The URL can be used to link to this page

03/18/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, March 18, 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; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Steve Wetherell, Golf Manager; Gordon Hoskins, Accounting Controller; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Lewis Zunguze, Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Nelson Knight, Capitol Hill/Historic Preservation Planner; Marilyn Lewis, West Salt Lake/Environmental Planning; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Kendrick Cowley, City Recorder; Steve Whittaker, Information Management Services Technology Consultant; Ken Holman, Overland Development; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff recommended the Council accept comments on Item C-1, Overland Development rezoning, then continue the hearing to March 20, 2003. She said extending the hearing would allow additional time for community input. She said notices were mailed to everyone in the area because the community had expressed concerns about inadequate notice. #2. INTERVIEW MARY ANN VILLARREAL PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. Ms. Villarreal said she moved to Salt Lake last July and taught history at the University of Utah. She said she wanted to be active in the community and help address literacy concerns. #3. INTERVIEW ELAINE MCDONALD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. McDonald said she was a native of Salt Lake and had golfed for 40 years. Discussion was held on golf course growth, affordable fees, and controlling maintenance costs. #4. INTERVIEW CLAUDIA HOPE O'GRADY PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Ms. O'Grady, Executive Director of Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation, said 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 the organization developed affordable housing throughout the state. She said the creation of the board would allow citizens to participate in an open public process. #5. INTERVIEW DANIEL LEVIN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Mr. Levin said he was an assistant political science professor at the University of Utah. He said he had past experience in criminal law and had published criminal justice studies. He said he taught civil liberty, constitutional, and administrative law and wanted to get involved in the community. #6. INTERVIEW PAULA WOLFE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Ms. Wolfe said she was the Executive Director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah. She said she felt the review board would provide an opportunity to change community perceptions. Applicants for the Police Civilian Review Board were interviewed as a group. Councilmember Saxton asked what expectations candidates had for how often the board needed to meet. Mr. Levin said Linda Hamilton was the investigator for the board. He said she told him she did not know how often meetings would be held. He said he concurred with that. Ms. O'Grady said she thought the board would need to meet monthly. Ms. Wolfe said she did not have an expectation but assumed the meetings would be on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Lambert asked what experience applicants had which would help them serve on the board. Ms. O'Grady said she did not have investigative training but had worked with the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) on affordable housing issues. Ms. Wolfe said she did not have any direct training but had served on a public safety committee created by the SLCPD and felt she was learning the process. Councilmember Lambert asked if applicants felt they could be fair to both police and the public. Mr. Levin said he had ties with law enforcement personnel and had served on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) . He said he felt he understood the issues from both sides and could offer a reasonable assessment. Ms. Wolfe said she felt she could be fair because of her upbringing and believed issues needed balance. She said being a citizen and understanding police procedures would help her be objective. Ms. O'Grady said she agreed with Mr. Levin regarding the balance of civil liberties and good law enforcement. She said she felt the two had to co-exist and she did not see a conflict. Councilmember Buhler asked what perception applicants had of the Police Department regarding fair treatment of civilians. Ms. O'Grady said her interactions with police had been positive. Ms. Wolfe said she was involved in police training regarding hate crimes and her over-all experience had been positive. She said there were a few areas of concern which she felt could be overcome with training. Mr. Levin said he moved to Salt Lake from Boise, Idaho where police had problems with professionalism and use of force. He said since living in Salt Lake he had been impressed with the degree of professionalism and community trust with law enforcement. Councilmember Jergensen asked applicants how they felt the board should function. Mr. Levin said he felt the board needed to evaluate cases and determine which ones 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 warranted investigation. He said investigations needed to be addressed fairly, adequately and through an open process. He said a public open process would benefit the relationship between the community and police. Ms. Wolfe said she agreed with Mr. Levin' s comments regarding the open process and helping the community and police deal with differences. She said to some degree, she saw the board functioning as an arbitration unit. Ms. O'Grady said she felt the board would have multiple functions. She said she felt the majority of complaints would come from people who felt they had been wronged. She said the open process would encourage confidence in law enforcement and build a positive relationship with the community. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 1060 SOUTH 900 WEST FROM RESIDENTIAL TO OPEN SPACE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-31. (JORDAN PARK) . View Attachment Cheri Coffey, Marilyn Lewis, and Marge Harvey briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if the proposal legalized the current use. Ms. Coffey said community centers were allowed in the R-1-5000 zone as a conditional use. She said the Planning Commission (PC) approved the conditional use but the City wanted to change the zoning because the property was part of the park and should be zoned open space. Councilmember Christensen asked if the proposed use was allowed in the open space zone. Ms. Coffey said yes. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about housing mitigation. She asked if the City planned to construct a home at 557 South 1000 West. Ms. Coffey said she thought so but the project would come through the Housing Division. Councilmember Saxton said if the house was already earmarked for construction it should not be counted as housing mitigation. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the City could allocate money to the Housing Trust Fund for housing mitigation. She asked if the Council wanted a motion prepared for official consideration. Councilmember Saxton said yes. Councilmember Turner said the community supported the proposal and wanted to see the entrance to Jordan Park enhanced. The majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the proposal. #8. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 321-331 SOUTH 500 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550-558 EAST 300 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE, AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326-348 SOUTH 600 EAST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE. (OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT, KEN HOLMAN) (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-la, b and c) . View Attachment Janice Jardine, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie, and Ken Holman briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said a briefing was held in the Council Chambers to address resident concerns. She said the community council chair planned to meet with more residents on March 19, 2003 and hoped the Council would extend the hearing to allow additional input. Councilmember Saxton asked about the PC' s height recommendations on 600 East and 300 South. Mr. Dansie said the PC wanted to modify the height to 50 feet to be consistent with building codes. He said to be consistent with the Central City Master Plan, the Planning Division recommended restricting the height on 600 East to 45 feet. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 Councilmember Saxton said 300 South was generally a residential community and she was concerned about allowing 75 foot structures. She asked how 300 South was zoned. Mr. Dansie said there was a combination of R-MU and Residential Office (RO) . He said R-MU allowed 75 feet and RO allowed 80-feet. Councilmember Christensen asked if 75 to 80 foot buildings existed in the immediate area. Mr. Dansie said no. He said the majority of the structures were 50 foot apartment buildings. Councilmember Saxton said she understood there was a zoning issue with Phase I and II regarding parking. She said the City needed to address shared parking criteria so zoning changes were not made based on parking needs. She said expanding commercial development on 300 South should be a future consideration. She said regarding R-MU zoning, the City had been successful in developing the commercial part of mixed-use but not residential. She said until the residential aspect was addressed, she was apprehensive about allowing commercial development on 300 South including 75-foot height allowances. She said she supported the R-MU zoning on 600 East. Councilmember Jergensen asked if approving just Phase I, would affect the developer's ability to move forward with Phases II and III. Mr. Dansie said no. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Holman what his current needs were. Mr. Holman said Phase I had the proper zoning but a portion of the property where the parking structure would be located still needed the R-MU zoning. He said the parking structure was designed to accommodate the parking needs for Phase II. Mr. Holman said the construction loan for Phase I would be finalized April 7, 2003. He said Phase II was basically designed but he wanted to begin the construction loan application process. He said Phase III was several years away. Councilmember Christensen asked if the proposed zoning was more restrictive than the current zoning. Mr. Dansie said yes, depending on which parcel of land was being considered. Ms. Jardine said the proposed ordinances restricted the height on 600 East to 45 feet. She said a master plan amendment was needed if the petitioner wanted 50 feet. Councilmember Christensen said he had mixed feelings about development on 600 East. Councilmember Saxton said this was a historical district which had specific restraints and guidelines. She said she supported mixed-use but felt it needed to be orientated where commercial development already existed. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned about the destruction of historical sites. Ms. Coffey said the Historic Landmark Commission was involved in the process to determine which sites could be demolished. Councilmember Lambert asked where 75 foot structures were being allowed. Mr. Dansie said on 300 South and 500 East. He said frontage heights would be lower on 600 East but the rear portions could go to 75 feet. He said Phases II and III had not been through the Historic Landmark Commission for review of mass and design. He asked how significant the 75 foot issue was. Councilmember Saxton said a 75 foot structure would dwarf anything else on the block. She said the difficulty was the current zoning allowed that on 300 South. Councilmember Lambert asked Councilmember Saxton where she felt the proposal needed some change with respect to commercial or retail. Councilmember Saxton said she felt commercial should not be encouraged on the 300 South corridor. She said it should be encouraged across the street on 600 East and south of the proposal on 400 South where commercial already existed. Councilmember Lambert asked what retail or commercial development was being proposed on 300 South. Mr. Dansie said the developer did not have plans for major 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 retail on the ground level. He said the developer might consider putting their offices on the ground level. Councilmember Lambert asked if the developer was required to build some commercial or retail. Mr. Dansie said no. He said the developer could build exclusively residential but the zoning allowed retail on the ground level if they chose that. Councilmember Christensen asked how the Council proceeded from here. Ms. Jardine said the Council could adopt the ordinances proposed by the PC or adopt ordinances which required the PC to modify their approval relative to commercial development. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the ordinances would be written so the changes only became effective if the PC made changes relating to 300 South. Councilmember Jergensen asked about amending the master plan. Ms. Jardine said the ordinances were structured so a master plan amendment was not required. She said a motion could be prepared requesting a master plan amendment. She said she could get more information or clarification for the Council between now and Thursday. Councilmember Jergensen said the master plan was important and the Council needed to make a decision. Ms. Jardine said the Phase I ordinance could be adopted and the master plan amendment addressed when the PC considered Phases II and III. Councilmember Christensen said he understood there were potential parking issues with Phase II. Mr. Dansie said parking was being overbuilt in Phase I so the property line easement did not come into play until Phase II. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about the affect delaying Phase II would have on future development plans. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Holman if 75 foot commercial structures were allowed in Phase III, would that offset the necessity to have the same height allowance on 300 South. Mr. Holman said retail was not an important issue because he mainly developed multi-family units and to put retail on the main level of 300 South did not make sense. He said the R-MU zone allowed him to put his offices in the building if he chose to. Mr. Holman said he felt office use would be compatible because parking would be used by his employees during the day and tenants would use the parking at night. He said he agreed 600 East was a good location for mixed-use and planned to develop high-end owner occupied condominium units in that area. He said the 75 foot height issue was a big concern because land costs were expensive and a high density structure would allow development costs to be spread over more units. Mr. Holman said the previous developer worked on this project for three years. He said he had been working on the project for approximately 2.5 years. He said carrying costs on the land were $15,000 per month. Councilmember Buhler suggested the Council advance the issue as recommended by the PC. Council Members were in favor of the suggestion. Councilmember Christensen said the public hearing needed to be continued to March 20, 2003. #9. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 12 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Michael Sears, Mayor Anderson, Gordon Hoskins, Rocky Fluhart, and Steve Fawcett briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Sears said Issue No. 43 was a $40,000 funding request from the Administration for an investigator to assist the independent review commission. Councilmember Christensen said he understood the investigation would go beyond the Elizabeth Smart investigation. 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 Mayor Anderson said there were two general areas of the Smart case which the investigation would address. He said 1) if anything inappropriate occurred during the investigation, if there were any lessons to be learned, and issues of accountability either institutional or individual. He said 2) were there any inappropriate disclosure of information originating from the Salt Lake City Police Department. Mayor Anderson said another facet of the investigation dealt with four prior homicide cases. He said similar questions were raised in both the Smart case and the previous homicide cases. Councilmember Buhler said he understood nothing would be done on the Smart investigation until a judgment was entered from the trial. Mayor Anderson said that was correct. He said the investigation would begin after the trial but before any appeals were filed. Councilmember Buhler said he agreed there were questions which needed to be addressed. He said he felt there was a timing issue and asked why the Council needed to approve $40,000 now since the Smart investigation would not be conducted until after a trial judgment. Mayor Anderson said the money was needed for the portion of the investigation which dealt with the prior homicides. Councilmember Buhler asked what $40, 000 would provide in the way of personnel or services. Mayor Anderson said he did not think this would be a full-time position. He said a person was needed to follow-up on leads to save the commission from having to interview every possible witness. He said he hoped other police investigators would provide free help. Councilmember Buhler asked about the hiring process. Mr. Fluhart said he anticipated hiring a person on contract. He said the Administration wanted someone with investigative experience. Councilmember Buhler asked if retired City police personnel would be hired. Mr. Fluhart said that was unlikely. Councilmember Lambert asked how $40, 000 was determined. Mr. Fluhart said a higher estimate was provided by staff but until the commission started working, it would be hard to define the amount needed. Mayor Anderson said this was a public service by the commission members. He said he hoped the person they hired would donate their time or provide the service at a reduced cost. Councilmember Lambert said he hoped the goal of the commission was to find better techniques to investigate serious crimes . He said he did not want people to use this proposal as a way to criticize past investigations. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about how to determine when the commission' s job was complete. He asked if the Mayor felt the investigation could get out of hand. Mayor Anderson said no. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the Administration felt the $40, 000 would cover the entire investigation. Mayor Anderson said he hoped it would but there was no guarantee. Councilmember Jergensen said he agreed the investigation should be used to improve the process and not for criticism. Councilmember Christensen said the item would be placed on the March 20, 2003 agenda for consideration. #10. RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A PROPOSED OLYMPIC LEGACY PROJECT FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX. View Attachment Councilmember Buhler briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked about public process. Councilmember Buhler said the public process was not complete but he wanted to start the Request for Proposal (RFP) process which would take several months. He said all Community Council chairs in District Six expressed support. He said before an art contract was signed, residents of the district 03 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 18 , 2003 would be invited to attend an open house and provide input. He said he would not move forward if the community did not support the proposal. Councilmember Turner asked about costs and placing small replicas of the sculpture in elementary schools. Councilmember Buhler said the actual costs were unknown but Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Director, felt $100, 000 would be enough to handle the project. He said the main cost would be the sculpture. He said any remaining funds could be used to produce small replicas for each elementary school in the district. He said if funding was available, he wanted every elementary school in the City to have a replica. Councilmember Turner asked about the development of other proposals. Councilmember Buhler said other ideas could be submitted but from the people he spoke with, this proposal had wide support. Councilmember Lambert asked if Councilmember Buhler felt there had been sufficient public process to determine this was the right project. Councilmember Buhler said yes, but he had struggled with the most efficient way to ensure community input. Councilmember Christensen said this would be placed on the agenda for a formal vote. #11. CONSIDER ENTERING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (i) . An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for Sworn Statement. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. sc 03 - 7 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 14, 2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-02-31 —Rezoning 4 lots at approximately 1060 South 900 West from Residential to Open Space and amend the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted,the ordinance would affect District 2 STAFF REPORT BY: Marge Harvey, Constituent Liaison/Research Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Lewis, Planning Division KEY ELEMENTS: 1. This rezoning and master plan amendment request was initiated by the City's Community and Economic Development Department and the Public Services Department. The properties are owned • by the City and have been used as part of the Jordan Park. The Administration indicates that the properties were inadvertently zoned residential during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project because they were not believed to be part of the park. The parcels are adjacent to other residentially zoned parcels to the south. (please refer to the attached map for reference.) 2. The properties contain a house formerly used as a caretaker's residence,the park's greenhouse facility and a parking lot. The City has owned the house and property since 1955. The use of the house as a caretaker's residence was considered an accessory use to the park until the program was discontinued in the 1990's. The house will not be demolished,but will be rehabilitated without major alterations to serve as a community outreach center as part of the University of Utah's University/Neighborhood Partners Program. On October 3,2002,the Planning Commission _ approved a conditional use(required under the current R-1-5000 zoning district)for the community center so rehabilitation work could begin. 3. Chapter 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code requires that housing loss be mitigated for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land that includes within its boundaries a residential dwelling unit. As the structure has not been used as a private residence since 1955,there is question - as to whether the structure should be considered a residential dwelling. The City is proposing to construct a new single-family dwelling at 557 South 1000 West to satisfy the housing mitigation requirements for the rezoning request. (Please refer to the Housing Loss Mitigation Report in the Planning staff report for details.) 4. This proposal will consolidate and rezone the City-owned properties into one tax number in order to clarify its association with the park. This will allow the use of existing parking in the park for the • proposed community center as well as for the greenhouse operation. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: - 1. Key issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing and the Administration's responses are , Summarized below: a) Will a buffer be provided between the community center and residential neighborhood?- A ten-foot landscaped buffer will be provided along all property lines of the community center that are adjacent to neighboring residential parcels. b) Will the community center be ADA accessible?- ADA access will be provided for the bathrooms,all doorways and the parking lot of the community center. c) Will the hours of operation and activities,particularly on the lawn adjacent to a residence on the south side of the building,be limited to reduce the impact of noise on the adjacent neighborhood?- Hours of operation will be determined by the lease agreement;the applicant's proposed hours are from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays with some evening and weekend activities.Activities on the southern lawn will be limited from 9:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent residence to the south. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: The University of Utah will lease the property and operate the Community Center. In lieu of monthly rent,the University will enter into a 10 year lease and will commit$60,000 toward renovation of the property. MASTER PLAN&POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Section 21A.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states that amendments to the zoning • map should be consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan of Salt Lake City. Therefore,the parcels associated with park land should be identified 2. The goals of the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan are: a) conserve the natural environment b) enhance open space amenities for all citizens c) Connect the various parts of the City to natural environments d) Educate the citizens on proper use of open space 3. This proposal reinforces the community's identified desire in the West Salt Lake Master Plan to "continue developing park facilities"and to"open up access to parks". 4. The West Salt Lake Master Plan shows the majority of the land in the vicinity as public open space. This proposed use is in keeping with that intent. 5. This site does not fall within any of the City's overlay zones or in a designated historic district. 