineer means a civil engineer who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 39. Removal means killing vegetation by spraying, complete extraction, or excavation, or cutting vegetation to the ground, trunks, or stumps. 40. Seismic means characteristic of, or produced by, earthquakes or earth vibration. 41. Significant Steep Slope means an area of 30% or greater slope, as deteiniined using ten-foot averaging, which is intended to be protected from development or other disturbance. 42. Site means a lot or parcel of Iand, or a contiguous combination thereof, where grading work is performed as a single unified operation. 43_ Site Development means altering terrain and/or vegetation. 44_ Slope Classification Map means a map prepared as a colored exhibit by a registered • professional engineer or land surveyor based upon a contour map of the specified scale and contour interval, upon which the measured and calculated percent of slope (measured between every contour interval on the map) is classified or grouped into percentage of slope data in ten percent slope groupings as follows: Slope Classification Percent Of Slope Mapped Color Level 0 - 9.9% Uncolored Slight 10- 19.9% Yellow Moderate 20 - 29.9 % Orange Severe 30% and greater Red 45. Soils Engineer means a registered civil engineer of the State of Utah, specializing in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, familiar with the application of principles of soil mechanics in the investigation and analysis of the engineering properties of earth materials_ SECTION 2. Section 18.28.20.A 46-50 of the Site Development Ordinance, adopted by reference in Salt Lake City Code Section 18.28.010, shall It and hereby is enacted to read as • 4 follows: 46.Special Natural Topographic Feature means a naturally occurring feature which is • determined to be unique among similar features of its kind (i.e.,rock formation, water feature)or has historical associations(e.g.Ensign Peak). 47.Surcharge means the temporary placement of fill material on a site in order to compress or compact the natural soil mass. 48.Ten-foot Averaging means calculating the percent of slope (see definition 1828.20.A 33.above)between 10 foot elevation intervals(elevations ending in"0",e.g. 4720 to 4730, 4730 to 4740, etc.) on an accurate Slope Classification Map. This technique is used to determine areas of significant sleep slope,insignificant steep slope, and to establish development limit lines. 49.Testing Laboratory means a testing laboratory that requires supervisory personnel to be professional engineers registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 50.Vacant means land on which there are no structures or only structures which are secondary to the use or maintenance of the land itself. SECTION 3. Section 18.28.30.13.11 of the Site Development Ordinance, adopted by reference in Salt Lake City Code Section 18.28.010, shall be and hereby is amended to read • as follows: 1 I.Developable Area Limitation. a. The Planning Commission shall review each proposed foothill subdivision and,using "ten-foot averaging",shall determine the extent of significant steep slopes within the subdivision. The Planning Commission shall require all such undevelopable portions of proposed subdivisions to be identified by placement of a development limit line and legal description upon the final plat. Such limitation shall also be made a part of the subdivision restrictive covenants. In addition to protecting significant steep slopes,development limit lines may also be established to protect natural vegetation, special natural topographic features,faults,or unique views. b. Significant steep slopes identified by development limit lines on a subdivision plat shall be designated as undevelopable area. Said slopes if retained within the subdivision, shall be designated and maintained as common area and shall be protected from subsequent alteration or encroachment by a vegetation and open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City by dedication on the subdivision plat. In no event shall roads traverse such slopes. f • 5 c. Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process. • d. Once established on the subdivision plat, the development limit line shall be delineated on all building permit site plans and shall be staked in the field prior to construction on any lot affected by the development limit line. SECTION 4. Section 18.28.30.D.3 of the Site Development Ordinance, adopted by reference in Salt Lake City Code Section 18.28.010, shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 3. Determination of Developable and Undevelopable Slopes. a. Undevelopable Slopes. Significant steep slopes identified on a Slope Classification Map shall be designated Undevelopable area. Said slopes, if retained within the subdivision, may be designated and maintained as common area. In no event shall streets traverse such slopes. b. Slopes Altered From Their Natural Condition. The following standards shall be used in determining whether or not altered slopes are developable: i. Slopes Altered Prior to August 18, 1981. A. Roads and driveways. Roads and driveways established prior to August 18, • 1981 which traverse significant steep slopes may remain but shall not be widened or re-graded in order to meet minimum standards for primary access to new development. Existing roads and driveways established prior to August 18, 1981, which cross slopes less than 30% may be re-graded and widened if necessary. Re-grading shall not create new areas of slope over 30%. B. Buildable Areas. (1).Lots shown on any subdivision plat recorded prior to August 18, 1981, shall be considered legal building lots subject to current zoning requirements. (2).Sites altered from their natural condition prior to August 18, 1981, that meet the current standard to qualify as buildable area (less than 30% slope), may be approved as building sites if driveway or street access to such sites,which also meet current development standards, are available or can be provided. Sites that are isolated within areas of significant steep slopes shall not be considered buildable areas. ii. Slopes Altered Between August 18, 1981 and November 1, 1994. • 6 • A. Roads and driveways. Roads and driveways that were legally constructed between August 18,1981,and November 1, 1994,which traverse slopes up to but • not exceeding 40%may be used as access to new development but shall not be widened or re-graded in order to meet minimum standards for primary access for such development. Existing roads and driveways established between August 18, 1981 and November 1, 1994,which cross slopes less than 30%may be re-graded and widened if necessary. Re-grading shall not create new areas of slope over 30%. Roads or driveways which were established without first obtaining a permit from the City shall be restored to the original grade and revegetated. B. Buildable Areas. Lots shown on any subdivision plat recorded between August 18, 1981,and November I, 1994,on which slopes up to 40%were designated as buildable areas shall be considered legal nonconforming lots but are subject to current zoning requirements. Illegal grading which occurred after August 18, 1981, and created slopes less than 40%on natural slopes which were originally greater than 40%, shall not he considered as buildable area, shall be restored to the original grade,and shall be revegetated. iii. Slopes Altered After November 1,1994. A. Roads and driveways. Roads and driveways that were legally constnieted after November 1, 1994, may be used as access to new development Roads or driveways which were established without first obtaining a permit from the City shall be restored to the original grade and revegetated. • B. Buildable Areas. Illegal grading occurring a fter November 1, 1994, which created slopes less than 30%on natural slopes which were originally greater than 30%, shall not be considered as buildable area,shall be restored to the original grade,and shall berevegetated. iv. Slopes Altered Prior to Annexation of Property to Salt Lake City. A. Roads and driveways. Roads and driveways which were legally constnieted and designated for public use prior to the effective date of this ordinance which arc located on property that is subsequently annexed to Salt Lake City may be used as access to new development. However, if such roads cross areas of significant steep slope, they shall not be widened or re-graded in order to meet minimum City standards. B. Buildable Areas. Lots shown on any subdivision plat recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance and subsequently annexed to Salt Lake City shall be considered legal building lots but are subject to current zoning requirements. Illegal grading which created slopes less than 30%on natural slopes which were originally greater than 30%, shall not be considered as buildable area, shall be restored to the original grade,and shall be revegetated. • 7 v. Verifying Limits of Disturbance. If the City and developer cannot agree on the limits of man-made slope disturbance, the developer shall be responsible for providing a geotechnical evaluation sufficient to establish such limits of disturbance. • vi. Verifying Date of Disturbance. The date of slope disturbance shall be established based on the best available information. This may include, among other things, evaluation of historic aerial photography, surveys, or development plans for adjacent properties. vii. Burden of Proof. