Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11/04/2003 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, November 4, 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, and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Dale Lambert Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Deputy Council Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Wesley Robinson, Assistant City Attorney; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Everett Joyce, Environmental Planning and Urban Design/Ordinances Planner; Janice Lew, Associate Planner/Alleys/Cell Sites; Fire Chief Charles Querry; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; Jeffrey Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Steve Meyer, Utah Transit Authority; Andrea Packer, Utah Transit Authority; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item B, Opening Ceremony, the agenda was amended so minutes for the Board of Canvassers and Regular meetings could be voted on separately. She said a mistake in the October 21, 2003 minutes had been corrected. See file M 03-5 for announcements. #2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONCEALING IDENTITY OR FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION. View Attachment Gary Mumford and Wesley Robinson briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Mumford said the proposed amendment would bring the ordinance into compliance with State Statute. He said Brian Barnard sent a letter asking the Council to not adopt the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Buhler asked if any new changes were being proposed. Mr. Mumford said yes. He said the existing ordinance did not include standards for peace officers to stop someone and request identity. Councilmember Buhler asked about objections raised by Mr. Barnard. Mr. Robinson said State law allowed peace officers to stop a person suspected of criminal activity and demand identification and an explanation of their actions. He said the law did not provide criminal sanctions when a person refused to comply. He said a person could be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor for interfering with a peace officer engaged in lawful detentions or arrests. Councilmember Buhler asked if the proposed ordinance would make this a Class B misdemeanor. Mr. Robinson said violating any City ordinance was a Class B misdemeanor 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 unless otherwise specified. Mr. Robinson the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on whether a person had a constitutional right to refuse to provide identity when questioned. He said a Nevada Supreme Court ruling, with was being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, stated that a person did not have a constitutional right to refuse identification. Discussion was held on various aspects of detaining and questioning citizens. Mr. Robinson said there were gray areas when police officers felt there were suspicious activity and needed time to investigate. He said the investigation had to be short and limited to the specific suspicion. He said safety issues for police officers and the public had to be considered. Councilmember Jergensen asked what constituted reasonable suspicion. Mr. Robinson said there was no definitive definition. He said officers had the right to question suspicious activity but needed to be able to articulate the facts which lead to detaining someone. He said the person had to be released if officers concerns were satisfied. He said an arrest could be made if officers felt there was probable cause. Councilmember Turner asked how the proposal applied to fire investigators. Mr. Robinson said fire investigators had post training and were considered peace officers. Councilmember Saxton asked how the Council would know if peace officers were abusing the provision. Mr. Robinson said he thought Council Members would receive feedback from constituents and see an increase in lawsuits. #3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-14 . View Attachment David Dobbins, Sylvia Jones, Janice Lew and Doug Wheelwright briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Dobbins said Planning Commission (PC) appeals were handled by the Council in the majority of Utah cities he surveyed. He said in some cities appeals went to the Board of Adjustment. He said Logan City created a board to address appeals but members did not receive compensation. He said Logan averaged one case per year while Salt Lake averaged two per month. Councilmember Christensen asked if the revision included compensation for board members and if the ordinance would be moved to the Boards and Commissions section of the City Code. Mr. Dobbins said yes. He said moving the ordinance from the zoning code would eliminate review by the PC. He said their input would probably be requested but was not required. Councilmember Saxton asked about meeting schedules. Mr. Dobbins said meetings were called as soon as possible when a new case needed to be handled. He said three to four weeks was needed to meet noticing requirements. Ms. Jones said a public hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2003. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF COMMUTER RAIL FROM STEVE MEYER, P.E. MANAGER OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FOR COMMUTER RAIL. View Attachment Steve Meyer, Andrea Packer and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council with the attached handout and computer presentation. Mr. Meyer said Utah Transit Authority (UTA) owned the corridor from Payson to Brigham City. He said Phase I was planned from Weber County to Salt Lake City. He said UTA had to compete for federal funding against 400 new projects around the country. He said UTA asked for $200 million of the $1.2 billion available. Councilmember Buhler asked how many people commuted between Salt Lake City and Ogden. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4 , 2003 Mr. Meyer said there were approximately 310, 000 daily trips. Councilmember Buhler asked how many trips were covered by buses. Mr. Meyer said approximately 4% during peak hours but the 2030 projection was 6%-8%. Councilmember Buhler asked about trips to and from Utah County. Mr. Meyers said approximately 400, 000. Councilmember Jergensen asked about funding sources and 50% local match. Mr. Meyers said the 50% match was primarily the voter approved sales tax increase. He said Utah County did not approve a tax increase. Councilmember Jergensen asked if sufficient funds would be in place by 2006. Mr. Meyer said yes. He said UTA bonded for the purchase of the corridor. He said construction costs would be covered by short-term bonding which would be reimbursed with federal funds. Councilmember Love asked if plans to expand light rail would be delayed because sales tax revenue was being used for commuter rail. Mr. Meyer said he did not believe so. He said a lot depended on how much money UTA received from the federal government for multiple projects. He said light rail expansion was part of the process but commuter rail had top priority. Councilmember Love asked with the popularity of light rail how commuter rail became the top priority. Mr. Meyer said counties north of Salt Lake voted for a tax increase to address traffic problems but the Wastach Front Regional Council (WFRC) prioritized new projects. Mr. Fluhart said governmental agencies involved in the WFRC made the decision to put commuter rail first. Councilmember Saxton said she felt it was important for the Council to provide input early in the planning process. She said a lot of creative ideas could be developed along transportation corridors including bicycle and pedestrian pathways. She said she felt the corridors could be utilized by buses during the interim. Councilmember Turner asked if UTA considered what impact the new downtown student campus would have on transportation. Mr. Meyer said the new campus proposal would be incorporated in the next submittal UTA presented to the Federal Transit Administration. He said having multiple destinations along the corridor was a major selling point. Councilmember Turner asked about light rail development to the airport. Mr. Meyer said he did not know the exact schedule but encouraged the Council to become familiar with the WFRC' s 2030 plan which addressed various scenarios. Mr. Fluhart said light rail expansion to the airport was the City's next priority and hoped it could be done in 10 years or less. Councilmember Christensen asked what the earliest date would be to begin construction on the commuter rail system. Mr. Meyer said 2006-2007 estimates were fairly accurate due to design requirements, public hearings, and selecting a contractor. He said another aspect was vehicle procurement which took approximately 30 months. Councilmember Christensen said a lot of money had been set aside for quiet zones along the corridor and he was concerned about UTA tearing them out after the City installed them. He asked if the design process was far enough along where the City could participate in cost sharing or other funding options. Mr. Meyer said developing the 900 South projects first would give UTA more time to work on design. He said quiet zones were the kind of ideas UTA was looking for along the corridor. Councilmember Buhler asked if Utah County adopted a sales tax increase for commuter rail would UTA still proceed with the north line even though more commuters came from the south. Mr. Meyer said yes, but UTA would begin the planning process for that portion. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN. View Attachment 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4 , 2003 Janice Jardine, Cheri Coffey, and Everett Joyce briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked about issues the Council had previously requested. Ms. Jardine said a briefing was held in February, 2003. She said the major issues were addressed in briefing materials prepared by Mr. Joyce. She said zoning and land use conflicts were highlighted in the attached map. She said the recommendation was to address non-conforming use issues separately through master plan implementation strategies. Ms. Jardine said the Administration included an additional small area master plan for the Central City Community area and language from the Council' s downtown development policies. She said other issues included dividing the community planning area into two parts, removing recommendations or strategies not directly related to land use, and notification. Discussion was held on dividing the master plan area. Mr. Joyce said the PC incorporated seven neighborhoods in one master plan document. Councilmember Saxton said Central City and East Central communities needed to consider what they wanted in future master plans. Councilmember Buhler asked about potential changes in zoning or land use. Mr. Joyce said changes would occur in mixed-use and the transit oriented development (TOD) areas. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about unintended consequences and felt property owners needed to be notified of potential changes. Councilmember Jergensen said he was not aware of any proposed zoning changes in the downtown area. Mr. Joyce said that was correct. Councilmember Jergensen asked about TOD zoning conflicts on 400 South. Mr. Joyce said TOD designations were restricted on 400 South. Councilmember Jergensen said he agreed property owners needed to be notified about potential zoning changes. Councilmember Christensen said he felt only property owners who might be affected needed to be notified. Councilmember Love said she felt removing non-land use issues would improve the master plan document. Councilmember Buhler asked if retail would be expanded. Mr. Joyce said yes, if zoning changes were made. Councilmember Buhler asked if retail was required or just allowed. Mr. Joyce said it was not required. Ms. Coffey said a lot of areas identified as mixed-use were currently commercial. Councilmember Christensen said the proposal could be advanced to a public hearing. He said Council could take input but delay a decision until a later date. The major of the Council was in favor. Ms. Coffey asked if the Council wanted the master plan area divided now or at a future date. The majority of the Council was in favor of waiting. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. sc 03 - 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 31,2003 SUBJECT. Repealing and Re-enacting City Code Section 11.04.100 Concealment of Identity or Furnishing False Information AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. City Attorney's Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Wesley Robinson,Senior City Attorney KEY ELEMENTS: As a result of a lawsuit against the City,it came to the attention of the City Attorney's Office that City Code Section-11.04.100 pertaining to concealment of identity should be updated to be consistent with state law(UCA 77-7-15). Current City code provides that City officials that are charged with enforcement of city ordinances can demand a person identify him or herself. The current ordinance doesn't include any standards that specify when it would be appropriate for a City official to make this demand. • MATTERS AT ISSUE AND QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: State law provides that a"peace officer may stop any person in a public space when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name,address and an explanation of his actions." The City Attorney's Office desires to bring City code into conformity with state law. The proposed ordinance provides that a peace officer charged with enforcement of city ordinances may stop a person in a public place when the peace officer has a"reasonable suspicion to believe the person has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand the person s name, address and an explanation of his or her actions." The original intent of the current ordinance may have been to extend the authority to City officials other than police officers when the City official believes that a person is attempting to commit an offense. For example,fire investigators and zoning or parking enforcement officers may be in a position of observing suspicious behavior. At the briefing, Council Members may wish to ask the representative from the City Attorney's Office whether in the future it may be possible for the City to designate certain other City officials as special function officers and meet the state's definition of peace officer. • OPTIONS: •The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Adopt the ordinance in a formal Council Meeting. 2. Schedule an executive session to discuss pending litigation. 3. Repeal the ordinance at the next possible opportunity and re-enact a new ordinance after additional consideration or information. The Council may wish to discuss with a representative of the City Attorney's Office whether this option will help resolve the immediate concern. cc: Rocky Fluhart,LeRoy Hooton,JD Baxter • "--ksutiE4AA.sut..„ SALT §2 CRT CORPORATION; • OFFICE ❑F THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City& County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday,November 4,2003 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in Room 125 at the City & County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.,Room 326, City&County Building,451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m.will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. Report of the Executive Director, including review of Council information items and announcements. 2. The Council will receive a briefing regarding proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Code • relating to concealing identity or furnishing false information. 3. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding the Land Use Appeals Board. 4. The Council will receive a briefing on the status of Commuter Rail from Steve Meyer,P.E., Manager of Engineering and Construction for Commuter Rail. 5. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding the Central Community Master Plan. B. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council will consider adopting a resolution regarding homeless services in downtown Salt Lake City. 3. The Council will adopt the minutes of October 14(12:15 and 7:00 p.m. meetings)and October 21, 2003. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None.) D. COMMENTS 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. • 2. Comments to the City Council (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 k�aFv.:Eo PaPEa Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,November 4,2003 E. NEW BUSINESS: • 1. (Tentative)Ordinance: Repeal and re-enact Section 11.04.100, Salt Lake City Code,relating to concealing identity or furnishing false information Consider adopting an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Section 11.04.100, Salt Lake City Code, relating to concealing identity or furnishing false information. (0 03-24) Staff Recommendation: Suspend the rules and consider options. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: amend Chapter 2.24 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the Employee Appeals Board Consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 2.24 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the Employee Appeals Board. (0 03-25) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. 2. Resolution: Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds for Sewer Utility Upgrades and 900 South Storm Drainage project Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of not more than $38,000,000 aggregate principal amount of water and sewer revenue bonds of SLC,Utah;fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds,the maximum number of years over which the • bonds may mature,the maximum interest rate which the bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold;authorizing publication of a notice of bonds to be issued; and related matters (Q 03-9) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. G. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No.400-02-35,rezone a portion of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space to Residential Set the date of November 18,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning a portion of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space to Residential.(Request by Joseph S. and Kathleen C.Knowlton) (P 03-23) Staff Recommendation: Set date. • 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,November 4,2003 III 2. Resolution: Set date—create Central Business Improvement District Set the date of November 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah to create Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 to continue to promote business activity and economic development in an area of central downtown Salt Lake City,by assessing benefited properties within the district for the costs for such economic promotion activities for a period of three years;to negotiate a contract with the Downtown Alliance to manage the district; and to fix a time and place for protests against the district and its assessments,and related matters. (Q 03-7) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 3. Board Appointment: Manuel Evangelista, Sister Cities Board Consider approving the appointment of Manuel"Manny"Evangelista to the Sister Cities Board for a term extending through July 3,2006. (I 03-11) Staff Recommendation: Approve. H. ADJOURNMENT: • Date • October 31,2003 By Deputy City Recorder STA 11,OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 31st day of October 2003,I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view,at the following times and locations within the City&County Building,451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office,Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom,Room 315. allAt--: 0 -k-e"\-- Deputy City Recorder Ill Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,November 4,2003 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of Oc ber 2003. 1 y Notary Public residing m t Sta tah @t i My Corn-r ::r;.. l, r Approval: gc `j, �i '('9 ) Execut" e Director Access agendas at http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/agendas/default.htm.A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphones can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign language interpreters;please allow 72 hours advance notice. TDD Number 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute,City Ordinance and Council Policy,one or more Council Members may be connected s. via speakerphone. • 4 • • UTAH LEGAL CLINIC III `mow SN'") 214 East Fifth South Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-3204 OCT 31 2003 • Attorneys (801) 328-9531 Brian M. Barnard Fax Number James L. Harris, Jr. (801) 328-9533 October 29, 2003 Van Turner City Council Member Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City&County Building Washington Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Proposed Amendment to Salt Lake City Code § 11.04.100 Dear Council Member Turner: • I understand that on November 3, 2003 a proposed amendment to Salt Lake City Code § 11.04.100 will be presented to the City Council. That code section relates to persons dealing with city officials and their being required to identify themselves. The current provision is unconstitu- tional and must be repealed.' However,the proposed amendment is likewise troublesome. • I understand the proposed amendment is: Amendment of Salt Lake City Code 11.04.100—Concealing identity or furnishing false information. Any peace officer, as defined in Utah Code Ann. § 53-13-101 et seq., charged with enforcement of city ordinances,may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions. It is unlawful for any person stopped and questioned under these circumstances to knowingly and intentionally conceal or attempt to conceal his or her identity, falsely identify himself or herself, or furnish or give false or misleading information to any such peace officer. The proposed amendment is comparable to Ut. Code Ann. § 77-7-15 (1953 as amended) save one important aspect. That state code section authorizes a police officer to stop an individual and to ask for identification,however the state section does not make refusal a crime. The proposed amendment to the city code makes it a crime for a person to decline to identify themselves to a police office. • A copy of the current ordinance is attached. . • • As a civil libertarian,I am greatly troubled by the proposed ordinance. We do not live in a police state where law enforcement can randomly demand that a person identify themselves. The amendment is little beyond that. There is minimal protection provided in the amendment because it. requires only that a police office suspect a person is attempting to commit a crime before he can demand identification. There is serious question as to the constitutionality of such a provision. A comparable provision from Nevada will be reviewed in the near future by the United States Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari was granted last week in Hibel v. The Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, 59 P.3d 1201, 1205 (Nev. 202), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. Lexis 7710(U.S., Oct. 20, 2003). Rather than enacting this new ordinance,I would suggest that the City simply allow its police officers to rely upon the comparable state statute. It is not unconstitutional. I would urge you to vote for the repeal of the current ordinance. I would urge you to vote against the proposed amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration. BRIAN . ARNARD Attorne at Law BMB/pdq C:\Corel\Legal\1983\Kubly\102903,City Council Letter,Christensen.wpd • • • Salt Lake City Ordinance § 11.04.100 Concealing identity or furnishing false information: It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally conceal or attempt to conceal his or her identity, falsely identify himself or herself, or furnish or give false or misleading information to any person charged with enforcement of city ordinances, including but not limited to the following: A. Any police officer of the city corporation; B. An employee of the city fire department; C.An employee of the city-county health department enforcing the city health ordinances; D. Parking enforcement officers; E. City licensing personnel; F. Zoning enforcement officers; G. Planning officials; and/or H. Building officials. (Prior code § 32-10-1) Violation is a Class "C"misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to seven hundred and fifty • dollars ($750.00) and imprisonment up to ninety(90) days. Salt Lake City Ordinance § 1.12.050. • OCT 2823 - '-ily ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON • J.WESLEY ROBINSON LAW DEPARTMENT MAYOR SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY EDWIN P.RUTAN,II CITY ATTORNEY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart, DATE: October 27, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: J. Wesley Robinson, Senior City Attorney SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to Section 11.04.100 Salt Lake City Code. STAFF CONTACT: J. Wesley Robinson 535-7198 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT: None. • BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Current Section 11.04.100 does not comply with state law or federal case law. Current ordinance criminalizes a person's failure to identify him or herself to any person charged with enforcement of city ordinances. It contains no standards under which an official can demand identification, and is overly broad. Proposed amended ordinance complies with Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-15, which authorizes only peace officers to stop any person when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has committed, or is attempting to commit, a public offense, and may demand the person's name, address and an explanation of his or her actions. Under the proposed amendment, any attempt to conceal his or her identity under these circumstances will be unlawful. RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney's Office recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed amendment to Section 11.04.100, Salt Lake City Code. APPROVED: ° ) J.