6. The site does not contain any specific environmental features that will require mitigation. CHRONOLOGY: • July 26,2002 The West Salt Lake Community Council Executive Board was • presented with the proposal by the University of Utah to remodel the caretaker's cottage for use as a community outreach center and to rezone four parcels from residential to open space. The Executive Committee felt it was not necessary to have the proposal presented to the full community council and forwarded a letter to the City in favor of the proposal • September 18, 2002 Sent notice to property owners within 300 feet of the October 3, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing and posted the property. • October 3,2002 The Planning Commission held a hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the conditional use, rezoning,and consolidation of park parcels, as well as housing loss mitigation. • January 30, 2003 Received the ordinance from the Attorney's Office. cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Chief Dinse, Chief Querry, LeRoy Hooton, Rick Graham,Val Pope,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Marilyn Lewis,Annette Daley File location: Community and Economic Development,Planning Division, Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Jordan Park, 1060 South 900 West 11111 Zoning Map • --OS DALTON AVE SITE ( el W FREMONT AVE IFW .L 00 FEB 2 4 2003 SALT € £ qCITY '�', a G RPO I,ON • - = + --� •-�A .Y - = ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: February 18, 2002 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition No. 400-02-31: Rezoning 4 lots at approximately 1060 South 900 West from Residential to Open Space. STAFF CONTACT: Marilynn Lewis, 535-6409 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing regarding amendments to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. • DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City departments of Community& Economic Development and Public Services initiated this request to amend the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map, to rezone 4 lots at approximately 1060 South 900 West from Residential (R- 1/5,000) to Open Space (OS). The parcels are adjacent to other residentially zoned parcels to the south. The publicly owned properties were inadvertently zoned residential during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project because they were not believed to be part of the park. Analysis: The City has owned the house at 1060 South 900 West Street since 1955. Currently, the house is vacant,but in the past it has been used as a park caretaker's residence. The remaining park parcels subject to the rezoning contain the park's greenhouse facility and parking lot. The City is working with the University of Utah to create a community outreach center at the aforementioned address. Rezoning the property is necessary to resolve issues with off site parking for the greenhouse facility as well as the new community center. As part of the rezoning, an amendment is needed to the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan's Future Land Use Map, which currently identifies the property for low-density residential land use. Master Plan: This project reinforces the community's identified desire, in the West Salt Lake Master Plan, to"continue developing park facilities"and to "open up access to parks". The Futures Commission Report identifies the desire to develop community-based family and youth • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84117 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 8131-535-6005 �� accrcco v.,aev resource centers in residential neighborhoods in order to have meaningful volunteer experiences. These experiences promote business-mentoring programs that motivate and train young people • to graduate from school and go to work. The centers also promote civic responsibility and a sense of ownership and membership in the community by developing programs that allow citizens to work together on community-based solutions to problems in their neighborhoods. Fulfilling the zoning request requires an amendment to the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Generalized Future Land Use Map, to identify the collection of parcels as open space, rather than low density residential. Public Process: The parcels are located within the West Salt Lake Community Council boundaries. The executive committee of the West Salt Lake Community Council reviewed the request on July 26, 2002 and gave support for the community center. They also declined having the petition presented to the full community council. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on October 3, 2002. The Planning Commission passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council, based on the findings of fact in the Staff Report. At this same meeting, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use for the community center, so the applicant could begin rehabilitation work on the structure. Community centers are allowed as a conditional use in the R-I/5,000 zoning district. Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to Zoning Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative • discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Based on these five factors, staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity, impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones and the adequacy of existing services and facilities. Based on this analysis, the Planning Commission transmitted a favorable recommendation for rezoning the park parcels as requested. Section 21A.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states that amendments to the zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan of Salt Lake City. Therefore, the parcels associated with park land should be identified the same as other park land in the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan's future land use map, which identifies park land as Open Space. Master Plan Amendment: UT Code 10-9-304. Identifies the process for amending the general plan including giving actual notice to those affected by the master plan amendment. Housing Mitigation: Chapter 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code requires that housing loss be mitigated, for any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries a residential dwelling unit. • • The subject structure has not been used as a private residence since the City acquired the property in 1955. The structure was used as a caretaker's residence for the park, which is considered an accessory use to the park (until the program was discontinued in the 1990's). Because there was a question as to whether the structure was considered a "residential use", mitigation was proposed. The City is proposing to build a new structure in Council District 2 at 557 South 1000 West in order to satisfy the housing mitigation requirements for this rezoning. The existing structure at 1060 South 900 West will not be demolished,but rehabilitated without major alterations, in order to maintain the character of the area and continue in aesthetic harmony with the park parcel. Mitigation for the loss of housing was chosen as "replacement housing". A new housing unit will be built in City Council District 2, at 557 South 1000 West. • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHRONOLOGY ORDINANCE NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING MAILING LABELS PLANNING COMMISSION Original Notice and Postmark September 18, 2002 Staff Report October 3, 2002 Agenda/Minutes October 3, 2002 • ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-01-381 • CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July of 2002. Jacob Brace, Weed and Seed Coordinator attended the West Salt Lake Community Council's Executive Committee meeting to obtain input on the University of Utah's proposal to turn a vacant park house into a recreation center. Creation of the center would require a conditional use and rezoning of parcels to eliminate off-site parking issues. • August 27, 2002. Department of Community and Economic Development Director initiated petition for the rezoning of park parcels. • September 5, 2002. Sent memo requesting department comments. • September 18, 2002. Sent notice to property owners within 300 feet of October 3, 2002 Planning Commission public hearing and posted property. • October 3, 2002. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the conditional use,rezoning and consolidation of park parcels, as well as housing loss mitigation. • January 30, 2003. Received ordinance from Attorney's Office. • February 5, 2003. Received a description and exhibit for the ordinance from the City Surveyor. • ORDINANCE • 0 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Rezoning Property Located at 1060 South 900 West and Amending the Master Plan) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1060 SOUTH 900 WEST FROM RESIDENTIAL(R-1-5000) TO OPEN SPACE (OS), AND AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-31. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 1060 South 900 West and the amendment of the master plan is appropriate for the development of the • community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 1060 South 900 West,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential (R-1-5000)to Open Space (OS). SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Amendment of Master Plan. The 1995 West Salt Lake Community Generalized Future Land Use Map, as previously adopted by Salt Lake City Council, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date • of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) - Bill No. of 2003. Published: ^ _ G_\Ordinance 03\Rezoning Property located at 1060 S 900 W-Jan 30,2003.doc i N U OF U REZONED • IN JORDAN PARK N 89'58'19" E 144.7 1 I 1/2 DALTON AVENUE I. (VACATED) 15-11- 1 401-080 1 i LOT 1 I 1 io 1 1 t0 0 t 15-11-401-081 0 o 15-11-401-082 t7,Iq r'1 1 oN y • IZ L❑T 2 & 3 aig -� HOUSE t m y -I 73 V in 1 I 1 -1 IF 1 15-11-401-083 I 1 L❑T 4 & 5 1 i 1 1 S89'58'19" W SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, P� / S MUSCATINE PLACE 144.45' S 89-58'194 W DESCRIPTION! 12.01 BEGINNING AT THE POINT S 89'58'19" W 12.01 FEET FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MUSCATINE PLACE SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, T1S, R1W, SLB & M; THENCE S 89'58'19" W • 144.45 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE VACATED ALLEY ON THE WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE N 00'26'00" W 190.17 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF VACATED DALTON AVENUE; THENCE N 89'58'19" E 144.45 FEET ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 900 WEST STREET; THENCE S 00'26'00" E 190.16 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.63 ACRES MORE OR LESS. C:\VICKY\JOBS .IORDANP\jordan\ordanp.dwg, 2/5/2003 1:10:59 PM 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report October 3, 2002 • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment request for the Property at 1060 South 900 West Petition #400-02-31 October 3, 2002 REQUEST Petition #400-02-31 is a request by the City Administration, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000 (single-family residential district) to OS (open space district). The purpose for the change is to enable this residential structure to be used as part of the City's parks, community recreation programs. The amendment will provide consistency in zoning for all of the Jordan Park properties, owned by the City and used in association with parkland. This request also requires an amendment to the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Generalized Future Land Use Map, to identify the aforementioned collection of parcels as • open space, rather than single-family residential. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL (S) REVIEW: The West Salt Lake Community Council met on July 26, 2002 to discuss a proposal by the University of Utah to use the house, at the aforementioned address, as a community center. Mr. Randy Sorenson, Chair and the Executive Board have forwarded a letter to the City in favor of the community center. Exhibit 6 of this report contains a signed copy of the community letter. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Salt Lake City Administration Purpose of proposal and Proposed amendment: The purpose of the zoning map amendment request is to rezone publicly owned property from R-1/5,000 to OS,that was not included in the Zoning Rewrite Project of 1995. The rezoning of the property is necessary to resolve issues • with off site parking associated with the community center. This action also requires an amendment to the area master plan. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Existing Zoning and • Overlay Districts: The existing zone is R- 1/5,000. This site is not located in any of the City's overlay districts. Existing Master Plan Policies: This project reinforces the community's identified desire,in the West Salt Lake Master Plan: to "continue developing park facilities" and to "open up access to parks". The Futures Commission Report identifies the desire to develop community-based family and youth resource centers in residents to have meaningful volunteer experiences; promote business-mentoring programs; motivate and train young people to graduate from school, go to work, and live services, including community services that can be reached by walking bicycling or using public transit; and promote civic responsibility, a sense of ownership and membership in the community by developing programs that allow citizens to work together on community-based solutions to problems in the neighborhoods. • Affected areas and Parcel numbers: All of the affected parcels are described and shown on a map in Exhibit 4. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. This proposal requires consolidation of all City owned Jordan Park parcels(in the Muscatine subdivision)into one tax number in order to clarify its association with the park and allow the use of existing parking in the park for the community center. This project will change the zoning of all of the city-owned residentially zoned properties to open space, consistent with the rest of Jordan Park. Off site parking is not allowed in the R-1/5,000 or Open Space zoning districts. This proposal eliminates the issue of off-sited parking facilities for the greenhouse operation, as well as for the proposed University of Utah Community Outreach Center. The greenhouse structures are straddling property lines and zoning districts. The house proposed for use by the University is also straddling interior lot lines. This situation could111/ Staff Report Petition Number 400-02-31 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division become problematic for the Department of Public Services if and when permits are needed to reconstruct or perform major construction to the structures. The community center will provide new activities and opportunities for the neighborhood, the local youth and the community at large, through a variety of programs. The local community will have access to the structure for meetings. The site will be the home base for the Bend-in-the-River Youth Leadership Program. The structure will also house an environmental library, which is at the disposal of area residents and teachers. There will also be space for an employment and training resource library for residents seeking new opportunities. This project will not compete, in programming efforts, with other community centers in and around the area. The University has committed to making the following changes to the structure, according to a draft of the lease: I. Make the bathrooms and doorways of the structure accessible. 2. Repair and paint interior walls. 3. Re-roof the entire structure. 4. Add exterior security lighting. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, • objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: In accordance with Ordinance 26 of 1995, the future land use designation is what is shown on the West Salt Lake Zoning Map for these properties. The West Salt Lake Community Master Zoning Map identifies the parcels for low-density residential development because there was a home on this property. We now have a new use and require a more appropriate zone. Therefore, staff recommends an amendment to the future land use map occur as part of this proposal. The master plan identifies goals for parks, recreation and open space including: *Develop a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities and adequate services, and... "continue developing park facilities"and to "open up access to parks". The 1998 Futures Commission Report identifies the desire to develop community- based family and youth resource centers in every neighborhood;provide opportunities for all residents to have meaningful volunteer experiences;promote business-mentoring programs; and motivate and train young people to graduate • from school, go to work, and lead more productive lives as citizens of Salt Lake City. The goal is to provide the neighborhood with a variety of services, including Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 3 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division those that can be reached by walking, bicycling or using public transportation. It is also important to promote civic responsibility, as well as a sense of ownership and membership in the community through the development of programs that allow citizens to work together on community-based solutions to problems in their neighborhoods. Findings: Rezoning the properties to Open Space helps clarify that these parcels are part of Jordan Park and allows the Public Services Department more flexibility with future upgrades to existing facilities (in particular the greenhouses, maintenance yard) and the subject structure. This consolidation also eliminates any problems, which could arise on subdivision issues since parking is currently on a separate lot, not to mention a different zone. The facilities must be tied together in order to coherently plan for development of facilities and programs in the park, such as the proposed community center, which meets goals identified in the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and the Futures Commission Report. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The existing character of the neighborhood is comprised of properties zoned as single-family residential and open space. Findings: The rezoning of the parcels to be consistent with the rest of Jordan Park • will help identify these parcels as part of the park. The single-family structure will remain and be utilized for community enrichment programs. The existing streetscape will retain the same character. The park parcels will remain in harmony with the neighborhood_ C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The adjacent properties consist of a church, Jordan Park (open space properties) and single- family residence to the south and across the street to the east. In general,rezoning the properties open space will not negatively impact adjacent properties. A ten-foot landscape buffer is required on the parcel zoned Open Space between the open space uses and the existing residential use to the south. Currently,the residential property south of the subject parcels has a 4-foot high fence with 5-foot high site proof vinyl inserts, thereby creating a 5-foot high screen. The applicant will need to provide this landscape buffer before a certificate of occupancy is granted for the community center. The new zoning will require that the landscape buffers for side and rear yards, adjacent to residential properties,be met. These improvements will need to be shown on the proposed landscape plan. The University has stated that the hours of operation for the community center • will be from 8:00am to 5:OOpm with some night meetings running as late as 5.00 Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 4 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division to 9:00pm. Parking is proposed along the southern drive of the park but the main • pedestrian entrance to the center will be through the front door along the 900 West frontage. Accessibility must be provided. The landscaped lot south of the house was not included in the area outlined in Exhibit "A"of the draft lease,but will be part of the lot once the lots are consolidated. Use of the landscaped area south of the house must not negatively impact adjacent residential uses_ Findings: The activities of the Center are consistent with the Health Department's noise ordinance. Morning meetings cannot occur before 7:00am or after l 0:00pm. Activities on the southern landscaped lot were not identified in the draft lease. The park gates are closed at l 1:00pm in the evening, therefore parking for the facility will be closed off at that time. It is important that activities at the community outreach center be synchronized with the daily flow of the neighborhood, so that negative impacts are not experienced. Exterior lighting added for security purposes may not shine onto any adjacent lots and may not become a nuisance to other residential structures. A ten-foot landscaped buffer is required between the subject property and the residentially zoned property to the south. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards. • Discussion: The site is not located within any of the City's overlay ;ones Findings: There are no overlay zoning districts on the site that will impose additional standards. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools,storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City Departments and/or Divisions. Comments were received from the Division of Transportation,Property Management, Public Utilities and the Police Department. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 3. The Division of Transportation does not see an increase in impacts on the abutting arterial transportation corridor, or the existing parking facilities related to a change in zoning from R-1/5,000 to Open Space. Property Management is in favor of rezoning the parcels and consolidating them. Public Utilities has no objection to the rezoning and consolidation of the City owned parcels. The Police Department was not opposed to the rezoning and consolidation of park parcels and hopes that additional utilization of the space will provide more passive surveillance of the area. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 5 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Findings: The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request and have • found that existing public facilities and services are adequate to serve the subject property. The applicant may be required to upgrade existing utilities to the structure as part of the change of use application. Master Plan Amendment Code Criteria: The Utah Code Annotated (10-9-302) identifies the procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The code identifies an adoption process that mandates a fourteen-day notification requirement giving actual notice of the hearing or meeting to the owners of the affected property. Property owners were notified at least fourteen days prior to the public hearing. Findings: The mandated notification procedures, as outlined in the State Code for amending a master plan have been followed. Housing Mitigation Code Criteria: In accordance with Section 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code, housing loss must be mitigated for any petition for a zoning change that would • permit a nonresidential use of land that includes within its boundaries, residential dwelling units. Findings: As outlined in the attached "Housing Loss Mitigation Report" the requirement of Section 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code have been adequately addressed with the applicant's proposal to construct a replacement dwelling within City Council District 2. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council, to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. The following conditions must be met to ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood: 1. The community outreach center's hours of operation are limited to 7:00am to I O:00pm_ 2_ Landscape Buffering be provided as required by the zoning ordinance and the approval of the final landscaping plan be delegated to the Planning Director. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 6 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division • 3. Accessibility into the building must be provided to meet ADA guidelines. Final 111 approval of structures;permanent or temporary should be delegated to the Planning Director and Director of Public Services, prior to installation and commencement of operations. Marilynn Lewis, Planning Division Attachments: Exhibit I -Zoning Map showing existing conditions. Exhibit 2-Memorandum from Director of CED. Exhibit 3- Comments from Departments. Exhibit 4-Description,with map of parcels to be consolidated and rezoned. Exhibit 5- Description,with map of road frontage to be transferred for 900 West Street. Exhibit 6-Letter from Community Council and Neighbors. Exhibit 7-Package from University of Utah. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400--02-31 7 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division • Exhibit 1 • ZoningMap. p- Staff Report,Petition Number 40002-31 7 October 3,2W2 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Zoning . , . . • -Jame(Arp-ARK Os - , SITE :_ : ___: . , DA LTO N AVE 5 }-- i O I ::--,-,:4-- -1,---,.-,--i-- c) FREMONT AVE / Et --I-- rill milli y - Awat 00 ;:t 1 i 0 r 1 1 o z-- -------- ll\ s\li._i, I I- I r 1 . I • Exhibit 2 Memorandum from Director of CEO. 0 Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 8 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division • MARGARET HUNT SALT` t �` ` �"' F�-ef GORPOR IOII � d`� '�� -ate-=.�Qa-a' ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERS° D.wc crow COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • August 27, 2002 Stephen A. Goldsmith, Director Planning Division BUILDING Re: Zoning Map Amendment for the City-owned house at Jordan Park. 1060 S. 900 West_ Dear Stephen, The City is working on a project to lease the City-owned residential structure at 1060 South 900 West (tax parcel # 15-11-401-081, 15-11-401-082 and 15-11-401-083) to the University of Utah for a community outreach center. It has come to my attention that this City-owned property is zoned R-1/5,000_ The property has been part of Jordan Park for • many years_ Until recently, the park caretaker occupied the house and a portion of the p;nk rreenhomes cats (In the t>>hjeet parcel In light of this information, I request that you create a petition and have your staff analyze the appropriateness of rezoning the City-owned parcels from R-1/5000 to the Open Space zoning classification. This will not only help facilitate the processing of the proposed University Community Center but will also help identify this property as part of Jordan Park. Sincerely, :// • Margaret Hunt, Director Community and Economic Development Department cc: file Rick Graham, Director of Public Services S 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 11 TELEPHONE:801-535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005 • • Exhibit 3 Comments from Departments. • Stall Report,Petition Number 900-02-31 10 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division SAID'`` <;'(GRIT t�OKPOKE1Tf ON, TIMOTHY P.r,Aal�_, y ROSS C.-a OCKY"ANOERSOI 00M,,U ITY AN ECONOMIC ,NO OROc .OPMLN, Do September 5,2002 Marilyrm Lewis Planning Division 451 South State Si,Rm.