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/petitioner to provide documentation and other evidence to verify the original and current slope of a site, the date and extent of any site disturbance, and the legality of any action in grading a site. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 6th day of March , 2001. CHA 1 ERSON ATTEST: 110 TEE DEPUTY CITY C RD R Transmitted to the Mayor on March 6, 2001 . Mayor's Action: )(Approved. Vetoed. • ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Sail Lake City Attcmay's Office Date 3 —l—c9/ r� CH1L F DEPUTY CITY C RDER By 00/tAt, ! • 8 9 :r • r t(SEA►`+ " � ir 1...sR � � ,. . k " Bill No. 10 of 2001. Published: March 14, 2001 • I G\Ordina0l\Slope Evaluation-Mar I,2001-Clean doe ,, • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • STAFF REPORT PRELIMINARY FOOTHILL SUBDIVISION OF PERRY'S HOLLOW SUBDIVISION #3 REQUEST Mr. Amir Cornell is seeking preliminary subdivision approval of a .35-acre lot, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. The Planning Commission is the approval body for all foothill subdivisions_ l�lapy, t_ — , F F'{ if, - ,'''''''NN\ L ' - 1 i'- g _ __ \ • `` - 1 1 FF' s f t . - ,,,•, \ •-..--__ 7 . •. 1 .,.. \ .., __ ------ f f - V/,_:.,,,s•- IFF_ • Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division - 1 - BACKGROUND Property Owner Name: Amir Cornell Applicant: Amir Cornell Purpose of proposal or proposed site changes: A one lot foothill subdivision and approval to build the submitted single-family dwelling. Affected Parcel Number(s): 09-29-476-010 Lot Size/Lot Area of subject property: Approximately 0.35 acres. Existing Land Use on subject property: Vacant unimproved parcel. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts on subject property: Foothill Residential "FR-3". • Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: Very low-density 1-4 units per acre. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES This item was scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on November 7th 2002. However this item was postponed, and Lynn Pace, representing the City's Attorney's office, explained why this matter was postponed during that hearing (please see attached minutes and letter from Lynn to Brent Wilde,Acting Planning Director in Exhibit 3). In general the issue that cause this item to be postponed affects all City foothill development, because of a legal issue with conflicting requirements between the City's site development and zoning ordinances. The City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since 1994,.that site development ordinance has prohibited construction in foothill areas on property which has a slope in excess of 30 percent. The site development ordinance refers to this steep slope property as "undevelopable area." In March 2001, the City amended the site development or.Oinance to make various • Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -2- changes. One of the changes provided that "undeveloped area shall not be used to deter mine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically • approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may not be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. Thus, the application of these two ordinances, in there present form, could deny a property owner the ability to develop foothill property, not because it is too steep or too small to build upon, but because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas, unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for a planned development approval. The application of these ordinances would deny a property owner is all reasonable and economic use of their property. As established under case law if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property, the municipality has taken property for which compensation would be required. During the November 7th meeting the Planning Commission agreed with the arguments presented by the City Attorney's office, and they initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances. While that petition is being processed City staff recommends that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 18.28.30.B.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval, as follows: 11111 "tindev eloped al ea shall not be use to determine the minimum lot size as r equired by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. through-the-planned development re-view-process." Issues Only Nearing In compliance with Title 20 Subdivision Ordinance, section 20.16.095 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held an "issues only hearing" for this project on September 19, 2002. The issues that were identified at that hearing were, wildlife protection from fencing, the architecture of the proposed home, and Shoreline Trail access (the minutes from the meeting are attached). Responses to the issues identified during the September 19, 2002 " Issues Only Hearing": 1. The applicant has agreed to not install any fencing on his lot that would prohibit wildlife from passing through his property_ 2. He has also agreed to install "Bonneville Shoreline Trail access" signs, (one in front of his property where the bikers have been accessing the trail,) which directs the trail users to enter the trail at the cul-de-sac at the end of Richland Drive. The second sign (at the trailhead off of Richland Drive), which will direct the trail users that the trail goes northbound. Thus trying to keep trail users from being behind the houses on the north side of North Bonrlseville Drive, which is private Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date l/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -3- property and not part of the designated trail. However, this may be difficult since the trail users have been using this property for quite some time. In transportations memo from Dan Bergenthal, in which they recommend • p revegetation of the existing tail from where the Richland Dr. access intersects the trail down to the rear of the subject property (approximately 400'). With the trail removed there would be no reason for hikers or bikers to be behind the six homes, on private property on the dead end section of trail (see letter for more information). 