//1VESLEY ROBINSON • S&-iior City Attorney 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 y �YRECYCLED PAPER • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Repealing and re-enacting concealment of identity or furnishing false information) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 11.04.100, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO CONCEALING IDENTITY OR FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 11.04.100, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to concealment of identity and furnishing false information be, and the same hereby is, repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: 11.04.100 Concealment of identity or furnishing false information. • It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally conceal or attempt to conceal his or her identity, falsely identify himself or herself, or furnish or give false or misleading to the following: A.Any police officer of the city corporation; B.An employee of the city fire department; ordinances; D.Parking enforcement officers; F.Zoning enforcement officers; • G.Planning officials; and/or • A. Building officials. Any peace officer, as defined in Utah Code Ann. § 53-13-101 et seq., charged with enforcement of city ordinances, may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand the person's name, address and an explanation of his or her actions. It is unlawful for any person stopped and questioned under these circumstances to knowingly and intentionally conceal or attempt to conceal his or her identity, falsely identify himself or herself, or furnish or give false or misleading information to any such peace officer. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of • 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHTFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 2 4 • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Sal Lake City Attorneys Office Div. I° 2:7__ d �. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ay (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • • 3 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 31,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-00-14—Request for a zoning text amendment to Section 21A.06.080(C)governing Decision-Making Bodies and Officials, specifically amending the section regarding the Land Use Appeals Board AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted,the amendment will be applicable citywide. STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Janice Lew,Associate Planner WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: 40 1. The Council discussed the following items with the Administration during the October 7th Work Session: A. Whether alternate members consistently attend Land Use Appeals and Advisory Board(LUAB) meetings. B. Alternate members engage in the discussion but cannot vote. The Chair always votes. C. Whether the ordinance should be removed from its current location in the Zoning Ordinance chapter and moved to another section of City Code. D. Additional board members may encourage a broader discussion. E. Whether other cities have an appeals board and whether board members are compensated. F. The role of LUAB. 2. The Council Office received a response from the Administration addressing Council Members' questions and concerns discussed during the October 7th Work Session. (See attachment.) In summary: A. Fifteen Utah cities were contacted. Ten of those cities handle appeals through the City Council and four cities send appeals to the Board of Adjustment. Logan City uses a Board of Appeals and does not compensate their appeals board members. B. Reno,Boise,Las Vegas,Denver and Phoenix were also contacted. All of their appeals are heard by the City Council. C. In addition,the Administration's paperwork notes all but two of the cities in Utah compensate planning commissioners ranging from$75 to$25 per meeting. Reno and Las Vegas pay their planning commissioners$80.00 per meeting. Boise,Denver and Phoenix do not compensate their planning commissioners. 3. A new ordinance has been prepared that does the following: A. Changes the compensation for LUAB members from$75 per case to$75 per meeting. B. Changes the number of voting members from three to five. C. Moves the LUAB language from the Zoning Ordinance chapter to Chapter 2 in the City Code relating to Boards and Commissions. Page 1 POTENTIAL MOTIONS: S 1. ["I move that the Council") Adopt the proposed ordinance amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board,changing the compensation of LUAB members from$75 per case to$75 per meeting,and moving the Land Use Appeals Board language from the Zoning Ordinance chapter to Chapter 2 of the City Code relating to Boards and Commissions. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the proposed ordinance amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board,changing the compensation of LUAB members from$75 per case to$75 per meeting,and moving the Land Use Appeals Board language from the Zoning Ordinance chapter to Chapter 2 in the City Code relating to Boards and Commissions. The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference. • KEY ELEMENTS: 1. On June 2, 1998,the City Council approved a Legislative Action item initiated by former Council Member Tom Rogan requesting that the Administration amend the Land Use Appeals Board(LUAB)Ordinance, specifically,the standard of review used by the Board,and the number of voting members serving on the Board. The Planning Commission's recommendation addresses the portion of the Legislative Action item relating to the number of voting members. As part of their motion,the Planning Commission also directed staff to re-evaluate the zoning ordinance as it relates to the"standard of review"for the Land Use Appeals Board. 2. Currently,the Board is composed of three members and two alternates. Over the last two years,the number of appeals has increased significantly such that Board averages one case per month,as compared to averaging one case per year when the Board was first created. Increasing the number of voting members will allow the board more flexibility when attempting to convene a quorum. A. The Legislative Action item is attached for the Council's review. In summary,the Standard of Review for Land Use Appeals Board Policies and Procedures states that LUAB review is limited to the record of the Planning Commission(PC)or the Historic Landmarks Commission(HLC),including the application or petition, staff report and other documents or evidence such as photos,tape recordings of the hearing,or minutes of the HLC or PC. LUAB will not consider other evidence unless the evidence was improperly excluded by the HLC or PC. The LUAB will presume the decision of the HLC or PC is valid. However,decisions made by the HLC and PC may be rebutted if the LUAB determines that the decision was illegal,arbitrary or capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. (The Legislative Action item defines the terms illegal, arbitrary, capricious and substantial evidence in further detail. See attached.) 3. Public process: A. The City Council adopted a Legislative Action Item June 2, 1998 which asked the Administration to amend the current Land Use Appeals Board ordinance regarding the standard of review and the number of voting members serving on the Board. Page 2 B. Community Council Chairs were notified of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments in a letter dated May 22,2002. The Planning Division did not receive feedback from Community Councils. • C. On October 3,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council increase the number of voting members serving on the Land Use Appeals Board. The Planning Commission's motion directed staff to reevaluate the zoning ordinance regarding the portion relating to the"standard of review"for LUAB. The following issues were discussed at the Planning Commission's public hearing: i. The need to change the number of voting members from three to five since the Board meets more frequently. ii. The purpose of a review or appeals board in terms of reviewing evidence versus questioning whether a particular board followed procedure. iii. Whether the petition was properly advertised and who has the authority to file a petition. iv. Proposed text revisions to the standard of review are difficult to understand and may need to be clarified by the Attorney's Office. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. The Council may wish to request an update from the Administration as to the timeframe and scope of the issues being considered relating to the standard of review portion of the Legislative Action item. 2. The Council may wish to consider whether the Planning Commission should be recommending changes to the appeals process for its own decisions. The Land Use Appeals Board ordinance currently appears in the portion of the City Code relating to planning and zoning and,as such,requires Planning Commission review for ordinance changes. Might this be construed as a conflict of interest? 3. The Council may wish to consider removing the LUAB section from the Zoning Ordinance and including it as a separate chapter of the City Code. (For example,the Transportation Advisory Board(TAB),the • Business Advisory Board(BAB),and the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board(HAAB)are listed in a separate chapter of the City Code that creates each board and the criteria governing it.) 4. The Council may wish to discuss the possibility of mandatory training for new members of the Board of Adjustment,Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission. As discussed earlier,the number of appeals has increased. Training may reduce the number of appeals,which would support Council policies relating to efficient government. LUAB is one of the few paid City boards. Board members currently receive$75.00 per case, so if three cases are heard in one meeting,the board members receive $225.00. As the number of appeals increase,the direct costs as well as indirect costs to City government will also increase. Attached is a spreadsheet itemizing the LUAB appeals over the last six years. 5. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a review of"best practices"as used by other cities in their appeals process. 6. The Council may wish to solicit feedback from citizens regarding their experience with the LUAB appeals process. 7. The Council may wish to inquire as to whether the members of the LUAB have had an opportunity to review the Planning Staffs recommendations for the ordinance changes and provide feedback as to whether these recommendations satisfy LUAB's intentions. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • April 1998 Legislative Action Item adopted by the City Council. • • May 2002 Community Council Chairs received a letter notifying them of the proposed Ordinance changes Page 3 • October 3,2002 Planning Commission hearing cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Janice Jardine,Cheri Coffey,Elizabeth Giraud,and Janice Lew • File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment, Land Use Appeals Board • • Page 4 OCT222003 ALISON WEYHER SAO k\ °1$ 5,>� fl lJ I 1 DtA. °l v .t 1 -,mk �. - - --a .- ��lft, ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON 0 DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer' DATE: October 21, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyhe RE: Response to City Council's request for additional information relating to the Land Use Appeals Board. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing DISCUSSION: During the October 7 briefing on the changes to the ordinance governing the Land Use Appeals Board(LUAB), the City Council requested additional • information. Specifically, the Council wanted to know the following: • How do other cities handle appeals? • Do other cities pay their board members? • Can the LUAB ordinance be taken out of the zoning ordinance section of the city code and placed elsewhere? How do other cities handle appeals? Of the 15 Utah cities contacted, 10 had appeals go to the city council, four went to the board of adjustment, and only one (Logan City) had an appeals board. Logan's appeals board has five members. Five regional cities were also contacted—Reno, Boise, Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix. All the cities had appeals go to their city council. The Administration recommends that the City Council retain the LUAB and change the number of voting members from 3 to 5. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 Recvcco P.,Pea Do other cities pay their board members? Logan City is the only other Utah city with an appeals hoard, and those board members are not paid. All but two of the Utah cities (Ogden and Provo)pay their planning commissioners. The highest payment was Park City at$75 per meeting, while most of the other cities paid in the $25 —$50 range per meeting. Reno and Las Vegas each pay their planning commissioners $80 per meeting, while the three other regional cities do not provide any payment. The Administration recommends changing the payment for LUAB members to $75 per meeting, instead of$75 per case. However, at this time, the Administration does not recommend that the City Council provide a stipend to the Planning Commission. Can the LUAB language be taken out of the zoning ordinance chapter of the city code and placed in a different chapter? The City Attorney's Office was asked to provide an opinion on this matter. Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace indicated that moving the language to another section of the city code would be legally acceptable. The Administration recommends that the governing language be placed in Chapter 2 of the City Code, which deals with similar boards such as CDAC and the CIP Board. • 0 Planning Commission Comparison City Payment per Number of Members Appeals made to Appeal Fee Meeting Bountiful $25 7 City Council $0 Draper $50 6 City Council $0 Layton $15 7 City Council, $0 Logan $25 7 Board of Appeals $212 Murray $25 7 Board of Adjustment $0 Ogden $0 7 Board of Adjustment $0 Orem $50 7 City Council $100 Park City $75 7 City Council $0 Provo $0 7 Board of Adjustment $100 Salt Lake City $0 11 Land Use Appeals Board $100 Sandy $40 7 City Council $0 South Jordan $25 5 City Council $0 St. George $50 7 City Council $0 Taylorsville $40 7 City Council $35 West Jordan $25 7 City Council $250 • . West Valley $25 7 Board of Adjustment $100 Reno $80 7 City Council $100 Boise $0 9 City Council $100 Las Vegas $80 7 City Council $100 Denver $0 11 City Council $100 Phoenix $0 9 City Council $500 Appeals Board Logan $0 5 District Court $212 S • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the Land Use Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides that certain appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmark Commission are heard by the Land Use Appeals Board; and WHEREAS, after having processed a number of such appeals, the City Council has determined that the following amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: • SECTION 1. Section 20.16.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 20.16.130 Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision: A. Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under this Chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. B. The appeal-shall specify any alleged error made by the Planning Commission and shall be consi-dered-Icy-thei nd-Use pealsBBard-on— the record made before the Planning Commission. No new evidence will `se Appeals Board unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration by the Planning Commission. SECTION 2. Section 20.20.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • • 20.20.090 Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision: • The petitioner or any person who is aggrieved by a finding of the Planning Commission concerning the approval of a proposed minor subdivision and who objected to the administrative consideration, may appeal the finding of the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days of the Planning Commission's decision becoming final. B. The appeal shall specify any alleged •ip n g Commission and shall be considered by the Land Use Appeals Board on the record made before the Planning Commission. No new evidence will r t Y > n b SECTION 3. Section 20.31.320 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 20.31.320 Appeal From Planning Commission Decision: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under this Chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. b> shall be consid Planning Commission. No new evidence will be heard by the Land Use Appeals Board unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration by the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. Section 20.32.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under Section 20.32.020 of this Chapter, concerning modifications to a subdivision involving a planned development may file an appeal with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. pursuant to Section 21A.54.160 o f this Code SECTION 5. Section 21A.06.080 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is renumbered as Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code and shall also be and hereby is amended to read as follows: • • Chapter 2.88 Land Use Appeals Board Sections: 2.88.010 Creation 2.88.020 Jurisdiction And Authority 2.88.030 Membership 2.88.040 Officers 2.88.050 Meetings 2.88.060 Record Of Proceedings 2.88.070 Quorum And Vote 2.88.080 Hearings 2.88.090 Notice 2.88.100 Conflict Of Interest 2.88.110 Removal Of A Member 2.88.120 Policies And Procedures 2.88.130 Compensation 2.88.140 Appeals A 2.88.010 Creation: The Land Use Appeals Board is created pursuant to the • authority granted by the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, section 10-9-407 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor. B.2.88.020 Jurisdiction And Authority: The Land Use Appeals Board shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this Title: A-1-. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2h of this Title; B2. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Planning Commission concerning subdivisions or subdivisions amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this Code; and C3. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Planning Commission regarding conditional uses or planned developments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.54.160 of this Title. • 3 C.2.88.030 Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of fivethree (3)members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic, professional,neighborhood and community interests. In the selection of members, preference may be given to individuals with legal or land use experience. Members may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of three(3) years each. The terms of all members shall be staggered so arranged that the term of at least one member will expire each year. In- f^r) L VL1JL1 J nJ, nrr� � � V 11VV1J Appeals Bo r,l f t t t .l tl (3) t thin abbe F „ber o.-.,1,ers of'the T an Us.. A p____l_ meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board at one time. The prior term of^ alt t 1, i, b tl b f• it t' V JVL.7lLV11 s Board shall not prevent that member from serving two (2) consecutive terms. Appointments to fill vacancies of members or alternate members shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments for partial terms to fill vacancies shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) full consecutive terms. • D.2.88.040 Officers: The Land Use Appeals Board shall annually elect a chair who shall serve for a term of one year. The secretary of the Land Use Appeals Board shall be designated by the Zoning Administrator. E.2.88.050 Meetings: The Land Use Appeals Board shall meet as necessary to consider and expeditiously resolve pending appeals. F 2.88.060 Record Of Proceedings: The proceedings of each meeting and hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. Records of confidential executive sessions shall be kept in compliance with the Government Records Access and Management Act. The audio recording of each meeting shall be kept for a minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty(60) day period as determined by the Land Use Appeals Board. Copies of the tapes of such proceedings may be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Board shall keep written minutes of its proceedings and records of all its examinations and official actions. The Land Use Appeals Board may, at its discretion, have its proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. • 4 • I G. 2.88.070 Quorum And Vote: No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board without a quorum of three (3) members, , (2) reg„l. mbo „,a alto „to mbo A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. 2.88.080 Hearings: A. Appeals filed shall specify any alleged error(s) made in connection with the decision being appealed. B. The appeal shall be considered by the Land Use Appeals Board on the record made below. No new evidence will be heard by the Land Use Appeals Board unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. C. The Land Use Appeals Board shall review and decide the appeal according to the applicable standards for such decision. The Land Use Appeals Board may, in its discretion, choose to consider an appeal on the basis of the record of the proceedings below: • 1. Without any additional hearing; or 2. With a formal hearing allowing both the appellant and the respondent to present oral argument on the evidence in the record. D. The Land Use Appeals Board shall uphold the decision below unless the Land Use Appeals Board finds that a prejudicial procedural error occurred or that the decision being appealed was not supported by the findings of fact based upon the applicable standards of approval. 2.88.090 Notice: At least fourteen(14) calendar days in advance of each hearing held before the Land Use Appeals Board the City shall publish a notice of such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City and the City will send notice of the hearing by first class mail to the appellant(s), the respondent(s) and to all otherparties who attended the hearing below. 2.88.100 Conflict Of Interest: No member of the Land Use Appeals Board shall participate in the hearing or disposition of any matter in which that member has any conflict of interest prohibited by • Chapter 2.44 of this Code. The Land Use Appeals Board may, by majority vote of the members present, allow a member otherwise 5 required to leave due to a conflict, to be present if required by • special or unusual circumstances. 2.88.110 Removal Of A Member: Any member of the Land Use Appeals Board may be removed by the Mayor for violation of this Title of any policies and procedures adopted by the Land Use Appeals Board following receipt by the Mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. If requested by the member, the Mayor shall provide the member with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the Mayor. I�2.88.120 Policies And Procedures: The Land Use Appeals Board shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, to process appeals, and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. L 2.88.130 Compensation: Each member of the Land Use Appeals Board shall be compensated in the amount of seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each appeal decidedmeeting attended by that member. M. 2.88.140 Appeals: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Land Use Appeals Board may file a petition for review of the decision with the District Court within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. • SECTION 6. Section 21A.34.020.F.2.h of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: h. Appeal Of Historic Landmark Commission Decision To Land Use Appeals Board: The applicant, any owner of abutting property or of property located within the same H Historic Preservation Overlay District, any recognized or registered organization pursuant to Chapter 2.62 of this Code, the Utah State Historical Society or the Utah Heritage Foundation, aggrieved by the Historic Landmark Commissions' decision, may object to the decision by filing a written appeal with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days following the decision. The filing of the appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except that the filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission if such decision defers a demolition request for up to one year pursuant to the provisions of subsections L and M of this Section. i. The appeal shall specify any alleged enor made by the Historic Landmark Commission. • 6 • record made be-fore the Historic Landmarks o ission. No-Rey` e ard u l s suc i-- i✓ai 4r ran—€emmission. iii. The Land Use Appeals Board shall review and decide the appeal 'on, whichever arc applicable to the appeal. The Land Use Appeals Board may, in its discretion, choose to consider an appeal on the basis of the record of the proceedings before the Historic Landmark Commission: (A) Without any additional hearing; or (B) With a formal hearing allowing both the appellant and the respondent to present oral argument on the evidence in the record. • • • Landmark Commission unless the Land Use Appeals Board determines that a prejudicial procedural error occurred or that the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission was not supported by the findings of fact • based upon the applicable standards of approval. v. At least fourteen (1 4 calendar days in advance of each hearing held h Tiring in a newspaper-of�2eneral circulation in Salt Lake City and the City will send notice of the hearing b, first class mai-l4to +-thud 'el-ln,ns) b the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 7. Section 21A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Review By City Attorney: Following the filing of an appeal to the City CouncilLand Use Appeals Board of a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission to deny or defer a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, the Planning Director shall secure an opinion of the City Attorney evaluating whether the denial or deferral of a decision of the demolition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the Utah and United States constitutions or otherwise violate any applicable constitutional provision, law, ordinance or regulation. • 7 SECTION 8. Section 21A.54.150.N of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and • hereby is amended to read as follows: N. Appeal Of The Planning Commission Decision: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission on appeal of the Planning Director's refusal to certify a final development plan, may file an appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board,pursuant to Section 21A.54.160 of this Chapter. SECTION 9. Section 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160 Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Pplanning Ceommission on an application for a conditional use, including a planned development, may file an appeal to the Eland Uttse Aappeals Bboard within thirty(30) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Pplanning Ceommission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the Pplanning Ceommission takes specific action to stay a decision. The following provisions shall also apply to any appeal: • b commission. • • made before the planning commission. No new evidence will be heard by the land use appeals beard unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration by the planning commission. C. The land use app u-ls board shall review and decide the appeal according to the standards in this chapter. The land use appeals board may, in its discretion, choose to consider an appeal on the basis on the record of the proceedings before the planning commission: 1. Without any additional hearing; or to present oral argument on the evidence in the record. use appeals board shall uphold the decision of the planning commission unless the land use appeals board finds that a prejudicial procedural error occurred or that the decision of the planning commission 8 standards of approval • city will send notice of the he a;ing fir �ass ail to the Lip 11 t(s),— the respondent(s) and to all other parties who attended the hearing before the planning commission. SECTION 10. Section 21A.56.080 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.56.080 Appeal of planning commission decisions. Any person adversely affected by the decision of the planning commission may, within thirty days after such decision, file an appeal to the Lland Uttse Aappeals Bboard. � b Tri--r he-land • .al at its earliest convenience. SECTION 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date • of its first publication. SECTION 12. Pending Appeals. The changes made by this ordinance shall be applied in any case which has not yet been heard by the Land Use Appeals Board. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHTFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 9 Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:`Ordinance 03\Amending Code re appeals to the Land Use Appeals Board-Oct 29.2003.doc • 10 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the Land Use Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides that certain appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmark Commission are heard by the Land Use Appeals Board; and WHEREAS, after having processed a number of such appeals, the City Council has determined that the following amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: • SECTION 1. Section 20.16.130 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 20.16.130 Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under this Chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. SECTION 2. Section 20.20.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 20.20.090 Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision: The petitioner or any person who is aggrieved by a finding of the Planning Commission concerning the approval of a proposed minor subdivision and who objected to the administrative consideration, may appeal the finding of the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal to the • Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days of the Planning Commission's decision becoming final. SECTION 3. Section 20.31.320 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 20.31.320 Appeal From Planning Commission Decision: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under this Chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. SECTION 4. Section 20.32.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Planning Commission under Section 20.32.020 of this Chapter, concerning modifications to a subdivision involving a planned development may file an appeal with the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. SECTION 5. Section 21A.06.080 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is renumbered as Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code and shall also be and hereby is . amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.88 Land Use Appeals Board Sections: 2.88.010 Creation 2.88.020 Jurisdiction And Authority 2.88.030 Membership 2.88.040 Officers 2.88.050 Meetings 2.88.060 Record Of Proceedings 2.88.070 Quorum And Vote 2.88.080 Hearings 2.88.090 Notice 2.88.100 Conflict Of Interest 2.88.110 Removal Of A Member 2.88.120 Policies And Procedures 2.88.130 Compensation 2.88.140 Appeals • 2.88.010 Creation: The Land Use Appeals Board is created pursuant to the • authority granted by the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, section 10-9-407 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor. 2.88.020 Jurisdiction And Authority: The Land Use Appeals Board shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this Title: A. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2h of this Title; B. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Planning Commission concerning subdivisions or subdivisions amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this Code; and C. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Planning Commission regarding conditional uses or planned developments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.54.160 of this Title. • 2.88.030 Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests. In the selection of members, preference may be given to individuals with legal or land use experience. Members may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of three (3) years each. The terms of all members shall be staggered so that the teiiii of at least one member will expire each year. Appointments to fill vacancies of members shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments for partial terms to fill vacancies shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) full consecutive terms. 2.88.040 Officers: The Land Use Appeals Board shall annually elect a chair who shall serve for a term of one year. The secretary of the Land Use Appeals Board shall be designated by the Zoning Administrator. 2.88.050 Meetings: The Land Use Appeals Board shall meet as necessary • to consider and expeditiously resolve pending appeals. 2.88.060 Record Of Proceedings: The proceedings of each meeting and hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. Records of confidential executive sessions shall be kept in compliance with the Government Records Access and Management Act. The audio recording of each meeting shall be kept for a minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty(60) day period as deteituined by the Land Use Appeals Board. Copies of the tapes of such proceedings may be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Board shall keep written minutes of its proceedings and records of all its examinations and official actions. The Land Use Appeals Board may, at its discretion, have its proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 2.88.070 Quorum And Vote: No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board without a quorum of three (3) members. A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. 2.88.080 Hearings: • A. Appeals filed shall specify any alleged error(s) made in connection with the decision being appealed. B. The appeal shall be considered by the Land Use Appeals Board on the record made below. No new evidence will be heard by the Land Use Appeals Board unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. C. The Land Use Appeals Board shall review and decide the appeal according to the applicable standards for such decision. The Land Use Appeals Board may, in its discretion, choose to consider an appeal on the basis of the record of the proceedings below: 1. Without any additional hearing; or 2. With a formal hearing allowing both the appellant and the respondent to present oral argument on the evidence in the record. D. The Land Use Appeals Board shall uphold the decision below unless the Land Use Appeals Board finds that a prejudicial procedural error 1111 • occurred or that the decision being appealed was not supported by the findings of fact based upon the applicable standards of approval. 2.88.090 Notice: At least fourteen(14) calendar days in advance of each hearing held before the Land Use Appeals Board the City shall publish a notice of such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City and the City will send notice of the hearing by first class mail to the appellant(s), the respondent(s) and to all other parties who attended the hearing below. 2.88.100 Conflict Of Interest: No member of the Land Use Appeals Board shall participate in the hearing or disposition of any matter in which that member has any conflict of interest prohibited by Chapter 2.44 of this Code. The Land Use Appeals Board may, by majority vote of the members present, allow a member otherwise required to leave due to a conflict, to be present if required by special or unusual circumstances. 2.88.110 Removal Of A Member: Any member of the Land Use Appeals Board may be removed by the Mayor for violation of this Title of any policies and procedures adopted by the Land Use Appeals III Board following receipt by the Mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. If requested by the member, the Mayor shall provide the member with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the Mayor. 2.88.120 Policies And Procedures: The Land Use Appeals Board shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, to process appeals, and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. 2.88.130 Compensation: Each member of the Land Use Appeals Board shall be compensated in the amount of seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each meeting attended by that member. 2.88.140 Appeals: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the Land Use Appeals Board may file a petition for review of the decision with the District Court within thirty(30) days after the decision is rendered. SECTION 6. Section 21A.34.020.F.2.h of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: III • Commission pending the outcome of the appeal,unless the Planning Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. SECTION 10.Section 21A.56.080 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.56.080 Appeal of planning commission decisions. Any person adversely affected by the decision of the planning commission may, within thirty days after such decision,file an appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board. SECTION 11.Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. SECTION 12. Pending Appeals. The changes made by this ordinance shall be applied in any case which has not yet been heard by the Land Use Appeals Board. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of • ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. _30_03 ) MAYOR 7 • • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G.,Ordinance 03 Amending Code re appeals to the Land Use Appeals Board-Clean-Oct 29.2003.doc • S Commuter Rail Website • Tracking Hits Launched December 2002 2002 December: 537 hits (partial month) 2003 January: 2,265 hits February: 2,008 hits March: 2,533 hits April: 2,334 hits May: 1,811 hits June: 1,849 hits • July: 3,969 hits August: 2,078 hits September: 1,971 hits October: 2,233 hits deseretnews.com • Deseret News,Sunday,October 05,2003 Light rail giving UTA ridership a major lift But TRAX lines to take back seat to commuter rail By Stephen Speckman Deseret Morning News Light rail is a hit.The ridership numbers prove that. In fact,mass transit ridership EA rlderskip combined for the Utah Transit Some people use UTA mom than once a days Authority hasn't been as high for the Salt Lake area since the tut IIS e.0 Ibi 194os,a time of light rail's first 1998 IO.411to, incarnation in Utah. 1999 2000 10110..` 6.1 million 0* Today's version of light rail, 2001 6million • TRAX,has played a major factor in boosting UTA's overall *2003 16.2 •million , 2003 `< 6.3 Million 961,QQQ numbers. *Jan.-Aug.2003 But plans for at least three new light-rail spurs are going to have Dese et Morning News graphic to wait a few more years as they take a back seat to UTA's next big project,commuter rail. It was once thought that spurs into West Valley City and the southwest portion of the Salt Lake Valley would be on line somewhere between 2008 and 2010. "I think now we're realistically looking at 2012,2013,in that range,"said John Inglish,UTA general manager. A planned spur to Salt Lake City International Airport could be put off even longer. That's because it's going to take about$35o million to$40o million to build a 4o- plus-mile commuter-rail—faster than light rail—line between Salt Lake City and Pleasant View in Weber County,with at least seven stops in between. Some of that money has already been spent in the landmark acquisition of rail • right of way from Union Pacific,with the first 4o miles worth an estimated$75 million. And in the next round of federal transit allocations,Utah is looking for another $25 million just for commuter rail. Funding for commuter rail will end up at a 50/5o federal-to-local match—UTA's first light-rail spur saw the government kicking in 8o percent of the$312 million cost. Despite uncertain,limited federal transit funds,the plan is still to have commuter rail in sooner than later. "We set a goal for 2007,and we intend to keep it,"Inglish said. In the meantime,light rail's popularity is expected to keep gaining speed while UTA tries to stay ahead of the crowds by adding more and more rail cars. But some would argue that TRAX has merely stolen riders from UTA buses. While that's true,overall ridership throughout UTA's system has increased. Mike Allegra,UTA director of transit development,said UTA is averaging more • than roo,000 trips a day on weekdays(some people use UTA more than once a day)"in a system where we were never carrying that many before." About 85 percent of UTA riders still take the bus—the rest use TRAX,which is bringing in riders who have never used either the bus or train. It's expected that total TRAX ridership this year will exceed 3o million.That figure will include riders on UTA's newest line. On Sept.29,the new$90 million 1.5-mile TRAX medical center line through the University of Utah campus will open,about a year ahead of schedule.UTA will get seven new light-rail cars at$2.8 million each for that line. By October,UTA will have 19 miles of track in operation at a total cost of almost $510 million. The number of UTA's steel wheels is going up 72 percent with the acquisition of 29 used light-rail cars from a California transit agency for$18.6 million. Some of the used cars will be in service next year.That should bring relief to already cramped cars,particularly during rush hour,special events and on weekends. With so much attention being paid to Utah's mass transit darling,TRAX,some • wonder what will happen to UTA's bus system. One plan is to explore bus rapid transit.UTA plans on introducing bus rapid transit to four areas to start:Provo/Orem in Utah County,350o South in Salt Lake County,routes to Salt Lake City International Airport and parts of south Davis County. Bus rapid transit operates on several different technologies,but the gist is that the buses are able to travel faster through traffic on secondary streets than the average bus or car.It's also a system that costs about one-third less than light rail. Allegra said UTA needs to work on improving its frequency of bus service for some routes.That may come with more localized hubs and transit corridor development. And those true to the comfort,safety and security of their cars may soon see more reasons to use mass transit as UTA works on making its vehicles more compatible with those things the automobile offers—without having to drive. r Trax funding/costs • •15-mile north/south line,$312 million,8o percent federal funds •2.5-mile University line,$118.5 million,7o percent federal funds •1.5-mile Medical Center line,$89.4 million,6o percent federal funds •40-plus-mile commuter rail-line,estimated cost between$35o million to$400 million,about 5o percent federal funds E-mail:sspeckman(3desnews.com ©2003 Deseret News Publishing Company • deseretnews.com Deseret News,Sunday,October 05,2003 TRAX is textbook light rail system Deseret Morning News editorial TRAX has been a fixture in Salt Lake City for nearly four years now.It started with the north-south line,then expanded to the University of Utah line and the most recent addition,the new medical center spur,which opened this past week. The light-rail system has had its critics in the past,but most have been silenced as TRAX ridership has climbed to more than 27,00o a day and the system has expanded to serve the university community and to better facilitate crowds -� attending Utah Jazz Games,concerts,U. football games and other festivals.TRAX will now operate until I.a.m.Saturday and • Sunday to accommodate late-night riders, which is another plus. TRAX is definitely a success story,with ridership surpassing official projections and three construction projects completed in four years.Rather than debating the need for the system,significantly more people grouse that TRAX isn't expanding quickly enough,or they bicker about where its next spur should be located. It's a success story Utah transit planners are eager to share with the rest of the county,where a number of new transit systems are either in the planning stages or under construction.Transit planners are looking to Salt Lake City for tips and guidance.Utah has a lot to offer in that regard. But the success of TRAX has whetted Utahns'appetite for more.The system desperately needs spurs to the west side of the valley and to the Salt Lake International Airport. Commuter rail is also a high priority,a transit option that would reduce traffic congestion on I-is and further enhance the use of TRAX by commuters from Ogden and,some day,Provo. Obviously,the expansion of any transit system depends greatly on money and political will.Utah's congressional delegation has gone to great lengths up until 10 now to ensure that Utah received federal funding for light rail projects.But • funding ratios may not be as generous in the future,and Utahns will have to dig • deeper to expand and improve their own transit systems. For the time being,Utahns have cause to be proud of a transit system that. brought together public and private partners for a common goal—a vastly enhanced public transportation system. ®2003 Deseret News Publishing Company • News • StandardNET Oct 02,2003 Site Index I inquire@standard.net '�(:��`j'�.� J lima Your Password? Home News Mayor:Fast-track rail hub SportsNET 54 F Features Waggoner says funding should be a Clearfield priority more... Weather Weather ale Opinion Thu,Oct 2,2003 •Format to print EC E-mail story Desktop weat Business GO! TX. By ANYONE CLARK Xplore Standard-Examiner correspondent Obituaries CLEARFIELD--City officials need to make funding for development of Breaking new Community the area around a proposed commuter-rail hub a priority,Mayor Tom from MSNBI Photo Gallery Waggoner said. Forums LOCAL Planner A rail station in the city is projected for 2007 or early 2008,but the ELECTION; At-a-Glance mayor said the clock is ticking if the city wants to take advantage of the ROUNDUP new transportation link.Waggoner called on city officials to begin Archive aggressively looking for grant funds as well as to begin working on E-mail News some of the right-of-way Issues involved in potential development of the region. • Services -^ "We"ve got to get started,"Waggoner told a combined meeting of the '. �s City Council and the planning commission Tuesday.During the session, - officials discussed new access roads that would link the hub to the north Subscribe and the south. Advertise About Us The roads would be part of an amended general plan for the city.There was also discussion about building a potential pedestrian bridge over the tracks that would link Freeport Center to the hub. Classifieds As part of a plan in the discussion phase,the Utah Transit Authority will Place Your Ad sell or lease about 50 to 60 acres next to a hub,which will allow the city Today's to develop what Is known as transit-oriented development.The TODs Newspaper Ads will open new business ventures,according to Kay Chandler,economic Legal notices development director for the city. Business Dir. Chandler described the opening as a golden opportunity. HomeFinder AutoFinder Chandler"s assessment is not shared by at least one observer.Joe JobFinder Florence of Colliers Commerce CRG participated in a workshop with Healthy Advice UTA,planners and developers on Sept.24.In notes about that meeting Professional Advice distributed during the combined session,Florence is quoted as saying that the UTA site in Clearfield does not have potential for major commercial development,but some small retail and office space in the Local Coupons area could be justified.Florence cited vacancy rates in the county for EShopUtah different levels of office space,in backing up his statement. Olympic CD 10 StandardNET Gear UTA purchased about 71 acres in the area of 1000 East and Personals approximately 1250 South,including an old rail unloading yard.About 10 acres of the property will be needed for a hub and parking,the rest fi le://C:\Documents%20an d%20Setti n eslanac ker\Local%20Setti n ea\Temnorarv%20Tn terne... 10/6/2003 can be sold or leased to the city. Marketpta Publications • Emergency Prep. In a city that has a shrinking number of commercial sites,the property is seen as one of the last major commercial opportunities available for Pro Advice city planners. Healthy Advice Wedding Guide By 2007,UTA hopes to have Utah"s first commuter-rail line running Coupon Power between Salt Lake City and Ogden. Golf Guide Health&Fitness HomeFinder:Book - Hilltop Times Gardening Guide Sound off on this story in Standard Examiner daily forums,plus Seniors see what other readers have to say: Your Neighborhood • Post a comment ' Events • Read comments Ski School Classic Race/VValk Cooking Show Home&Garden Show Outdoor RV Show Bridal Fair Seniors Fair • a ree e-maileet afddress Email Login Password r r-{-il;. j New users Copyright©2003,Ogden Publishing Corporation 00031002001536919516 file://C:\Documents%20and%o20Settines\anac ker\i,ocal%20Settin es\Temnorarv%n20Tnteme... 