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 8411 I Re: Conditional Use Petition 8410-609 and Petition 11400-02-31 to Rezone a R-1/5000 property to Open Space at 1060 South 900 West fur a Community Outreach center. Dear Marilynn, The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed rezone as follows: the rezoning proposal from R-1/5000 to Open Space does not increase impacts on the existing abutting arterial transportation corridor and the existing parking facilities in the pal abutting the building are adequate for the proposed change in zoning use implied.We do require that all property changes must comply with all parking& maneuvering functions required for this facility and so designated.ADA compliance must be incorporated on site for that function,weather residential or commercial with appropriate access corridors.There is no parking along 900 West,therefore we do not want to promote the 900 West frontage as access. • Please feel free to call Inc if von have any questions or ronccrns about these comments Sincerely, Barry D.Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. ce Kevin J.Young,P.E. Krtrt G.Larson,P.E. Craig Smith,Engineering Val Pope,Parks file • • 399 SOUTH ZOO EAST,SUITE 450,SAL/LAKE C,Y,O,A„O , ELERr o E:ao,z3S-66.3r, LA:-0U,-5.3s-r;019 Lewis,Marilynn From: Cordova,Linda Sent: Monday,September 09,2002 2 06 PM To: Lewis,Marilynn • Subject: Conditional Use Petition No.410-609&Zoning Map Amendment Petition No.400-02-31 Property Management is in favor approving both petitions- • Lewis, Marilynn • From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:19 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Cowles, Vicki Subject: RE: University of Utah Community Outreach Center Marilynn, Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed zoning clarification for the subject property. There is a 12 inch water main and a 10 inch sewer main in 900 West street that are available for use by this property. The size and capacity of these systems is typical of the area and can adequately services uses common to the area If the water or sewer needs change from the existing demands a review will be necessary. There is no public drainage system in the area to take storm water away from the property. This property will be required to continue to handle storm water on the site. This property is in a FEMA flood zone B, which has no special construction constraints If you need further information please call. Brad 483-6733 Original Message From: Lewis, Marilynn Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:01 AM To: Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Smith, Craig; Orgill, Alicia Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Graham, Rick; Goldsmith, Stephen Subject: University of Utah Community Outreach Center Conditional Use Petition#410-609 Zoning Map Amendment 11400-02-31 A memorandum was sent to your attention, dated Sept. 3, 2002. Please send any comments that you may have involving the aforementioned site. a copy of the memo is attached. t need your input on this project. Thank you. Marilynn x6409 • 9/10/2002 Lewis, Marilynn From: Orgill,Alicia Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:33 PM To: Lewis, Marilynn Subject: RE: University of Utah Community Outreach Center Marilynn Lewis/Planning Division RE: Conditional Use Petition#410-609 and Zoning Map Amendment Petition#400-02-31 University of Utah Community Outreach Center I was told that the U of U's interest in the building at 1060 S 900 West is to house a Neighborhood Partnership program, which will provide educational trainings to the surrounding community, potentially a small library with reading material for Bend In The River Project. The use of this space in this way wilt encourages (CPTED) more legitimate traffic in Jordan Park, by providing more eyes in the ears at the park to report crime. If remolding takes place on the house that this project will be occupying The Police Department request that the CPTED concepts of natural Surveillance become a part of the design and practice. Some of the CPTED Concepts comprise of; trimming all trees to 7 feet, keep shrubs or obstructions to 2 1/2 feet from the ground and keep windows clear of obstructions to provide the natural Surveillance to the park and from the park to the Outreach Center. Original Message From: Lewis, Marilynn Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:01 AM To: Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Smith, Craig; Orgill, Alicia Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Graham, Rick; Goldsmith, Stephen Subject: University of Utah Community Outreach Center111 Conditional Use Petition#410-609 Zoning Map Amendment #400-02-31 A memorandum was sent to your attention, dated Sept. 3,2002. Please send any comments that you may have involving the aforementioned site. a copy of the memo is attached. I need your input on this project. Thank you. Marilynn x6409 S 9/10/2002 • • Exhibit 4 Description, with Map of Parcels to be Consolidated and Rezoned. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 10 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division A portion of Jordan Park Combining some lots in the Muscatine Place Subdivision of Sall Lake City, Utah,parl of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11,Township 1 South,Range I West, Salt lake Base and Meridian. All or portions of Blocks 3,4,5;6,and 9,more particularly described as follows All of Block 3,including all of the vacated alley and the East 1/2 of the vacated Post Street; all of Block 4,including all of the vacated alley and the West %of the vacated Post Street and the East 1/2 of the vacated Holbrook Street (1000 West); all of Block 9,including the West 1/2 of the vacated Holbrook Street(1000 West), less that portion of lots 25,26,27,and 28 taken for the re-alignment of Fremont Avenue; part of Block 5,including all of the vacated alley,the East / of the vacated Holbrook Street(1000 West),the West %of the vacated Post Street adjoining lots 1 through 5,and that portion of the vacated Post Street adjoining the North 25 feet of lot 6,and the West 71 feet of lots 7 through 13, and lot 6,excluding the South 5 feet of the East 59 feet of lot 6; • part of Block 6, including lots 1 through S and all of the vacated alley between lots 1 through 5 and lots 22 through 26 and'/z the vacated alley adjoining the North 25 feet of lot 21, lots 22 through 26 and the Northerly 25 feet of lot 21,and the East %of the vacated Post Street adjoining lots 22 through 26 and the East %of the vacated Post Street adjoining the Northerly 25 feet of lot 21, and all of the vacated Dalton Avenue adjoining blocks 3,4,5,and 6_ Affected parcel numbers: 15-11-332-007 through 034 15-11-401-001 through 044,and 047 through 065,and 067 through 083. • PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO GRANGE S ; I LIV{ E R 3 r'r5L\ i n 4 � - - - j I f i 2 h 6 3 I 1*a 2• Q • 12 It I 1O ' 9 8 0 -'p - 2 I r.._ ! p [ 17 iO ! IIo Q 'I3 /30 7 u > -1 O �b 1 ti� t I - t lB o I o _ b i/ 130 0 ' 66 /000 7/B 30 1 Au fl ei.eo Eli 00o Rs- .300 066. I - - �0 4 0 29 `0 9 B 7 G 5 `pM "' n. `� 0 0 'o q o Aft'- of o Tl 1 .4 o O O rr ��p B. 3W i- Sec.i/ p I • T V. 2 p Zz �1 t S 1 o 73 39 i b . — o .Jon -pklG'xH '30 0 Jr I � 1 o t 1 o ,ro o- ; I • Z3 2 i ZS Z 1 I eo c t 25 3 1 24 - 3 1 t 11 1 j 3 { 1 T3 4 1 nso I 73 I 4 I e - 5_- ` 47"a c - 72 5 t - n -� I S 1 1 6 .7 `73 0 ; TIb R. p 1 a Tt :,A,,, 1 Itz) � ..td r,„ ZR - a 7 0 4� zo otp .• . t. O y n 0)a <1 8 � —a r rB , t 9 1 IB 9 r -A I t 9 wa- a r 17 IC VP 1 t7 - 10 , 4 —' -- - t o I ivl U16 S C All T • o , t• N E ,6 0l SI , N • o t - o .^ 12 0 — , IS z ^ 12 t zs 0 I 15 $ 1 —-- cla9 `�01 C Ej4 o e 13 t �� • I 14 �P L_3 As ` r d 11 \ o '50,o" a2.Ct 13 tA.t9 zAv- '?.� z-In v" •-T �]1 Q]_. .soP �49` II(I ' r ro.n� I N.84 6 AO E. 1 1 2 4 - p.1. !_TON x vaca'eo ACE___-)15_ 317140. - 1.• ,5 ; 33'-oVocted 2 c oo 3o e. <I 7rZ r2o 01, ��/, n 1.7, ,T1 Lr 1333, -p r4 �r700 0 i • ^tv01 {• o n R 2 is—:-- I 1 C ]�.2 Ir o ez v 1 0F:5 B 1 _ U re 1 3 t o 3 1 663' ' •r o 1 1 b I _ 1 9 1 0 - 23 i 4 F O 23 Q i I R 20 �—``0 5 t 22 CI - S r > Jo O to A 72 t`I V. (r j > • r�iy� u o� _o _ 6 .. I F zE WI" 21 •� 6 e.' f 1, I 22 Wi - 20 7 ,4 I 70 Vv .c d 2 I ( 1 r f •r 2 ; ,rs3o 1 19 E 8 �' i9 8 1 }} r o i Z- I 18 9 rnl 18 _ 9 i.t r 7 rc.o r Vi r— I to r o Or 17 [, _ r 01 t6 it ,,c.6 1 i8 - 1 r E Q (� t I r `�� o 1111?I t5 12 •IS IZ I I O ff o t t ` `n, .o _-c-.. o [4 of o ti 3u•i r}}si n.o ;40 P "61 Q_ 3P ^ -_.7i 6•L'� :II -j I ', , Co/C.) _ _ t ,-.1'I.:5.56 • • -339.o_ __ 1 _ — __ .3�BD p i o �f� . I) — ` iJSG-C-s� - _ ____— --_ ---_—_-_ __~ o t�3r f -o"�`?_ F R E M O N T 7z7.o A V E- ��—; 1382 r I 0 775_o" 1 1 . I t- I Ii - E SEE: t PLAN a GRADE SHEET CURB a GUTTER EXT_ ii36 4B7 Cn�WI G 1 • /:.,b, #5 FREMONT AVENUE FROM 7th WEST TO JORDAN RIVER. y ttom� ... V 1 d' 1I q F v. I - I 2,40 ill-w /dy Beams I 9 _ 1 — _r _ y I • • Exhibit 5 Description, with Map of Road Frontage to be Transfered for • 900 West. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 11 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division rii PROPOSED U (F U COMMUNITY CENTER IN JORDAN PARK • N 89'58'19" E I — — — _ — — 1247' I r i 1/2 DALTON AVENUE (VACATED) I 15-11-401-080 j I t T t L❑ 1 t 2327.8549 sq. ft I I0117.531I sq. ft 0.232E acres I DIM acres I t ‘O I z CD v) 0 15-11-401-081 0 15-11-401-082 Sit [Ti I - 0 t LDT 2 & 3 t� —+ t 8675.8840 so. Ft HOUSE m o c 1501.8967 sq. ft 0.1502 ocres a' t t^ _ t T97 H 1 t� 15-11-401-083 i� t LOT 4 8& 5 8675.77550.0ft t�t I D.Bb76ocr t es tt� L _ _ Al JPOB NOTE! - - - - - - - S B9 5 019 W ACREAGE CALCULATED TO 900 WEST RIGHT OF WAY ONLY INCLUDES 1/2 VACATED ALLEY UN THE WEST DESCRIPTION! BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MUSCATINE PLACE SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TtS, RIW, SLB & M; THENCE S 89'S8'19' W 12.01 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF 900 WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 00r26'00' W • 190.16 FEET TO THE CENTER UNE OF VACATED DALTON AVENUE; THENCE N 89r58'1Q' E 12.47 FEET ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO THE BLOCK UNE EXTENDED NORTH; THENCE S OQ 17'37' E 190.16 FEET ALONG SAID BLOCK LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.23 ACRES MORE OR I Fn. E:\VICKYIJOBSUORDANPtjordantjordanp.dwg,09/12/02 09:32.38 AM DESCRIPTION: 0 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MUSCATINE PLACE SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TI S, RI W, SLB AND M; THENCE S 89°58'19" W 12.01 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF 900 WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 00°26'00" W 190.16 PEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF VACATED DALTON AVENUE; THENCE N 89°58'19"E 12.47 FEET ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO THE BLOCK LINE EXTENDED NORTH; THENCE S 00°17'37" E 190.16 FEET ALONG SAID BLOCK LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.23 ACRES MORE OR LESS. ID • • • Exhibit 6 Letter from Community Council • and Neighbors. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 12 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division AUG-02-2002 FRI 09:09 AM UNIV OF UTAH CHEMISTRY FAX NO. 8015818433 P. 01 • WEST SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL Randy Sorensen lay Ingleby Chairman Second Vice Chair Dave Anthony Fein Willson lust Vice Chair Soctetary July 27,2002 To whom it may concern: 'this letter is to certify that the Glendale/West Salt Lake Community Council met on July 26th in reference to the University of Utah Community horse at 1000 S.and Ninth West • I personally spoke with Irene Fisher abort this and fed it will be an asset to our (lounuanty, I Vu non diuucsed it with tom tn,mJ.md they agree also. Therefore,this biter will act as our approval of this project and we Isok forward to this resource in our Community. Rand ___EVa_zat Chairman/West Salt Lake/Glendale Community Council • Lewis, Marilynn From: rosemary.baron Irosernary.baron@slc.k12.ut.us] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:42 AM To: marilynn.lewis@ci_slc.ut.us 1111 Subject: Support for University of Utah house in west-side Dear Commissioner Planner Marilyn Lewis: This email is in support of the University of Utah house that is needed as a vital presence in the west-side of our city at 1060 South 900 West . It will be used for a variety of efforts and eilI help to meet the needs of our community. It is an affirmation of "being there" and a message to the community about commitment from the University of Utah. Thank you. Rosemary Baron, Principal, Northwest Middle School • • I Lewis, Marilynn - From: Rich Parks[RParks@CO.SLC.UT.USJ Sent: Thursday, September 19,2002 7:10 AM To: 'marilynn.lewis@ci slc.ut.us' Ms- Lewis, I would like to lend my voice to those who support the Planning Commission's decision to have the University of Utah's westside project use the house on 1060 South and 900 West as a center for the project 's activities. The efforts of the University in this regard are a long time coming. Thus the ability to have a presence in the community which the University now hopes to serve is a significant step in furthering the objectives of the west side project . It is my hope that the Planning Commission will move forward to allow the University's project to headquarter on 900 West . Rich Parks Program Director, Salt Lake County's AmeriCorps Programs 1111 71e Rile C;l (RP Ct m uisirU]D, (C°C,nlii 1CS A Community Council Organization of Salt Lake City • 18 September 2002 To: Sall Lake City Planning Commission Members Re: University of Utah's proposed site on 900 West Sent via email: manlynn.lewis@ci-slc_Ut us cc: irene_lisherra)ntah.edu Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to express the support of our Community Council for the University of Utah's overall effort to increase their activities in our district and in the west side of Salt Lake.This kind of involvement and investment is essential to develop and maintain livable and self-sustaining neighborhoods. Ms_Fisher and others from the University have actively solicited input from residents and other stakeholders,and it is clear that a permanent commitment through rreatin'a greater phv'icat presence In Ilu arca IS important for the long-win success of this initiative. Please review the information and plans carefully,and we urge you to support the University of Utah in accommodating their requests in establishing the necessary permitting and use issues to facilitate their plans.If there are any questions,please don't hesitate to contact inc at the numbers listed below. Sincerely, Christopher Viavant,Chair Rio Grande Community Council do 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City,UT 84101 801-364-5576 • 1 VI I Lewis, Marilynn • From: Donna Land [Donna Land@krcl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3.25 PM To: manlynn.lewis@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: UofU/Westside Partnership Dear Ms. Lewis, ..to let you know that I fully support the concept of the University/Neighborhood Partners_ As the Community Radio Station located on the westside, Irene Fisher visited us to get our thoughts on the idea of the university becoming a part of the westside. A physical location is important to be a neighbor, have a space where there can be meetings and activities to develop the trust of the community, a place that one can see what the project is doing and to participate. The idea of having a neighborhood help itself is not new but, it is difficult to try to work with a community from afar, and the university is on the other side of town_ A physical presence along with getting involved in community activities will assure the residents that they are not just being studied and will reap the benefits of such a partnership. The leadership of Irene Fisher already speaks to the responsibility and involvement the project. Thank you for your time_ Sincerely, Donna Land Maldonado General Manager KRCL Community Radio 197I West North Temple SLC, UT 841 16-3046 I 91 19/2002 Lewis,Marilynn From: Antonio Irnestizo53@yahoo.Comj Sent: Friday,September 20,2002 10:23 AM To: rnaritynniewis@ci.slc.utus Cc: Irene Fisher Subject: FETTER OF SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSITY EFFORTS IN SLC's WEST SIDE Dear Ms- Lewis: I write in support of the University of Utah's efforts to utilize a house at 1060 S. 900 W. Through the commendable efforts of Irene Fisher, the University•is looking to establish a permanent presence in Salt Lake City's westside. The purpose for this is to better serve all of Salt Lake City and its residents, and as a positive byproduct, to better recruit ethnic minorities to the University and higher education. These are both excellent efforts. The partnerships created from these efforts, will respond to four broad areas identified by residents: education and success for youth; bridge-building across race, religion, geography; support for resident-led initiatives; and capacity-building in the areas of health, housing, environment, safety, and employment/economic-development. As a former SLIT Councilmember for District One, I strongly support these efforts and encourage your assistance. In lending my support, I have offered my assistance to the University's efforts in whatever way possible to make this succeed. Ms. Fishers's efforts • to ri;it r. have hnon COMM,n,tai lc ;n i,., h t I Ilia �,n�inuiirtj, 1,r tlreir anput and inclusion. if 1 can answer any questions, you may have, I would be most appreciative to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Lee Martinez Do you Yahoo!? --- ------------------._.- New DSL Internet Access from sec 6 Yahoo! http://sbc_yahoo.com • 1 .. ., . vs 1 Lewis, Marilynn • From: Maria Garciaz Imaria@stnhs.org] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:45 AM To: mardynn.Iewis@ci.slc.ut_us Cc: Irene Fisher Subject: Letter of Support from Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) Dear Ms. Lewis, Salt Lake NHS and the Westside communities we serve have been working for several years to engage the University of Utah in Westside activities. The opportunity for the University to establish a community center in our neighborhood is an important step in Salt Lake City community building efforts. NHS is excited with the University's outreach efforts and commitment to partner and serve the community. Please support their request to establish a community center that will serve as a facility for the neighborhood in many beneficial capacities. Maria Garciaz, Executive Director • 9/19/2002 Lewis,Marilynn From: Charlotte Fife-Jepperson Ithefifer@poplargrove-slc.org) Sent: Thursday,September 19,2002 10:43 AM To: maritynn.lewis@cislc-ut us Cc: Irene Fisher Subject:University/Neighborhood Partners facility Dear Sall Lake City Planning Commission Members, I am writing in support of the proposed facility(a house on 1060 South 900 West)to be used by the University/Neighborhood Partners. I have lived in the Poplar Grove neighborhood for about 30 years,and care deeply about the health and vitality of the area. I believe that fhe partnerships created with the University,facilitated by this building,will only serve to make our neighborhoods a better place to live and work. can't say enough positive things about the existing Bend-in-the-River site,and feel that this project stands as a wonderful example of the future partnerships and projects that will come about as a result of the University of Utah's presence in our community. I am in lull support of the 900 West facility and ask that you support it also. Respectfully yours, Charlotte Fife-Jepperson • Publisher/Editor The Wes'View Community Newspoper 355-95/2 I hef fifer @poplargr ov e-s tc_org http:!/news poplargrove-slc.org 1111 9/19/2002 Lewis, Marilynn • From: Duane Dowden [ddowden@slcap.org] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:35 AM To: marilynn.tewis@ci.stc.ut.us Cc: Irene Fisher Subject: 900 West University Facility To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members: Re: University/Neighborhood Partnership - proposed facility 1060 South 900 West I work as a Community Organizer for Salt Lake Community Action Program. My assigned area is Glendale/Poplar Grove, known as West Side neighborhoods. I have had the privilege of attending initial meetings with Irene Fisher and others concerning the University expansion initiative and fully endorse the University /Neighborhood Partner's plan. Poverty, health, education and violence rank high among area resident concerns. A direct connection to higher education will help the West Side evolve and transcend many economic and social problems. The proposed facility at 900 West 1 060 South has great pathway potential to even greater University presence in West Side neighborhoods. Please approve use of the facility at 1060 South 900 West. Help West Side neighborhoods develop in positive, meaningful ways. Your support is very much appreciated. • Duane R. Dowden Community Organizer Salt Lake Community Action Program 359-2444 ext 228 ddowden@slcap.org • 9/19/2002 Lewis,Marilynn From: troy Bennett[troy@ufyi.orgJ Sent: Thursday,September 19,2002 11-03 AM • To: marilynn.lewis@ci.sic.utus Cc: ireneiisher@utah.edu Subject: University/Neighborhood Partners Dear Ms. Lewis, My name is 'Troy Bennett. I am the Programs Director at the Utah Federation for Youth. We facilitate several programs in Salt Lake City and have funding for programs that directly target Glendale and Poplar Grove. We partner with the University in the Youth Leadership Committee of the Bend in the River Project. We are looking forward to being involved with the West Side Initiative_ Utah Federation for Youth supports the University/Neighborhood Partners plans to be a partner in the community. It would help to have the house at 1060 P. 900 W. to use as a community center, for meetings, youth activities, etc.. We believe it is critical for youth to develop a sense of "belonging" in order to grow up healthy and lead productive lives. We support programs that foster the development of a positive conunnni t y. Without positive alternatives, many youth look to gangs and negative behavior in order to "fit in". It is important for the University/Neighborhood Partners to have a physical presence in the cotmnunity. The house will provide that presence. It will also serve as a resource for community based programs such as ours. • Pleas0 contact m with any r �cv��=r n•. Sincerely, Troy Bennett Troy Bennett Programs Director Utah Federation for Youth 350 South 400 East, Suite G4 SEC, UT 84111 (80]) 468-0699 www.ufyi.org 410 Date: September 19, 2002 • To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members From: Clifton Uckerman, resident-youth Community Ambassador I have been working with other youth of my neighborhood for the last three years. On the West Side we don't have the space to utilize so we can get other youth mobilized and address our needs and issues to organize and take a more active role in the community. We as young people on the West Side need the space and leadership opportunity to organize outreach workshops, develop agendas, and strengthen our voices. Most of the other youth and myself have either been in the system or are in the system. We have either dropped out of school or are in alternative schools. We are most disconnected from resources and support. It is very important that we know we have bridges to access higher education. • For the other youth of my community it would be very moving to have the support and involvement from the 1 tnivcrsity of Utah. Not only would it impact us as youth but, this initiative would have such a positive impact for the whole community. • • • Exhibit 7 Package from the University of Utah. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-31 14 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division THE\' UNIVERSITY • Irene Fisher OFUT" Special Assistant to the p;eioeoi tor Campus Comrnumtr Partnerships Date. September 18, 2002 To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members From: Irene Fisher, Special Assistant to the President for Campus-Community Partnerships The past year, I have been planning ways that the University of Utah can link more effectively with groups and individuals in Salt Lake City's west side neighborhoods. In that process,l have talked with 243 individuals who live or work in these neighborhoods,seeking their ideas and views: public school principals,city officials, non-profit agency directors,residents,community councils.minority group leaders, churches_ One important message from these conversations is that if the University wants to be taken seriously, we need to be physically present in these neighborhoods_ We are pleased that Salt Lake City and Intermountain Health Care are willing to partner with us to make this presence possible. We intend to utilize the house located on 900 West as a community center for meeting space,youth activities, short courses, and other activities developed in response to resident- identified needs. We are working closely with other community agencies to enhance, not compete,with their programs, so that as a good partner,we can benefit all those involved. 1111 The already-existing Bend-in-the-River Partnership is an example of the kind of work we can do with schools and businesses and non-profit groups. For the past five years the University's Benmon Center has worked with Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation, Parkview and Riley Elementary School children and teachers, the adjacent community councils,TreeUtah,Utah Society for Environmental Education,General Electric, and others to create a two-acre green space and urban treehouse along the Jordan River near Fremont Avenue. The 900 West facility will house an environmental library and tool storage area for the Bend partners. It will serve as a site for the Bend's Youth Leadership Programs for elementary and middle school youth. Our Board of Advisers will hold their first meeting in October, and will be chaired by Scott Matheson, dean of the College of Law,and Maria Garciaz,director of Neighborhood Housing Services. The 30-member Board will include campus representatives,community and west side leaders, and residents_ This group will guide the work of the University/Neighborhood Partners to achieve resident-identified goals. The partnerships we create will respond to the four broad areas identified by residents:education and success for youth;bridge-building across race,religion,geography;support for resident-led initiatives; and capacity-building in the areas of health,housing,environment, safety, and employment/economic-development. Thank you for your help in the process of making these new partnerships possible. • Office of the President 201 S 1460 E,Room 350 Salt Lake City,Utah 84 1 1 2-9058 (801)581-4519 FAX:(801)581-5217 Email:itisher@satf.utah edit • C... x�a-xsxa r�-... , A - s € As, t ..E :' ..' o ; s{ • _ _ _ .�^ " i,_'�Y �...,<^`ti 'ma y{+• + {�r,�.-o�.. k ,c�;,mwr� fy R : "'S r •' '•;b- �. ',.-i1 .„-`e"+ �: _ �`*- -1'-i ,:_x- ,- ti j -la y `c 0. :3. R - S -7----P-4":.