3. The applicant is requesting approval of the design of his home as presented in the issues only hearing without any changes to the originally presented design. Subdivisions are reviewed and approved according to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code, the Site Development Ordinance, Title 18.28, and the Zoning Ordinance, Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code. The purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance Title 20 is "to regulate and control the design and improvements of land...in order to preserve and enhance the health, safety, welfare and amenities of the community". Section 20.16.010 states that the Planning Commission must review and approve subdivisions in the foothill districts. The subdivision ordinance also requires the "issues only hearing" prior to the decision- making hearing of the Planning Commission. Site Development Ordinance, Title 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code • The Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance 18.28.30E requires the following reports and regulations shall be required for the approval of any subdivision request located within a zoning area designated as in the "Foothills Protection Zone": 1. Soils Report; 2. Geology Report; 3. Grading and Drainage Plan; 4. Vegetation Preservation and Protection Plan; 5. Fire Protection Report; 6. Access to Public and Private Property; 7. Notification of adjacent landowners (Public or Private); 8. Ridge and Gully Topographic features Protection. Soils Report Standard: • The ordinance requires: • Slope Classification Map and analysis; • Staff Report Come')Subdivision Planning Commission Date I/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -4- • Estimate of the nollnal highest elevation of the seasonal water table; • The location and size of underground water sources; • Unified soil classification for the major horizons (layers of soil profile) or of the zone of the footing foundation including; where appropriate, the plasticity index (PI) and liquid limit (LL); • Shrink swell potential and its characteristics shall be deteiinined and classified according to the test prescribed in Section 2904(a) of the Uniform Building Code and related references; • Potential frost action based on the depth of the water table and the unified soil classification; • The soil suitabilities, constraints, and proposed methods of mitigating said constraints in implementing the proposed development plan; • A verified written statement by the person or firm preparing the soils report identifying the soil constraints to development and further stating, in the their professional opinion, the ability of the proposed development to mitigate and/or eliminate said constraints in a manner as to prevent hazard to life, hazard to property, adverse effects on the safety, use, or stability of a public way or drainage channel, and adverse impact on the natural environment. Discussion: See discussion below under geology report. Geology Report • Standard: A geology report shall be prepared by a person or firm qualified by training and experience to have knowledge of the subject. Since the nature and distribution of earth materials, faults, folds, slide masses, or other significant features cannot be described fully and effectively in words alone, a geological map shall accompany the report. Mapping should reflect careful attention to the rock composition structural elements, surfaces, and subsurface distribution of the earth materials exposed or inferred features and/or relationships. It should be understood that the Salt Lake City is in the Seismic Zone Three, such zone having the highest probability of earthquake damage. Therefore, the report shall contain information (a-i) as listed in the ordinance. Discussion: A site-specific geotechnical report has been prepared and submitted to the City, which discusses the (soils report and geology report) site development recommendations specifically for this site. No un-expected development limitations have been identified (see attached geotechnical report). Grading and Drainage Plan • Standard: i �» Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -5- A grading and drainage plan, prepared by a professional engineer registered in the Sate of Utah, shall be submitted with each application. The plan must be sufficient to determine • the erosion control measures necessary to prevent soil loss during construction as well as after project completion. The plan shall include information (a-I) as listed in the ordinance. Discussion Since the public street was constructed as part of the Perry's Hollow Subdivision, No 1, there are no street or utility related grading activities necessary. Grading on the lot will be limited to the front, side and buildable area of the lot and as per the site and building plans for the proposed residence, designed to fit this unique buildable area. The proposed site plan shows a rear yard retaining wall. All cuts and fills in excess of two feet shall be supported by retaining walls if required by the zoning administrator_ Any stacking of rocks to create a rock wall in excess of a thirty percent slope, that is intended to retain soil, shall be considered a retaining wall. No retaining wall may exceed four feet in height above the established grade. In a terrace of retaining walls each four foot vertical wall must be separated by a minimum of three horizontal feet. The horizontal area between terraced retaining walls shall be landscaped with vegetation. An engineer licensed by the state shall approve all retaining walls in excess of four feet in height, and the engineer's approval shall be consistent with the provisions of the geotechnical report. The proposed retaining wall is 4' in height and is consistent with the submitted geotechnical report and has been reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Vegetation Preservation and Protection Plan Standard: Vegetation shall be removed only when absolutely necessary i.e., for building, filled areas, roads, and fuel breaks. Every effort shall be made to conserve topsoil, which is removed during construction for later use on area requiring re-vegetation, or landscaping, i.e., cut and fill slopes. Discussion: The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan, which shows the property that will be disturbed for construction of the home. All areas disturbed in construction of the site will be re-vegetated in a manner acceptable to the ordinance. Before the applicant can apply for a building permit a final landscaping plan is required by ordinance. Buildings Services Staff, and the Planning Staff will work with the applicant to prepare a final landscape plan that is in accordance with the ordinance. There is no existing tree or bush growth located on this property. The site is covered in native grasses and small plants. Fire Protection Report Standard: Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date t/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -6- A fire protection report shall be prepared to access fire probability and potential hazards 111 by a person or agency qualified by training and experience. Discussion: Since the proposed foothill subdivision consists of only one lot that has frontage onto an already dedicated public street, and is in an existing neighborhood that has been designed and approved by the Salt Lake City Fire Marshal with existing fire hydrants and infrastructure, the applicant was not required to submit such a report The Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved the applicant's site plan, and building plans to assure their compliance with the requirements of the fire department, such as access, and water fire flow to assure the City's ability to provide service in the case of an emergency (see letter from Fire Marshal). Access to Public and Private Property Report Standard: A report assuring that there is a provision made for dedicated rights-of-way to provide access to public or private land adjacent to the area proposed for development. These rights-of-way shall be designated and constructed to standards acceptable to the City Engineer. No access roads will be allowed to be constructed if terrain is too steep or unsuitable for use but the right-of-way, nevertheless, may be required to be dedicated by the Planning Commission. 