10/6/2003 • deseretnews.com Deseret News,Friday,September 19,2003 UTA takes over train depot Old facility will give commuter rail a real boost By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News After years of hearing about commuter rail,residents now have a tangible sign that it is going to happen. Wednesday morning,officials with the Utah Transit Authority pulled the tarp off the new UTA sign that crowns the former r Union Pacific maintenance depot near qtk. . i e�..; ' 800 North and Beck Street.The move was also a gesture that commuter rail has started to cross the barrier from plans on y s°s paper into reality. • The move comes about a week after UTA UTA will use Union Pacific depot near officials closed a deal with Union Pacific 800 North and Beck Street as a giving official ownership of the 250,000- commuter-rail maintenance facility. square-foot facility to UTA. Keith Johnson,Deseret Morning News "It was the largest locomotive facility in the world when it was built in 1952,"said UTA director of transit development Mike Allegra,who compared the facility to the Delta Center in terms of size. Union Pacific threw in the facility when it sold 175 miles of right of way to UTA for the commuter-rail system in a$185 million deal last year. Allegra said the maintenance facility is a huge asset for commuter rail,saving UTA almost$2o million in having to build a new facility.Commuter rail may cost as much as$45o million. "This will be the heart of the commuter-rail system,"Allegra said.The facility will house maintenance for all commuter trains,from Payson to Brigham City,as well as serve as the system's dispatch center. The facility is in surprisingly good condition for being vacant for about four years, . Allegra said.The delay in change of ownership was mainly due to environmental studies done on the groundwater and soil at the facility to check for possible • contamination.Allegra said all tests gave the facility a clean bill of health. "It does need a new roof,"Allegra said."We will redo the office space and install a new heating system,"but overall work is minimal and cosmetic. The fact that UTA has acquired a facility such as this,Allegra said,will give the commuter-rail project a real boost."Finding the site for an operation facility is probably the most difficult thing to do,"he said."Having one in place,on site and operational is a huge benefit to the community." UTA plans to have a commuter-rail line between Weber and Salt Lake counties by 2007. E-mail:afattah(tdesnews.com ©2003 Deseret News Publishing Company deseretnews.com Deseret News,Sunday,September 07,2003 Utah on track to get funds for TRAX, new rail system By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON—The Senate Appropriations Committee put big money on track this week for two Utah rail projects:extending the TRAX light rail line and creating a new Ogden-to-Provo commuter rail system. As part of its version of the 2004 annual Transportation Appropriations bill,it approved$3o million more for the project to extend TRAX's University of Utah line to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center. It approved another$12 million for preliminary work on the Weber-Davis portion of the Ogden-Provo commuter rail project.Funding for both rail projects was requested by Sen.Bob Bennett,R-Utah,the only Utahn on an appropriations committee.Such committees decide each year how to split up the available . budget pie. "Just as funding for TRAX has proven to be a wise investment and overwhelming success,we anticipate that commuter rail will also deliver the same kind of benefits,"Bennett said. The committee also approved: •$io million to purchase buses for the Utah Transit Authority,Park City Transit, Logan Transit and St.George Transit. •$8.5 million for statewide intermodal transportation transfer centers. •a$6 million reimbursement for I-15 reconstruction in Salt Lake County. •$1.25 million for intelligent transportation systems in Davis and Utah counties, and another$i million for one in Cache Valley. •$1.5 million for I-15 redesign in Davis County. •$2 million for an instrument landing system at Logan-Cache Airport. . •$i million for work at Provo airport's control tower. That bill now goes to the full Senate and eventually to a conference with the • House to iron out differences in their bills. Meanwhile,the House this week passed its version of the bill.Rep.Jim Matheson,D-Utah,a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,said he requested and obtained funding for several projects in his district. He said the bill included$30.66 million for the extension of the TRAX line.Also it included$3 million for work on I-i5 from the Salt Lake-Utah counties line to Utah Highway 92. Matheson said other funding included:$400,00o for the Northern Corridor road in St.George;$500,00o for a St.George bus facility;and$1.5 million to improve the Brown's Park Road in Daggett County. E-mail:lee(adesnews.com C.2003 Deseret News Publishing Company • S • Stan ET T1t TRoguFwsO,Ir5gus Ogden Publishing Corp. Commuter-rail measure set to go before Senate Ogden-Provo line funded by$12 million if approved Sat,Sep 6,2003 By TIM GURRSITER Standard-Examiner staff A U.S.Senate committee has approved$73 million in transportation appropriations for Utah,including$12 million for the Weber-Davis section of commuter rail from Ogden to Provo,Sen. Bob Bennett"s office announced Thursday. The funding is part of the fiscal 2004 Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill. The bill will now proceed from the Senate Appropriations Committee to the full Senate for consideration.If approved,it will move on to a conference committee in the House of Representatives. • "Just as funding for TRAX(Salt Lake City"s light-rail system)has proven to be a wise investment and overwhelming success,we anticipate that commuter rail will also deliver the same kinds of benefits," Bennett said. "Today"s committee action indicates that my colleagues agree and are supportive of this next phase in our transportation agenda." The$12 million for the local section of planned commuter rail between Ogden and Provo is in addition to nearly$8 million Bennett said has been secured for the project.The senator is backing commuter rail as a critical element for alleviating traffic congestion along the Wasatch Front. On Aug. 12,the Utah Transit Authority announced project information meetings in Weber County for contractors interested in bidding on the proposed line,which will run parallel to Union Pacific lines and go from Salt Lake City"s intermodal hub through Davis County,through Ogden"s intermodal hub,and up to Pleasant View on the north end of the county.Initial contracts are expected to be awarded later this year,with completion of the project scheduled for November 2007. The pending appropriation also includes$30 million for the extension of TRAX all the way to University of Utah Medical Center. Other Utah projects included in the bill are$10 million for Utah Transit Authority buses and bus facilities in Logan,Park City and St. George. • Another$2.25 million is earmarked for Intelligent Transportation System features,or • on-ramp meters and highway message boards notifying travelers of congestion, accidents,alerts,etc.,for Davis,Cache and Utah counties. Reporter Charles Trentelman contributed to this story. Sign up for Business Depot Ogden Corporate Games! Copyright©2003,Ogden Publishing Corporation • • Stand Er TO Ter StU4NTOAU11$001U Ogden Publishing Corp. Frl,Sep 5,2003 The Midday Update offers a quick glance at breaking news.It runs Monday-Friday on StandardNET. At a Glance Commuter rail funds approved A U.S.Senate committee has approved$73 million in transportation appropriations for Utah,including$12 million for the Weber-Davis section of commuter rail from Ogden to Provo,Sen. Robert Bennett's office announced Thursday. The funding is part of the fiscal 2004 Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill. The bill will now proceed from the Senate Appropriations Committee to the full Senate for consideration.If approved,it will move on to a conference committee in the House of Representatives. • "Just as funding for TRAX(Salt Lake City's light rail system) has proven to be a wise investment and overwhelming success,we anticipate that commuter rail will also deliver the same kinds of benefits," Bennett said. "Today's committee action indicates that my colleagues agree and are supportive of this next phase in our transportation agenda." The$12 million for the local section of planned commuter rail between Ogden and Provo is in addition to nearly$8 million Bennett said has been secured for the project.The senator is backing commuter rail as a critical element for alleviating traffic congestion along the Wasatch Front. MrSirtitfakeZribune THURSDAY August 21,2003 Salt Lake to be a hub of activity By John Keahey The Salt Lake Tribune Construction begins next week on Salt Lake City's transportation hub--a facility that could tie together TRAX light rail with regional and local bus service,commuter rail,Greyhound buses and Amtrak trains. The hub,along 600 West between 200 South and 300 South,will be phased in over the next five years. Two of three warehouses on the site have been demolished.The remaining warehouse,fronting 600 West for more than one city block,will be renovated and blended into the hub. A swath will be cut through the middle of that long structure to provide an entrance point for Greyhound and Utah Transit Authority buses.The south end will become a Greyhound terminal. A circular maintenance facility for the transcontinental vehicles will be built nearby. The north end of the former warehouse will be for retail development,said D.J.Baxter, transportation adviser to Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. The hub's first phase--with Greyhound and UTA bus service beginning operations there by next September--will cost$7.3 million. Eighty percent,or$5.85 million,comes from a Federal Transit Administration grant. The balance is local money,primarily ponied up for this phase by Greyhound Bus Lines. • Amtrak already has a temporary station at the site,which it will continue to use until 2005. The delay in building a permanent home for Amtrak stems from uncertainty over continued federal funding for the national passenger-rail carrier. Now,once-daily rail service in each direction between the West Coast and Denver comes through Salt Lake City. "We are not dependent on Amtrak for money"to complete the hub,said Baxter."But we don't want to build a custom-designed space for them if there is some doubt about their ability to use it." Congress is expected to decide,by the end of this year or sometime next year,its level of support for the struggling rail operator. Amtrak's space would be within a semicircular building that will act as a ticketing/passenger area for Amtrak,and serve a similar function for light rail and commuter rail. Those two local and regional rail services will probably not begin operations until 2007 or 2008 Funding still must be secured for a commuter-rail operation between Salt Lake City and Pleasant View in Weber County,north of Ogden.It could cost an approximate$350 million to $500 million. When commuter rail opens,the city will have to extend the current north-south light-rail line from the Delta Center at South Temple and 400 West to the hub's west side,about five blocks away. Mike Allegra,UTA's rail-development director,sees the hub becoming a focal point for distributing commuters from Wasatch Front communities throughout the Salt Lake Valley. Eventually,he said,UTA will expand its express-bus service from the Wasatch Front's north and south ends,with those coaches coming off Interstate 15 at the 400 South interchange and S terminating at the hub four blocks away. When all the rail systems,including Amtrak,are tied together,passengers from one mode can cross one or two platforms on the hub's west side to board another rail mode.Or,they can walk a few dozen feet to the east to board Greyhound or local buses. At this point,Amtrak's westbound and eastbound trains go through Salt Lake City during late night or early morning hours--times when commuter rail and TRAX don't run. john.keahey@sltrib.com Opinion • StandardNET Site Index http.lsnet.standard.net/inquire@standardnell Jul 31,2003 Y r --- ----- 1t I Attract local jobs to reduce long commutes 93 F Mattku Utahns,on average,are spending more time commuting than Weather aler - ever before Desktop weath Sun,July 27,2003 •Format to print E-mall story L We"re not there yet,but when it comes to commuting,the Top of Utah Broakin new• is beginning to take on the flavor of larger metropolitan areas:People from MSNBC are spending larger chunks of their day in automobiles just to get to - and from work. We can blame this on a couple of things.First,Utahns have become more willing to live farther from where they work-usually to retain or . enhance their standard of living.If they work In Salt Lake County, • where 47 percent of the jobs in Utah are located and housing prices are higher,they may choose to live in Davis,Morgan,Weber or Box Elder counties,where much of the housing stock is less expensive. - t ° Marketplac But another reason for these ever-expanding commute times-the average Utahn commutes 21.3 minutes to and from work,more than services two minutes more than a decade ago-is the failure of local and county .,.� economic development to attract jobs.Not enough new,high-paying jobs are coming to the Top of Utah"s counties and cities.If more of us could find work here,we wouldn"t need to commute to Salt Lake County. As it stands,the reality that Utahns are spending more time commuting ` is further evidence that we need the Legacy Highway In southern Davis County and commuter rail between Ogden and Salt Lake City.And if • Anvertisang those job-creation trends continue-art unequal balance between population growth and new employment opportunities where people live the transportation/commute problem will only continue to worsen. The challenge for Top of Utah economic development gurus is to attract more jobs to our region of the state.If we don"t,those drive times will continue to increase.e • Sound off on this story in Standard Examiner daily forums,plus see what other readers have to say: • Post a comment • Read comments Public.ttionn • I tr1,111 Copyright©2003,Ogden Publishing Corporation MINN- 1 dill '�F � iat Acxlrl 00030726202045953715 S • News StandardNET Site Index I http:llsnet standard.net/inquired standardnel -' F7imi Aug 01,2003 1111.1 -r, 3, III - TO of Utah workers`hy cJoUn#y' 68 F Sipx+8 efaltiorti)ri tiii a:slie,eort1t11iIlilo iO Wu1It.EQ11t o eldo M4!1 , t1W1r ClDuni1Qd14t n0lldall+:s% 5999915Vineni Et1plo/t4tlilp .EI* 'lt0011 ihie Weather aler, 111 O- Deskto 1 month a«tniy 1: 0 1; ° f Box Eider 18,124 18,078 11938 13,570 4,186 4,508 r cache: 27,,364 40,800 26,643 3g,236' 711 1,565 /. Davis 66,420 89,311 44,256 61,208 22,184 28,103 _`_, _ t303 1,746. 979 -1,217. 324 529 Breaking neva- Weber 87,233 66,226 49,812 61,671 17,421 21,555 ' from MSNBC SotrarKU&9uym_oftlie olous_BEBROokefole Standard-Examiner • Road to work getting longer More Utahns commuting farther,report finds Wed,July 23,2003 Format to print WE-mall story Marketplac By NESREEN KHASHAN Standard-Examiner xx Bureau SALT LAKE CITY--Utah commuters are driving longer distances and spending more time to commute to work,a report released this week by 1'1?' the University of Utah has concluded. ,,1 The findings are attributable to population growth,increases in housing f costs and a disproportionate concentration of job centers. { r ; The study published in the May/June edition of the Utah Economic and ' Business Review examined shifts in Utah commuting patterns from 1980 through 2000.The publication is released though the U of U"s Services r David Eccles Business School"s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. , � Pamela Perlich,the economist who conducted the study,said the most 4`. : ,- striking finding is the increase in commuters working outside their residential counties. • . _ Davis and Tooele counties,both considered bedroom communities,have shown some of the most dramatic Increases.In Davis County alone,45 Advertising percent of its residents drive elsewhere to work. While her study showed that commutes have increased by two minutes on average statewide,the number of workers who commute 30 minutes or longer has increased over the two decades.In 2000,just more than a third of Utahns reported commuting 30 minutes or more to work. Perlich said it is commuters who drive the longer distances who have seen the most dramatic increases to their commute times. "What we"re getting is more people who are making really long commutes,"Perlich said."People are locating farther and farther out, and people are willing to drive farther and longer to maintain their lifestyle someplace." • Perlich said commuters may be purchasing homes farther from their • work due to the affordability factor.Some less-developed counties with more affordable homes,including Morgan and Tooele,saw some of the most significant increases to their commute times. Residents in both counties saw their commutes increase in 2000 by 10 minutes from a decade earlier.Weber County,where the ratio of workers coming In to work Is about the same as workers leaving to work Public at ions elsewhere,saw a 2.2 minute increase to its commute from 10 years ago.Salt Lake County,which provides 47 percent of the jobs in the state,continues to have the greatest influx of workers. • Although commutes are getting longer for many,Utah ranked 11th nationally in shortest commute times,with an average commute time of 21.3 minutes.Most of the states with the shortest commute times were located along the Great Plains or in the West,with North Dakota and South Dakota ranking first and second respectively for the shortest commute times.Older communities in the East and California had the longest commute times. Perlich said Utah ranked 21st nationally in its workers"use of public transportation.While the study showed 2.3 percent of Utah workers use mass transportation,she said that figure has probably Increased with _ the opening of light-rail lines at the University of Utah and its medical ,,,; center. E+'rr'nts Robert Grow,the founding chairman of Envision Utah,said the study reinforces the core mission of the transportation planning organization he founded.Envision Utah works with communities throughout the I lit Wasatch Front to encourage a holistic approach to transportation planning.Grow said the state is already moving in the right direction with the recent light-rail system installment,the expansion of Interstate ' 31.0 0 15 and the coming commuter rail system from Ogden to Salt Lake City. ferns But he stressed that the state"s projected population boom over the 5u`: F;: next 30 years poses serious challenges. "We"re working on a more balanced transportation system,"Grow said. c j "But we"re still a relatively small metropolitan region.The warning from 10 n • the report Is all the bigger metropolitan regions have worse commute times than we do,and were getting bigger." 111.1111 • Sound off on this story in Standard Examiner daily forums,plus ,,< see what other readers have to say: • Post a comment • Read comments Copyright©2003,Ogden Publishing Corporation .. 00030722221001537603 • • WORLD&NATION UTAH SPORTS BUSINESS OPINION FRONT PAGE deseretnews.com+ Utah news Tuesday,July 22,2003 Commutes in Utah grow Format story longer for printing By Donna Kemp Spangler E-mail a copy Deseret Morning News of this story Perhaps this comes as no surprise if you are stuck in commuter traffic,but more Utahns are driving a longer time to get to their jobs. That's according to a new study by the Bureau of r �$ Ig Economic and Business Research at the University of { s= •- Utah's David Eccles School of Business. The study found that it took a little more than 20• ',, minutes for most Utahns to drive to work in 2000— more than two minutes longer than it did in 199o. About one quarter of Utah commuters drive 3o minutes or longer to work.And those taking the longest time to get to work hail from Tooele County,driving 32.1 minutes—a little more than io minutes longer than in 199o. But compared to other states,Utah ranks No.ii as having the shortest commute time. More Utahns,however,are driving their cars.Utah ranks No.21 among all states in the use of public transportation to get to work. The study,which was based on census data from 198o,1990 and 2000,didn't take into account the new light-rail lines. ent' si'ti,� s = "This l4 T ;' ii ranking should improve in the 2010 census data because of the addition of the . University and Medical Center light rail(TRAX)lines," said Pam Perlich,senior researcher at the U. • The reason for the increase in commute times? Researchers chalk it up to more people on the road. Although the majority of Utahns—83.4 percent in 2000—live relatively close to where they work,an increasing number of workers have to cross county lines to their jobs. Utahns don't have it as bad as New Yorkers,most of whom face a nearly 32-minute commute to work.Like Utah,Idaho has one of the shortest commute times in the nation. Driving automobiles is still the most common way of getting to work.The study showed that nearly 79 percent of all Utah commuters drove their cars to work, while only 2.3 percent of commuters took public transportation. And,driving to work is the second-fastest way to get there,behind living close enough to walk or bike to work.Taking public transportation takes a mean travel time of 42.2 minutes. But 14.7 percent of commuters carpooled to work, the study showed. A little more than 6i percent of workers who live in • Morgan County have to drive across county lines to get to work.Even though that's the highest out-of-county commute rate,Davis County has more residents— 59,509—who work in other counties. Salt Lake County has long been the center of employment in the state,so it ranked the highest in the number of commuters who travel to work within the county. A complete view of the study is at: http://www.business.utah.eduL E-MAIL:donna(3 desnews.com World&Nation +Utah +Sports+ Business+ Opinion + Front Page • ©2003 Deseret News Publishing Company • News StandardNET Site Index itp://snCLstandard.neV nyuirastandarUnm Aug 01,2003 -— _ _---- 15 UTA scores in poll 68 F mbre,,, Survey says 76 percent like light rail Weather alert Desktop weathe Mon,July 7,2003 ®Format to print WE-mall story t._ u- By NESREEN KHASHAN Standard-Examiner Capitol Bureau Breakin new- SALT LAKE CITY--If public sentiment was money,the Utah Transit Authority from MSNBC would be swimming in dollars. A public opinion poll commissioned for UTA found 76 percent of Utahns have a positive impression of the light-rail system the transit authority has built. • I - But in today"s financial climate,public perception is no substitute for hard currency. UTA general manager John Inglish said federal matching funds have shrunk in -- -- , recent years from 80 percent of a project"s cost to about 50 percent. Marketpl a Cl That"s because there are more transit authorities nationally competing for federal discretionary funds.When UTA asked the feds for TRAX funding about a decade ago,there were 15 new-start projects nationally competing for the same funding,Ing- "" lish said.In contrast,there are now more than 400 new-start projects competing for a funding source that has not grown proportionately with demand. "It becomes like a bidding war,"said Inglish,whose comments came following a presentation he gave to the Legislative Planning Task Force meeting on Capitol Cre No I t i Hill last week."We have to bring our share of the project funding up to the level ;hr.t where the feds will agree to fund the rest." The result of the reduction in federal funding has meant delays in nearly every cut/mote to ' project UTA has scheduled.Unscathed in the delay queue is the commuter-rail project that will run from Ogden to Salt Lake City.It is still scheduled to be I � completed by 2007,or no more than a year after that. Set vices Projects that will be delayed include a TRAX expansion to the western and southern parts of the Salt Lake Valley and an extension to the Salt Lake City }'[: Airport. r t ta. "We"re able to do one project at a time with the present resources that we have,'he said. • Advertising Inglish said Utah"s share of the public transportation expansion has also seen a decline.Sales-tax dollars are used to fund the improvements,and in November 2000,voters in Salt Lake,Davis and Weber counties agreed to a quarter-cent sales tax Increase to pay for commuter rail. But tax revenues In this flagging economy have been down,further fueling project setbacks. J. Meantime,Utah County residents have wistfully watched their neighbors to the north ratchet up the quality of their public transportation systems.Polls conducted of residents there show they would agree to a similar tax increase so I commuter raj can reach them,though the system they might get would be far from Ideal.Logistical and financial considerations would prevent a Utah County commuter rail from reaching any farther than Draper,Inglish said. Still,he said the best hope for the state"s public transportation is to plow forward with the commuter-rail concept.This mode of transportation yields a high volume of riders,ultimately helping push costs down for commuters while Improving air quality and traffic flow. • "Our focus has been on the rail corridor,where there"s high demand and low operating costs,thereby reducing the subsidy per rider,"Inglish said. Publications • Sound off on this story in Standard Examiner daily forums,plus ("` see what other readers have to say: • Post a comment ,i • Read comments twerp, `I. Copyright 02003,Ogden Publishing Corporation r S+iu i i r 4INIT I � 13u • • Cotes gala 444, Vision Partnership • - Momentum rh "Yo ur Train is Coming" UTA IMAGINE CRUISING THROUGH Davis County at 70 miles per hour in the middle of the morning rush hour, with the sun rising over the Wasatch Mountains to the east, brightly illuminating the Great Salt Lake to the west. You're quietly reading a newspaper or working on your laptop computer, putting the final touches on a presentation you are giving at work that day. Or maybe you're catching a few extra minutes of sleep. You arrive at work on time, ready to begin your day. Impossible, you say? If you're driving in a car, it is impossible. But if you're riding on a commuter rail system, this scenario can be a reality. All Aboard! UTA plans to bring commuter rail to the Wasatch Front as part of the 30-year Long Range Transportation Plan. When all of the planned segments are completed, commuter rail would extend approximately 150 miles from Payson to Brigham City. The first phase of the proposed commuter rail system, from Weber County to Salt Lake City, is already underway. The environmental work began in the summer of 2002, and service is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2007. Proposed Commuter Rail Corridor UTA has three primary goals for the current commuter Weber County to Solt Lake City 'se_mmu ter ra113 rail project. / .Weber,County • To develop a true "community" rail system. UTA wants input and involvement from the public .Ogden throughout the process, to help create a project that truly meets the needs of the community. Roy. Z • To make Utah's commuter rail the most cost .Clearfield effective system in the country, providing the highest quality experience for the rider at the lowest uL°yton • possible cost to the public. • To work with the community to build a strong level •Farmington of ridership right from the start. °Woods Cross Benefits of Commuter Rail North Temple. •Salt Lake City Commuter rail in general has many benefits. Riders in • markets throughout the United States claim increased quality of life from using commuter rail. They are able to use the time on the train to relax, read, work and do other activities, versus concentrating on driving if they used their car. Other benefits of commuter rail include: • Reliability: Because UTA owns the right-of-way, '' (' commuter rail will not have to share track with freight traffic. So there will be no delays or waiting due to _ �_ ,, conflicts with freight trains, meaning commuter rail •114 ' V trains will be on time. • Comfort: Commuter rail trains are typically designed" Yp Y for �J longer trips, so the trains tend to provide more comfortable seating and other features. 11111 L. • Environment: As commuter rail takes more cars off the road, there will be less traffic congestion and pollution. With the steady increase of population along the Wasatch Front,and the need for transportation solutions, UTA is committed to providing Utahns • with efficient and convenient transportation alternatives,creating a public transportation network that includes bus,light rail and now commuter rail. What Has Happened So Far? • A series of studies that began in 1996 concluded that commuter rail is a necessary component of public transportation along the Wasatch Front. The studies also determined that commuter rail is the preferred alternative in the corridor. • In November 2000,voters in Salt Lake,Davis and Weber Counties approved a 1/4-cent sales tax increase to fund more transit. The approval of this tax increase indicates the broad and growing support for the expansion and improvement of Utah's public transportation system. • On September 20,2002,UTA finalized the purchase of 175 miles of railroad corridors from Union Pacific Railroad. The purchase preserves valuable rail corridors to be used for commuter rail or other public transportation projects along the Wasatch Front. RAIL CORRIDOR PRESERVATION • After receiving approval from the Federal Transit Administration to begin the environmental process, UTA officially"kicked off"the commuter rail project in November 2002 with a series of public scoping meetings. The open houses were the firstGreet opportunity for residents to meet the project team,ask Sat Sat questions and offer input about the project. aka What's Next? The project is currently undergoing environmental studies to identify potential impacts and determine station locations. The enyix_._nnmentaLdtaclunpLA is expected to be complete in 2004. ' P During the environmental process,the project team will be conducting preliminary engineering work on the project, such as identifying the type of commuter rail train and its — features. The team will also be working to secure funding a z sources for the ^••• "'a" Lake project. wE °.. Construction is 64111 o.., .. tentatively e scheduled to �• 'F, yfll'{� begin in 2005,with the Weber County to Salt Lake City .1 segment to begin service in 2007. • To learn more about commuter rail, visit UTA's website at www.rideuta.com. r g' • Atz P .7 . '� UTA Utah Transit Authority P.O. Box 30810 . Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0810 www.rideuta.com 1 -888-RIDE-UTA Proposed Commuter Rail Corridor = .commuter rail Weber County to Salt Lake City °Weber County 0 Ogden Royo oClearfield • 0Layton Farmington °Woods Cross North Templeo 0 Salt Lake City "foto,I • - \ Brigham City RAIL CORRIDOR • , PRESERVATION Shared Corridor UP Ogden Subdivision ilo UTA Ownership Access Agreement fl Ogden Roy Clearfield Clearfield Facility Great Layton Salt \ Lake 1 Farmington formerly Denver 8 Rio Grande Western Bountiful North Salt Lake Facility • Maintenance Facility Salt Lake City Sugarttouse Spur ti m Mid-Jordan Spur r 0 Sandy J West r Jordan Yerican k �. Provo Industrial Lead -Ilk UP Main Line Orem/Provo 0 5 10 20 Miles Utah Lake N Spanish Fork• W_E Tintic Industrial Lead S Payson U T A FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A • Contact: Andrea Packer-(801)231-4048 Date: September 17,2003 Press Release UTA Closes on Union Pacific Rail Facility Building will be used to maintain and house future commuter rail fleet and support UTA rail operations along the Wasatch Front Salt Lake City--Utah Transit Authority(UTA)today announced that it has closed on the purchase of Union Pacific Railroad's rail maintenance facility,located near 800 North Beck Street. To mark the occasion,UTA unveiled a large new sign atop the facility,replacing the Union Pacific logo with its own. "Acquiring this facility is a significant milestone for UTA,setting the stage for decades of future rail operations,"said Michael Allegra,UTA Chief Capital Development Officer. "This building is key to the development of a commuter rail system and will serve as the primary maintenance location for our rail locomotives and passenger cars." In addition to housing its future commuter rail fleet,UTA may use the facility to maintain and service its growing number of light rail vehicles. • The 250,000 square foot building,which has been unoccupied for 4-5 years,includes several rail maintenance tracks and pits as well as three large cranes designed to move locomotives. During its heyday in the early 20th century,the facility was one of the largest in the country, with over 30 locomotives serviced there each day. The rail maintenance facility was part of UTA's 2002 purchase of 175 miles of railroad corridors between Payson and Brigham City. "Acquiring this building as part of that deal is an invaluable investment for our community,"said Allegra. "Securing or building rail facilities of this size is always a major challenge for transit agencies as their rail programs expand and grow." The facility,which will ultimately provide for the operation of commuter rail between Payson and Brigham City,is physically located along the corridor for the first phase of commuter rail between Weber County and downtown Salt Lake City. Currently in the environmental process, this phase of commuter rail is tentatively scheduled to begin service in late-2007. UTA was established in 1970 and has become a multi-modal transportation leader that is 100 percent accessible with 33 light rail vehicles and more than 600 buses. UTA's TRAX light rail system is currently averaging more than 35,000 riders a day along its 15-mile Salt Lake-Sandy line and the 2.5-mile University Line. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, UTA's transit system was declared a great success on an international screen-carrying more than four million Olympic riders. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A Date: February 20,2003 Contact: Kris McBride,801-244-1942 PRESS RELEASE • Community Representatives Working on Commuter Rail Project Made up of citizens along the corridor,the CRIT helps coordinate information between the community and the project team Since UTA officially launched the current commuter rail project last November,the project team has been working with a group of volunteer residents from the communities along the corridor. UTA established the Commuter Rail Integration Team(CRIT)as part of its goal to make commuter rail a "community"rail project. The CRIT is a group of community-minded citizens from Salt Lake,Davis and Weber Counties who expressed an interest in the commuter rail project and a willingness to participate in public outreach efforts by representing their community's perspectives and facilitating communication between UTA and the public. UTA initially spoke with more than 50 people,and narrowed the candidates down to a group of 12 individuals that represent both residential and business interests along the corridor. The 12 CRIT members include:• • Robert Bales,Weber State University student,Ogden • Roberta Glidden,Artist,Ogden • Mark Bottema,Real Estate Broker,Clearfield • Kay Chandler,Economic Development,Clearfield • Linda Kelley,Layton Hills Mall General Manager,Layton • Jan Browning,Accountant,Woods Cross • Charles Payne,Retired,Woods Cross • Dave Galvan,Real Estate Broker,Salt Lake City • Tracy James,Gateway Mall General Manager,Salt Lake City • Linda Hoffman,Educator,Farmington • Cory Ritz,Sales Manager,Farmington • Sheldon Killpack,Lagoon Vice President of Marketing,Farmington GRIT members meet with the commuter rail project team regularly,providing community input on project planning and operations and helping UTA identify who the potential commuter rail riders might be,and the reasons they would choose to ride commuter rail.• -more- Community Involvement Team(cont.) Page two • The CRIT members serve as a voice for their communities and an information source about commuter rail. After receiving updates from the project team,CRIT members act as commuter rail "liaisons"by sharing the information with their respective communities. They also take the ideas, questions and comments they receive from their community back to the project team. The CRIT is just one of many ways UTA is reaching out to the public with information about the commuter rail project. The project team is actively engaged in providing updates and information to residents,the business community and elected officials throughout the corridor. Commuter rail information is also available on UTA's web site,www.rideuta.com,where people can send questions or comments by email to the project team. In addition,a commuter rail"speakers bureau"is available to make presentations to groups or organizations along the corridor. Work on commuter rail is in full swing,with the preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)for the first phase between Salt Lake City and Weber County scheduled for completion this fall. The 38-mile phase of the commuter rail project is scheduled to open in late 2007. ### • The Utah Transit Authority,established in 1970,has become a multi-modal transportation leader that is 100 percent accessible with 33 light rail vehicles and more than 600 buses. Every day,1,700 UTA employees operate the transit system from six state-of-the-art facilities located along the Wasatch Front. UTA's TRAX light rail system is currently averaging more than 35,000 riders a day along its 15-mile Salt Lake-Sandy line and the 2.5-mile University Line. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,UTA's transit system was declared a great success on an international screen-carrying more than four million Olympic riders. UTA is currently constructing the 1.5-mile Medial Center TRAX light rail extension which will complete the connection between the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City. • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A Date: January 14,2003 Contact: Kris McBride,801-244-1942 PRESS RELEASE • Commuter Rail Support is Strong A recent survey shows Wasatch Front residents favor commuter rail and are likely to ride it Salt Lake City-Residents of Salt Lake,Davis and Weber Counties overwhelmingly support a commuter rail system,according to a survey conducted for the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)by Valley Research in November. When asked if they are favorable or unfavorable to the idea of UTA building commuter rail,76 percent of respondents were favorable,including 51 percent who were veryfavorable. Only two percent were unfavorable,and the remaining 22 percent of respondents were either neutral or didn't know. When asked if they believe if commuter rail will be a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars,78 percent of respondents said commuter rail will definitely or probably be a worthwhile expenditure. Fourteen percent said it probablyor definitelywill not be a worthwhile expenditure. "We are encouraged by the support for commuter rail,"said UTA General Manager John Inglish. • "With the success of TRAX,people along the Wasatch Front are realizing that rail is a convenient and efficient transportation alternative for those who ride,and a quality of life benefit for the community at large." Fifty-six percent of the survey respondents said they are likely to ride commuter rail,with 18 percent saying very likely. Respondents predicted riding commuter rail for a variety of purposes, including work,shopping,special events or other leisure and recreation activities. If they were to ride commuter rail,respondents were asked to rank the importance of three service features: travel time between boarding and disembarking,frequency of the trains,and proximity of stations to origin and destination points. Almost an equal number of respondents ranked travel time(42 percent)and proximity of the stations(41%)as the most important feature. "One of our primary goals for this project is to build a true'community'rail system,"said Steve Meyer,UTA Project Manager for Commuter Rail. "This survey will help us gauge the overall awareness of the current commuter rail project and,more importantly,understand the transportation needs of residents. With this knowledge,we can develop a commuter rail project that truly meets the needs of the community and has strong ridership right from the start." • -more- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE („� T A • Contact: Andrea Packer - (801) 231-4048 Date: September 17, 2003 Press Release UTA Closes on Union Pacific Rail Facility Building will be used to maintain and house future commuter rail fleet and support UTA rail operations along the Wasatch Front Salt Lake City--Utah Transit Authority (UTA) today announced that it has closed on the purchase of Union Pacific Railroad's rail maintenance facility, located near 800 North Beck Street. To mark the occasion, UTA unveiled a large new sign atop the facility, replacing the Union Pacific logo with its own. "Acquiring this facility is a significant milestone for UTA, setting the stage for decades of future rail operations,"said Michael Allegra, UTA Chief Capital Development Officer. "This building is key to the development of a commuter rail system and will serve as the primary maintenance location for our rail locomotives and passenger cars." In addition to housing its future commuter rail fleet, UTA may use the facility to maintain and service its growing number of light rail vehicles. • The 250,000 square foot building, which has been unoccupied for 4-5 years, includes several rail maintenance tracks and pits as well as three large cranes designed to move locomotives. During its heyday in the early 20th century, the facility was one of the largest in the country, with over 30 locomotives serviced there each day. The rail maintenance facility was part of UTA's 2002 purchase of 175 miles of railroad corridors between Payson and Brigham City. "Acquiring this building as part of that deal is an invaluable investment for our community,"said Allegra. "Securing or building rail facilities of this size is always a major challenge for transit agencies as their rail programs expand and grow." The facility, which will ultimately provide for the operation of commuter rail between Payson and Brigham City, is physically located along the corridor for the first phase of commuter rail between Weber County and downtown Salt Lake City. Currently in the environmental process, this phase of commuter rail is tentatively scheduled to begin service in late-2007. UTA was established in 1970 and has become a multi-modal transportation leader that is 100 percent accessible with 33 light rail vehicles and more than 600 buses. UTA's TRAX light rail system is currently averaging more than 35,000 riders a day along its 15-mile Salt Lake-Sandy line and the 2.5-mile University Line. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, UTA's transit system was declared a great success on an international screen - carrying more than four million Olympic riders. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A Date: February 20, 2003 Contact: Kris McBride, 801-244-1942 PRESS RELEASE 411 Community Representatives Working on Commuter Rail Project Made up of citizens along the corridor, the CRIT helps coordinate information between the community and the project team Since UTA officially launched the current commuter rail project last November, the project team has been working with a group of volunteer residents from the communities along the corridor. UTA established the Commuter Rail Integration Team (CRIT) as part of its goal to make commuter rail a "community"rail project. The CRIT is a group of community-minded citizens from Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties who expressed an interest in the commuter rail project and a willingness to participate in public outreach efforts by representing their community's perspectives and facilitating communication between UTA and the public. UTA initially spoke with more than 50 people, and narrowed the candidates down to a group of 12 individuals that represent both residential and business interests along the corridor. The 12 CRIT members include:• • Robert Bales, Weber State University student, Ogden • Roberta Glidden, Artist, Ogden • Mark Bottema, Real Estate Broker, Clearfield • Kay Chandler, Economic Development, Clearfield • Linda Kelley, Layton Hills Mall General Manager, Layton • Jan Browning, Accountant, Woods Cross • Charles Payne, Retired, Woods Cross • Dave Galvan, Real Estate Broker, Salt Lake City • Tracy James, Gateway Mall General Manager, Salt Lake City • Linda Hoffman, Educator, Farmington • Cory Ritz, Sales Manager, Farmington • Sheldon Killpack, Lagoon Vice President of Marketing, Farmington CRIT members meet with the commuter rail project team regularly, providing community input on project planning and operations and helping UTA identify who the potential commuter rail riders might be, and the reasons they would choose to ride commuter rail. • -more - Community Involvement Team (cont.) Page two • The CRIT members serve as a voice for their communities and an information source about commuter rail. After receiving updates from the project team, CRIT members act as commuter rail "liaisons"by sharing the information with their respective communities. They also take the ideas, questions and comments they receive from their community back to the project team. The CRIT is just one of many ways UTA is reaching out to the public with information about the commuter rail project. The project team is actively engaged in providing updates and information to residents, the business community and elected officials throughout the corridor. Commuter rail information is also available on UTA's web site, www.rideuta.com, where people can send questions or comments by email to the project team. In addition, a commuter rail"speakers bureau"is available to make presentations to groups or organizations along the corridor. Work on commuter rail is in full swing, with the preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the first phase between Salt Lake City and Weber County scheduled for completion this fall. The 38-mile phase of the commuter rail project is scheduled to open in late 2007. # # # • The Utah Transit Authority, established in 1970, has become a multi-modal transportation leader that is 100 percent accessible with 33 light rail vehicles and more than 600 buses. Every day, 1,700 UTA employees operate the transit system from six state-of-the-art facilities located along the Wasatch Front. UTA's TRAX light rail system is currently averaging more than 35,000 riders a day along its 15-mile Salt Lake-Sandy line and the 2.5-mile University Line. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, UTA's transit system was declared a great success on an international screen-carrying more than four million Olympic riders. UTA is currently constructing the 1.5-mile Medial Center TRAX light rail extension which will complete the connection between the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City. 411 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A Date: January 14, 2003 Contact: Kris McBride, 801-244-1942 PRESS RELEASE • Commuter Rail Support is Strong A recent survey shows Wasatch Front residents favor commuter rail and are likely to ride it Salt Lake City- Residents of Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties overwhelmingly support a commuter rail system, according to a survey conducted for the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) by Valley Research in November. When asked if they are favorable or unfavorable to the idea of UTA building commuter rail, 76 percent of respondents were favorable, including 51 percent who were veryfavorable. Only two percent were unfavorable, and the remaining 22 percent of respondents were either neutral or didn't know. When asked if they believe if commuter rail will be a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars, 78 percent of respondents said commuter rail will definitelyor probably be a worthwhile expenditure. Fourteen percent said it probably or definitelywill not be a worthwhile expenditure. . "We are encouraged by the support for commuter rail,"said UTA General Manager John Inglish. • "With the success of TRAX, people along the Wasatch Front are realizing that rail is a convenient and efficient transportation alternative for those who ride, and a quality of life benefit for the community at large." Fifty-six percent of the survey respondents said they are likely to ride commuter rail, with 18 percent saying very likely. Respondents predicted riding commuter rail for a variety of purposes, including work, shopping, special events or other leisure and recreation activities. If they were to ride commuter rail, respondents were asked to rank the importance of three service features: travel time between boarding and disembarking, frequency of the trains, and proximity of stations to origin and destination points. Almost an equal number of respondents ranked travel time (42 percent) and proximity of the stations (41%) as the most important feature. "One of our primary goals for this project is to build a true'community' rail system,"said Steve Meyer, UTA Project Manager for Commuter Rail. "This survey will help us gauge the overall awareness of the current commuter rail project and, more importantly, understand the transportation needs of residents. With this knowledge, we can develop a commuter rail project that truly meets the needs of the community and has strong ridership right from the start." 4111 -more - Page 2 of 2 Commuter Rail Shows Strong Support • While support for commuter rail is high, knowledge about the current project is relatively low. Eighty-nine percent of respondents said they don't know when this phase of commuter rail will open, and only 32 percent realized the current project is from Salt Lake City to Weber County. Respondents were also asked where traffic congestion falls on their list of pressing social issues. Just over half(52 percent) rank it ator nearthe top. When asked about the importance of certain transportation components to solve congestion problems between Salt Lake City and Weber County, 90 percent of respondents said commuter rail was veryor somewhatimportant, followed by the expansion of Interstate 15 (86 percent) and building the Legacy Highway (78 percent). Environmental work for the first phase of commuter rail, between Weber County and Salt Lake City, started this fall. UTA launched the project in November with a series of public scoping open houses held in Clearfield, Salt Lake and Ogden. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2005, with the first segment to begin service in 2007. The telephone survey included a total of 601 people from Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties, with a margin of error of+/- 4%. • The Utah Transit Authority, established in 1970, has become a multi-modal transportation leader that is 100 percent accessible with 33 light rail vehicles and more than 600 buses. Every day, 1,700 UTA employees operate the transit system from six state-of-the-art facilities located along the Wasatch Front. UTA's TRAX light rail system is currently averaging more than 35,000 riders a day along its 15-mile Salt Lake-Sandy line and the 2.5-mile University Line. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, UTA's transit system was declared a great success on an international screen -carrying more than four million Olympic riders. UTA is currently constructing the 1.5-mile Medial Center TRAX light rail extension which will complete the connection between the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City. II FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U T A Date: November 18, 2002 Contact: Kris McBride, 801-244-1942 Media Advisory • • Get on Board! Commuter Rail Project Kicks Off WHAT: Commuter Rail Public Open Houses WHEN: Nov. 19th, 20th and 21st, 2002 WHERE: Tuesday Nov. 19 Wed. Nov. 20 Thurs. Nov. 21 4:00 pm — 7:00 pm 4:00 pm — 7:00 pm 4:00 pm — 7:00 pm Davis County Library Union Pacific Depot Ogden Union Station North Branch Gateway Grand Hall Browning Theatre 562 South 1000 East 450 West 100 South 2501 Wall Avenue Clearfield Salt Lake City Ogden WHO: - Members of UTA Administration and Board of Trustees - Commuter rail project team - Environmental scoping team - Commuter rail communications / public outreach team The environmental process is underway on a potential commuter rail line between Weber County and Salt Lake City. The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is launching Utah's first commuter rail project with a series of public open houses, or"scoping meetings"this week. These are the first public meetings for commuter rail, and UTA wants the community to "Get On Board." One of UTA's primary goals for commuter rail is to make it a "community" rail project. UTA wants the public to get involved early, to attend the open houses and provide their input and ideas. UTA has developed an extensive public outreach plan to help the public stay informed and involved and help shape the future of commuter rail in Utah. Representatives of the project team will be on hand at the open houses to provide the latest information about the project and to answer questions. In addition to the public open houses, information about commuter rail is now available on UTA's website: www.rideuta.com. • # # # • MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-36-Central Community Master Plan Update AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the master plan is adopted,the Plan will affect Council Districts 4 and 5 and small portions of Council Districts 3 and 7 FROM: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development-Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce,Principal Planner OPTIONS: 1. Forward the master plan to a future Council meeting for a public hearing. 2. Identify changes to the proposed master plan and forward to a future Council meeting for a public hearing. • 3. Request additional written information and refer to an additional Council work session. 4. Do not advance the master plan to a future Council meeting for consideration. 5. Other options identify by Council Members. 6. Any combination of the above. NEw INFORMATION: A. On February 18,2003,Council Members received a briefing from the Administration regarding the proposed Central Community Master Plan. The attached memorandum from Administration provides a response to the issues and questions raised by Council Members. B. Items discussed at the Council Work Session and the Administration's response is summarized below. (Please refer to the Administration's memorandum,previous Council staff report and additional documentation for details and background information.) 1. At the Council briefing,Planning staff indicated that the Plan: a. Provides general land use guidelines and a land use map to direct future development. b. Incorporates many small area or specific plans as policy guides. c. Updates land use designations to be consistent with the zoning applied during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project. d. May recommend rezoning some properties or areas to provide consistency between the Plan and zoning classifications. e. Recommends application of new concepts and zoning such as transit-oriented development and • mixed-use areas. 1 f. Allows for expansion of National Register Historic Districts. (This is a strictly voluntary program that allows a property owner to take advantage of tax credits for structure rehabilitation consistent with National Historic Preservation guidelines.) (Please see the Council staff report Key Elements,items C and D and the Administration's previous transmittal letter for additional details.) 