---, % '---.71.3 .. y T` .'Z4 "L !Y d ;:, - e ia ,yl. v'-ei.3t--=ii--, ; ;! qi r` •-, xs * %. € , j - , �i . v i -fi , 4 9 '--'-s>'a�C sc irk ^t -..R�i ., i S c$Ri .` '{ _ . ,=- -",., ..s`_'yes f.r"* ., �'� _ `y 7- -`` . '.,. Zi „F, s.c..a, a q ,,� s F j ,, ..+ ,�u C'�,�+t ;;✓'��7. -,: fCF''Kh ° o`f 5c-'� .ter �� ,-1" *a_5 • ' i +. `''.V". .-4- t t > " • 3 ,Y f bR'" ` .rh"4- .u"p,,r��h` :',-. z �'--r,,,S..Y c'i Y.J.k a '� - �y d'f�S 1 ry �Ltf.fixf ,c • t ..• ,---------,,-,..-- 3r .�3�K°�j4 p.s• -�' # �-�P` oil £ .i '" 2;9� g-lT�sr ¢_..:.»` `if. �QS ,,,, b` � ,�+�;_..Lys lea f� 4 e .. - +*, _.: ,r'L., '-* - s -''' s+ `v ' _ yam -e''-.�Y,,,-, ,✓l. - s§ , 1 ri• t �z sc«z,? ' ,� '. r�--1-- • • £ ram`-44- Sjti- f`'i€. j «" ,'`+ , , _ ,r• _ .s d-- - E<G� s rye f w _! , ' .`6` y, -'2 3 Y / �`� , _. .,:.,_.,,_,:,.-re.,.„,,.,_:. „..;‘,,,,,:ix,:f..,1,,,..__„::.,f-r;,,4,-tz,:a-.,„-a,:z_,,,,-a .:_„, .,af ^-„"r .,s ,• zw �` a .- .: i,.,. 3.a.�l y� 5-s ". , 3,r .. �t • -r ate" �' -s .:' ,F sarfit' .,� _ a c ✓ .z�i..ia'"` 4 t,." �#z� .�; �"''s. y yr, � e'• er, r "`<`:,4,, ,'ft" 6 -„ h 3f' �"` ,v 3 } 1 `• , .,g s 3 Y;•' t ; -i.^ 'T ` W P,, - arts .a,i si^v 1, 'P .5- gy-r'; y s" / rrc' . a.4 �` `'i'z r; ' i "o t s • ue '` s,�--f t • ,a. -i g F 1 ''..`. h -', 5�= ak••-4:,, " 9. • 1_ t 4,e':' Xs "r` t s,.`~ .. .. .-. - t -.E - ffs �,.•t`G � ._.: i .-' • • s. E aT s f`S•.{ }-,-, #, --=k . •• r i' # BSc '-;:4--;•,-yril';'-',14410 141- s'y• 's s e_: y(Z � h l a h, t .` A�y 34, $ Af iry , j .!-6n� '# _f s .;T,i�s " 4 y Fff t . < , tr .tF"e4 E -a'Z k'ft F1N•, . ..y; ,,-A- r a c` K' e .,f � '' rJts" ,,G " =4 s ri .o,,E f . ;, s_ ; w ° s 4 t s! ' d * r P • 1, i •. -, .1 a _ � q pn Y , . =4--*-- at ; ys. id y .s• gr ' . r ',Ss x ,- ,v e xa p >Ast4 �tz A,. t -' eq, rot -go, ) Ar k .,;s s "� ° t€vl�f k f t-)4 '£�. ., v, A may+`3• 'rt »p'K __ f 3/a i �r - #J a V• • dE y ..s . :r.s !' `ti, ; F i '1`,.''`�!. q -.3. Q • , ,c a1:`-�f Y ;•, y r _ ems.. °s c?'` , $ i ` fa.- A• t.:. ,£ .",em s'' i .„` .. ;z ,6 .xt � "a°' .c 'Y'>t a"i +e y.: Yx�.sr1 (( , _Rj*'";FI i r ` e w ,-,„!:.,4,,, .y a``r 1} ire . :.. ..€x. "`t".,,, , c. � '- ` `°,,,.�., i ,. . S <i'� r 6 } G e i� T - f "' -sue . #• S. •ar� /,,y r-4 4� ,tom✓ ^s'A i °t fi '',iv - Ai x l ; of 4--' '�`,r"`x rags rr�>•;c ,l ;'a ,sf' j:: 'Z d ''s �' `` � * .j �+�.T' -%e 'S-4-i i.�•.N's ' ri"tea. t Y•-_- ri r ';erg `ltt '-, ,4; 4• � . s « .Y-. .8' ica'F�` a l?,,*--"• `t4 t_' Y �__. ems ✓� ' ' .� }`,a ,' "i as t 'ir`� i `r + x� -- a . 'y t T #^ �,v y ks°'a gr.,' •. IP. x ,�Za y .5 �+" a ..& q a{-st.«yJ 4s. .7 I. ', ; w. 't`."- :A k ,l #-r a '� - �'�"�j4it4 r"r y ld!,�,a A ��.�. • .�,': � d' �f`� s� � *� f=. _S` f4'311 ° zi E " se' - a-.R � ,4`..2.:*''..-I . fry �w,, ",.¢ � .4 $ ', if r. ,„,. a . 4z s �+ cs �, �, xyc`Ya `�s. ar• � t a'' ; y!�`s,MS a� �.\ - E "f� �C �f a.-T a?#'`,. ✓��x tq., `` ip s`.. k t ! igS..F •r•-, ,Si.+i:�k.. '" .0. .�"`-.'�` - s j es..,.'"". '` oat 3i _;``F'y�^s'��;�$ r �- .� "' -1- • v ':a4T I'V'4 /�4,.ss �`''' s` l '` aR x�-�"'a -' x``,- e,,:, -, J+' — �" a' fit f, ^--1 F:€.5 L'k-i£�C :4i- p,_ l-• ms' .t �l F f't5' k 1 �+a. c e j. tom .:v.'---t, t.: ,�M` -�53- .+e .-;;--:`-a..a ,, _ .,-V .r�_s+r�.e.4$':.ram_ ; '' .� ' virz �S fiy s.4 ;s .t 3 ti 3 �C 4 � Ki � ?? .. �, : : AST. `.A 7 v �'t '� �.,.� .� � ��c `i°`d s �`--?4 - * 'S "s' y c" ,, ' I zs ti e ,tea.-- :")e r,. - -� �. k.' p erg# 'i� f -• f+i --u>.`.��r-. r�: �"s/; 3d`Y ?r �a .js`L> �`^.`--` �a= !'s r �� gti Si „'%rL ••r -� '`' _df` •:n- �`. '.c ',t' -- 1's* -- 4.�_ a,''' l�f __4 :Xf-: . - :14'.. . 1y.4t-t r ;C r e e. y;�y#y.a' --14r -: ¢ , . $4 .J7 ^,,&i t s� t _� s`4`, � * „gb..ttH.'` ,4,, .,.` 1t_.. c s ` i ` . x {- N,...� �l • ' . s a,> ._ `� ' � ; a. .- •FAQ y'�``g- •-s.'"s •�^t,� ¢ 7 -',. -` 3?� .2 _ �{� .1t .1. S.M-', % yc -F`s- r.r '3 � �PrG _.F Y:'¢ v..i.. _ `d. - at'x•,� 1•fa s.. i..- f .-3. • fx - Eu{J`''a+f.ff �'y R� �' •fg' b�L`� EYr i �gy.7 is '3�?i ♦ Ec tZ.,i'a` .y',n'y*..'``f`�A 4:*s .yti• • z _. �' s�k• � s' ^4 --51�'� �S` '�+'� ` ��'' '� c`.�` �xc. ter. ...��^'s h. 0 • ,}$tt lit v#^ 1.. T• !•k 's... 4 y b s } � t ,. -,a^ 2 , * ^.', Si ►\, 3 F� P�- s <; . Ap ,rt • H„ t . ..t� 4s -,f •.w .- .>ic' - i � ``+-fib 1r , .*$ .,i! r t+i i» , - ..ra t f / "--• a v2 z; 14i' ' i ! :; tY } 'aN _: , k a � � - _ 3 'r s k !� a i R z'e , -w 2 9 f a --, t - n xa rr • e �� f j. �r 4 r rr r d j • �j/ � `'s -- tom z 'Yx. `,x.�` 1" „F, -"3>'s -'� - -4-- rs;,a, - l �� / r/;�/� �,//if y/i 7: y s-„<Y,f`s 4�j' �F�r sn$L- _ `-0— .ty�v '3= `c ,, 'sa _��.i e • f i r / i 3� /��ls/,4, ,/y� r..t y o 1':, ;- _ .' '�. h 'tk"x-xr,' `a.%E!;� _ , i wt ':, / ri•-.7 /tr ..;,..� rr ,i. yr / 4_i .,�1"',T / '4+. '.: ., :�+%.............. :•-.�:.?r�":,f_t._ , }. / . ,. ate,z.`,�f y.r. y< 'Y . s �j }r, r .yb,.;}'l" 1.¢s e ."vTs, r '4s. o.'a _ sir��.,,Zt*cF '+�:= -a; iwr��..? /1 :s. �' rL,�-rr'7'�`^, v ! ,'i r �� 'r�3, '�'.`y.�,.<, .a Y ;'-7 f �, .y��r.-^ _ :u��'; ti ,�_:,... tom. _„ ,a -r1� ,r .rr," ,er Y.. ftf /.'r ,, .3"'1 /,- ,.5 .-: 1 _.- -,.-a&.'. ah_:= ..-. _z`.e. .,,� --.- '_^ x%„�o �u�"�' #-7y<ra- r� �'f �, ,7/l/ 7•i/,tr �elr,��o�,s�i, Y-"� 6 G� 3":�''e? .fi•.�1;_ _-�:n�.`-�; >�;5'ss-" -si? =�.: ,ct�r=' ,`F:,�.. r rr £fi j! ',x / '/ , s110,44= 7�, F� >� x ,_ u .,;.-__,,,C,E., ,', tz'' -- ��/� 1,r ,rr i/i,fi: / /.7r //i ./�r� /�� "`�::� 4,:,�� v,......��v�� .Rg �.'�"p:ct^;:`>�'T._4p-��.�.:xK._,..r;:�-, .� _ _ ,Ll ;c r / r�p' f �/ y a r �.i- /✓y r/7/ • 5° � �� ..'- --x c a-, ,sx '•: T..;., _�,}»,--. �� , :� . __ x lr /iy /i ////� f�i::/�./i/j/r�2 %i 1� ,r ��.s,�" .;% .�-n'a�--e� ''->_a"-�z-�.�;d ..�_r ,�u-��`:ra.z:.- ^:^.�.:-=c. =a-"< e^_ "iJ�. .., ,f/r, r%.;rt''/ -�i i�•/, r�i r�� ;`,4 • � r T_'7 '= { .K . a_-_-,y,,.-e., .r ,%4';�; . «: ,a-4�" /r am/ ,,- /.3 fa r%/r .,.;r sf J�� y > :. d '_:. = _ �"'��. ��:: - -s-.• -q=g1 - 3€;,..a -s: �'�z�.s�'es;.s ;✓'�F sO�y�fi /,�i y%. �%l��'�t`-�� t.�r�� ti�•sr.t`�_:=,�`��. ��_ '_;3��,',s.-�.7`�;. �5:.� _ r � 6.°�-.,.?cr i y�•fr.<�%/t-t,',",� :Ss a.?' f _- s ,, _ti: F,.:,`• 3_ =� _»: '-''s' ,.s-.%,i z�Y � ' s._' G :�- ^'< .'�ri r ✓ l,r y"u,.—-t --cat ier�� ^t d& �-�'.. b ':, �s-a._£t. ,":,r;-"T,, " 'n:� ,s!,ua 'Sl,,- y�p,``-I> r , .�: '- r - ..-. 7 ..m-4- ' r +' "'} . ' ? :' v �'a."-`i.:r `, ,y(�^s., ` a,-< rsr- Ira „_ Y<. - - - _.�t'a.. .ts!0h _ _:� `�a� 3zta_:w' -: ""= :w=�,{''= '; !�,''''.'c ,4 ,4.-t-�...�5�"Y.'Ye..<- s4 ~ ? .- pi;r -- -,.yy,.- i YiP._'-�t. ;'n .+. ._ .:^jF zoa� k` - sF,�' z;-,"r�,- - . ""'+ �` ,�4-r-2s' --my,` .,, a;.-'.,---` '- c� r > y'" 4. ; !c 4 �' �. W. vsk .'. rw :_ 7 �c 'T • ga � it ,s y 3 . .f�.t,,.1 •r 1 H t"- r r,# ,.2-z §'"' . 71: 44,,'r,' -:0• x%,sl b f, z 3`� � .e -. , aiir r• ,v . rf x • r a .�.l rF: #fie b , • l ; , j , ram'* .... - =� *:-.----' ''-• •',1-. :.'-:.,, ',_. ' t • --„ _ ;'., , - ''..f.7j- ,1144-. . NFril..e,64 CI i ' ! ' `�- j ,`r a. - ,°'. -3 '-¢�- -: -.ems 4. 17 ' 'ids ~♦ xi• ^' : ` € • 4r.,. . :1- j�`s�1'' i i",-`f,.-.,, -'">- : -.,.2 .t, `fi t a ". _ '7 `>Cam., ,- .t. #:+F i D Rr-' rt rr,.Y- : coE- J - v.;r s ' ,. . . � .'•, ' „ sue.`-k �. ' � .> eis! � ,�3 i 1 _ �•'.n` ��-��x,.�,`�,,,� • • Housing Loss Mitigation Report To The Planning Commission Property at 1060 South 900 West Relating to Petition #400-02-31 Background Petition 400-02-31 by Salt Lake City Corporation's Department of Community and Economic Development, requests rezoning of the property at 1060 South 900 West from R-1/5,000 to Open Space. This rezoning action is requested so that all of the properties associated with Jordan Park are classified as Open Space. The City is working with the University of Utah to create a community outreach center in the structure at the subject address. The proposal includes the retention and renovation of the structure. Community Centers are a permitted use in the Open Space Zoning District. The project also includes consolidation of the lots to ensure on-site parking for the community center is provided in the park. The City acquired the property in 1955 for use as part of the Jordan Park property. Besides the existing structure, greenhouses and an equipment garage are located on the subject property. The residential structure was used as a caretakers' residence, an accessory use of the park, until the mid 1990s when the City discontinued the caretakers' • residence program. On July 26, 2002, the West Salt Lake Community Council re‘1ewed the proposal foi the rezoning and the community center. The community council unanimously supports the proposal. Analysis Is Housing Mitigation Required? Chapter 18.97 of the Salt Lake City Code, requires that housing loss is mitigated for any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units. The subject structure has not been used as a private residence since the City acquired the property in 1955. The structure was used as a caretaker's residence for the park, which is considered an accessory use to the park,until the City discontinued the caretakers' residence program in the mid 1990s. Therefore, there is question as to whether the structure should be considered a "residential dwelling unit" Furthermore, as identified in the purpose statement of the ordinance, the objective of the ordinance is to mitigate the adverse impacts of residential loss when zoning changes are sought to accommodate an expansion of commercial uses. The proposed use as a community center is considered an institutional not a commercial land use. • Finding: "The structure is not a residential dwelling unit nor will the proposed use be a • commercial land use. 'Therefore,Housing Mitigation may not technically be required. However,because the applicant for the rezoning petition is the Director of Community and Economic Development and the City has a workable housing mitigation solution,the Planning Commission should evaluate whether housing mitigation is appropriate and if so,whether the recommended mitigation is adequate for the loss of one residential unit. HousingMitigation Ordinance Requirements In accordance with the provisions of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance,the Director of Community and Economic Development shall prepare a report justifying the method of housing mitigation recommended by the director,including the factual basis upon which it is premised and a factually based justification for the recommendation. The Planning Commission should include in its evaluation of the zoning proposal,an evaluation of the adequacy of the housing loss mitigation plan as authorized in Section 18.97.040 of the City Code. The Ilousing Mitigation Ordinance requires the applicant to submit a housing impact statement including the following elements: 1. Identb the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area of the subject petition. I=indingg_71te proposal to retain the structure for use as a community outreach center,without major alterations to the exterior,will maintain the character of the :ura and ri,niiiine in harnum u b the park parcel. 2. Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition,following the granting of the petition. Finding: The structure at 1060 South 900 West will not be demolished. It will be retained and used as a community outreach center which is a permitted use in an Open Space Zoning District. 3. State current fair market value. Finding: According to the County Recorder's Information for Assessed Value for 2002,the structure is worth S90,000. 4. State the square footage of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned for purposes sought by the petition,other than residential housing and appurtenant uses. Finding: The proposal includes rezoning 2.75 acres of land from R-1/5,000 to Open Space. 5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land,residential units or residential character. The"Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss" Ordinance outlines three options for mitigating housing loss. These options are as • follows: A. Replacement Housing . B. Fee based on difference between housing value and replacement costs C. Fee, where deteriorated housing exists, not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner. Finding: The applicant is requesting that replacement housing be made under mitigation Option A for the loss of the one dwelling unit within the structure. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family detached dwelling at 557 South 1000 West in City Council District 2. The new home is intended to satisfy housing mitigation requirements for this rezoning request. The reasons for selecting this method of mitigation are as follows: • The applicant is proposing to build a new housing unit in City Council District 2 at 557 South 1000 West. • The petitioner has identified that the existing structure will remain and be renovated. Findings • The property at 1060 South 900 West has not been used as a private residence since the City acquired the property in 1955 and is not considered a residential dwelling unit. • The rezoning is not sought to accommodate an expansion of commercial uses. 111 • The proposed use of the property, as a community outreach center, will retain the existing structure. • The West Salt Lake Community Council has reviewed the rezoning request and supports the proposal to rezone the property from R-1/5,000 to Open Space for use as a community outreach center. • The applicant is proposing to build a new housing structure in City Council District 2 at 557 South 1000 West to satisfy the housing mitigation requirements for this rezoning request_ Determination of Mitigation Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development, has determined that the applicant has adequately mitigated the loss of a residential unit at 1060 South 900 West by proposing to construct a new single- family detached residential unit 557 South 1000 West in City Council District 2. 1/0// avid Dobbins Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development Dated: 3 7. :2 2 , 2002. • • Fair Market Value of Subject Structure ' VTDI 15-02-451-013-0000 DIST 03 TOTAL ACRES 0.23 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PRINT U UPDATE REAL ESTATE 19800 LEGAL BUILDINGS 0 TAX CLASS OE MOTOR VEHIC 0 451 S STATE ST # 404 EDIT I FACTOR BYPASS TOTAL VALUE 0 . SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111310251 LOC: 557 S 1000 W EDIT 1 BOOK 8343 PAGE 0841 DATE 02/23/2000 SUB: CITY PARK SUB TYPE UNKN PLAT 09/26/2002 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY THE N 6 1/4 FT OF LOT 11 , ALL LOTS 12 & 13 & S 1/2 LOT 14, BLK 2, CITY PARK SUB 4653-1194 5469-1586 5583-1814 5608-0881 6682-2104 8343-0839, 0840 PFKEYS: 1=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU 10=RXBK 11=RXPN 12=PREV 110 • • Date City Acquired Subject Structure 1 no nu. out D.Jo i I t Pr,02/02 • - _ : r 4.'e1 4:iiyn Ai ice poi('S✓h Cc H t c•I t:'tp.et Ct,;,;,L'. Kocorc ct :.Ii I-.I.'-Coo,-,It `a.ta fP•_ , A „ i:214.r_-6_c.,-,..,A2Oep. U.ok;,i-/:iPDge /6'Ref..------- - ---- 0 !!! ' AliliAN'I'Y DEED 4 t GEORGE W. S iTH and ETHEL L, 3Mi911, hip. :1i t'o, of Sal t ;.:il;o I City, salt Lake County, State of Utah, GRANTORS, horeby <'onvory J ` and warrant to SAbir LAKE CITY, e munioipal corporation of the " State of Utah, GNANTE:E, for and in c msIdorntion of the sum of i t,. • THREE THOUSAND AND 00/100 (43,000.00) DOLLARS, and other good and ' ; (.r (- valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby ecimewledgod, 'i. t the followin doscribed 3 property located In Salt Lake County, atrxt " I .t ' of tl.tail, to--wits i. ti a r. Al-i Of Lets ii and 5, Blook 6, Muscatine Place, r' aeco'ding to the official Plat thereof' of record In the office of the County Recorder of Snit Lake i County, Utah t' �r i , .- - WITNESS the hands of sold GRANTORS this > day of 1955 j c 1.-.3,6'ptember, f f: li :julit�;ei;fiit+;�Ii.l G'E -i"i.—�)v12''1'li x ,1, t Cts :- 0(?. e_ra)-71,_ i 11 '%,fir t/ '�. • ,,• r '' 'fir.' i. .`'ATifallig V\i is wi fo fyrnnnr,lla,r,rirt, N l=luaiv' 6,V STATE OF 1ITAR ) t 84 t' COUNTY OF SALT LAKE: a On the j day of Sept. , 1955, poronel]y appeared before . '" .: me GEORGE W. SMITH and ETHEL L. SMITH, his wife, the sipyiors of th©. pbove Instrument, who duly acknowledged to no that they executed y ?:,,��rsy',�. -stogy =t t/ _`" Pao �s� tK: ,r .>> � •A UB , Res inr, in F- STATE Of' UTAII i t )- COUNTY OF SA1T I.AKL I sa L feral V. 13ifanz, City Aecordor of Salt Latto City. Utah_ do hereby cnrtifp that tho rritnr-GF•d ._gPA P.tl:G3t EV e.d ---_.. from Ge rz'Se W.. 6mith e. i wee, duly approvers and accepted by the Board of CornminEionor5 f"raft Ltttte-C't,, Utah, Ercio • 4- day of September , . If: WITNESS W}fl cOV, l .'-avo hereunto Ref any hand and aItf,r,d the- c:,,Potttn ri.-nl of S.-1: t.a:cv City, Va:_. 6,iz 1."1.ir cloy or -.So t0111L:tT - .A.Fs.Fy, ' 410' . Deputy City:-cor,j.of r-,att In'le Cie'.grad. • 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Agendas/Minutes October 3, 2002 0 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street • Thursday,October 3,2002,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 118. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, September 19,2002 2. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-604, by Ken Garff Honda, for a conditional use to legalize a 90- foot tall flag pole located at 64 East 900 South, in a Downtown D-2 zoning district. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Petition No. 400-00-21, by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to landscaping requirements that affect the Salt Lake City International Airport.The proposal includes the creation of a new Airport Landscape Overlay District regulating landscaping on the properties generally located between 1-215 and the eastern boundary of the International Center and approximately between 2700 North and the Western Pacific railroad corridor south of 1-80. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:50 p.m.—Petition No.400-02-14,by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080,21A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of Land Use Appeals Board review (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) A d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:20 p.m.—Petition No_410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach Center. The site will be leased to the University of Utah and programming will be run by their University/ Neighborhood Partners group,and; Petition No.400-02-31, by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 south 900 west. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000(single-family residential district)to OS (open space district). The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park,as open space. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m.—Foss Subdivision amendment, by Mr.Jim Shaw of Shaw homes requesting approval of an amendment of a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision Plat. The proposal is to amend five lots and a portion of the previously vacated Foss Street into three new single-family building lots, and a re f. mnant parcel impacted by an adjacent railroad track(located at approximately 1551 West 200 South in a Residential "R-1-5,000"zoning district). (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a_ Planning Commission elections. 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 elmeeting 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 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Thursday, October 3, 2002, 5:45p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No.410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach Center. The site will be leased to the University of Utah, and programming will be run by their University/Neighborhood Partners Group, and; Petition No.400-02-31, by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 South 900 West. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000(single-family residential district)to OS (open space district). The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park, as open space. Planner Marilynn Lewis presented petition 410-609 by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department as le written in the staff report and reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. The request is to utilize City-owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a community outreach center. The property will be leased to and operated by the University/Neighborhood Partners, an organization affiliated with the University of Utah. The center will provide a variety of activities and opportunities for the neighborhood. She clarified that this is not a halfway house or rehabilitation facility. In lieu of monthly rent,the University has agreed to enter into a 10-year lease and commit$60,000 toward renovating the property. Ms. Lewis noted that the site was previously used as a caretaker's house, and the building is now vacant. Vacant structures can become attractive nuisances and a target for vandalism in the neighborhood. Impacts may be experienced by neighbors due to the hours of operations, deliveries and programs. Ms. Lewis explained that a zoning change is also required to accommodate the project use. Not all park properties were zoned as open space during the 1995 zoning re-write project. It is necessary to consolidate and rezone all the park parcels to open space in order to remove all off-site parking issues for the Parks Department and to alleviate any future problems. Ms. Lewis reported that the Police Department is encouraged by programming activities in this area of Jordan Park. The use of the parking lot by more legitimate traffic will provide more passive surveillance on the property. The center may not open before 8:00 a.m. and should be closed by 9:00 p.m. This will allow evening meeting attendees to leave prior to the gate closing. Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, the Staff recommended that • 0 the Planning Commission approve this conditional use for a community outreach center at Jordan Park with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Diamond asked about the landscape plan for buffering the residential property to the south. Ms. Lewis replied that it would be a 10-foot buffer along the entire property as it touches any residentially zoned properties. There is not a current plan, and one would have to be created and approved. Mr. Chambless asked about ADA access and whether a ramp is planned or expected. Ms. Lewis replied that there is limited to difficult access to the structure for a person with varying abilities. The University has committed to providing a ramp structure, and the Planning Department will work with them to come up with something appropriate for the neighborhood and provide adequate access. Mr. Chambless asked if the hours of operation on the south lawn would be year round. Ms. Funk noted a conflict between the two petitions regarding the hours of operation at the center. Ms. Coffey explained that the Health Department limits the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but the Planning Commission can be more restrictive. Ms. Lewis has suggested that the hours be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission can decide which time is more appropriate, but it should be • consistent in both petitions. Chair Daniels preferred to see indoor activities at the center go as late as 10:00 p.m. based on approval from CPTED. He would like youth activities to go as late as possible to avoid sending young people out on the streets at 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. Ms. Lewis stated that the Planning Commission can make those recommendations, but her reasoning is that the gate closes at 11:00 p.m., and closing at 9:00 p.m. would allow people an hour to clean up and leave without holding up park employees. Ms Funk asked if the University had specified any hours. Ms Lewis replied that their request was 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the potential for evening meetings. Ms. Lewis presented Petition 400-02-31 by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department as written in the staff report and reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. The request is to amend the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and change the zone from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to OS Open Space District. The request requires an amendment to the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Generalized Land Use Map to identify collection of parcels as open space rather than single-family residential. The purpose of the map amendment request is to rezone park properties that were not included in the 1995 re-write as Park Open Space. The amendment will provide IDconsistency in zoning for all Jordan Park properties located within the Muscatine subdivision. Rezoning of all the parcels is necessary to resolve issues with off-site parking associated with park properties and, in particular,the proposed center. Ms. Lewis noted that off-site parking is not allowed in the R-1/5000 • zone or in open space zoning districts, and this proposal eliminates the off-site parking issue. Based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the report to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand how they could attach conditions to a zone change. Mr. Wheelwright replied that, in the past, they have done conditional zoning changes where conditions have been built into the ordinance. Ms. Coffey explained that the conditions are covered in the conditional use, and the intent is to go through the conditional use process to allow the applicants to begin work on the project now. As long as the conditions are part of the conditional use, the Staff will make sure the conditions are met before they sign off on it. Mr. Chambless noted that a park can be used seven days and week. Since this building is next to the park, he wanted to know the perceived or expected frequency of use for the building. Ms. Lewis felt the applicant could better answer this question. Mr. Jonas stated that it seemed inconsistent for one small part of the park to have conditions if the buildings were gone and everything returned back to the park. Ms. Coffey agreed that the hours of • operation would not make sense if the building were gone. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, stated that this is an excellent use for this facility. They have had experience working with the University of Utah on a similar project dealing with education and youth programs throughout the City, and he felt fortunate to have them as a partner. The building has been vacant for several years and is a nice structure that fits well within the community. The City did not believe that tearing it down would bring any value to the community, and they were glad to have it put to such an excellent use. Fred Esplin,Vice President for University Relations, and Archie Phillips, Campus Architect,were available to answer questions. Chair Daniels asked about ADA accessibility inside the building in terms of restrooms, doorways, etc. Mr. Esplin replied that all ADA issues will be addressed. Mr. Jonas asked if this program would be run by the Bennion Center. Mr. Esplin explained that the project came about under the guidance of Irene Fisher,who is the founding director of the Bennion • Center. She retired from the Bennion Center and is now heading up this project. This project is separate but would work closely with the Bennion Center. Mr. Jonas asked about the expected use of the center, the number of days, and the anticipated hours of operation. Mr. Esplin stated that it would depend on the interest generated by the community, and he assumed it would be Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.with some evening meetings and activities. There could be some weekend hours depending on the nature of the activities. Mr. Chambless referred to page 4, number 8, of the draft lease agreement and asked how the University is prepared to handle the matter of under-age drinking since this would be an extension of the University of Utah. Mr. Esplin explained that fraternity houses are not owned by the University and are subject to different codes. This would be leased by the University and subject to the same regulations of alcohol consumption on State property. Mr. Graham commented on the hours of operation and noted that the Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center two blocks away closes at 9:00 p.m. That center is heavily involved in youth programs, and closing at that hour has worked well. He did not object to a 10:00 closing, but he did not want to mandate what the University needs. Mr. Esplin explained that Irene Fisher was out of town and unable to attend this evening, but she was aware of the 9:00 p.m. restriction and had no objections. It is conceivable that • some activities may go longer, but that is not contemplated immediately. Mr. Chambless felt 10:00 p.m. was a reasonable closing time. Chair Daniels opened the public hearing. Charlotte Fife-Jepperson, a resident of the Poplar Grove area, stated that she grew up in a house around the corner from this facility. She is currently on the West Side Community Ambassadors Committee started by Irene Fisher, and she stated that Ms. Fisher has done an excellent job talking to a cross section of people to see what they want for their community. Ms. Jepperson asked the Planning Commission to support the request for a rezone and the facility proposal. Daneen Adams, Community Outreach Coordinator at Edison Elementary on 400 South and 1500 West, stated that the parents and family members would feed into this community center. Ms.Adams had worked with Irene Fisher this summer with the families from Edison. Ms Fisher came to the school to find out what the parents were interested in and found that they were interested in employment opportunities. Ms. Fisher,with the help of Julie Swaner, put together an employment program for the parents at Edison. Ms.Adams noted that the demographics of the school is approximately 80% immigrants, and transportation to the University was arranged as well as educating them on how to apply for jobs and what job titles meant. Babysitting was also provided. Ms. Adams felt this was a wonderful program, and she recommended a community center and certainly a partnership with the University. Julie Swaner, from the University of Utah, stated that she worked with Irene Fisher on part of this • project. She referred to the program explained by Ms. Adams and noted that these families needed employment and wanted to help them on the first rung of the employment ladder. Ms. Swaner remarked that the divide between the west side and east side was enormous, and they are trying to help traverse the divide. One thing Ms. Fisher has planned for the house is computer programs to help with skills so people can go on line to access the University of Utah web site. They are trying to narrow the divide and enable their children to go to the University of Utah or some other higher learning facility in the valley. Ms. Swaner saw this project as a social responsibility to cross this great divide. Leon Johnson stated that he has been a resident of the west side since the early 1980's and is very enthusiastic about this project. He stated that many residents on the west side cannot speak English, and he would like to see them being taught English. He will be learning Spanish from a friend so he can teach Spanish-speaking people English so they can progress on the west side. He would also like to teach English-speaking people Spanish so they can communicate with each other. He stated that he is an amateur actor and hopes to see an organized children's theater that he could help direct. He noted that he is one of several people who would like to get the 900 South rail line and a number of other industries out of the area. He would also like to see economic development on the west side. He remarked that the diversity of people is the greatest asset on the west side. He would like to see . opportunities for them to demonstrate their diversity through cultural and other ways and would like to see greater communication within the communities on the west side. Jacob Brace, Salt Lake City Weed and Seed Coordinator for a Department of Justice grant the City receives, stated that they work in the Glendale, Fairpark, and Poplar Grove areas. They support this project and have been working with Irene Fisher on getting it started. Mr. Brace felt the Planning Commission had already seen the positive impacts. The empowering part has already happened, and they have the opportunity to empower further by opening this center. The center has no major facade changes, so it will keep the integrity of the building and bring life to a dead spot. Matthew Barrowman, a resident at 837 Fremont across the street from the subject property, felt it was necessary to have activities every night or at least several times a week. He supported the idea of having a place where people could educate and train themselves for employment positions. Mr. Barrowman commented on the importance of available programs for youth and training them to be successful in life. He believed this facility should have several computers with internet capabilities with staff that knows how to use them. He favored keeping the center open later in the evening. He expressed reservation about the open space in the park because there are security issues, and he hoped this project would increase •park security. Ethel Roberg, a resident in the area, stated that she is a mobile watch patroller and agreed with Mr. Barrowman about park security. She hoped this new facility and the parking provided for people involved with the facility would secure the park, because on their patrols they see questionable, uninvited people they do not want in their area. She was anxious for this house to become busy again with positive activity. Chair Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Muir felt that timing restrictions were more appropriate in a lease agreement between the City and the user rather than being imposed in the ordinance. Ms. Coffey replied that the issue is the lawn area south of the building. She did not believe there was a concern with hours of operation for activities inside the building. There is a residence next to the lawn, and the Staff was unsure how that lawn would be used. Mr. Muir asked if Public Services would entertain the concerns of the Planning Staff and introduce that into the lease agreement. He preferred to encourage more use rather than impose limitations on use. Ms.Arnold agreed that this could be handled through a lease agreement. Mr. Graham stated that he understood the concern and was willing to work with a lease agreement. • Motion for Petition 410-609 In the matter of Petition 410-609 and based upon the findings of fact, Tim Chambless moved to approve the request for a conditional use for a Community Outreach Center with the conditions specified in the staff report with an amendment that time limits be determined with a lease agreement rather than with this motion. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Findings of Fact-Conditional Use A. The subject site involves less than 3 acres (+2.70 acres). Therefore,the proposed use,a community outreach center, is permissible through the conditional use process. B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan shows the majority of the land in the vicinity as public open space. This proposed use is in keeping with that intent. A petition is also being•brought before the Planning Commission to rezone the property from R-1-5000 residential district to public open space,with consolidation of all of the Jordan Park parcels within the Muscatine subdivision,and to amend the future land use map of the master plan to identify these parcels as Open Space consistent with the rest of the Jordan Park properties. C. The Transportation Division has reviewed this request and has stated that vehicular access • to the facility from 900 West and Jordan Park is adequate. Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) compliance must be incorporated on site to ensure appropriate and adequate access to the facilities and programs within the building. Pedestrian access to the structure via sidewalks is currently provided. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final approval of the ADA ramp structure to the Planning Director to ensure the new ramp be built in a way that is compatible with the existing structure. D. The Division of Transportation is supportive but recommends approval with certain conditions: a)the designation of adequate parking for the facility within Jordan Park (reiterating that no parking is allowed on 900 West)and, b)compliance with ADA for accessibility issues for the functions of the site. The off-site parking can be accommodated on the southern drive of Jordan Park once the consolidation of the parcels is completed. The applicant will have to meet ADA requirements for providing accessibility parking stalls and access to the structure. E. Existing facilities are adequate or will be required to meet City standards. Public Utilities may require upgrades to the utilities as the use changes from residential to public use. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Police Department should conduct a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)Review. • F. In order to adequately buffer adjacent land uses from the proposed use, the applicant will need to install a 10-foot landscaped buffer along all property lines that are adjacent to neighboring parcels zoned as residential. The activities proposed on the southern lawn area should be limited to reduce potential impacts to the adjacent residences, thereby minimizing noise problems to neighbors. Any outdoor lighting should project downward to shine on the subject property and not the adjacent residential use to the south. G. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing structure, which is compatible with the existing structure. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final exterior elevation modification approval to the Planning Director including the design and location of an accessible ramp to the structure. H. The site has mature landscaping. The site consists of mature landscaping. A 10-foot-wide landscape buffer is required. Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate the final landscaping plan approval to the Planning Director and requires the landscaped buffer be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The plan must meet all of the requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. 40 • 1. The existing structure is not located in a designated historic district or designated as an individual landmark site. However, there will be no changes made to the exterior of the structure except what is required to provide ADA compliance. The site does not contain any specific environmental features that will require preservation or mitigation. J. The community outreach center will rely on the gate openings and closing of the Jordan Park facility for vehicular access. Therefore, the operating and delivery hours will be limited to the center's proposed hours of operation (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)in order to be consistent with current adjacent land uses. Evening meetings should be limited during the week so that the adjacent residents are not impacted. Should the center desire utilization of the south lawn for meetings and activities, the hours should be limited to avoid disturbance to the adjacent residence. K. This center will be based within the community that the University of Utah has identified as having the greatest need for the services it provides. By locating within the community they will be able to have the opportunity to create a positive impact. The community is anxious for these services and programs to be made available to their residents. No adverse impacts are anticipated from this project. • L. As a request for conditional use,there will be conditions placed on the project which must be met prior to occupancy or the commencement of any activities. All pertinent City codes must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. Conditions of Approval 1. Parking stalls for use by the community outreach center, especially those required to meet ADA guidelines, must be designated in some manner. 2. An accessible pathway from the parking facility into the existing structure must be provided. The design must meet the federal guidelines for ADA. Final approval of the ramp design and location is granted to the Planning Director. The access into the building must be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Dedicate a minimum number of 8 parking stalls on the southern drive of Jordan Park for exclusive use by the community center to ensure adequate parking is available for the center. 3. The lessee may only make the repairs to the structure as previously agreed to in the lease and as approved by the Director of Public Services and the Director of Planning. Final approval of any exterior modifications should be granted to the Planning Director to ensure compatibility. 40 4. A ten-foot landscape buffer be provided on the southern property line and final landscaping • plan approval be granted to the Planning Director. 5. The community outreach center's hours of operation shall be determined through a lease agreement. 6. Applicant consolidates the lots into one parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure on-site parking on the southern drive of Jordan Park. 7. The extra right-of-way is deeded to the 900 West Street right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. Activities on the southern lawn area should be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in order to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent residence to the south. 9. A CPTED review should be conducted by the Police Department with their suggestions being transmitted to the Planning Director for final approval of the site plan and landscaping plan. 10. The required landscape buffer needs to be installed along the property lines where the park • property is adjacent to residential zones. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition 400-02-31 In the matter of petition 400-02-31, a zoning map and master plan amendment request for property at 1060 South 900 West, based upon the findings of fact,Jeff Jonas moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve a proposed zoning map and master plan amendments without conditions. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Findings of Fact-Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment A. Rezoning the properties to Open Space helps clarify that these parcels are part of Jordan Park and allows the Public Services Department more flexibility with future upgrades to existing facilities (in particular the greenhouses, maintenance yard)and the subject structure. This consolidation also eliminates any problems which could arise on subdivision issues since parking is currently on a separate lot, not to mention in a different zone. The facilities must be tied together in order to coherently plan for • development of facilities and programs in the park, such as the proposed community center,which meet goals identified in the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and the Futures Commission Report. B. The rezoning of the parcels to be consistent with the rest of Jordan Park will help identify these parcels as part of the park. The single-family structure will remain and be utilized for community enrichment programs. The existing streetscape will retain the same character. The park parcels will remain in harmony with the neighborhood. C. The activities of the center are consistent with the Health Department's noise ordinance. Morning meetings cannot occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Activities on the southern landscaped lot were not identified in the draft lease. The park gates are closed at 11:00 p.m. in the evening; therefore, parking for the facility will be closed off at that time. It is important that activities at the community outreach center be synchronized with the daily flow of the neighborhood so that negative impacts are not experienced. Exterior lighting added for security purposes may not shine onto any adjacent lots and may not become a nuisance to other residential structures. D. There are no overlay zoning districts on the site that will impose additional standards. • E. The appropriate City Divisions have reviewed this request and have found that existing public facilities and services are adequate to serve the subject property. Master Plan Amendment The mandated notification procedures as outlined in the State Code for amending a master plan have been followed. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye". Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Housing Mitigation Report Aria Funk moved to accept the Housing Mitigation Report on the property at 1060 South 900 West relating to Petition 400-02-31 and, based on the findings outlined in this report,the Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development's designation that the applicants have adequately mitigated the loss of a residential unit at 1060 South 900 West by proposing to construct a new single-family detached residential unit at 557 South 1000 West in City Council District 2. Laurie Noda seconded the motion. S Findings of Fact , As outlined in the attached Housing Loss Mitigation Report, the requirement of Section 18.97 of the Salt ill Lake City Code have been adequately addressed with the applicant's proposal to construct a replacement dwelling within City Council District 2. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms Funk, Mr.Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. • • . • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 14,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-37—Ken Holman,Overland Development Corp. Request to rezone properties located between 300/400 South and 500/600 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Office to Residential Mixed Use AFFECTED COUNCIL. DISTRICTS: If approved,the ordinances will affect Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: A. The Council discussed this issue with the Administration at the Council Work Session on March 4,2003. Discussion items focused on: • 1. Details relating to the proposed residential project. a. The proposed mix of market rate and subsidized units. • Planning staff indicated that tax credit subsidized units will be included in Phase I. Phase II and III are intended to be market rate rental and condominiums. b. The number of units available for families that may be provided in future phases. • Planning staff indicated that the developer is proposing one and two bedroom units. As previously noted,at the Planning Commission meeting,the developer indicated that the proposed target tenant market age range is early 20's to mid 30's,units proposed include a 50/50 split of 1-2 bedrooms with a range of 748 to 1,000 sq. ft.,a high number of children is not anticipated, 1 parking stall per unit will be provided with an option to pay for additional parking spaces. c. The timing proposed for construction of proposed amenities and parking. • Planning staff indicated in a follow-up email,that the amenities package for the entire complex will be built as part of Phase II(not Phase I). Extra parking(to accommodate Phase II)will be built as part of Phase I. Phase I will include an oversized parking deck,Phase II will provide the swimming pool,etc.,on top of the parking structure. 2. Height. • The Planning Commission recommended allowing 50 foot in height,but the master plan calls for 45. As the change would require a master plan amendment,the Council discussed adopting the ordinance without reference to the 50 feet,with the understanding that the current master plan will stand unless the developer petitions and a formal change is made. 3. Consistency with previous community concerns as understood by one Council Member. • a. Council Member Saxton noted that in the past and particularly during the 1995 zoning rewrite project the community expressed the need to protect the residential character of 300 South and Page 1 restrict new commercial development. She felt it may be more acceptable to prohibit commercial development on 300 South and allow new commercial development on 600 East. She indicated that she would like the opportunity to follow-up with the developer and community council members. • b. Council Member Saxton has followed up with the community council and received initial comments. 4. Details relating to the Central City Neighborhood Council review. a. The Community Council has expressed concern that they did not have an adequate opportunity to comment on the rezoning. The developer did request time on the agenda to discuss the rezoning and did attend the November 6 community council meeting,but there are differing perceptions on the content of the discussion. The community council chair indicates that the council had the impression that the developer would be coming back to discuss the rezoning aspects of the proposal. b. To address this,a 5 p.m.Tuesday briefing has been scheduled for community members,prior to the Council briefing and hearing. In addition,it is proposed that the hearing be continued to March 20 so that additional community comment can be taken after the citizens have had more time for review. This approach addresses the community council concern,yet still addresses the need of the developer to have the issue addressed by the Council prior to April 1. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Continue the public hearing to Thursday March 20,2003. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the proposed ordinances rezoning properties located between 300/400 South and 500/600 East as recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception of the 50 foot height allowance. (See Attachment A) 3. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the proposed ordinances rezoning properties located between • 300/400 South and 500/600 East with the exception of the 50 foot height allowance and the condition that the Planning Commission amend the planned development conditional use to: a. Prohibit commercial development on the property fronting on 300 South. b. Permit commercial development on the property fronting on 600 East. (See Attachment B) 4. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the proposed ordinances. The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A. This is a request to rezone several properties in the block between 300 and 400 South and 500 and 600 East. . This action would facilitate development of approximately 430-residential units in three separate buildings (market rate/tax credit rental apartments and condominiums for purchase). The Administration notes that the final number of units will be approximately 430,but the number will vary based upon the final size of the individual condominium units. B. Current zoning is a mix of Residential Office,Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Mixed Use. The site is within the Central City Historic District. Zoning on the properties also includes Historic Preservation and Groundwater Source Protection Overlay classifications. If the rezoning is approved,all properties would be zoned Residential Mixed Use. The Overlay districts zoning would remain the same. • (Please see the attached maps for reference.) Page 2 C. The Administration's transmittal notes that the project will be developed on three separate parcels in three • phases for financial and marketing reasons and to allow parking to be consolidated. Three ordinances have been prepared with successive deadlines(from 1-3 years)to rezone the properties as each development phase receives approval. Specific ordinance timeframes and conditions are summarized below. (Please see the individual ordinances for details.) 1. Phase I-Rezoning property located at 321-331 South 500 East(to Residential Mixed Use, approximately 208 units) a. Current zoning: Residential Office and Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 b. Conditions: • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 1 year or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. 2. Phase II-Rezoning property located at 550-558 East 300 South (to Residential Mixed Use, Administration may be able to provide information on number of units anticipated.) a. Current zoning: Residential Office and Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 b. Conditions: • • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • Proposed development must be processed as a planned development subject to Planning Commission approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 2 years or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. 3. Phase III-Rezoning property located at 326-348 South 600 East (to Residential Mixed Use, Administration may be able to provide information on number of units anticipated.) a. Current zoning—Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 b. Conditions: • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • Proposed development along 600 East subject to the following stipulations: o New commercial uses along the 600 East frontage are prohibited. o A 15-foot landscaped front yard setback shall be provided along 600 Fast unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. o Building height along 600 East is limited to 50-feet unless the Historic Landmark • Commission approves an alternative design. Page 3 • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 Fact shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • • Proposed development must be processed as a planned development subject to Planning Commission approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 3 years or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. D. On November 21,2002,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties subject to the conditions identified by the Planning Commission. Issues discussed included: 1. Height-45 feet specified in the master plan versus 50 feet allowed by the building code,requiring lower height in the Historic District. 