11111 Discussion: Access to the subject property is from an existing City street (North Bonneville Drive), thus, staff did not require this report. Notification of adjacent landowners (Public or Private) Standard: Owners of adjacent lands, which may be impacted by the proposed development, shall be notified of a request for preliminary approval and given an opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission prior to final approval when it reviews the development proposal. This process will help to insure against future boundary and use conflicts and to avoid "land locking"property, therefore creating a situation beneficial to neither the public nor the private sector. Discussion: The applicant submitted the names and address of the adjacent property owners of public record from the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office and paid for the necessary postage. Planning Staff fulfilled this requirement by mailing out two notices, one for the "issues only public hearing" and one for the public hearing. Ridge and Gully Topographic features protection Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -7- Standard: The City has deter trained that regulations are necessary to limit the inappropriate • encroachment of urban development into areas of significant foothill ridges and gullies topographic features. These inappropriate encroachments may negatively impact views, vegetation, fire protection, drainage and other public concerns unless carefully considered. Discussion Staff researched and compared the applicant's site and contour map with the Master Ridge Line and Gully Identification Map. The subject lot is located within 300 feet of the projected ridgeline identified as The Black Mountain Ridge A, sub-ridge #48d which ends at North Bonneville Drive_ The site is not within any area of a protected drainage channel or gully. The ordinance requires the preservation of a "visual assessment and impact study" regarding the proposed "developments impact on views, natural features and vegetation_" The applicant has submitted a site plan and architectural elevation drawings of the proposed dwelling, in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance in this regard_ Staff has reasoned that since the proposed development does not involve the establishment of new public streets into an area that was previously undeveloped, and because the proposed house is being designed to fit within the building height limits of the existing zoning district, and because the proposed house will not "skyline" above a natural ridgeline to be silhouetted against the sky when viewed at a distance from below from the majority of the existing City, that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed development will not materially adversely affect the protected ridgeline, nor shift the area of urban development to an area prev iously held to be significant to the urban design and aesthetics of the City_ • General Finding Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds that in general the proposed development is in compliance with all applicable standards of the Foothill Protection reports and requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance, as identified and discussed above. r Zoning Ordinance Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 21A.24.040 FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District & Section 21A.24.010O. Special Foothill Regulations of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance States; A FR-3 lot is required to be at least 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area, with a minimum width of 80'. The front yard is required to be at least 20' with side yards of 10'; the rear yard is to be 35'. The maximum building coverage of the lot including all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 35%. The proposed lot is 15,246 sq. ft. and 120 feet in width and meets all minimum yard and height requirements of the FR-3 foothill residential zoning requirements. • Siaff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -8- The exterior of any building or structure shall blend with the natural materials and • predominant colors and hues of the surrounding foothills. Colors pelniitted include grays, browns, greens, tans and other earth tones. White or bright colors shall be limited to window casings, doors, eves and other trim areas. The applicant has stated that the • exterior colors of the proposed home will be grays and tans. The proposed major materials are stucco, and natural stone, with aluminum fascia and trim and some wood trim, with copper accents. Windows and other glass surfaces shall have an outdoor visible light reflective value of no more than eighteen percent as defined and measured by ASTM E308-90 or its successor. The proposed building plans comply with this standard. Roof colors shall also be earth tones. Tile, slate, architectural asphalt shingles and fire- retardant wood are permitted as roofing materials. The proposed home is designed to have architectural asphalt shingles in a gray color. Slope restrictions in the foothill districts: Slope restrictions in the foothill districts states for all lots subdivided after November 4, 1994, no buildings shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty (30%) slope. All faces of buildings and structures shall be set back from any nonbuildable area line, as shown on the plat, a minimum of ten feet (10') and an average of twenty feet (20'). • The plat shows a square foot, for square foot averaging approach proposed for the ordinance that requires that all faces of the buildings and structures shall be set back from any nonbuildable ',ilea line, an a' erage of twenty feet. The plan meets the required minimum ten feet setback, but the applicant wants to be closer that the average twenty feet in some areas (see attached plat). The square foot for square foot averaging proposal would include a no build easement for the side yard property that they could otherwise build in for a portion of the rear yard that they needed for the average twenty feet setbacli, from the nonbuildable area line. - ',' :rcbin�t3:;'L°+a`Sbi '_� Y+a:3+ i�.:. =�.R'.^'i� Basically he is proposing a reduilimirithe potential width of tbe.borne.fordd)tional building depth. Staff has proposed the no build easement to assure that no additions are built in the side yard area that was traded for the rear yard area, identifying the trade in the Planning Commission minutes and then referencing this approval on the final plat so that future owners understand why they cannot build in this area. The site development ordinance requires a slope classification map,prepared as a colorer exhibit by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor based upon a contour map - of the scale and contour interval, upon which the measured and calculated percent of slope (based upon the ten foot averaging means of calculating the percentage of slope between 10 foot elevation intervals.ending in "0") is classified or grouped for mapping purposes into percentage of slope data on ten percent slope groupings as follows: 11111 Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -9- Slope Classification Percent of Slope Map Color Level 0-9.9% Uncolored 1111 Slight 10-19.9% Yellow Moderate 20-29.9% Orange Sever 30% and greater Red Staff had the applicant prepare the required slope map identifying the areas of the lot that are more than and less than 30% slope. Then the nonbuildable line was established allowing construction only in the area that is less than 30% slope with the minimum setback of 10' from the nonbuildable line. Then the average of 20' building setback was applied to the site plan. At this time the applicant and his designer approached staff about the square foot for square foot trade, which would allow the construction of a functional home on this lot. The applicant is seeking this approval from the Planning Commission to approve the prepared plan that does not provide a strict interpretation of the average 20' setback from the nonbuildable line. Strict enforcement of the ordinance requiring the average 20' from the nonbuildable area, would make the depth of the proposed home only 10' deep in some sections, with the square foot for square foot method, these portions of the home can be approximately 19- 20' deep. The square foot for square foot trade will allow them to build in 244 Square feet that III would be in the 20' average setback for 333 square feet that is buildable at the sides of the proposed home, which they could have built on. The area they are proposing to trade is shown on the plat shaded with dots. The compromise is what really makes this lot buildable to the applicant allowing him to build a non typical, but minimally functional Ian that does no . --ii .- -.----...------ ' --.