2. Zoning and land use policy conflicts in the Plan. The Administration notes that a key implementation strategy identified in the Plan recommends that zoning conflict areas be evaluated through a rezoning process. As requested by the Council,the Administration's memo includes a map that identifies potential future land use and zoning conflicts. (Please refer to the Central Community Potential Future Land Use/Zone Conflict Map in the Administration's memo for specific affected properties and areas.) a. The rezoning process would: • Provide a detailed analysis of existing land uses,development patterns,neighborhood character and potential non-conforming uses. • Include notification and participation of affected property owners. • Identify an appropriate zoning classification or the need to develop new zoning or overlay classifications to implement the goals of the Plan. b. Existing zoning districts that contain potential conflicts with the land use proposed in the Plan include: • Low and Medium Density Mixed-Use—current zoning classifications do not permit mixed- use. • Low/Medium Density Residential—current zoning classifications may exceed the desired density. • Institutional—some parcels identified for institutional uses are currently zoned for residential use. • • Transit-oriented development—current commercial zoning classifications do not support the proposed transit-oriented/mixed-use design concepts. The Plan recommends three transit- oriented development districts-low,medium and high-density. (In addition,Planning staff notes the need to adjust the Plan's Future Land Use Map to include all of the property owned by the Village Inn Restaurant at the southeast corner of 400 South and 900 East.) c. Implementation—Planning staff recommends changing the Plan's implementation timeframe for initiating the rezoning process from 1-5 years to 1 year. 3. Non-conforming industrial land uses. The Plan notes the policy of encouraging relocation of heavy industrial uses to appropriate locations. (pg. 51,Policy ILU-2.2) At the Council briefing, information was requested regarding criteria used to identify industrial uses to be relocated,a list of specific types of industrial uses to be relocated,clarification of the policy in regard to what steps should be taken in relocating industrial uses,facilitating redevelopment and implementation of the policy. One Council Member noted that if the City's desire is to have people live in the City residents should be able to live and work in the City rather than forcing jobs outside the City. The Administration's memo notes: • The policy noting relocation of heavy industrial uses reflects existing policy of the 1974 Cental Community Master Plan. • The policy to encourage the relocation of heavy industrial uses has been a passive policy in that the zoning classifications within the Central Community has not permitted heavy industrial uses since the 1960's. • The relocation policy is a general approach and is not targeted at specific business but targets types of industries(i.e. assembly plants). • Examples of heavy industrial uses are chemical manufacturing and storage,drop forge • industry,explosive manufacturing and storage,flammable liquids,gases or heating fuel 2 distribution and storage,grain elevator, incinerator for medical or hazardous waste,paint • manufacturing and refineries. • The proposed policy was specifically placed in the master plan text to reaffirm existing policy of prohibiting expansion of such industries. • There is no intent for a specific program to assist in the relocation of heavy industries to more appropriate locations within the City. 4. Central City Small Area Master Plan-The Administration's memo notes additional text will be added to the Plan identifying development of a small area plan for the Central Community neighborhood. (This would be included in the Implementation Measures section,Item 2. Specific Plans,pg. 107.) The small area plan would address issues raised at the Council briefing including conunercial encroachment,light rail,proposed transit-oriented development and"walkable community"ordinances,and protection of the low-density neighborhood character of the area. Specific boundaries of the small area plan would be established during the small area planning process. 5. Council's Downtown Development Policies—The Administration's memo notes that additional text will be added to the Plan from the Council's policy statement on the future economic development for downtown. (Please see page 6 of the Administration's memo for specific language to be included in the Plan.) 6. Business participation in the master plan process. At the Council briefing, Council Members inquired as to the notification and participation of various business organizations in the planning process such as the Chamber of Commerce,the Downtown Alliance. The Administration's memo notes that review of the mailing lists soliciting comment at open houses and public hearings.included • the Downtown Alliance,Downtown Retail Merchants Association and over 100 individual businesses. In addition,a representative of the Vest Pocket Business Coalition was a member of the master plan advisory committee. The Redevelopment Agency along with other City Departments was involved in the development of the Plan and had opportunities to address issues and concerns. C. Additional issues discussed at the Council briefing included: 1. Examples of steps to be taken to increase parks and open space or identify parcels for park development. Planning staff noted that the implementation section of the Plan is intended to take the City to the next step to address at a more detailed level specific actions required to address individual open space or park needs. 2. Specific recommendations or actions that would generate a budget impact. Examples identified by Planning staff included: • Increasing funding for code enforcement staffing and city housing resources. • Allocating resources or funding for development of specific neighborhood plans. • Funding capital improvements. 3. The rational for including staffing and non-land use related recommendations in planning documents. (Example—pg. 113 -#11 Funding—Continue to fund the Salt Lake City Arts Council and other organizations that sponsor special events or activities related to cultural entertainment.) Planning staff noted that since the development of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan and in planning communities in the City that are largely developed,master plans often contain more specific recommendations and implementation strategies. s 3 4. Opportunities or steps that could be taken to increase public participation in the master plan process. Council Members noted the desire to include more business owner participation and better coordination with other governmental agencies such as the Utah Transit Authority. Planning staff noted: • Generally there is not a broad range of participation in the master planning process. • Development of the small area plans recommended in the Plan would provide an opportunity to increase participation of area residents,business owners and other groups. • Any rezoning recommended in the Plan would require notification and involvement of affected property owners. • The current master planning process includes: o An advisory committee made up of representatives from the community,open houses and the public hearing process. o Review of the Plan by City Departments and other outside governmental agencies. 5. Non-conforming uses. At the Council briefing,Council Members expressed concern regarding the potential of creating new non-conforming uses based on proposed zoning changes recommended in the Plan. Council Members also discussed with Planning staff steps that could be taken to address issues relating to existing non-conforming uses. (Please see above-Item 2.Zoning and land use policy conflicts for additional related information.)Planning staff indicated: • The Plan identifies an implementation measure to address this as a separate issue. The intent is to provide an in-depth evaluation to determine an appropriate zoning classification,develop a new zoning classification or establishing a legal conforming status for existing uses. (See pg. 45, Future Neighborhood Commercial Evaluation Map and pg.111,Implementation#12.) • Several commercial land use policies identified in the Plan also address the neighborhood commercial non-conforming use issue. (See pgs. 46—49 for specific statements.) • The Administration is currently considering new regulations that would support placing the non • - conforming uses in an appropriate zoning classification and the use of performance zoning to address potential impacts and compatibility issues. 6. Steps that could be taken or best practices to implement the vision,policies and goals of the Plan into everyday application such as through the building permit process. Planning staff indicated that implementation would include modification of the current Zoning Ordinance and zoning classifications to reflect the Plan recommendations through the use of revised standards or design guidelines. 7. One Council Member suggested possibility of initiating a Council audit to evaluate the performance of the zoning since the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project. 8. One Council Member,noting the wide geographic area encompassed by the Plan and the variety of land use issues generated through the planning process, inquired as to whether it may be more practical to divide the planning area in order to provide a more unified and timely approach to address future land use issues. Planning staff indicated that it would be possible to divide the area in to two separate areas: 1)the higher density downtown mixed-use area and 2)the lower density residential area 900 South to 2100 South and 500 East to 1300 East. MA UIIRS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members have noted that the master plan notification process does not include each individual property owner. Often property owners are not aware of the recommendations in the master plan until such time that they may be selling their property or they are contemplating future development. Property owners are notified when a zone change is initiated to implement the master 4 • plan. The Council has received numerous complaints from property owners who assert that they are at a disadvantage if they do not support the change because the policy relating to their property has already been set and they are not only opposing a zoning change but also facing the requirement that the masterplan be changed in order for their position to prevail. Council Members may wish to discuss if it would be appropriate to include property owner notification in the master plan process. While a mailing to every property owner has not been done to date on this masterplan,the Council could elect to have every property owner notified of the hearing. B. Council Members may wish to identify any additional specific changes they would like to see in the Plan in addition to those recommended in the Administration's memo. For example: 1. Recommend that the planning area be divided into two separate areas as discussed at the Council briefing. (See item 8,pg. 4 of this memo for details.) 2. Remove recommendations and implementation strategies relating to staffing and non-land use related items. (See item 3,pg. 3 of this memo for details.) cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,LeRoy Hooton,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Tim Harpst, LuAnn Clark,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Enzo Calla,Cheri Coffey,Elizabeth Giraud,Everett Joyce,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,Sylvia Jones,Lehua Weaver, Annette Daley,Barry Esham,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Master Plans • 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 14,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-36-Central City Master Plan Update AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the master plan is adopted,the Plan will affect Council Districts 4 and 5 and small portions of Council Districts 3 and 7 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development-Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce,Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared that would adopt the Central Community Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 5,2002. As noted by the Administration, • the proposed master plan will update and replace the existing 1974 master plan that has guided land use and development in the Central Planning Community. In addition,several neighborhood and specific area plans have been adopted since 1974. The neighborhood and small area plans will continue to be administered along with the updated Central Community Master Plan. (Please see the Administration's transmittal for a list of individual plans.) B. The Central Planning Community is one of eight community planning areas in the City. The boundary of the Community is located from North Temple and South Temple south to 1700 South and 2100 South and from Interstate-15 east to University Street and 1300 East. The area contains a wide variety of land uses including the Central Business District,the Gateway area,intermodal hub, industrial,commercial,institutional land uses,and a range of low to high-density residential areas. The Community includes some of the oldest stable residential neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. C. The Planning Community was divided into seven neighborhood planning areas to better address a wide variety of land use issues,existing and potential development impacts and specific neighborhood concerns. The areas include Gateway,Downtown,Central City,East Central North, East Central South,Liberty and People's Freeway. Each area is discussed separately in the plan and includes the following sections. (Please see Central Community Neighborhoods section,pages 7-23, in the Plan for details.) • A geographic description • Historic and neighborhood description(Historic elements and individual neighborhoods are identified. For example,the Bryant,Bennion,University,and Douglas neighborhoods are listed within the East Central North neighborhood planning area.) • Demographic profile(2000 Census information is provided relating to population,school aged children,residents 65 years or older,number of housing units including owner occupied and percent of vacant units.) • Issues that relate to the specific neighborhood planning area. 1 D. Recommendations in the Plan relate to: 1. Land use—identifies appropriate location,density and intensity of various land use types throughout the Central Community. The creation and implementation of additional small area or neighborhood plans intended to address land use and neighborhood issues at a more detailed level than the community-wide plan. Proposed small area planning areas identified by the Administration are listed below. (The Administration has indicated to Council staff that specific boundaries will be determined at the time the proposed small area or neighborhood plans are initiated.) • 1100 East Residential/Business area • West Temple Gateway area • Salt Lake Community College expansion area • State Street corridor • 450 South pedestrian corridor • 900 South between 200-500 East Residential/Business area 2. Community-wide policies—addresses commercial development and redevelopment,housing, parks,open space,historic and neighborhood character preservation,urban design,transportation, public facilities and infrastructure. 3. Implementation—identifies specific action items and a range of 1-20 years or ongoing timeframes to implement policies and recommendations. E. Council staff has noted key elements,summarized goals and policy statements and provided implementation measures from the proposed master plan. Please refer to the attached documents for details: 1. Attachment 1—Central Community Master Plan Update-Summary 2. Attachment 2—Implementation • F. The public involvement process included reviews by an Advisory Committee,affected Community Councils(Central City,East Central,East Liberty Park,Liberty Wells,People's Freeway and Rio Grande),business owners,property owners,and government representatives. The Advisory Committee included representatives from the Community Councils,residential,business and institutional property owners,and representatives of government agencies affected by potential development in the area. G. Issues and concerns discussed at the Planning Commission hearings and with the Historic Landmark Commission include the following general categories: 1. Options to address oversimplification of the Plan due to the wide-range of land uses and a wide variety of issues affecting individual neighborhoods within the boundaries of the planning area. (As noted above,the area was divided into seven neighborhood planning areas to better address the wide variety of land uses issues,existing and potential development impacts and specific neighborhood concerns. This action was taken at the direction of the Planning Commission.) 2. The extensive public participation process and the length of time taken to develop the Plan. 3. Various land use issues including height,scale,land use compatibility,density,view corridor protection,neighborhood character and historic preservation,and zoning conflicts. 4. Expansion of the boundaries of the Central Business District to the south and west to including portions of the Gateway area and the Intermodal Hub site. 5. Nonconforming commercial land uses and structures in residentially zoned areas. 6. Cumulative impacts relating to the location of conditional uses and special needs housing and facilities. 7. Conflicts between neighborhood character compatibility and current zoning classifications411 that promote new development that may have design components(height, scale,density,size) that may substantially alter the character of the area. 2 8. Conflicts between historic preservation policies and existing zoning designations that may have unintended impacts such as increasing land values that contribute to speculation, boarded buildings and demolition. 9. Editing,restructuring and revising the plan to clarify issues and policies and eliminate unnecessary text. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: ➢ OPTIONS: 1. Forward the master plan to a future Council meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional written information or refer to an additional Council work session. 3. Do not advance the master plan to a future Council meeting for consideration. > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in greater detail specific elements in the proposed Plan and issues,comments and opinions that continue to be raised by Community Council representatives and constituents.(Please refer to the Planning staff reports,Community Council letters and Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission minutes for details.) Planning staff has indicated that several projects are currently underway in the Planning Division that will address many of the issues. Council Members may wish to request a summary of the projects including a timeframe from the Administration. In addition,the Council's recent discussions regarding implementation of a design review process would address many of the issues. Major issues are summarized below. • A. Nonconforming commercial land uses and structures in residentially zoned areas.(The Plan identifies an implementation measure to address this as a separate issue. Pg.111,Implementation #12.Planning staff notes that the Administration is currently considering new regulations that would support placing the nonconforming uses in an appropriate zoning classification.The intent is to provide an in-depth evaluation to determine an appropriate zoning classification,develop a new zoning classification or establishing a legal conforming status for existing uses.) B. Cumulative impacts relating to the location of conditional uses and special needs housing and facilities.(The Plan identifies an implementation measure to address this as a separate issue. Pg. 108—Implementation# 12. The intent is to provide an in-depth evaluation of concentration and spacing with respect to neighborhood impacts.) C. Conflicts between existing zoning classifications versus neighborhood character compatibility and historic preservation concepts or policies. D. Conflicts between recommendations in the Plan for increased height,density,mixed-use and transit-oriented development versus the Community's desire for preservation of view corridors and existing residential housing,limiting height and density,increasing opportunities for diverse, lower-scale infill and mid-block housing,home-ownership,and useable open space. > BUDGET RELATED FACTS Recommendations and implementation measures in the proposed Central Community Master Plan may have a budget impact such as increases in funding for additional Administrative staffmg and resources,programs and planning costs,and future capital improvements.(Please see Attachment 2 for specific implementation measures.) Examples include: A. Administrative • 1. Increase funding for code enforcement staffing and city housing resources. 3 2. Increase administrative resources for public education and information about property re- investment and rehabilitation. 3. Obtain additional funding and staffmg to provide more direct and informative customer • services to the general public and applicants requesting city licenses,permits or assistance with municipal codes and procedures. 4. Assist industrial land uses to relocate to other appropriate industrial areas outside of the Central Community. B. Program and Planning 1. Develop the following specific neighborhood plans: a. 1100 East Street Residential Business zoning district small area plan. b. West Temple Gateway Plan. c. Salt Lake Community College expansion area. d. State Street corridor plan. e. 450 South small area plan. f. 900 South between 200 and 500 East Residential Business zoning district small area plan. 2. Create incentive programs that assist development of rental and owner-occupied affordable housing,residential rehabilitation and neighborhood improvement programs. 3. Establish a grant or matching loan program to assist residential and commercial property owners in the maintenance and renovation of historic properties. C. Capital Improvements 1. Improve the linear park along the west side of 700 East between 1300 South and 2100 South. 2. Construct interior mid-block access corridors for more convenient pedestrian and non- motorized circulation through the City's 10-acre block neighborhoods. 3. Develop public funding resources for neighborhood identity projects. MASTER PLAN& POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration notes that principles and policy concepts outlined in the proposed master plan • are consistent with policy statements in the City's Vision and Strategic Plan,the Futures Commission report,the Housing Policy Plan and other related master plans.The August 1,2002 Planning staff report lists the following adopted plans that relate to the Central Community planning area: 1. Central Community Development Plan(1974) 2. Gateway Development Master Plan(1998) 3. Downtown Plan(1995) 4. Urban Design Element(1990) 5. Open Space Plan(1992) 6. East Downtown Neighborhood Plan(1990) 7. East Central Neighborhood Plan and addendum(1984/1990) 8. 1300 East University District Area Plan(1990) 9. East Central Community Small Area Master Plan(1992) B. Council staff has summarized policy statements and provided the Implementation Actions from the proposed master plan. (Please refer to Attachment 1 and 2 for specific statements.) C. 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. • 4 CHRONOLOGY: i ➢ BACKGROUND The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed chronology of events relating to the master plan process.Please refer to the Administration's chronology for full details.Key meeting dates are listed below. > KEY DATES • January 1994—August 1996 Initial consultant draft • January 1997—January 1998 Public input to develop issues document • 1998— 1999 Develop concepts to address issues and redraft the master plan • 1999—2001 Review and revision of the draft master plan • 2001 —2002 Planning Commission adoption process • cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,LeRoy Hooton, Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Roger Evans,Tim Harpst, LuAnn Clark,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Cheri Coffey,Elizabeth Giaurad,Everett Joyce,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,Sylvia Jones, Janne Nielsen, Annette Daley,Barry Esham,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Master Plans • • 5 3,. Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 ATTACHMENT- 1 CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN-SUMMARY KEY ELEMENTS A. A Vision for the Central Community of the Future B. Central Community Neighborhoods 1. Neighborhood Planning Areas 2. Gateway 3. Downtown 4. Central City 5. East Central North 6. East Central South 7. Liberty 8. People's Freeway C. Land Use 1. Introduction 2. Residential Land Use 3. Commercial Land Use 4. Industrial Land Use 5. Institutional Land Use 6. Parks,Open Space and Recreational Land Use 41111 7. Transit Oriented Development D. Access and Mobility E. Historic Preservation F. Urban Design G. Environment H. Public Utilities and Facilities I. Implementation Measures 1. Future Land Use Map and Future Specific Plans 2. Residential Land Use 3. Commercial Land Use 4. Industrial Land Use 5. Institutional Land Use 6. Parks,Open Space and Recreation 7. Transit Oriented Development 8. Access and Mobility 9. Historic Districts and Sites 10. Urban Design 11. Environmental 12. Public Utilities and Facilities • 1 c Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 GUIDING PRINCIPALS and GENERAL GOALS III A. Guiding Principals 1. Identify and address the issues,policies and implementation actions presented in The 1974 Central Community Development Plan, which were not achieved. 2. Create a user-friendly document that clearly communicates the vision,goals,and policies to guide and manage future growth in the Central Community. 3. Establish a foundation that supports quality living and does no harm to citizens, especially those with limited abilities. 4. Maintain and improve the Central Community's historic fabric. 5. Expand mobility and accessibility options for all segments of the community. B. General Goals 1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community,regardless of age or ability. 2. Improve and support community involvement,public participation,and neighborhood activism in the Central Community. 3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing,capital improvement programs,and public services. 4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the community. 5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. 6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community. 7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility. III 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. 