2. Parking-use of cross-over easements for phases 2 and 3 and allowing encroachment into the rear yard setback for phase 1. 3. Useable open space -ensuring adequate space and amenities for each development phase. 4. Coordination between the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission regarding approval of the project—Planning Commission has decision authority for planned developments, subdivision and condominiums;Historic Landmark Commission has decision authority for design elements such as building materials,architectural features,size and height. 5. Target tenant market—age range is early 20's to mid 30's,units proposed include a 50/50 split of 1-2 bedrooms with a range of 748 to 1,000 sq. ft.,a high number of children is not anticipated, 1 parking • stall per unit will be provided with an option to pay for additional parking spaces. E. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a discussion of the proposed rezoning. Major points are summarized below. (Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for additional details.) 1. The Residential Mixed Use zoning would accommodate the proposed densities throughout the block while allowing lower scale buildings along 600 East. Rezoning the properties will allow a higher density residential development that will support the light rail transit line along 400 South. 2. The proposed zoning will accommodate parking on separate parcels. Off-site parking is generally not allowed across zoning district boundaries. 3. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval. 4. The Planning Commission has decision authority regarding planned development approval. Since the properties are within a Historic Preservation Overlay District,the regulations in the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone. 5. Subdivision amendment and condominium approval will be required. 6. The Planning Commission approved a similar rezoning and planned development in 1997-1998. There are also several Historic Landmark Commission cases relating to the 97/98 proposal. 7. The primary issues involved are: a. Compatibility of the proposed higher density mixed use development with the historic district context b. Demolition of the Juel Apartments located at 340 South 600 East. c. Interface with new light rail access. • Page 4 F. The project has been reviewed by the City Development Review Team. Public facilities and services are already available. The development proposal will have to meet City standards and demonstrate that there • are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. G. The public process included review by the Central City Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the proposed rezoning. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: ➢ POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Council Members may wish to request additional information from the Administration regarding the following items in order to have a full understanding of the issues relating to the rezoning and proposed residential development. A. The Administration's transmittal notes"The concept of an apartment complex was discussed by the Central City Community Council on February 7,and June 19, 2001. A vote was taken regarding the demolition of homes on the block(February 7,2001). The results varied according to specific structure,but were generally mixed. No position was taken regarding the overall project(June 19,2001). The petitioner took the zoning request to the Central City Community Council on November 6,2002." Council Members may wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview of the issues and comments raised at the Community Council meetings, how they were addressed and whether it is the Administration's perception that community issues have been resolved. B. The Administration notes that the proposed apartment/condominium project is being developed in three phases. The first phase is the largest,mixing market rate and tax credit rental units. The second phase is proposed to be market rental units. The third phase is proposed to be condominium units. At the Planning 110 Commission meeting,the developer indicated that the proposed target tenant market age range is early 20's to mid 30's,units proposed include a 50/50 split of 1-2 bedrooms with a range of 748 to 1,000 sq. ft.,a high number of children is not anticipated, 1 parking stall per unit will be provided with an option to pay for additional parking spaces.Based on Council Members recent discussions relating to Downtown revitalization, school closures and the mix of a,affordable and market rate housing, Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the proposed mix of rental/market rate/condominium units. C. In a related matter,the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions have reviewed applications for demolition, rezoning and redevelopment on this block since 1997. 1. In April 1998,the City Council approved a similar rezoning request for a proposed high-density residential development(approximately 300 units). Due to economic reasons,the project became financially unfeasible and the Historic Landmark,Planning Commission and City Council approvals expired. Major issues that received significant public comment and discussions focused on by the City Council related to the demolition of several historic structures and the mix of affordable and market rate units. 2. Portions of this new proposal have been processed by the Administration. A planned development conditional use has been approved for Phase I,and the Historic Landmark Commission has approved the demolition of historic structures. 3. Two land use appeals were filed relating to one of the requested demolitions(Juel Apartments located at 340 South 500 East). One appeal was remanded to the Landmark Commission. The second appeal,the Landmark Commission decision not to allow demolition was overturned by the Land Use Appeals Board. 4. The above information is not included in the Administration's chronology or in the paperwork provided on this issue. • a. If the Council has questions on any of this history, the Planning Division will be prepared to address them at the briefing. Page 5 b. Council staff needs feedback from the Council on whether historical/contextual/interrelated conditions and information of this nature is helpful to the Council and should be requested in the future. • D. The Administration's transmittal notes"The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. It is the recommendation to limit the height along 600 East to 50 feet(four stories for building code). The Planning Conunission noted that if the applicant desires a 50-foot height for phase three,he will have to also request an amendment to the master plan at that time. Restriction on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval." 1. The ordinance that has been prepared to rezone the property fronting on 600 East contains the following condition. "The height of the buildings along 600 East is limited to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design." 2. At the Planning Commission meeting,based on advice from Planning staff,the Commission adopted a motion to amend the East Downtown Master Plan as it relates to height in this area. 3. The City Attorney's office(at the request of Council staff)is reviewing this issue to determine whether or not a revised ordinance will be necessary or if an ordinance for a master plan amendment is necessary. 4. Are the Council comfortable adopting ordinances that assume future action by the applicant, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission? E. As previously noted,the Administration has indicated that the proposed development will be developed in three phases. Three ordinances have been provided with extended deadlines for compliance with specific conditions prior to the actual rezoning of the properties. 1. The conditions include a requirement for future approvals by the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions. 2. In the past,rezoning petitions that have come before the Council(that include a proposed development) • have generally also received final approvals from the City advisory boards or commissions. 3. Also,rezoning ordinances recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council have linked the actual rezoning to the issuance of an approved building permit and required certification by the Planning Director to the City Recorder that all conditions have been met. 4. Are the Council comfortable adopting ordinances that assume future action by the applicant, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission? MASTER PLAN&POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan purpose statement includes the following key points: 1. Stop the erosion of the residential character of the neighborhood; 2. Preserve and enhance the neighborhood's unique character and viability; 3. Suggest several actions to develop East Downtown as a high density residential neighborhood and create a vibrant, strong,integrated mixed use urban neighborhood. B. The properties are located within the Brownstone Apartment Mixed Use and Bryant Residential sub-areas of the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan. Key characteristics identified for the sub-areas include: 1. Brownstone-Apartment Mixed Use: a. The area should remain the high density apartment residential service district and primary urban neighborhood for the Central Business District. b. Commercial activity should focus on providing services to the area and not compete with the Central Business District. c. A special emphasis should be placed on safety and street level pedestrian activities compatible with the existing large landscaped,open space character of the area. Page 6 d. Development design should focus on: • a high density residential character with ground level commercial activity at a human scale; • • reinforce the unique grid pattern of this area; • enhance the architectural character of the area; • emphasize a variety of textures,colors,and shapes compatible with existing environments; • high-rise building walls should be set back or terraced down to street level. 2. Bryant Residential area: a. The area should remain medium density,high quality residential. b. Street parks and reduced widths would reintroduce residential character and discourage additional traffic impacts. c. The area should be exclusively residential in character without any commercial office uses and only existing neighborhood commercial support services. d. Development design should focus on: • Enhancement on the predominant residential character of the area. • Buildings should be compatible with adjoining development in respect to scale,building location,use and character. • Landscaped buffering and interior block redesign are needed to ease the transition from commercial to residential. • Signs and billboards should not be allowed. • Pedestrian safety should be should be the first priority in dealing with traffic movement and circulation. C. The Council has adopted housing and transportation policy statements that support creating a wide variety of housing types citywide and changing the focus of transportation decisions from moving cars to moving people. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community Housing Plan and Transportation Master Plan. 1. Housing policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. 2. Transportation policy statements include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. The plan notes that encouraging higher density housing and concentrating business/commercial uses at transit stations allows greater opportunity for ridesharing and use of mass transit. D. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. • 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 3. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 4. Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 5. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. • E. On January 7,2002,the Council adopted a final version of the Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown. That statement encourages housing development in this area. Page 7 • F. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. G. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly, safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. CHRONOLOGY: > BACKGROUND The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the master plan process. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. Key meeting dates are listed below. > KEY DATES • Feb. 7,June 19,&Nov. 6,2001 Central City Community Council meetings • 2001 —November 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meetings • November 21,2002 Planning Commission meeting cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Roger Evans,LuAnn Clark,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Cheri Coffey,Elizabeth Giraud,Doug Dansie,Sylvia Jones,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Rezoning, Ken Holman,Overland Development,300/400 South 500/600 East 0 • Page 8 I L• 300 S --1 2nd Phase _ r R MU 1st Phase ••••••••• ,•• ♦•�•••♦• � �•� �\ 3rd Phase i• iiii' •••�•� iiiiiiii � o, �`i � _ .. ❖•••❖. 0\ , , F 35 k\��` W W CS-- O to 0 CC • 400 S _I J- CS • • ATTACHMENT A • Ordinances 1-3 • Petition No. 400-01-37— Ken Holman, Overland Development Corp. • Request to rezone properties located between 300/400 South and 500/600 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Office to Residential Mixed Use so/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE - • No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 321-331 South 500 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-331 SOUTH 500 EAST, FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RO) AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY(RMF-35) TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 321-331 South 500 East, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office (RO)and Residential Multi-Family(RMF-35) to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: • a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON 2 ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER t /� 8�-03 • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinance 03\Rczoning properties at 321-331 So 500 E doc • 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE A( a/ No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 550-558 East 300 South) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550-558 EAST 300 SOUTH,FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RO)TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area,the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. • NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 550-558 East 300 South, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office (RO) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be-improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan • must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. The development of this property must be processed as a planned development with approval obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. d. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met,as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within • two years from the date that this ordinance is signed,this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may,for good cause shown,extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON • 2 ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER .61;y444A,7-24/7:.7_"11 • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 550-558 E 300 S.doc • 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 110 No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 326-348 South 600 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326-348 SOUTH 600 EAST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RMF-35) TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations,the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. • NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 326-348 South 600 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35) to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b ' b. The proposed development along 600 East is approved only with the following stipulations: 11 1. New commercial uses along the 600 East frontage are prohibited; 2. A 15 foot landscaped front yard setback shall be provided along 600 East, unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; and 3. The height of the buildings along 600 East is limited to 45 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. c. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. d. The development on this property must be processed as a planned development with approval obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning • Commission. e. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within three years from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null • 2 and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for • satisfying the conditions identified above. 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. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 -/Y-0 3 - . _ (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 326-348 S 600 E-clean-Mar 14,2003.doc 3 PHASE 1 BOUNDARY r- BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE N89°57'40"E 361.114 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4,AND LOT 7 OF SAID r _ =- i BLOCK 38;THENCE SOUTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 17.736 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7;THENCE S89°57'40"W 361.028 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ;" AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE NO°01'19"W f._G=t 223.404 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 2.491 ACRES. revised 11/12/02 cb PHASE 2 BOUNDARY 3cr `:/"{1 BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B",SALT LAKE �.._ CITY SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 300 SOUTH STREET; THENCE N89°57'38"E 181.496 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE;THENCE SO°01'22"E 190.346 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE 1 THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:WEST 151.056 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE S89°57'40"W 30.450 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6;THENCE NO°01'22"W 165.657 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.776 ACRES. PHASE 3 BOUNDARY v� 0 `� BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE WEST LINE OF 600 EAST STREET;THENCE 1:2 ,,- - -W SO°01'25"E 290.061 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO A SET REBAR AND CAP# 158397; THENCE S89°57'38"W 330.667 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID BLOCK 38;THENCE NO°01'22"W 66.664 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE 1 THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES:N89°57'40"E 30.361 FEET;THENCE NORTH 17.736 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE NORTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 2.694 FEET TO THE SOUTH EAST - -- CORNER OF PHASE 2;THENCE NO°01'22"W 24.682 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PHASE 2 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LOT 6;THENCE N89°57'38"E 149.167 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1.321 ACRES. li k" U':$63t)11-18lnmigration Ct urr.design e alc\PIIASI, 1-2-3 13OUNt)ARY.doc • void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. 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. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: FgOED. TO CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Sat! t.et;r:. Cc, D2!2- /— r-03 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G-\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 326-348 S 600 E doc • Affected Sidwell Numbers 4110 16-06-427-036 16-06-427-013 16-06-426-008 16-06-283-001 16-06-283-006 II 0 • ATTACHMENT B • Ordinances 1-3 • Petition No. 400-01-37— Ken Holman, Overland Development Corp. • Request to rezone properties located between 300/400 South and 500/600 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Office to Residential Mixed Use 613.1. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE - - _ No. of 2003 • (Rezoning property located at 321-331 South 500 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-331 SOUTH 500 EAST,FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE(RO) AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY(RMF-35)TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is • appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 321-331 South 500 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office (RO)and Residential Multi-Family(RMF-35) to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: • 1/4 • a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed,this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. 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. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinance 03\Rezoning properties at 321-331 So 500 E doc • 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE - No. of 2003 • (Rezoning property located at 550-558 East 300 South) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550-558 EAST 300 SOUTH,FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE(RO)TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(R-MU),PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. • NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 550-558 East 300 South,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office(RO)to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. 4;: , b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan • must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. The Owner/Developer of this property must obtain approval of a planned development from the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,which approval must include a prohibition on any commercial uses along 300 South. d. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. • SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within two years from the date that this ordinance is signed,this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON • 2 ATTEST: - • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) 3-lY-o3. Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 550-558 E 300 S-Clean-Mar 14,2003.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE - • No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 326-348 South 600 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326-348 SOUTH 600 EAST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RMF-35)TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE(R-MU),PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing,and demographic details of the area,the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. • NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 326-348 South 600 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Multi-Family Residential(RMF-35) to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • '» • b. The proposed development along 600 East is approved only with the following stipulations: • 1. A 15 foot landscaped front yard setback shall be provided along 600 East,unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; and 2. The height of the buildings along 600 East is limited to 45 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. c. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. d. The Owner/Developer of this property must obtain approval of a planned development from the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,which approval must not prohibit commercial uses along 600 east. • e. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within three years from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. • 2 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. Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: • • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Rezoning prop at 326-348 S 600 E-Clean-Mar 14,2003.doc • 3 • PHASE 1 BOUNDARY - T.4"."i' BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 38,PLAT`B",SALT LAKE • CITY SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE N89°57'40"E 361.114 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4,AND LOT 7 OF SAID r _ : t BLOCK 38;THENCE SOUTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 17.736 FEET TO A POINT ON THE • SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7;THENCE S89°57'40"W 361.028 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE \�1.; AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE NO°01'19"W 223.404 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 2.491 ACRES. revised 11/12/02 cb PHASE 2 BOUNDARY 55C -55`? r 3C - BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 300 SOUTH STREET; THENCE N89°57'38"E 181.496 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE;THENCE SO°01'22"E 190.346 / -- FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE 1 THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: WEST 151.056 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE S89°57'40"W 30.450 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6;THENCE NO°01'22"W 165.657 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.776 ACRES. PHASE 3 BOUNDARY afro BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B",SALT LAKE CITY • SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE WEST LINE OF 600 EAST STREET;THENCE ,i - SO°01'25"E 290.061 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO A SET REBAR AND CAP# 158397; THENCE S89°57'38"W 330.667 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID BLOCK 38;THENCE NO°01'22"W 66.664 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE I THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES:N89°57'40"E 30.361 FEET;THENCE NORTH 17.736 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE NORTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 2.694 FEET TO THE SOUTH EAST - -. CORNER OF PHASE 2;THENCE NO°01'22"W 24.682 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PHASE 2 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LOT 6;THENCE N89°57'38"E 149.167 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1.321 ACRES. li!c- 1!:''86301 lab Immigration Ct.HT\desi;n`.!cgali'a'I IAS!; 1-2-3 1301!NDARY do, • Affected Sidwell Numbers ei 16-06-427-036 16-06-427-013 16-06-426-008 16-06-283-001 16-06-283-006 s iv1waamoc rage i or L Sears, Michael From: Dobbins, David - dilent: Tuesday, March 18,2003 2:10 PM IlKo: Sears, Michael Cc: Hillier, Randy Subject: FW:Vacant Housing/Zoning Inspector Here is the information that Nancy requested last week. Original Message From: Spangenberg, Craig Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:37 AM To: Dobbins, David Cc: Zunguze, Louis Subject: Vacant Housing/Zoning Inspector Position David: The loss of one Housing/Zoning Officer position will cause the response lime on a complaint to go from approximately 5 days to approximately 7 days or longer. The response time is an average,which increases during the summer months. However,we do respond to life safety issues as soon as possible. The lost position represents about 14% (1 out of 7)of the inspectors that are responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinances. We try and address complaints from the City Council or the Mayor's office much sooner. Response time is not the only criteria that should be used to determine the impact of the loss of the position.We should also consider that approximately 14% of the Housing/Zoning cases will go unresolved each year if the position is lost. These housing/zoning cases are generated entirely from complaints that we receive. dditionally,this position has been responsible for new complaints on unsecured buildings. The recent emphasis on enforcement the west side makes this position all the more critical,since two of the inspectors on the west side are spending a portion of eir time assisting in the vacant area. Our normal process after receiving a complaint is as follows: 1. An initial inspection is performed taking note of any violations. Photos are also taken during this inspection. We knock on the door in an attempt to inform the owner of any violations and discuss the enforcement process. 