--;,-. -impromise. Special Foothill height controls: Buildings in the FR-2, FR-3 and FP districts shall be limited 28' feet in height and to two and one-half(2 '/2) stories which ever is less. All building heights for initial construction of a building in a foothill zone shall be measured from the established grade as required by the Zoning Ordinance. :Staff knows that the established grade of this property was changed by the previous owner, who i llowe. e neighbors (the Disario's located at 1099 East North Bonneville r Dr.)to pile up soi from the excavation of their home on the eastern side of the buildable area. Staff had the applicant prepare a new slope map showing the fill, and the contours of the property have been confirmed as having been altered from the first slope map. The height of the proposed home must be measured from the first slope map created by Bush and Gudgell Inc, (compare the old and new slope map fotP'details). The proposed . • Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division - 10- �J maximum building height is to be measured from the original slope map and is in • compliance with the zone requirements. Fence Restrictions: NIL Cornell has stated that he does not want to install any fencing on his property at this time. No fencing is identified on his site plan. However, fencing has been a concern raised by Diane Nielson a neighbor located at 1096 East North Bonneville Dr., thus staff inserted a brief ordinance summary of what is required in foothill districts. Fences and walls shall only be constructed after first obtaining a building permit subject to standards of the foothill district_ As part of the site plan submittal review process, a fencing plan shall be submitted which shows: • Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; • Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with specific approval limitations of the foothill district. Field fencing of designated undevelopable areas: Fencing on areas identified as undevelopable areas or transitional areas on any subdivision shall be limited to the following standards; • Low visibility see through fencing shall consist off/at black colored steel "T"posts, and erected to a height of not more than forty two inches (42) above the natural ground surface. • When fencing lot boundary lines, vegetation or native brush shall not be cleared so as to create a visible demarcation from off-site. • The existing surface of the ground shall not he changed by grading activities when erecting boundaiyjcncing. • Fencing materials and designs must not create a hazard for big game wildlife species. • No field fencing shall be erected in conflict with pedestrian easements dedicated to Salt Lake City. (Note that the trail up to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail through Mr. Cornell's property is not a dedicated trail, thus is the reasoning to put up signage to direct trail users to the dedicated trailhead for access, revegetation of the trail through private property). Buildable Area Fencing: Fencing on any portion of a lot identified as buildable area or required side yard on any subdivision the following requirements shall apply. • Open, see-through fencing constructed of tubular steel, wrought iron or similar materials,finished with flat black, non-reflective finish constructed to a height of six (6)feet or less; or • Sight-obscuring or privacy-type fencing shall be of earth tone colors, or similar materials to the primary dwelling, and located in a way, which screens private outdoor living spaces from off-site view. Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date I/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division - l 1 - Finding Since fence requirements in foothill districts already require sensitivity to the threats that fences create for big game animals,staff recommends that no additional fence restrictions be applied to the proposed lot. CODE CRITERIA/DISCUSSION/FINDINGS OF FACT Issues of concern: 1. Identify the Bonneville Trail for trail users to keep them off private properly that is not part of the trail. 2- Commissioner Diamond, expressed concerns with the design of the proposed home,but no specific alternatives were identified. 3. A letter from the neighbor Diane Nielson was received identifying that the Commission consider the importance of the movement of wildlife in the area and prohibit fences That would do so. 4. Diana Disario has consulted with Planning Staff, City Council Staff, Council Member Eric Iergensen,and the City Attorneys Staff She has concerns about the project and has said that she was going to seek legal council to help her understand if the proposed project is in compliance with City Ordinances and regulations. Mrs. Disario spoke in fivor of the project at the "issues only • hearing'. but since that time, she has had sonic doubts about the project and whether or not she still supports its approval. Staff has asked her to send in her concerns to the City in writing so that we could respond to them, or to come the Planning Commission hearing prepared to talk about her concerns. 5. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow construction to begin prior to recording of the final plat, to accommodate the owner's construction schedule and minimize construction inconvenience to the neighborhood. The square foot for square foot averaging method is an acceptable trade due to the unique and difficult buildable area created by the proximity of the roadway to the 30%steep slope area. At the time the majority of homes were built along North Bonneville this requirement was not in the zoning ordinance. This requirement was added to the zoning ordinance in 1995. Before 1995 all FR zones had the same requirements, in the 1995 Zoning Ordinance rewrite the new standard was added to all the other standards. But,in the new codified version of the ordinance all the standards (F, G, H & 1) were listed in the FR-I & FR-2 zones. However, in the FR-3 zone all the standards were removed. Since staff intended this standard along with all the other • Staff Report Cornell Subdivision Planning Convnission Day I/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division -12- standards to apply to all the FR zones, staff has been by policy applying all the • standards to developments in all FR zones including the FR-3 zone and is in the process of correcting this in our "fine tuning efforts" to keep the City's Zoning Ordinance updated. And more importantly (according to the City's Attorneys Office) the applicant has agreed to comply with these standards for the most part except for the square foot for square foot trade, even though these standards are not currently listed as standards in the FR-3 zoning ordinance regulations at this time, which is the zone his property is located in. Findings of Fact If the Planning Commission approves this one lot foothill subdivision, the findings of fact need to be established from the discussion and testimony at the public hearing and added to the following findings: A. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Avenues Community Master Plan. B. The Avenues Community Council, Chair Richard Smiley has told PIanning Staff that they support the proposal. C. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Subdivision Zoning Ordinance. D. The proposed foothill subdivision is in compliance with the Site Development Ordinance. • E. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all Zoning Ordinance icgwiemenis of the 1.R-3 zone, using the square lout lot square foot of buildable area averaging method to deteiinine the twenty feet average building setback from the nonbuildable area line. The proposed compromise of 333 sq. ft. buildable area for 244 sq. ft. of area required for the average 20' setback is an acceptable trade, that staff believes is in compliance with the intent of the ordinance. F. The subdivision plat delineates the development limit line and the buildable area, which is in conformance with the ordinance requirements (see attached preliminary plat). G. All City Departments/Divisions have review the proposed subdivision and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in this staff report and attached letters and memos. H. While the petition is being processed to review and amend the foothill zoning ordinance and the site development ordir'nce, City staff recommends that the Planning Commissi.; Tnterpre nd apply section 18.28.30.B.c of the site development ordinance to se ete the requirement for planner' development approval, as follows: • Undeveloped area shall not be use to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. • ' Staff Report Cornell Subdivision PIanning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division - 13- I. The Planning Commission finds that in general the proposed development is in compliance with all applicable standards of the Foothill Protection reports and • requirements of the City's Site Development Ordinance, as identified and discussed in this report and as discussed at the hearing. • • Staff Repori Cornell Subdivision Planning Commission Date 1/22/03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division - 14- Springmeyer, Gwen • From: WynnJoh@aol.corn Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:26 PM To: gwen.springmeyer@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: New Proposed Amendment to Petition No. 400-03-07 Gwen, would you please pass the following note to the Planning Commission for me? Thanks. Wynn To: Salt Lake Planning Commission From: Wynn Johnson, Chair; Greater Avenues Community Council RE: New language for petition 400-03-07 1) First, thanks for all your patience and good work. We can't believe the long hours you spend in your Wednesday night meetings, not to mention the occasional citizen revolt! 2) Our Executive Board agrees with the new language proposed in Ray McCandless'June 2nd memo. This subject has still not been the subject of a full council debate, but we believe the outcome would be the same. 3) The only other alternative you might consider is to table the consideration of this topic again until you can properly inform the community of the issue and invite public comment from neighborhoods other than the Perry's Hollow Subdivision No. 1 at the east end of North Bonneville Drive. There are surely other foothill-adjacent communities that would like to be heard. We do not believe the subject ordinance was properly advertised in the 4. late 1990's and is still due for a careful airing before citizens and landowners concerned with careful but fair- minded regulation of the few properties left to develop in these areas. Thanks again, and good luck tonight. cc: Doug Wheelwright 4111 6/1 1/2003 8. C. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Page 1 of 4 McCandless, Ray • From: Dona DiSario [donadisario@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:06 AM To: louis.zunguze@ci.slc.ut.us; ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us;janice.jardine@ci.slc.ut.us; gwen.springmeyer©ci.slc.ut.us; ericjergensen@cs.com; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: questions re recommendation of 6-2-2003 June 9, 2003 To: L. Zunguze, D. Wheelwright, R. McCandless CC: G. Springmeyer, J. Jardine From: Dona DiSario for the residents of Perry's Hollow Subdivision We would appreciate your consideration and response to the following issues with regards to the Planning Division's (PD) recommendations of June 2, 2003 to the Planning Commission (PC) concerning Petition No. 400-03-07. If the PC hearing does not allow public comment we request that the questions and concerns raised in this letter be presented for all to hear. 1. Concerning section c.2 (d): "The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole." Resident's Response: If the proposed "infill" development is directly adjacent to an existing subdivision, construction should be required to comply with the existing CC&R's of that subdivision 40 and the minimum buildable area and square footage of the proposed home should be no smaller than that of the smallest existing home in the subdivision. The PD's recommended 1,500 square feet may be the smallest buildable area that makes sense for a single-family home in general, but it may not be harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 2. Concerning section c.2. (b): " The parcel has a minimum of 1500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10-foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance." Resident's Response: We recommend a larger transition area to avoid construction damage to the unbuildable steep slopes. We have observed that it appears to be impractical or impossible excavate and build a home with only 10 feet of transitional area without disturbing the undevelopable slope. The Site Development Ordinance (Section 18.28.20, item 16) states: "In those portions of the plat designated as undevelopable, grading, landscaping, construction activities, and other disturbances of the land are prohibited." Please clarify the following: • Has there been a study to deteiinine if it is possible to construct a home on a steep slope parcel with these minimum transitional areas between the developable and undevelopable slope and not disturb the undevelopable slope? ip • As the recommended transitional areas are minimal, are the PD's recommended modifications of the ordinance intended to be absolute or will there be potential for variances on the transitional areas and setbacks? 6/26/2003 Page 2 of 4 •Will the PD recommendation of allowing square foot for square foot exchanges in determining if the minimum and average transitional areas have been satisfied be adopted and allowable? If so, how • will this be justified and regulated? • Will the required zoning setbacks and the minimum transitional area of 10 feet be comprised exclusively of developable land —that is land of less than 30% slope? • Is the minimum of 10 feet and average of 20 feet of transitional area included in the required zoning setbacks from street, side-yard and rear-yard or is it in addition to the setbacks? 3. Please give an example of when the original objective of the 2001 ordinance "undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone" would be applied, in view of the PD's proposed modifications? Thank you for helping to educate our subdivision. If it would be easier to answer our questions in person we would be happy to make an appointment to come to your office. We would appreciate a point-by-point response before the June 11, 2003 PC Hearing. We would also appreciate being notified in advance of the hearing if public comment will be accepted and if there will be time limitations. Sincerely, Dona DiSario June 9, 2003 To: L. Zunguze,D. Wheelwright, R. McCandless CC: G. Springmeyer, J. Jardine From: Dona DiSario for the residents of Perry's Hollow Subdivision We would appreciate your consideration and response to the following issues with regards to the • Planning Division's (PD) recommendations of June 2, 2003 to the Planning Commission (PC) concerning Petition No. 400-03-07. If the PC hearing does not allow public comment we request that the questions and concerns raised in this letter be presented for all to hear. 1. Concerning section c.2 (d): "The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole." Resident's Response: If the proposed "infill"development is directly adjacent to an existing subdivision, construction should be required to comply with the existing CC&R's of that subdivision and the minimum buildable area and square footage of the proposed home should be no smaller than that of the smallest existing home in the subdivision. The PD's recommended 1,500 square feet may be the smallest buildable area that makes sense for a single-family home in general,but it may not be harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 2. Concerning section c.2. (b): "The parcel has a minimum of 1500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10-foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance." Resident's Response: We recommend a larger transition area to avoid construction damage to the • unbuildable steep slopes. We have observed that it appears to be impractical or impossible excavate and build a home with only 10 feet of transitional area without disturbing the undevelopable slope. 6/26/2003 Page 3 of 4 The Site Development Ordinance(Section 18.28.20, item 16) states: "In those portions of the plat designated as undevelopable, grading, landscaping, construction activities, and other disturbances of . the land are prohibited." Please clarify the following: • Has there been a study to determine if it is possible to construct a home on a steep slope parcel with these minimum transitional areas between the developable and undevelopable slope and not disturb the undevelopable slope? • As the recommended transitional areas are minimal, are the PD's recommended modifications of the ordinance intended to be absolute or will there be potential for variances on the transitional areas and setbacks? 