9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications. C. Residential Land Use Goals 1. Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. 2. Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods. 3. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale,character, and density. 4. Encourage a variety of housing types for higher-density multi-family housing in appropriate areas such as East Downtown,the Central Business District,the Gateway area,and near downtown light rail stations to satisfy housing demand. 5. Discourage any compromise to the livability,charm,and safety of the neighborhoods or to the sense of a healthy community. D. Commercial Land Use Goals 1. Improve the current economic diversity of the Central Community and continue to support viable existing commercial areas. 2. In accordance with the Downtown Master Plan and the Gateway Area Master Plan,create a viable commercial center that supports 24-hour-a-day activities in the Central Business District and the Gateway Area. • 2 Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 3. Support cultural,shopping,employment,entertainment,and related uses that encourage the desire to • live in or near the Central Business District. 4. Prohibit the expansion of typical auto-dependent strip commercial shopping center development in residential neighborhoods. 5. Promote pedestrian-oriented business. 6. Respond to the need for safer pedestrian interactions with automobile traffic and parking. 7. Encourage and support quality small business development in existing commercial areas and nodes of the Central Community. E. Industrial Land Use Goals 1. Provide for development of clean,quiet,and attractive light industrial land uses suitable for business parks and warehousing in appropriate locations west and south of the Central Business District. 2. Restrict existing industrial land uses to their present locations and prohibit expansion into other areas of the Central Community. Encourage relocation of existing heavy industrial uses to appropriate areas in Salt Lake City. F. Institutional Land Use Goals 1. Provide for a variety of public and quasi-public institutional land uses in the Downtown and Gateway areas to serve the residents,tourists,and visitors in the City. 2. Minimize adverse impacts from existing uses. 3. Minimize the expansion of institutional uses in residential neighborhoods. G. Parks,Open Space and Recreational Land Use Goals • Provide adequate,safe,and accessible recreation opportunities by: 1. Preserving existing parks; 2. Ensuring adequate maintenance and repair of parks and open space; 3. Promoting multiple use of park and recreation facilities;and 4. Increasing the amount of parks and usable open space in order to achieve national standards for park space. H. Transit Oriented Development Goal • Establish the benefits of Transit-Oriented Development through land use designations,design guidelines,zoning and public funding. L Access and Mobility Goals 1. Provide for safe,convenient circulation of vehicular and non-vehicular traffic within neighborhoods and Downtown. 2. Encourage commuter traffic and mass transit to use appropriate routes to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods. 3. Encourage traffic speed reduction on residential streets and promote pedestrian and non-automobile transportation modes. 4. Ensure that people in wheelchairs can move through our City elegantly and are not relegated to unsafe, backdoor,or less convenient routes. • 3 Central Community Master Plan Update Summary-2/03 J. Historic Preservation Goals • 1. Preserve the community's architectural heritage,historically significant sites and historic neighborhoods. 2. Ensure that development is compatible with the existing architectural character and scale of surrounding properties in historic districts. K. Urban Design Goals 1. Make the Central Community more attractive and livable by applying the best urban design practices. 2. Implement visual and aesthetic standards for urban design that enhance the Central Community. 3. Design public facilities that enhance the character of the community and encourage coordination, linkage,and balance between land uses. 4. Encourage property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. L. Environment Goals 1. Provide a safe and healthy environment for the Central Community 2. Minimize the risks of natural environmental hazards 3. Preserve and protect the Central Community's land,air and water resources. 4. Provide leadership and set an example in all environmental areas. M. Public Utilities and Facilities Goal • Provide and maintain dependable infrastructure,public facilities and utilities that ensure adequate services and a safe environment in the community. • • 4 Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 • POLICY STATEMENTS A. Residential Land Use 1. Based on the Future Land Use map,use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. 2. Preserve and protect existing single-and multi-family residential dwellings within the Central Community through codes,regulations,and design review. 3. Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community. 4. Encourage mixed-use development that provides residents with a commercial and institutional component while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. B. Commercial Land Use 1. Provide a range of commercial land uses in the Central Community. 2. Support new and existing commercial businesses and improve commercial development opportunities in the Central Community. 3. Encourage commercial projects in and near light rail corridors to support transit-oriented development. 4. Ensure commercial land uses are compatible with neighboring properties. 5. Prevent commercial property from deteriorating and causing neighborhood blight. C. Industrial Land Use 1. Promote light industrial and commercial development in the areas designated as Regional Commercial/ Industrial Land Use. 2. Limit Industrial land use development within the Central Community. 3. Prevent industrial land use deterioration through reinvestment. D. Institutional Land Use 1. Mitigate the impacts Institutional land uses on surrounding residential neighborhoods. 2. Ensure that cultural and entertainment resources are made available to the Central Community. 3. Improve the availability of educational,research,information,and technology resources throughout the Central Community. 4. Provide public services that meet the needs of the community. 5. Ensure that the Central Community is properly served by adequately distributed medical services. 6. Ensure that the Central Community's need for religious institutions is adequately met. 7. Ensure that the Central Community is properly served by adequately distributed social services. E. Parks and Open Space 1. Provide an adequate amount of varied park,open space,and recreational land uses. 2. Protect and preserve existing parks and open spaces. Protect the people using them. 3. Obtain adequate funding for the acquisition,development,maintenance,and repair of parks,open space, and recreation sites. 4. Require the incorporation of open space into the design of mixed use and high-density land uses. • 5 Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 F. Transit Oriented Development(TOD) • 1. Based on the Future Land Use map,establish Transit-Oriented Districts with a range of land use densities. 2. Encourage increased transit ridership to help reduce vehicle miles traveled in the Central Community. 3. Encourage the development of mixed-use projects near light rail stations to create a livable,walkable urban environment. 4. Ensure that architectural design review, site planning,and public amenities are incorporated into the creation of TOD districts. 5. Support historic preservation in Transit-Oriented Development Districts. G. Access and Mobility 1. Improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation throughout the community through coordination of transportation and land use planning. 2. Improve vehicle circulation through street design and traffic signal synchronization. 3. Develop,design,and construct mass transit facilities that minimize circulation conflicts. 4. Relate right-of-way designs to land use patterns. 5. Ensure pedestrian mobility and safety. 6. Address parking concerns within the Central Community. H. Historic Preservation 1. Ensure the preservation of historic structures and development patterns. 2. Use building codes and regulations to support preservation. 3. Implement the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City to ensure the • compatibility of new construction with existing historic buildings. 4. Identify new historic sites and expand National Register historic districts. 5. Increase the public's awareness about Historic Preservation. I. Urban Design 1. Implement guidelines,and regulations for urban design to improve the quality of living in the Central Community. 2. Create programs and guidelines to enhance neighborhood identity. 3. Provide for physical changes that improve the urban design characteristics of the Central Community. J. Environmental 1. Minimize the potential damage and loss of life caused by earthquakes. 2. Minimize the risks of flooding in the community. 3. Support the Salt Lake City Green program. 4. Ensure that one of Salt Lake City's highest environmental priorities is to protect and preserve its water resources. 5. Manage urban development to protect the environment and the well-being of the community. 6. Establish and support citywide-recycling efforts designed to extend the life of the Salt Lake City/County solid waste facility. • 6 Central Community Master Plan Update Summary—2/03 II/ K. Public Utilities and Facilities 1. Ensure that funding mechanisms are in place for continued service in the Central Community. 2. Ensure the provision of sewer,water,and storm drain services can handle the capacity needs of new development and population growth. 3. Ensure that solid waste is removed from the Central Community and treated in a manner that will extend the life of existing landfills. 4. Ensure that public streets are maintained and improved throughout the Central Community. • • 7 0 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 • ATTACHMENT--2 CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN- IMPLEMENTATION Implementation measures for the Central Community Master Plan are applicable either community- wide or to a specific neighborhood.The agencies involved are within City departments as well as outside agencies.The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division(HAND),Transportation Division, Redevelopment Agency(RDA),Planning Division,the Arts Council,Business Services,Building and Permits,and the development review and zoning compliance staff are all part of the Community and Economic Development Department(CED)of the City. Future Land Use Map and Future Specific Plans Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Zoning: Review the zoning district map and Community- Planning 1-5 initiate and process appropriate zoning petition wide years changes to make the zoning district map consistent with the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. 2 Specific Plans: Develop the following plans: Community- Planning 1-10 a. 1100 East Street Residential Business zoning wide years district small area plan. b.West Temple Gateway Plan. • c. Salt Lake Community College expansion area. d. State Street corridor plan. e. 450 South small area plan. f. 900 South between 200 and 500 East Residential Business zoning district small area plan. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Financing Improvements: Create incentive Community- RDA,HAND, On-going programs that assist development of rental and wide Planning, owner-occupied affordable housing,residential rehabilitation and neighborhood improvement programs. 2 Community Participation:Empower Community- Community 1-5 communities through block and neighborhood wide Affairs,Arts years, associations.Create a neighborhood recognition Council, On-going program to increase community involvement. Police, Recognition could include: Historic a.Maintaining yards and attractive street frontages, Landmark b.Rehabilitated and well maintained homes, Commission c. Public and private art-work, d. Front porch designs, e. Crime prevention practices. I 1 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 3 Community Information: Investigate land use Community- Planning 1-5 years practices and inform residents,business owners and wide decision-makers of best land use practices. 4 Housing Design:Establish administrative Community- Planning On-going procedures that require review of the design and wide architecture of new residential construction to address neighborhood scale,character and pedestrian circulation. 5 Housing Location: Evaluate distribution and Community- HAND, Every 5 spacing of independent senior,assisted and elderly wide Planning years care residential facilities. Such facilities should be located near accessible commercial retail sales and service land uses and mass transit stops or stations. 6 Housing Opportunity: Create an open space credit Community- Planning, 5-10 or land trade program for planned developments to wide Public years increase concentration of residential land use in Services,City higher density urban areas and preserve existing Attorney open space areas(yard space or undeveloped lots). 7 Housing Opportunity: Conduct site-specific land Community- RDA, On- use studies and prepare plans for residential infill wide Planning, going, development areas.Target specific residential areas HAND every 5 for block redesign and/or infrastructure years improvements. 8 Housing Opportunity: Create a separate TOD People's Planning 1-5 years zoning district that includes residential land use and Freeway, urban design regulations to support transit and Central City pedestrian developments. and East Central North 9 Housing Opportunity: Evaluate compatibility, East Central Planning 1-5 years service,function,value and impacts to surrounding North and neighborhoods of converting non-conforming land Central City uses to residential uses. 10 Housing Opportunity:Develop appropriate Community- Planning, 5-10 standards for accessory,studio and secondary wide HAND, years dwellings in low-density residential neighborhoods. Business Services 11 Zoning Investigation: Evaluate zoning,housing, Community- Planning, On-going traffic and building codes that impact residential wide Building and design standards to improve the quality of Safety residential neighborhoods. 12 Zoning Investigation: Map conditional use East Central Planning 1-5 years locations and evaluate to determine the appropriate North and threshold of conditional uses that indicate a Central City cumulative impact in residential neighborhood areas. Evaluate the concentration and spacing of conditional uses with respect to neighborhood impacts and protection of the housing stock. • 2 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 • Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 13 Zoning Investigation: Review mixed use zones to Gateway and Planning 1-5 years consider requiring a residential host and Central City encouraging community-oriented land uses integrated with residential projects and to consider combined living and professional office units throughout the same building. 14 Zoning Investigation: Evaluate the potential for Community- Planning 1-5 years zoning district classification that permits single- wide family detached dwellings on lots ranging from 2,500-5,000 square feet. 15 Zoning Investigation:Evaluate the RMF-35 People's Planning 1-5 years zoning districts within the People's Freeway Freeway neighborhood. Determine an appropriate zoning classification that protects the low-density residential character while allowing increased density through accessory dwelling units and protecting existing apartments. Consider a combination of the low-density TOD district or a special residential district. 16 Code Investigation:Evaluate property Community- Planning, 1-10 maintenance programs,regulations and penalties. wide HAND, years, Identify successful programs,tools and Development every 5 strengths/weaknesses of regulations and penalties. Review years Determine and implement necessary code amendments that support infill housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 17 Administrative Resources: Increase Community- Planning 1-5 years administrative resources for residential design wide review at adequate levels to address neighborhood compatibility issues. 18 Administrative Resources:Increase funding for Community- HAND 1-10 code enforcement staffing and city housing wide years resources. 19 Administrative Resources: Increase Community- Planning, On-going administrative resources for public education and wide HAND information about property re-investment and rehabilitation. 20 Administration Tracking: Monitor population Community- Information On-going growth and condition of housing stock changes on wide Services, an annual basis. HAND 21 Housing Preservation: Conduct historic resource Community- Planning 1-10 surveys to identify future residential sites worthy of wide years preservation and historic designation. • 3 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time IIIArea Involved Frame 22 Housing Preservation: Determine the viability of Community- Planning 5-10 conservation and historic districts for expanding wide years neighborhood preservation opportunities. Obtain necessary staff and resources to fulfill Central Community's demand for residential preservation. 23 Housing Preservation: Establish a volunteer Community- HAND,RDA, On-going program where architectural building features are wide Planning salvaged when demolition of residential property takes place. Make salvaged items available for reuse on other rehabilitation projects. 24 Housing Preservation: Revise the Housing Community- HAND, 1-5 years Mitigation ordinance to make mitigation efforts wide Planning relate better to the housing loss. Commercial Land Use Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Promote:Provide recognition/awards for Community- Business On-going businesses that contribute to the community beyond wide Services, regular business operations. Mayor,City Council 2 Administration:Host annual meetings or Community- RDA, 1-5 years workshops for property owners and entrepreneurs wide Planning,CED to encourage development of business/commercial • property. 3 Administration: Obtain additional funding and Community- Business 1-5 years staffing to provide more direct and informative wide Services customer services to the general public and applicants requesting city licenses,permits or assistance with municipal codes and procedures. 4 Administration:Develop city ordinances that Community- Planning, CED On-going support small business development incentives. wide 5 Administration: Develop a program to work with Community- Planning 1-5 years community level commercial property owners to wide further develop pedestrian oriented amenities. 6 Administration: Evaluate and amend penalties for Community- Zoning 1-5 years non-residential property owners who fail to wide Compliance, maintain properties.Increase code enforcement Planning staffing to address increased development. 7 Administration: Provide resources for Community- Business 1-5 years demographic information about the community. wide Services, Make available demographic information,forms, Information applications and development information on the Services internet. 8 Administration: Create a support program for Community- Business 1-5 years small"home grown"businesses with incentives for wide Services locally owned businesses. 411 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time 411, Area Involved Frame 9 Incentives:Evaluate a land or financial credit Community- RDA,Planning 5-10 program for commercial projects that contribute to wide years open space,residential land use or public space areas beyond minimum zoning regulations. 10 Incentives:Increase program support for the Community- RDA,Business On-going storefront rehabilitation program that includes wide Services matching funds,grants,or low interest loans for small-scale neighborhood commercial revitalization. 11 Design: Evaluate existing signage within the Community- Planning, On-going community and review and modify sign regulations wide RDA,Arts to encourage more aesthetically pleasing signs that Council are well maintained. 12 Zoning Analysis:Evaluate neighborhood Community- Planning 1-5 years commercial nodes to determine appropriate design wide guidelines and amend zoning regulations and maps appropriately.Implement a neighborhood commercial node program that addresses land use, design,infrastructure,funding assistance and boundaries relevant to neighborhood commercial and residential growth patterns. 13 Economics:Require an economic analysis as due Community- Business On going diligence prior to permitting significant new wide Services 1111 commercial developments.Annually analyze economic growth based upon land use designations and zoning to verify whether Salt Lake City is supporting land and business development that provides net economic gain. 14 Opportunity:Evaluate and identify locations Community- Business 5-10 where temporary businesses such as fanners wide Services, years markets,craft fairs,or similar"open air"markets Planning, can be converted to permanent community fixtures Public Services within plazas or squares. 15 Land Development:Evaluate and amend City Community- Planning,City 1-20 ordinances to encourage the use of transfer of wide Attorney years development rights,first right of refusal(city authority),and density bonus incentives. Industrial Land Use Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Relocation: Assist industrial land uses to relocate People's Planning 10-20 to other appropriate industrial areas outside of the Freeway and years Central Community. Gateway 2 Zoning: Re-evaluate zoning applied within the Community- Planning 1-5 years regional commercial areas to minimize intensive wide industrial businesses and land uses. • 5 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time IIArea Involved Frame 3 Circulation: Improve street access to properties People's Planning, On-going located between Interstate-15 and 200 West and Freeway Public Services between 900 South and 2100 South Street. INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Medical: Develop a program and incentives to Gateway Planning,RDA 5-20 locate community and regional medical facilities in years the Gateway Area. 2 Zoning:Review the zoning ordinance use tables to Community- Planning 5-10 evaluate when and where institutional land uses wide years should be required to be processed as conditional uses. Investigate if there is an over-concentration of conditional uses that have a cumulative impact on neighborhoods. 3 Zoning:Review zoning regulations to allow People's Planning 1-5 years institutional,cultural and entertainment facilities Freeway, within Transit Oriented Development areas to Central City create destinations and increase accessibility. and East Central North 4 Zoning: Study and develop revisions to the zoning Community- Planning 1-5 years ordinance to allow the integration of ancillary wide • commercial uses in institutional zones. 5 Location: Investigate the feasibility of constructing Gateway Planning 20 years a stadium,arena,or amphitheater to become an extension of the southern Gateway anchor between 600 and 1300 South and Interstate-15 and State Street. 6 Location:Locate cultural/entertainment facilities Community- Planning On-going such as museums,educational and technology wide centers and art centers in complementary and supportive areas of the community. 7 Location: Coordinate with the Public Safety Community- Emergency On-going Division to establish tactical locations within wide Management, neighborhoods for ambulance,medical and police Public Safety, services. Planning 8 Location: Review zoning codes to ensure they Community- Planning, On-going encourage locating independent living facilities wide Housing,RDA near neighborhood friendly commercial nodes, transit stops,social services,and community centers and to distribute specialty housing throughout the community II 6 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 • Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 9 Community Outreach: Improve communication Community- Business On-going processes for neighborhoods abutting college wide Services, campuses to address issues relating to campus Planning expansion.Work with colleges and universities to develop campus master plans and programs. 10 Community Outreach: Coordinate review of Community- Planning On going medical and clinic expansion projects and other wide institutional land uses with neighborhood organizations. 11 Funding: Continue to fund the Salt Lake City Arts Community- Business On-going Council and other organizations that sponsor wide Services,Arts special events or activities related to cultural Council entertainment. 12 Design:Evaluate local government buildings to Community- Public On-going incorporate shared space for retail sales,business wide Services,CED service uses and other activities. Make use of government buildings beyond the typical hours of operation. 13 Design:Establish policy and procedures to Community- Planning, On-going incorporate the concepts of Crime Prevention wide Police, Through Environmental Design(CPTED)into the Development design review of all projects. Review • 14 Design: Develop policy guidelines to ensure the Community- Planning, On-going design of public spaces encourages natural wide Public surveillance by residents living near public spaces Services, and activity areas. Police,RDA 15 Design:Review policy and ordinances to increase Community- Planning On-going design review of institutional land use projects to wide ensure they are aesthetically attractive centers of activity,in scale with the neighborhood and contribute to the architectural integrity of the surrounding area. 16 Parking: Evaluate zoning and code enforcement Community- Planning, On-going policies to resolve parking issues for institutional wide Business land uses through alternative and shared parking Services programs. 