2. A warning letter is sent to the property owner after ownership and other pertinent research is completed. This letter gives the property owner 14 days to comply. 3. An inspection is conducted after the 14 day deadline has expired. Additional photos are also taken during this inspection. If significant progress is being made, additional time is granted. 4. If the violations are still present, photos are taken,and a Notice and Order is sent to the property owner. The Notice and Order is posted on the property and an affidavit is prepared. This Notice and Order states that fines will begin to accrue in 30 days. 5.Approximately 5 days before the Notice and Order expires, a letter is sent to the property owner that states the date that fines will begin to accrue. It also states the total amount of fines that will be levied each day. 6. After the Notice and Order has expired, an inspection is conducted to verify compliance. If the property is still in violation, photos are taken and the fines begin to accrue. 7. All correspondence clearly states that the Housing/Zoning Officer should be contacted immediately when the property is in compliance. This will allow the Housing/Zoning Officer to stop the accrual of fines. •When a property is accruing fines, a copy of an inspection slip or a fines letter is sent to the owner every 45-60 days. The inspection slip clearly states that the property is in violation and the amount of fines that are accruing each day. 3/18/2003 Message Page 2 of 2 9. Once the fines reach$5,000 the case is sent to the Attorney's Office to be filed in Third District Court. 10. Properties that come into compliance before court action are given the opportunity to appeal to a hearing officer. The day of the hearing, an inspection is conducted to verify that the property is still in compliance. If the property is not in compliance,the. hearing is postponed. The case can then be scheduled for Third District Court. Property owners that are willing to comply with the ordinance requirements and are actively working toward compliance are given more time without fines being levied. This explanation covers zoning violations only. When housing deficiencies are discovered,there are additional steps that must be taken. These include a housing deficiency list and possible appeals to the HAAB Board. • • 3/18/2003 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE March 4,2003 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment#12 Fiscal Year 2002-2003 AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: The Council met on March 11,2003 to discuss Budget Amendment#12 of Fiscal Year 2002-2003. This budget amendment indudes recommendations by the Administration to reduce fiscal year 2002-2003 expenditures as a result of a revenue shortfall. A summary of the$2,429,100 revenue shortfall and the proposed expenditure reduction was provided for the briefing and is attached for review. This amendment has housekeeping items,grants and donations that were received by the City • and appropriation requests for new programs or projects.The Council by adoption of an ordinance will appropriate funds as decided by the Council during the Council work session briefing and discussion following the required public hearing. SUMMARY OF BRIEFING The Council indicated during the briefing that they would cut the City Council's budget by 1.7% or$26,500 during FY02-03 and that additional Council Office cuts for FY03-04 would be reviewed during the normal budget process in May and June. The Council also had questions concerning the Citizen Corps Council and what role the new Council would play in the City.The Administration's response is attached. Some Council Members also had questions on specific issues relating to equipment purchases, service level reductions relating to inspection services,and partnership issues relating to Utopia.The Administration has provided the attached responses. Council staff has updated the revenue shortfall and expenditure reduction spreadsheet to show initiative numbers not line numbers. Council Members did not indicate that they would like specific motions on any of the initiatives.Council staff will prepare a motion sheet for use after the public hearing that encompasses any requested motions or changes to the recommendations from the Administration. Note: The following information was provided to the Council for the 10/03/02 briefing. It is provided again for your reference. • MATTERS AT ISSUE - > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS • The Administration is not proposing the use of fund balance to offset the revenue shortfall,but the Administration is proposing the use of fund balance for several other purposes.The Council may wish to consider whether using fund balance to fund the requested projects is consistent with the Councils stated goal of adequate fund balance for emergencies and reserves. The current General Fund balance is almost$22 million or 13.5%.The total amount of recommended appropriations affecting General Fund balance is$809,884.If the Council appropriates all of the requests from the General Fund balance the resulting fund balance percentage will be 13% of General Fund on-going revenue. > LEGISLATIVE INTENTS AND ACTION ITEMS The Council has a legislative intent that relates to funding Governmental Reserves. As noted on the informational spreadsheet the Administration is proposing an additional$200,000 transfer to the Governmental Immunity Fund.This item is Initiative#18 on this budget opening. It was noted by Council Members in a recent discussion that it is important to maintain a healthy fund balance because the amount set aside to address governmental immunity is so limited. • Funding of Governmental Immunity Reserves-It is the intent of the City Council to support the Administration's proposal to accumulate a reserve in the Governmental Immunity Fund equal to three times the rolling average claim payout. The Council has a legislative intent that relates to the hosting of the National League of Cities III Conference.As noted on the informational spreadsheet there is a shortfall of$227,000 relating to the conference. This item is Initiative#2 on this budget opening. • National League of Cities Conference-It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration develops a budget and staffing plan to address the impact of the National League of Cities conference to be held in Salt Lake City. The plan should be presented to the Council no later than October 2,2001 and include the City's host duties, anticipated staffing,benefits associated with hosting the conference,estimated expenses to be incurred by Salt Lake City,a proposal to fund the expenses,and a comparison of - .. anticipated expenses in respect to anticipated revenues. > ANALYSIS The Administration has recommended new programs, expenditures,several housekeeping 2 measures and supplemental grant fund appropriations. The Administration is recommending replacement vehides for IMS and computers for Public Safety and Public Services. These items were expenditures that have been planned for some time. The Administration is also recommending that the City install sprinklers in the C&C Building and take advantage of a one-time incentive from the City's insurance carrier to help fund the installation. One new program that the Council has been briefed about is included in this budget III amendment The Administration has negotiated with UTOPIA to join as a founding city and join the UTOPIA Municipal Broadband Network (fiber optic into every home and business in • Salt Lake City). This membership and partnership in UTOPIA will cost the City approximately $186,000. This budget opening also has donations received;grant funds and interlocal government fund appropriation requests. > BUDGET RELATED FACTS The Administration has provided revenue shortfall and expenditure reduction/cost savings that are contained in Initiatives #1 through#9.Council staff has prepared an attachment that identifies the revenue shortfalls and cost savings as one-time or on-going items. The total revenue shortfall that the City is facing in FY02-03 is$2,486,000. The Administration has identified departmental reductions to offset the current year shortfall. The FY02-03 one-time budget shortfall of$2,486,000 equates to a$3,283,400 on-going shortfall that will affect FY3-04. The Administration has identified on-going reductions of$859,020 to help address the anticipated$3,283,400 FY03-04 budget shortfall.The remaining reductions to reduce the anticipated FY03-04 budget shortfall will be proposed by the Administration during the normal budget adoption process that starts in May. The Administration did not include a reduction for the Council Office budget because it is a separate branch of government.The Council may wish to commit to a 3% reduction in the Council Office budget for both the current year and for fiscal year 2003-2004($46,700). Most Administrative departments provided 3% reduction scenarios,although the reduction scenarios • for this fiscal year do not necessarily equate to 3%per department. Staff has identified potential options relating to Council Office budget reductions and has reviewed them with the Chair and Vice Chair. This can be provided to the full Council for review. Council staff has not included Initiatives#1 through#9 on this sheet;please refer to the attached spreadsheet for a summary of proposed expenditure reductions. Issues #1 - #9 ("Revenue Shortfall") Please see attached schedule. Issue#10: CIP(Optional) ($2,280,366- CIP Fund) ("Revenue Shortfall") The Administration has identified$463,900 in completed CIP projects.The Council has typically transferred recaptured CIP funds to CIP contingency for use on CIP project cost overruns or new CIP projects.The current contingency balance in 2002 CIP contingency is$232,900 and 2003 CIP Contingency is$883,566.With the recapture of the$463,900 the total available CIP funds for use is$1,580,366. The Administration has included this recapture as an optional proposal for balancing the current fiscal year revenue shortfall. The transmittal from the Administration also included the recapture of the$700,000 in Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Projects in their optional proposal. Should the Council elect to use this option,the Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Project would be cancelled. • Issue#11: UTOPIA 2003 ($186,304- General Fund) ("New Items") - The Administration is recommending that the City join a quasi-governmental organization • known as UTOPIA. UTOPIA will be the agency responsible for the construction,maintenance and administration of a Municipal Broadband Network. Each of the Council Members has received briefings on the opportunities,benefits and concerns relating to UTOPIA.The City has negotiated inclusion into UTOPIA as a founding member. The Administration is recommending that the Council appropriate$186,304 from General Fund balance. The appropriation will be used for the UTOPIA membership fee and feasibility study. The Council might wish to consider this request from the General Fund balance in light of the current and projected revenue shortfalls and instead use CIP contingency as the funding source for this one-time capital related project. Issue #12: Clock Tower Sprinklers ($20,060-General Fund) ("New Items") The Administration is proposing that the City install fire suppression sprinklers in the City& County Building tower.During the renovation of the C&C building sprinklers were designed for but not installed.The City's property insurance carrier,FM Global,has estimated that the loss due to a fire in the tower would be approximately$700,000 without the sprinklers.With sprinklers the loss would drop to$300,000. As an incentive to lower the risk of loss to the tower,the insurance carrier is offering$10,000 towards the cost of the sprinkling system.The total cost of the system is$20,060.The remaining $10,060 is proposed to come from General Fund balance.The Council might want to use CIP contingency as the funding source for this one-time capital related project. IIIIssue#13: Building Permit Fee Refund($7,339- General Fund) ("New Items") ("Housekeeping") The Administration is recommending that the Council refund to Garff Construction the building fees for a building that is being constructed on state property at"This is The Place State Park".This request follows the City's established fee refund protocol;specifically the criteria that buildings constructed on state owned property are eligible for refunds.The funding source for this refund is additional permit revenue. Issue#14: Impact Fee Exemptions($6,230-General Fund) ("New Items") ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the exemption of General Fund Impact fees as allowed in the Impact Fee Ordinance.The exemption is for two entities who have built affordable housing units. The funding source for exempted impact fees is General Fund balance.The Administration is proposing that CIP contingency be transferred to the General Fund to cover this exemption. The Council did have one discussion on eliminating the exemption for impact fees in these situations but did not take action. The Council indicated an interest in discussing this further during its housing policy discussions. • Issue#15: FY 03 Expenditure of FY 04 Class C Funds ($1,500,000- CIP Fund) ("New Items") ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the creation of a cost center for the expenditure of FY03-04 Class C road funds.The advance appropriation will allow the City to bid out the FY03-04 Class C projects and take advantage of the 2003 construction season. An additional benefit of the advance appropriation is the lower bidding costs that typically occur before the summer construction months.The requested appropriation has been made before and the Council did appropriate funds to take advantage of the favorable bidding climate. Issue#16: South Temple-Main Street to Virginia ($500,000- CIP Fund) ("New Items") The Administration is recommending that Class C contingency be used to fund increased costs associated with the South Temple-Main Street to Virginia road reconstruction project.The cost overruns on this project are due to excessive conflicts with existing communication utilities. Additional project details and cost overrun explanations are induded in the transmittal from the Administration. Issue#17: Plaza 349-Construction and Operations and Maintenance($645,000- General Fund) ("New Items") The Administration is requesting that General Fund balance,IMS Fund balance and Surplus Land funds be used to cover unanticipated expenses relating to the upgrade and operation of the Plaza 349 building.The two main factors for the cost overruns are the installation of an emergency generator for the entire building and an upgrade to the telecommunications infrastructure.These two items combined with costs associated with the move into the building, termination of leases and reconfiguration expenses have depleted the available budget. The Council may wish to consider funding this request from IMS Fund balance and General Fund balance only. By using the General Fund balance and not drawing on surplus land funds, the City will have those funds available for transfer to other CIP cost centers such as open space acquisition,etc.The Council might want to use CIP contingency as the funding source for this one-time capital related expenditures. Additional expenditure over run detail is induded in the transmittal from the Administration and attached to this report. Issue#18: Governmental Immunity/Claims and Damages ($200,000-Internal Service Fund) ("New Items") The Administration is recommending that the Council approve an appropriation from the Insurance&Risk Management balance to the Governmental Immunity Fund.This transfer would replenish the Governmental Immunity Fund and allow the City to resolve claims made • before the end of FY02-03. The Council may wish to consider the vitality of the Governmental Immunity Fund and research the option of having a separate tax rate for Governmental Immunity funding. Having a separate tax for Governmental Immunity would reduce exposure to the General Fund but would be an additional tax. This would need to be formally considered during the official budget process in May and June. • Issue#19: Risk Management Insurance Premiums #1 ($67,600-General/Enterprise Funds) ("New Items") The Administration is recommending that the Council appropriate funds to cover a budget shortfall in Risk Management Insurance premiums.The actual insurance premium increases are higher than budgeted. The funding for this policy is from General Fund balance($13,520), Airport Enterprise Fund($40,560)and Public Utilities Enterprise Fund($13,520). The transmittal from the Administration contains further details on insurance cost cutting measures and market conditions. Issue#20: Risk Management Insurance Premiums #2 ($67,600- General/Enterprise Funds) ("New Items") The Administration is recommending that the Council appropriate funds to cover a budget shortfall in Risk Management Insurance premiums.The actual insurance premium increases are higher than budgeted.The funding for this policy is from the Risk Fund($67,600). The transmittal from the Administration contains further details on insurance cost cutting measures and market conditions. (This item is the same as#19 and could have been combined.) Issue#21: Risk Management Software Purchase($30,063- Governmental Immunity Fund) ("New Items") ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate funds from the Governmental Immunity Fund balance to cover expenditures for risk management software.The Council appropriated funds for this installation in FY 01-02 but all the installation was not complete and the funds were not encumbered.All installation expenses have been paid or will be paid in FY • 02-03. The Administration would like to recapture the funds that fell to the Governmental Immunity Fund balance to pay for the software installation expenses. Additional information is provided on the transmittal from the Administration. Issue#22: IMS Vehicle Purchase($61,080-IMS Internal Service Fund) ("New Items") The Administration is requesting the replacement of three IMS service vans. The vans are scheduled for replacement in FY02-03.The cost from the replacement of the vans will be partially offset by lower maintenance costs.Funding for the replacement of these three vehicles will be IMS Fund balance.This request is consistent with the recommendation of the fleet consultant and the fleet operating and vehide replacement plan. Issue#23: Wasatch Properties Loan ($1,200,000-Revolving Loan Fund) ("New Items") The Council recently discussed a proposed loan to KUTV for the relocation of their operation to the Wells Fargo building on Main Street.The source of funds for this loan will be the revolving loan fund. The loan will be an interest free loan that will be repaid over a period of 15 years. It is anticipated that the relocation of KUTV will result in approximately 186 new jobs downtown. The Council has previously received information about this loan. The Council may wish to request an update on the status. • Issue#24: A. Palmer Reward Fund ($5,000-Special Revenue Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") The Police Department has received a private donation to be used as reward money for information relating to the murder of Anna Palmer. This donation will be deposited in special revenue fund. The donation does not have a resolution to sign.The Council action necessary for the creation of the Anna Palmer Reward Fund is the budget appropriation. Issue#25: Prosecutor's Office VAWA Grant($10,989-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") The Salt Lake City Prosecutors Office receives this grant annually from the State of Utah. The required match is net with personnel time spent coordinating and monitoring the grant and the by the functions of the Sr. Assistant Prosecutor and Fiscal Manager. The VAWA funds are awarded for the prosecution of Domestic Violence offenders.The intended uses of the funds are the purchase of computer equipment,contractual service to provide investigative training in the City's Police Department,travel/training to the National Domestic Violence Conference and funds to pay expert witnesses,etc. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution was previously adopted that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. • Issue#26: Police Department VAWA Grant($23,603-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department receives this grant annually from the State of Utah. The required match is net with the Victim Advocate Program Directors salary. VAWA funds are awarded for the prosecution of Domestic Violence offenders.The VAWA grant previously funded a Volunteer Coordinator who recruited and trained volunteers to respond to domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Because of liability issues and the high turn-over of volunteers,the volunteer program was ended.The VAWA position now enhances the VOCA program.With the addition of the VAWA funded position the VOCA program will _ have 4 part-time advocates available to respond to incidents. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution was previously adopted that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. Issue#27: Neighborhood Matching Grant($117,000-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") ("Housekeeping") Due to an oversight the General Fund appropriation for the Neighborhood Matching Grant program was not set up in the Special Revenue Fund for disbursement to Neighborhood Matching Grant recipients. This appropriation is a housekeeping item to correct the oversight. • Issue#28: State of Utah-Emergency Services and Homeland Security Grant($5,555- Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") •The Emergency Management Services Division received a supplemental grant for the Utah Division of Emergency Service and Homeland Security for the Community Emergency Response Term(CERT)Program.This grant will allow the Fire Department to continue the CERT program.These funds will provide for additional equipment for trainees and training manuals. Additional information is provided in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution was previously adopted that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. Issue#29: State of Utah-Emergency Services and Homeland Security Citizens'Corps ($14,636-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus") The Emergency Management Services Division received a supplemental grant for the Utah Division of Emergency Service and Homeland Security to develop a city wide strategic plan and organize a Citizen Corps.The City does not currently have a Citizen Corps Council. This is a new component of the City's Emergency Division program. This grant will be used to pay for contractual services to develop and implement the strategic plan and training/education for the Citizen Corps Council. Additional information is provided in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution was previously 4111 adopted that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. Issue#30: USAR Captain Funding($39,775- General Fund) ("Grants Providing Additional Staff Resources") The Utah Urban Search and Rescue Task Force(USAR)has received a grant from the federal government.The purpose of the grant is to ensure that the Task Force is prepared to respond to any incident of weapons of mass destruction. The Salt Lake City Fire Department and the Salt Lake County Fire Department are partners in the USAR. The County Fire Department currently has one full-time Fire Captain assigned to the Task Force to handle day-to-day operations.The City's Fire Department lends personnel to the Task Force when the Task Force is activated.The proposed use of the grant funding is the addition of a Fire • Captain to assist in the Task Force.This new position would be entirely grant funded and the position would be eliminated if the federal funding were not continued. The cost of hiring one full-time Fire Captain is$79,550 over the period of the grant. The grant would reimburse the department$39,775 in FY02-03 and$39,775 in FY03-04. Specific work responsibilities for the new USAR Fire Captain are contained in the transmittal from the Administration. • Issue#31: Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center/Hear Our Voices (Seasonal Part Time Employee) ($18,000-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Providing Additional Staff Resources") The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center(SMCC)has been awarded a grant from the Boston Museum of Science for funding the"Hear Our Voices;Girls in Technology Program". This new grant will fund a seasonal part-time coordinator for one year,purchase supplies and allow the coordinator to attend grant required training. This new program will be one of several that are offered at the Technology Center and Computer Clubhouse(opened with a grant from the Intel Foundation). The proposed program will provide services to approximately 60 young women,ages 8 to 18 yrs old who are enrolled in the Sorenson after-school,summer and evening programs. Additional program specifics and Computer Clubhouse information is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign.The resolution,when adopted by the Council,authorizes the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement and sign any additional contracts or awards related to this project.The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the project is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. Issue#32: State of Utah-Emergency Services and Homeland Security Grant($30,000- Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Providing Additional Staff Resources") The Emergency Management Services Division received a supplemental grant for the Utah Division of Emergency Service and Homeland Security to be used to update the City's Emergency Operation Plan(EOP).The update is to indude Terrorism and/or Weapons of Mass Destruction concerns. This grant will allow the division to hire an hourly employee to review and update the City's EOP,create the Weapons of Mass Destruction annex and pay for part of the printing costs of the plan. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.A resolution was previously adopted that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant.The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. Issue#33: Courts Building Utilities and Maintenance($0- General Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Courts Building Utilities and Maintenance budget be transferred from the Department of Management Services to the cost center in Public Services where the costs are being recorded.This move would allow the Administration to be consistent with the budget and accounting records for General Fund buildings. (This transfer is a housekeeping(accounting)item relating to a necessary transfer of funds.) Issue#34: Rental PC Equipment for Public Services and Public Safety ($109,020-IMS Internal Service Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Information and Management Services Internal Services is proposing a computer rental • program for Public Services Administration,Engineering and Public Safety.This program would be the same as other PC rental programs that are in effect throughout other City departments and divisions. IMS would purchase the necessary computers and the users of the computers would rent the computers for 3 years.The rental expenses for the computers and electronic equipment will be $109,020 each year.IMS has sufficient funds to purchase and maintain the computers. The rental II expenses for the computers are currently budgeted within each department's budget. Issue#35: Special Revenue Donations (Budget Only) ($400,000-Special Revenue Fund) As a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB)Statement 34,the City is no longer able to use an expendable trust fund as a method of receiving and expending donations. To address this issue the Council approved a budget only appropriation of$400,000 to be moved to specific activities as donations were received and interest earned. The$400,000 has been moved and the administration is requesting that a new budget only appropriation of $400,000 be made.The Finance division will be able to reduce the budget only cost center as donations are received and increase the budgets in individual accounts so that the remaining budgets equal remaining cash. Without Council action,the City will not be able to expend donations unless each donation was placed on a budget opening. The donations that are covered by this"budget only" cost center are only those special revenue or donation funds that have been approved by the Council. All new programs (see #24 above) will need to be included on a budget amendment for Council approval. Under this approach the Council is not notified of specific donations that are received by the City. Issue#36: GO Bond Debt Re-issue(($123,462)- CIP/Debt Service Funds) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approved the necessary transfer of CIP and 41 Debt Service funds to cover the bond obligations of the City. Additional information and transfer specifics are contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Issue#37: Special Improvement District(SID) Budgets ($64,193-Misc. Other Funds) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approved the necessary transfer of Special Improvement District funds to cover the bond obligations of the City.Additional information and transfer specifics are contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Issue#38: Library Construction Budget($12,659,887-CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approved the necessary transfer of CIP Library Construction Interest Carryover and Library GO funds to cover the bond obligations of the City.Additional information and transfer specifics are contained in the transmittal from the Administration. • Issue#39: Neighborhood Matching Grants Re-appropriation ($350,000-Misc. Special • Revenue Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate the expenditure side of the Neighborhood Matching Grant transfer that was made in FY01-02.Because the expenditure side was overlooked the funds did not carry forward in the correct fund and instead dropped to General Fund balance.This amendment will re-appropriate the funds from fund balance, establish the budget in the 73 Special Revenue Fund and provide for the continuation of the Neighborhood Matching Grant fund program. Issue#40: CDBG Recaptures ($198,466-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the recapture of remaining balance in Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)projects and programs that have been completed or that have not spent the funds in the allotted time.The recaptured funds are placed into contingency accounts for future CDBG programming. Issue#41: CED Program Income($1,507,778-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the reallocation of program income from repayment of loans or other reimbursement costs.The sources of funds are Housing and Urban Development(HUD)funded programs/projects.The reallocation funds will be placed in programs that have the same eligible activity. Issue#42: Landfill CIP for FY02-03 ($2,500,000- CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") • The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the allocation of County funds for the Landfill office expansion,installation of a new landfill gas collection system and compost pond liner installation.The City provides engineering support for the projects at the Landfill and the County reimburses the City for any design and construction expenses. Ongoing projects at the Landfill include;environmental monitoring and aerial survey work. There are two major projects that are nearing completion at the landfill,the completion of Module#7 and the interior gas line installation in Module#6. Additional information is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin, Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Sherrie Collins,Dan Mule, John Vuyk,Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Elwin Heilmann,Laurie Dillon,Kay Christensen,Susi Kontgis,Roger Evans,Randy Hillier,Mike Freeland,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Greg Davis,Max Peterson,Joel Harrison,John Spencer,Jeff Rowley, Jerry Burton,Jean Robison,Wes Galloway,Sean Martin and Steve Whittaker File location: Budget\02-03 Budget\02-03 Budget Amendments\02-03 Budget Amendments\BA#12 • GENERAL FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT#12 INITIATIVES 1 THRU 9 1110 Issue Number FY02-03 On-Going SHORTFALL Revenue Shortfall 9 Real property tax shortfall(initial information of$4,000,000 shortfall was reduced by$800,000) $(3,200,000) $(3,200,000) 9 Sales tax shortfall (1,131,500) (1,131,500) 9 Motor vehicles fees shortfall (606,000) (606,000) 9 Liquor Law funds shortfall (226,000) (274,000) 9 Elimination of police sergeant from Airport reimbursement (40,000) (85,000) 9 Franchise tax(actual revenue greater than budget) 492,200 492,000 9 Additional E911 Fund reimbursement for costs incurred by General Fund 200,000 200,000 9 Miscellaneous other revenue(actual revenue greater than budget) 126,500 126,500 9 Increased fines(prosecution of cases previously handled by District Attorney) 75,000 150,000 9 Police front desk revenue left out of adopted budget in error(finger print&police report copy fees) 75,000 75,000 6 Full cost recovery of engineering(additional General Fund revenue from CIP Fund) 800,000 700,000 9 Court liability account(accounting change) 300,000 9 UOPSC funds for public safety 257,000 9 GE Capital refund 83,000 9 SLOC deposit 50,000 Allocation of existing ongoing revenue that was not appropriated 2 Subrogation funds from Insurance&Risk Management Fund(Amendment#11) 423,000 2 Excess ongoing revenue over expenditures(Amendment#7) 119,700 269,600 Additional funding request 2 National League of Cities conference in Salt Lake City (227,000) Total shortfall $(2,429,100) $(3,28301 REDUCTIONS TO DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS Management Services 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment,etc. 35,300 1 One-time freeze of personal services for positions that were vacant or other savings 50,000 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 15,667 3 Eliminate cashier position(layoff) 8,000 38,700 3 Eliminate HR Consultant position(vacant) 15,000 53,700 3 Reduce labor relations operating expenses 5,100 5,200 3 Reclassify administrative secretary to senior secretary(currently vacant) 12,000 16,000 3 Reduce appropriations for consultant services 5,000 20,000 3 Reduce appropriation for unemployment and workers compensation 15,000 5,000 3 Reduce appropriation for miscellaneous operating expenses 16,900 13,600 3 Reduce appropriation for equipment lease 9,000 3 Reduce travel and training 2,500 3 Eliminate appropriations for parking meter replacement except for batteries and keys 14,000 ,12,000 Total Management Services reductions 203,467 164,200 Police 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment,etc. 120,000 1 One-time freeze of personal services for positions that were vacant or other savings 350,000 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 18,726 4 Eliminate sergeant position by attrition(no savings;see line item 14) 7,000 85,000 4 Eliminate vacant secretary position 12,000 37,000 4 Cancel license agreement for in-field fingerprint system that has never worked satisfactory 27,000 27,000 4 Fuel usage savings because of newer vehicles and applied efficiencies 35,000 50 4 Defer hiring clerk and continue to use temporary help where necessary at service desk 25,000 Total Police reductions 594,726 199, 0 Issue ("umber FY02-03 On-Going Public Services 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment,etc. 601,200 1 One-time freeze of personal services for positions that were vacant or other savings 58,000 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 40,805 6 Personal service savings from recent hiring freeze 45,000 6 Fleet maintenance and fuel usage savings 100,000 209,000 6 Salt expense savings 100,000 40,000 6 Reduced lease expense for 1st floor C&C Building from SL County 20,000 20,000 6 Increase maintenance expense for Library Plaza (15,000) (60,400) Total Public Services reductions 950,005 208,600 Community&Economic Development 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment, etc. 10,000 1 One-time freeze of personal services for positions that were vacant or other savings 30,000 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 8,471 7 Eliminate Research Assistant position(vacant) 10,200 44,700 7 Eliminate Zoning Inspector position(vacant) 11,000 44,800 7 Eliminate Development Review Planner(vacant) 13,800 59,900 7 Eliminate Building Inspector(vacant);bring remaining inspectors'salary closer to market rate 5,000 10,000 7 Hired some vacant position at lower pay 10,000 7 Fleet maintenance and fuel usage savings 15,000 7 Lease computers rather than purchase 16,000 (7,800) Total Community&Economic Development reductions 129,471 151,600 Fire 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment,etc. 40,000 1 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 4,684 • 8 Eliminate Technical Support Manager position(layoff) 17,000 71,500 8 Eliminate Public Education Support Personnel(part-time position) 5,000 24,000 Total Fire reductions 66,684 95,500 Attorney's Office 1 One-time freeze of furniture,equipment,etc. 58,800 1 One-time freeze of personal services for positions that were vacant or other savings 60,000 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 42,657 5 Eliminate secretary position in civil division(vacant) 14,300 40,120 Total Attorney's Office reductions 175,757 40,120 Non-departmental 2 One-time elimination of old encumbrances(completed contracts for which appropriations remain) 68,990 6 Fleet replacement one-time savings due to timing of lease payments 240,000 7 Cancel contract for downtown advertising campaign 100,000 1 Increase account for payouts upon retirement (100,000) Total Non-departmental reductions 308,990 - Total reductions to department appropriations 2,429,100 859,020 Amount of additional expenditure reductions to be determined for Fiscal Year 2004 - 2,424,380 Total reductions to offset revenue shortfall $ 2,429,100 $ 3,283,400 0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: This $40,000 is for an investigator to assist the"Independent Review Commission"on their review of the Elizabeth Smart investigation. • • Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Mayor's Office Fy 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Independent Review Commission Investigator BA#12 43 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund General Fund Balance 40,000 Total $40,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: • 1. General Fund Independent Review Commission Investigator 40,000 Total $40,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 40,000 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $40,000 $0 $0 • BA#12 FY03 Initiative#43- Independent Review Comm3/18/200312:30 PM • CITIZEN CORP GRANT DETAILS The State of Utah Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security has extended grant funding to 4 four Utah political jurisdictions pilot programs to organize Citizen Corp Council's in support of President Bush's national Citizen Corp initiative. Salt Lake City has been selected as one of the pilot jurisdictions.This program is in the planning stage. The purpose of our proposed Citizen Corp Council will be to bring decision makers to a common table to manage existing volunteer resources and leveraging existing resources for coordination to achieve maximum mutual support. The objectives of our proposed Citizen Corp Council are: • Match the needs of first responders with the skills and abilities of existing volunteer organizations such as Neighborhood Watch and CERT. • Spearhead efforts to offer citizens new public safety volunteer opportunities. Possible organizations include: 0 o Health and Human Services sponsored "Medical Reserve Corp" o Department of Justice "Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS), and the o Department of Justice "Terrorism Information and Presentation System (TIPS). • Educate the public on safety and emergency preparedness for all hazards including terrorism • Survey the community to: o Assess the success of existing programs and suggest improvements o Determine the need and applicability of new programs . • The Child of Light A child, holding a lantern, battled and overcame a storm—representing life's adversities—because he found the courage to summon an inner force, the Fire Within. He shared his power with other children, who spilled into the stands [of Opening Ceremonies] with their lanterns. This Child of Light became "a little thread that went through all this tonight," said American astronaut and former senator John Glenn, chosen as one of the eight Olympic flag bearers. "He kept coming • back and that's really what this is all about, encouraging young people to strive for excellence and do their very, very best." The Child of Light led in the parade of athletes. . . And the final chapter of the story of the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games was concluded with the Children of Light, who had symbolically carried the fire within during the past two and a half weeks. . . The Child of Light passed his lantern to a child from Torino, representing the transfer of hope, peace and honor to the next host. --The Fire Within, The Official Commemorative Book of the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games, © SLOC, 2002, pages 18 and 396. District Six Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Project • After the 2002 Olympics, Salt Lake City was repaid by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) $6.2 million (for the sales tax that had been used to help build Olympic facilities and rent for the use of the Salt Lake Sports Complex). This one-time money(not to be repeated in following years) is being used for a variety of citywide projects—the largest portion--$3.4 million—is for the new green-space at Library Square, east of the new Main Library. Other uses include an $800,000 contribution to the City's Housing Trust Fund, and over$1 million for infrastructure improvements throughout the City. A portion of this money, $700,000,was allocated for Olympic Legacy Projects located throughout the City. To ensure that projects are sited in various parts of the City, $100,000 has been budgeted for each of the seven city council districts. Projects must be public in nature, sited on city-owned property, and supported by the community. Each project must be approved by a vote of the City Council. The following project is proposed for Council District Six: • An original work of art--a sculpture of a "Child of Light"--will be commissioned to represent and honor all of the Olympic and Paralympic volunteers. • The sculpture will be located on the north side of the Anderson Foothill Branch of the Salt Lake City Library, near the intersection of 2100 East and Foothill Boulevard. • The Salt Lake City Arts Council will conduct a competition to select the artist and the piece, and oversee the commissioning and placement of this art. • • The Salt Lake City Library will provide upkeep and maintenance. • If funding permits, small replicas of the sculpture will be made and placed in area elementary schools. Of all the Olympic Legacies so far completed or contemplated,there is no representation of the"Child of Light"which was an important symbol of the Salt Lake City Games, representing the youth of the world and hope for the future. In hosting the best games ever,everyone agrees that the volunteers--whether cast members in the Opening or Closing Ceremonies, or others who performed a myriad of tasks--were a key element of its success. Without the thousands of volunteers the Olympics would not have been a success. This sculpture will provide a fitting tribute to these volunteers, and a reminder to our entire city of the idealism of youth that is the best of the Olympic spirit. The Foothill Branch of the Library is the most visited City property in District Six. It has long held the distinction as the busiest branch of the City Library. Locating the sculpture at this intersection will provide maximum visibility and access to the public. Sidewalks, making pedestrian access easy, surround the area where it will be located. If approved by the City Council,this project can be commissioned this spring and installed this fall. Your feedback and support for this project are welcome. Please send comments to: Councilman Dave Buhler Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Or Email: dave.buhler@slcgov.com 1 s 4. �1 g a' @. I•.. .'X `."`ak*'^ a-NPca' r x. o. +te ar A�+3: zx yAw+. . .a +'V tNaAE.^d'3'-:.;: 4,... .. ; 1. ki, .tiq .trKx 'i'�'3a£s4�et �.a�j � $ro j6 t x r - - , x 3 v k s .-t . 'Y ry ." ty: i y2 W sr Ijj1/1/04 03:01 PM E 1/1 Yalecrest Community Council 0 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 801-799-6011 March 8, 2003 To Whom it May Concern: During the regular meeting of the Yalecrest Community Council on Tuesday, 25-Feb-2003, the council discussed Dave Buhler's proposal to invest Olympic Legacy funds toward the commission of a sculpture depicting the "Children of Light" and to be displayed within Salt Lake City Council district 6. A motion was made and passed in support of Mr. Buhler's proposal and Mr. Buhler was encouraged to pursue the commission of the Child of Light sculpture and pursue selection of an appropriate site for its display. Sincerely, Tom Bonacci Chairman, Yalecrest Community Council • Bonneville Hills Community Council District Six—Salt Lake City March 2, 2003 Councilman David Buhler Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Dave, The Bonneville Hills Community Council meet on February 27, 2003. At that meeting we discussed the District Six Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Project and the following items: • An original work of art--a sculpture of a"Child of Light"--will be commissioned to represent and honor all of the Olympic and Paralympic volunteers. • The sculpture will be located on the north side of the Anderson Foothill Branch of the Salt Lake City Library,near the intersection of 2100 East and Foothill Boulevard. • The Salt Lake City Arts Council will conduct a competition to select the artist and the piece,and • oversee the commissioning and placement of this art. • The Salt Lake City Library will provide upkeep and maintenance. • If funding permits,small replicas of the sculpture will be made and placed in area elementary schools. The above was approved by vote. It is the request of the Bonneville Hills Community residents that the above be approved by all concerned parties and we move forward as soon as possible. The alternative location of the Salt Lake Ice Center(the ice sheets next to Steiner Aquatic on Guardsman Way) was discussed and not approved by vote. Sincerely, Erten Ellen Reddick Chair Bonneville Hills Community Council • Page 1ofl • Aramaki, Jan From: Jeff Mullins [jeffmullinsl @attbi.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:45 PM To: dave.buhler@slcgov.com Cc: Aramaki, Jan Subject: Re: District Six Olympic Legacy proposal... from Council Member Buhier Dave, Although I have not had the opportunity to present this to our community council, I am confident they would welcome this as a remembrance and symbol of our great Olympic experience. Jeff Mullins Chair Sunnyside East. • 11 410 Original Message From: Mike Zuhl [mailto:mzuhl@rrpartners.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12 :36 PM To: Buhler, Dave Subject: Re: Dist. 6 Olympic Legacy Dave, Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I was out of town until yesterday. I have not had an Indian Hills CC meeting since our breakfast meeting regarding the legacy project. I am happy, however, as Chair of the community council to endorse your recommendation for the Child of Light sculpture to be an Olympic Legacy project. I believe either the Anderson-Foothill branch or the Steiner Center would be appropriate locations for the sculpture. I would be happy to assist you in any way to make this project become a reality. I appreciate your leadership in achieving this appropriate legacy for the city. Mike Zuhl • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 ESTABLISHING FUNDING CRITERIA lb° FOR THE $700,000 OLYMPIC LEGACY PROJECT WHEREAS$700,000 has been provided to Salt Lake City(the"City")by the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for an Olympic Legacy Project to commemorate the Salt Lake } City 2002 Winter Olympics; and WHEREAS,this Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Salt Lake City that the$700,000 be divided among the seven city council districts so that each district will receive$100,000 for a project(the "Project")to be developed within that district; and WHEREAS,criteria should be established to ensure that the use of the funds in each council district will be appropriate for their intended purpose and to insure that there will be some consistency in the use of the funds among the council districts; NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: A. Criteria for Projects The following criteria shall be applied in making a determination regarding the use of the$100,000 available to each of the seven city council districts for Olympic Legacy projects within the City: 1. The end product of the Project shall provide a long-term improvement to the City or must create a community asset. 2. The Project shall be limited to: a. Property that is owned by the City or will become City property as a result of the Project; and b. Involves an area easily accessible to the council community, i.e.located on a major/common thoroughfare. 3. The Project may include: a. The purchase of land or of an existing brick&mortar establishment; b. Enhancement to an existing feature or fixture within the council community; c. The creation of public art or a public art piece; d. The creation or development of a picnic park, children's park,open space, or similar public space; e. The creation of a public monument. 4. The Project proposal shall identify any potential maintenance costs and shall propose funding source(s) for such costs. 5. The Project proposal shall provide an illustration of the end product. 6. As an option,the Project may be combined with other grants (including CDBG money), but the end product shall not be the repair of routine City infrastructure • such as curb, gutter or sidewalk. If the Project is combined with other grants, the Project shall nevertheless meet with the criteria established herein in addition to any other criteria that may be required by the application process for the other grant money. 11. 7. The end product shall display a plaque indicating that Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics Legacy moneys were used in whole or in part to fund the Project. 8. The Project proposal shall recommend the appropriate department within the City to manage and appropriate the funds for each Project. B. Approval of Funds 1. Projects that meet all the criteria set forth hereinabove shall be submitted to the City Council for review. 2. Prior to submittal,the Councilperson of each council district shall have obtained input from residents of the district regarding the Project, including input from the Community Councils within the district. The Councilperson for each district may decide whether a public meeting or an open house is the best method to gather the appropriate input for that district 3. After Council review,projects shall be placed for consideration of approval on a City Council agenda. 4. Distribution of the funds for each district shall be determined by the Project(s) approved,not by the number of Community Councils. This is due to the uneven number of Community Councils within each district and the fact that many Community Councils overlap into more than one district. C. Administration of Funds • Each project shall follow the procurement policies of the City in creating the project, such as competitive bidding. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt lake Attorneys Office Dale 3 ,Zoo• By G\Resolut\Resolution 67abInhrng Funding Criteria for 5700.000 Olympic Neighborhood legacy Project 3-7.03 2 •