'Will the PD recommendation of allowing square foot for square foot exchanges in determining if the minimum and average transitional areas have been satisfied be adopted and allowable? If so,how will this be justified and regulated? • Will the required zoning setbacks and the minimum transitional area of 10 feet be comprised exclusively of developable land —that is land of less than 30% slope? • Is the minimum of 10 feet and average of 20 feet of transitional area included in the required zoning setbacks from street, side-yard and rear-yard or is it in addition to the setbacks? 3. Please give an example of when the original objective of the 2001 ordinance "undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone" would be applied, in view of the PD's proposed modifications? is Thank you for helping to educate our subdivision. If it would be easier to answer our questions in person we would be happy to make an appointment to come to your office. We would appreciate a point-by-point response before the June 11, 2003 PC Hearing. We would also appreciate being notified in advance of the hearing if public comment will be accepted and if there will be time limitations. Sincerely, Dona DiSario June 9, 2003 To: L. Zunguze, D. Wheelwright,R. McCandless(please forward to PC) CC: G. Springmeyer, J. Jardine From: Dona DiSario for the residents of Perry's Hollow Subdivision We would appreciate your consideration and response to the following issues with regards to the Planning Division's (PD)recommendations of June 2, 2003 to the Planning Commission(PC) concerning Petition No. 400-03-07. If the PC hearing does not allow public comment we request that the questions and concerns raised in this letter be presented for all to hear. 1. Concerning section c.2 (d): "The proposed development on the parcel is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole." Resident's Response: If the proposed "infill"development is directly adjacent to an existing subdivision, construction should be required to comply with the existing CC&R's of that subdivision • and the minimum buildable area and square footage of the proposed home should be no smaller than that of the smallest existing home in the subdivision. The PD's recommended 1,500 square feet may be the smallest buildable area that makes sense for a single-family home in general, but it may not be 6/26/2003 Page 4 of 4 harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 2. Concerning section c.2. (b): " The parcel has a minimum of 1500 square feet of net buildable area. S The net buildable area shall not include all areas of 30% or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that lies within the required 10-foot minimum setback from the undevelopable area, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance." Resident's Response: We recommend a larger transition area to avoid construction damage to the unbuildable steep slopes. We have observed that it appears to be impractical or impossible excavate and build a home with only 10 feet of transitional area without disturbing the undevelopable slope. The Site Development Ordinance (Section 18.28.20, item 16) states: "In those portions of the plat designated as undevelopable, grading, landscaping, construction activities, and other disturbances of the land are prohibited." Please clarify the following: • Has there been a study to determine if it is possible to construct a home on a steep slope parcel with these minimum transitional areas between the developable and undevelopable slope and not disturb the undevelopable slope? • As the recommended transitional areas are minimal, are the PD's recommended modifications of the ordinance intended to be absolute or will there be potential for variances on the transitional areas and setbacks? •Will the PD recommendation of allowing square foot for square foot exchanges in determining if the minimum and average transitional areas have been satisfied be adopted and allowable? If so, how will this be justified and regulated? • • Will the required zoning setbacks and the minimum transitional area of 10 feet be comprised exclusively of developable land —that is land of less than 30% slope? • Is the minimum of 10 feet and average of 20 feet of transitional area included in the required zoning setbacks from street, side-yard and rear-yard or is it in addition to the setbacks? 3. Please give an example of when the original objective of the 2001 ordinance "undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone" would be applied, in view of the PD's proposed modifications? Thank you for helping to educate our subdivision. If it would be easier to answer our questions in person we would be happy to make an appointment to come to your office. We would appreciate a point-by-point response before the June 11, 2003 PC Hearing. We would also appreciate being notified in advance of the hearing if public comment will be accepted and if there will be time limitations. Sincerely, Dona DiSario Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. III 6/26/2003 Page 1 of 1 McCandless, Ray • From: Dona DiSario [donadisario@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:26 AM To: louis.zunguze@ci.slc.ut.us; ray.mccandless@ci.slc.ut.us; drnielso@msn.com; LENSTILLMAN@utah.gov; doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us; ddeisley©barrick.com Subject: another effort at my question I don't understand how the PD current recommendation is any different than eliminating the 2001 ordinance. Can anyone offer an example of when a property would be denied development approval based on the concept that nothing over 30% slope can count toward the required minimum lot size? The example Mr. Wheelwright offered was if the property was over 30% slope starting from the street. Such a property would be denied based on not meeting the setback requirement, but not based on the concept of the minimum lot size having no slope over 30%. Mr. Wheelwright also gave an example of a planned development property that was approved based on the 2001 concept. I am asking for an example of a property that would be denied approval based on the 2001 concept. STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* • • 6/26/2003 PETITION NO. 1-/i9 O - 6 - O 7 • PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required t( : t Petition delivered to Planning f(4)-Yet- A-3)l Petition assigned to: i (V\ C e Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date (-12Alz,x3 €t_ Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover C�Z 2t Chronology If ) -- Property Description (marked with a post it note) /UM Affected Sidwell Numbers Included • I %%.� 4-�- Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils I G4 I, �� Mailing Postmark Date Verification i`% �' 3 "V ,: Planning Commission Minutes ` i_. r 3 ll - Planning Staff Report ( L J 3 (i --- Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. 6/7, 110,3 :', _ Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 1,1 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 1� t Luth - Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition • Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office s��li11 I, Ry� yyy��S7 Af.;�.. T% w'oNt ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON MAYOR N H. PACE LAW DEPARTMENT purr clrr ArmRNEr EDWIN P. RUTAN, II CITY ATTORNEY January 15, 2003 Brent Wilde, Acting Planning Director Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Salt Lake City Foothill Development Ordinances Dear Brent: The purpose of this letter is to address a legal issue in the City's site development and zoning ordinances. • As you are aware, the City has adopted a site development ordinance referenced in Chapter 18.28 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since 1994, that site development ordinance has prohibited construction in foothill areas on property which has a slope in excess of 30 percent_ The site development ordinance refers to this steep slope property as "undevelopable area." In March 2001, the City amended the site development ordinance to make various changes. One of the changes provided that"undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the plan development review process." (See section 18.28.30.B.11.c, emphasis added.) The City zoning code provides that the minimum planned development size for foothill districts is five acres. (See Table at section 21A.54.150.E.2. The net effect of these two provisions is that foothill property with a slope in excess of 30 percent may riot be included to calculate the minimum lot size unless the property owner owns a minimum of five acres to be able to obtain planned development approval. As you are aware, the Salt Lake City foothills encompass a variety of gradual and steep slopes, but it would be very unusual to find a five-acre parcel of foothill property which does not include some undevelopable areas. As you are also aware,there are many foothill properties which have more than sufficient developable area upon which to build, but which are • significantly smaller than the five-acre minimum required for planned development. Thus, the application of these two ordinances, in their present form, could deny a property owner the 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 �w.cc.aco....a 1 ability to develop foothill property,not because it is too steep or too small to build upon,but 0 because the City ordinances refuse to recognize the ownership of steep slope areas,unless the owner has a minimum of five acres and is eligible to apply for planned development approval. Under such circumstances,the application of the City's ordinances would clearly deny the property owner of all reasonable and economic use of their property. It is well established under existing case law that if a City denies all reasonable economic use of private property,the municipality has taken the property for which compensation would be required. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). { This issue was discussed with the Planning Commission in November 2002. In response to that discussion,the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review and amend the City ordinances. While that petition is being processed,I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission interpret and apply section 1828.30.B.I I.c of the site development ordinance to delete the requirement for planned development approval,as follows: Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone,unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission.-through-the-planned development-review-process In this manner,the development of foothill properties will still be reviewed and approved • by the Planning Commission,but would not be prohibited by the requirements for planned developments. By so doing,the City can still maintain appropriate review of foothill development,without creating a risk of an unconstitutional taking. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please let me know. Sincerely ` rs yours,ou yrn I-I. ace LIIP/ns cc: Cindy Gust-Jensen • . I' the matter of Petition 400-02-12, Arla Funk moved to forward a recommendation to theity C. ncil not to close a portion of 500 West with the findings of fact outlined in the staff-report. Jenni -r Seelig seconded the motion. Findings of Fa 1. The propos. would not deny access to any other nearb1arcel. 2. The property wo. d be transferred to the Redeye! ment Agency to sell as a development site. •: of the purpose of the ale is to generate revenue to construct the 200 South to 400 South ..rtion of the 5 West blocks. 3. Closing the subject property I- co ary to the Master Plan policies for the areas, as identified in the Gateway Mas -r ' .n and the Gateway Specific Plan. A sale of the street would necessitate . change in .'opted policy. 4. Public policy does n support the closure. 'ny closure should be accompanied by a corresponding endment of the master plan. Ms. Arnold, M . Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDo •ugh, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seeli voted "Aye." Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motio carried. Mr. k de clarified that the first motion was a recommendation to the May. so the Planning mmission is not the final decision maker. The second motion is a recomm-ndation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Foothill Subdivision, requested by Amir S. Cornell, for a preliminary subdivision approval of a one-lot foothill subdivision, located at 1085 East North Bonneville Drive. This property is located within the Foothill Residential "FR-3" zoning district. This item was postponed. Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney's Office, explained that this matter was postponed due to a conflict with the ordinance, and Mr. Pace was prepared to discuss solutions. He explained that the ordinance arises out of re-codification of the site development ordinance from March 2000. It was previously incorporated by reference. Then the City adopted a slope restrictions ordinance which was later codified in the ordinance. The site development ordinance deals with developable slopes and undevelopable slopes in excess of 30%, and that concept is integrated throughout the ordinance. Historically, people have been allowed to include undevelopable slopes within a lot area if the area they intended to build on was Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 7,2002 developable. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Foothill Subdivision in the past could have a buildable area • as small as 1,500 square feet located adjacent to the street. If the zone required a half acre, the steep portion of the property could be included in the lot for the lot size calculation. The change purposely made a year and a half ago did not allow the steep slope to count toward the lot area minimum. In a half-acre zone, a half acre is needed excluding the 30% slope or the lot cannot be approved. Mr. Pace read from Subsection C of the ordinance: "Undevelopable area shall not be used to determine the minimum lot size as required by the underlying zone unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission through the planned development review process." He used examples explaining how the language applies. There is serious concern that this provision, applied with the planned development minimum standards, would mean that a perfectly flat buildable area could not be built on because there is not a large enough piece of ground for a planned development. He believes this could subject the City to a claim that it has taken away the value of the property. He stated that this provision in the site development ordinance as drafted is not enforceable in all settings. Either the Planning Commission or City Council can initiate a petition to amend the ordinance, and he recommended that they do so. He explained t that this petition was postponed due to this issue. Once a petition is initiated and the matter is resolved, they will return with this item at a later date. Mr. Jonas recalled that the reason for initiating the change was to review these things, and they did not anticipate an overriding chart that required five acres. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it was a purposeful change to toughen the requirement, but it resulted in an arbitrary decision on how large the lot should be. Mr. Pace explained that, if a petition to amend the ordinance is brought forward, the Planning Commission would have a chance to look at it again. He believed there was a legal problem with the ordinance and was prepared to say that the petition postponed this evening needs to be processed notwithstanding the legal problem. Arla Funk moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to change this ordinance and for Staff to return with a recommendation as to what should be done. Time permitted the Planning Commission to discuss agenda items under Other Business before Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 7,2002 REMARKS Petition No. 400-03-07 By Planning Commission Is requesting a petition on Foothill Subdivisions and minimum lot sizes and Planned Developments. I i I i Dale Filed Add• rerJ