17 Institutional Re-use: Investigate vacant or Community- Planning On-going abandoned institutional uses for potential wide conversions to open space or residentially compatible land uses. • 7 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Codes: Review City policies and ordinances for the Community- Urban Forester, 5-10 protection and the creation of urban habitat for wide Planning, years flora and fauna that adapt to the urban Public environment.Adopt programs and regulations Services, supporting the preservation of unique native Public Utilities, vegetation areas,ravines,creeks,water bodies, Development wetlands,canyons,and natural open spaces. Review 2 Codes: Develop ordinance that requires adequate Community- Planning 1-5 years open space for residents of high-density residential wide projects. 3 Funding:Identify the tax benefits of conservation Community- Planning, 1-5 years easements. wide Public Services, Policy and Budget 4 Program: Develop a long-range park construction Community- Planning, 1-5 years schedule to implement the Parks and Recreation wide Public Master Plan for the Central Community. Services, Engineering 5 Program: Create a trust fund,endowment or Community- Planning, 1-5 years donation program that provides funding sources for wide Public park acquisition. Services, • Property Management 6 Program: Develop a strategic plan for land Community- Planning, 1-5 years acquisition to provide usable parks to reach the wide Public Parks and Recreation Master Plan open space per Services, population standard. Property Management 7 Program: Establish programs for transfer of Community- Planning, 1-5 years development rights or open space credits to obtain wide Public open space. Services, Property Management 8 Program: Implement public participation Community- Community 1-5 years programs that include plant-a--tree,playground wide Affairs,Public equipment placement,and park maintenance. Services 9 Program:Implement a`Neighborhood Watch Community- Community 5-10 Park Patrol"program for residents to conduct foot wide Affairs,Police, years patrols through park sites similar to Mobile Public Services Neighborhood Watch programs. 10 New Park: Acquire and develop portions of the People's Planning, 5-20 Interstate 15 off-ramp at 900 South,converting the Freeway and Property years viaduct area between 300 West and West Temple Gateway Management, to an open space corridor when the right-of-way is RDA abandoned by the State. • 8 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time • Area Involved Frame 11 New Park: Pursue opportunities to reduce park and Central City Planning On-going open space deficiencies of the Central Community by implementing projects such as the 450 South Corridor and the Library Square block. 12 Monitor: Evaluate crime statistics for park sites Community- Public On-going and determine security and safety needs.Redesign, wide Services, relocate,or eliminate park sites that are Police neighborhood nuisances and attract criminal and undesirable activities. 13 Design: Create incentives to encourage developers Community- Business On-going to provide neighborhood parks or contribute wide Services, property towards park,open space,and recreation Planning land uses. 14 Design: Create pedestrian rest areas at key trail and Community- Engineering, 5-20 street intersections. Include amenities such as wide Public years benches and visual art. Services, Planning,RDA 15 Future Project:Provide trails,bike paths,or bike Community- Planning, 10-15 lanes to connect parks,school playgrounds and wide Engineering, years sport fields as open space destination points to the Public trail system. Services,RDA 16 Future Project: Bring City Creek to the surface Gateway and Planning, 5-15 between the Central Business District and the Downtown RDA,Public years • Jordan River. Utilities, Engineering, Public Services 17 Future Project:Improve the linear park along the Liberty and Planning, 5-15 west side of 700 East between 1300 South and East Central Public Services years 2100 South. South Transit Oriented Development Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Codes: Create Transit Oriented Development Community- Planning 1-5 years zoning regulations and apply to the transit areas wide depicted on the Future Land Use map. 2 Codes: Create design guidelines that provide Community- Planning, 1-5 years landscape and open space standards,art wide Development requirements,and architectural elements to support Review transit oriented development. 3 Codes: Re-evaluate regulations for residential and Community- Planning, 1-5 years commercial parking near and in Transit Oriented wide Development Development areas regarding adequate Review requirements and parking maximums. 4 Codes: Develop a design review mechanism for Community- Planning 1-5 years Transit Oriented Development to provide - wide compatibility review with respect to impacts on • abutting residential land uses. 9 • Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time • Area Involved Frame 5 Codes:Evaluate ordinances to require business Community- Planning, On-going deliveries in Transit Oriented Development areas to wide Zoning take place during off-peak hours to reduce traffic Compliance congestion. 6 Finance:Investigate federal funding sources,tax Community- RDA, On-going incentives,fee waivers,grants,and loans for wide Planning, developing Transit Oriented Development areas. Business Services 7 Land Use:Develop pedestrian amenities in high- Community- Planning, On-going density areas near light rail stations. wide Transportation 8 Tracking/Monitoring: Review regulations where Community- Planning On-going historic districts and Transit Oriented Development wide districts coexist to ensure appropriate preservation. Access and Mobility Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Administration:Incorporate the Transportation Community- Transportation, On-going Master Plan policies during the site plan and design wide Planning,RDA review process. 2 Administration:Incorporate the Bicycle and Community- Transportation, On-going Pedestrian Master Plan policies during site plan and wide Planning, design review of development applications. Public Services • Continue to develop bike paths and trails on 300 East, 800 and 1300 South,and 200 West. 3 Administration:Obtain ownership or control of Community- Transportation, 5-10 State(UDOT)owned streets and arterials located wide Public Services years within the Central Community. 4 Design: Establish design standards or guidelines to Community- Planning, On-going minimize conflicts between mass transit,pedestrian wide Transportation and automobile circulation. 5 Design:Review site plans to evaluate and Community- Planning, On-going encourage the construction of direct pedestrian wide Public connections,pathways,and pedestrian zones Services,RDA relative to neighboring land uses,parking lots and mass transit. 6 Future Project: Construct interior mid-block Central City Planning, On-going access corridors for more convenient pedestrian and East RDA, and non-motorized circulation through the City's Central North Engineering, 10-acre block neighborhoods. Transportation 7 Future Project: Coordinate with the Utah Transit Community- Planning, On-going Authority on the location of bus stops and transfer wide Transportation points to support the community land use patterns. 8 Future Project:Evaluate the opportunity for city Liberty and Transportation 1-5 years and/or private funded shuttle systems that serve the People's local community. Support a shuttle system for the Freeway Salt Lake Community College to light rail stations. 10 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 • Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 9 Future Project: Evaluate ways to enhance People's Transportation, 1-5 years pedestrian mobility within the People's Freeway Freeway Public Neighborhood. Provide improved and safer Services, SLC pedestrian corridors connecting People's Freeway School Board to the residential areas east of State Street, especially for school children. 10 Codes:Identify and support legislation that Community- Planning, 5-10 implements traffic management programs such as wide Transportation years establishing building square foot threshold Development maximums and requiring traffic mitigation for Review increasing traffic volumes. 11 Codes:Evaluate City policies for the conversion of Community- Planning, 5-10 private streets to public streets for roadways that do wide Property years not comply with standard city street specifications. Management 12 Parking:Evaluate ordinances to locate parking -Peoples Planning, 1-5 years structures and bicycle storage at light rail stations Freeway,East Transportation away from residential neighborhoods to reduce Central North UTA vehicle traffic impacts. and Central City 13 Parking:Investigate the use of shared parking Community- Business On-going between day and evening land uses to prevent on wide Services,RDA, street parking problems. Planning • 14 Parking:Determine where on-street parking areas Community- Transportation, 5-15 need to be provided within the Central Community. wide Planning years HISTORIC PRESERVATION Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Assist: Investigate ways to assist property owners Community- Planning, 5-10 in maintaining or rehabilitating historic properties wide RDA,HAND years to satisfy design guidelines. Establish a grant or matching loan program to assist residential and commercial property owners in the maintenance and renovation of historic properties. 2 Codes:Administer the Design Guidelines for Community- Planning On-going Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City to wide ensure compatible renovation and construction. 3 Codes:Establish design guidelines for commercial Community- Planning 5-10 and multi-family historic buildings and signs. wide years 4 Codes:Re-evaluate uses permitted within historic Community- Planning 1-5 years structures as a means to preserve the structure. wide 5 Codes: Review zoning regulations to ensure Community- Planning On-going existing zoning does not encourage or promote the wide demolition of significant and contributing structures or properties. 6 Codes:Design a new zoning district to allow for Community- Planning 1-5 years • increased density,but not increase building mass or wide height in existing historic structures. 11 • Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame io 7 Codes: Develop an ordinance to discourage vacant Community- Planning 1-5 years or bordered buildings that are contributing or wide landmark sites. 8 Codes: Strengthen the Economic Hardship section Community- Planning 1-5 years of the zoning ordinance. wide 9 Research:Fund historic resource surveys at both Community- Planning On-going the reconnaissance and intensive level to identify wide sites and neighborhoods that have historic or architectural significance and designate the sites and districts to national or local registers where appropriate. 10 Education:Inform developers and property Community- Planning, On-going owners of State regulations relating to protecting wide Development archaeological sites. Review 11 Education:Make design guidelines and historical Community- Planning On-going and preservation information more easily wide accessible through publications,the i ternet,and specific organizations.- 12 Funding:Continue to apply for historic Community- Planning On-going preservation grants for administration of districts wide and landmark sites and to assist in physical rehabilitation of designated historic buildings and properties. 13 Funding:Increase funding for the administration Community- Planning On-going • and enforcement of design guidelines and wide regulations for historic districts. Urban Design Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Administration:Evaluate ways to implement Community- CED 1-5 years design review through committees,boards or wide administrative staff. 2 Administration:Expand the City's Development Community- CED 1-5 years Review Team(DRT)to address urban design as wide part of the required permit process. 3 Administration:Improve the coordination Community- Planning, On-going between long range planning and zoning to ensure wide Development that codes are consistent with master plans and Review applied in design review processes. 4 Administration:Maintain the Salt Lake City Community- Planning, On-going Urban Design Review Committee that reviews and wide Business makes recommendations on City capital Services improvement projects. 5 Funding and Administration: Develop public Community- Community 1- 10 funding resources for neighborhood identity wide Affairs,Arts years projects. Involve the Salt Lake City Arts Council Council in promoting neighborhood identity with public art. • 12 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 • Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 6 Codes: Evaluate the application of performance Community- Planning, 1-5 years zoning standards and practices. wide Development Review 7 Codes: Evaluate design guidelines to ensure they Community- Planning On-going support"special population needs"including wide elderly,children,and people with disabilities. 8 Codes: Create a compatibility ordinance for new Community- Planning, 1 year construction(infill),renovations,and restorations. wide Development Review 9 Codes: Develop ordinances that require block Community- Planning 1-5 years development plans for development projects wide exceeding 40%of a block area. 10 Codes:Develop design guidelines that support Community- Planning,RDA On-going neighborhood and community development in wide Transit Oriented Development districts with emphasis on pedestrian and residential spaces and the public realm. 11 Code:Evaluate the requirements for visual Community- Planning, 1-5 years screening of all mechanical equipment from public wide Development view. Review • 12 Guidelines: Define established neighborhood Community- Planning 1-10 boundaries and identify neighborhood entries wide years through urban design elements that include landscaping,neighborhood architectural characteristics,signage,and streetscape amenities. 13 Guidelines:Develop policies that require design Community- Planning, On-going review including the use of CPTED principles of wide Public Services all public parks,open space and recreation facilities. 14 Design Enhancements: Locate overhead utilities Community- Public 1-15 underground during new construction and when wide Services, years replacing outdated facilities. Engineering, Planning 15 Design Enhancements:Provide street trees and Community- Public Services On-going replace dead or damaged trees in parks and open wide space areas. 16 Future Project: Strengthen the urban design Downtown Planning, 1-10 features of State Street between the State Capitol Engineering years and City&County building with consistent street fixtures. • 13 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time • Area Involved Frame 17 Future Project: Identify visual characteristics and Community- Planning, 1-10 create landmarks at"gateway entries"within the wide Engineering, years Central Community,such as Interstate access Public Services points to the Central Business District and Gateway area. 18 Future Project:Investigate planting of a double Central City Public 1-5 years line of street trees along 500 and 600 South Streets Services, to minimize high traffic volume impacts on Planning adjacent residential properties. 19 Future Project:Install street furnishings, Community- Planning, 1-10 landscaping,and sculpture that provide visual and wide Engineering, years aesthetic features along State Street, 700 East and Public 800 South. Services, 20 Future Project: Re-surface and extend City Creek Gateway Planning, 1-10 into the Gateway area. _ Public Utilities, years Engineering Environment Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Seismic:Develop codes that require geotechnical Community- Engineering, On-going reports for any development within 500 feet of an wide Planning, • identified fault. Public Utilities, Permits 2 Seismic: Encourage owners of existing buildings Community- Business On-going located near identified faults to provide seismic wide Services retrofits designed to help resist the force of Building and earthquakes. Safety 3 Seismic:Apply seismic building code standards to Community- Building and On-going construction within applicable areas to minimize wide Safety potential property damage. 4 Seismic:Design and construct all critical Community- Building and On going infrastructure improvements,public buildings and wide Safety institutional buildings to comply with building code standards for Seismic Zone 4. 5 Flood:Review all building permits to determine if Community- Building and On-going sites are located in 100-year floodplains. Require wide Safety, that buildings in a floodplain be designed to resist Development flooding. Review 6 Flood: Evaluate the flood plain areas in the Central Community- Planning, 1-5 years Community to determine if flood control system wide Public Utilities improvements warrant a change in flood zone classification. If so,request a map revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7 Water: Develop ordinances to preserve existing Community- Planning On-going open stream corridors. wide 411 14 Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time • Area Involved Frame 8 Water:Consistently administer and enforce the Community- Planning, On-going Groundwater Source Protection Ordinance. wide Public Utilities, Engineering, Building and Safety 9 Water:Develop programs and literature to help Community- Public Utilities On-going educate citizens about the importance of wide groundwater protection and appropriate handling and disposal of potential contaminants. 10 Water:Investigate use of the high water table in Community- Planning, 1-5 years the community. Determine the opportunity to re- wide Public use this water supply. Services, Public Utilities 11 Water: Conduct audit of City government water Community- Public Utilities, 1-5 years use and fund changes to decrease water waste. wide Public Services 12 Hazardous Materials:Expand City programs that Community- Planning, On-going support regional and local hazardous waste and wide Building and material plans or programs and develop high Safety,Public performance building practices. Services 13 Air:Develop transportation and parking policies Community- Planning, On-going 'that favor use of mass transit and non-motorized wide Transportation, transportation methods in order to help reduce RDA "cumulative air emissions. . 14 Air: Incorporate"cool communities"concepts into Community- Planning,RDA On-going the City's site plan review ordinance to help reduce wide the formation of ground level ozone. 15 Noise: Restrict the location of noise sensitive uses Community- Planning, On-going within noise-impacted areas. wide Building and Safety 16 Noise: Require noise attenuation measures to be Community- Planning, On-going incorporated into new construction and encourage wide Building and these measures in major renovation projects in Safety, noise-impacted residential areas. Development Review 17 Recycle:Initiate recycling programs that are cost Community- Public On-going effective,convenient to citizens and collect and wide Services, process a wide variety of materials. Planning 18 Recycle: Initiate recycling demonstration programs Community- Planning, On-going in the Central Community. wide Public Services 19 Recycle: Initiate and promote mulching, Community- Public Services On-going composting and biodegradable recycling programs wide throughout the Central Community. 20 Green Space:Provide new open space areas for Community- Public Services On-going watershed reclamation and storm water storage wide while providing recreation space in the Central Community. II/ 15 • Central Community Master Plan Update 2/03 Implementation Applicable Agencies Time • Area Involved Frame 21 Light: Evaluate and implement ways to reduce Community- Public On going light pollution and conserve energy. wide Services, Transportation, Planning, Development Review 22. Green Building Practices:Develop high Community- Building and On going performance/energy efficient building policies and wide Safety, implement codes to encourage green building Engineering, practices. Planning 23 Waste Management:Implement and pursue Community- Public Utilities, On going demonstration projects that improve the use of wide Engineering, recycled materials,biodegradable materials,solar Planning power and captured water. Public Utilities and Facilities Implementation _ Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Location: Establish standard locations within street Community- Public Utilities On-going rights-of-way for placement of underground wide utilities. 2 Location: Require all public utility distribution Community- Public Utilities On-going lines currently above ground be placed below wide ground at time of relocation or improvement. • 3 Design:Require screening of electrical substations Community- Planning, On-going and electrical equipment buildings with wide Public Utilities, landscaping and masonry walls. Arts Council 4 Future: Forecast public utility needs and services Community- Planning, On-going for the Central Community based on the future wide Public Utilities Central Community land use map and zoning maps. 5 Funding:Create alternative funding programs for Community- Public Utilities, On- private property owners for public infrastructure wide HAND. going. improvements. 6 Water Management:Explore the opportunity to Community- Public Utilities, On-going improve water conservation practices in public wide Planning, works projects and expand the education process in Engineering water management to the general public. 7 Parking Lots: Develop standards for requiring Community- Engineering, 1-5 years permeable asphalt parking lots for new construction wide Public Utilities, and parking lot renovation projects within Salt Planning Lake City. 8 Street Lighting: Support the public input process Community- Transportation, 1 year and adoption of the City's Street Lighting Design wide Planning , Element. 9 Street Medians: Develop and maintain street Central City Transportation, 1-10 medians on selected north/south streets identified and East Engineering, years within the Central Community Master Plan. Central North Planning • 16 C JAN 0 9 2002 SALTi� a j Nur cfi-araa` ' D ' ItoNi ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, C of dministrative Officer DATE: December 2, 2002 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-01-36: A request by the City Administration to update the Central Community Master Plan. CONTACT: Everett L. Joyce, Planning Division 535-7930 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Implementation proposals in the master plan may have a budget impact. DISCUSSION: This petition by Salt Lake City is a request to adopt the Central • Community Master Plan, which will update and replace the existing plan that has guided development of the Central Community since 1974. The Central Community is located between North Temple and South Temple streets to 1700 and 2100 South Streets and between Interstate-15 and University and 1300 East streets. Analysis: The Salt Lake City, City Vision and Strategic Plan contains an objective that states Salt Lake City will update its community master plans every ten years. The current community-wide master plan for the Central Community was adopted in 1974. Since 1974, several neighborhood and specific plans were adopted for portions of the Central Community. Some of the neighborhood and small area plans adopted are the East Central Neighborhood Plan and addendum (1984, 1990), the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan (1990)the 1300 East University District Area Plan (1991), the East Central 9th & 9`h Small Area Master Plan (1993), the Downtown Master Plan (1995), and the Gateway Master Plan (1998). These plans will continue to be administered in conjunction with the updated Central Community Master Plan regarding land use policy direction for these specific geographic areas. Land Use and the Central Community Master Plan The Central Community Master Plan's goals, policies, and implementation measures provide significant policy direction for the Central Community. Currently adopted small area and neighborhood plans will continue to be administered. The Master Plan supports the creation and implementation of additional specific small area and neighborhood • plans. Specific plans provide opportunity for community members to address land use 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: S01-535-6005 wcc.aco o.o.A and neighborhood concerns and issues more thoroughly than a community-wide plan. Future specific plans identified in the Central Community Master Plan are: I. The 1100 East Street Residential /Business area. 2. West Temple Gateway small area plan. 3. Salt Lake Community College expansion area. 4. State Street corridor plan. 5. The 450 South pedestrian corridor small area plan. 6. The 900 South Street between 200-500 East Residential /Business area. Managing future growth of the Central Community relies on successful implementation of this master plan and the existing neighborhood and small area plans. The land use designations and the Future Land Use map of this master plan depicts the desired general land use policy direction for the Central Community. Whenever, a conflict arises between the community master plan and a specific plan the specific plan should be the guiding policy. However, it should be noted that the adoption of the city-wide zoning district map in 1995 may have amended existing small area plans and this should be taken into consideration when evaluating policy related to land use in the Central Community. When conflicts with zoning and the Central Community Master Plan exist the community plan is the appropriate adopted land use policy, unless the master plan has been specifically amended. Public Process: The process to develop the proposed plan began in 1994 when the City hired a consultant 11111 to develop a new master plan. In 1997, the consultants developed an initial draft of the community master plan. The Planning staff, then continued to process and develop the initial draft of the Central Community Master Plan. In 1998, an issues document that identified the concerns of stakeholders in the community was prepared. Since then, the Central Community advisory committee, community councils, the public and the Planning Commission reviewed several drafts of the Central Community Master Plan. The following list summarizes the public review process: Central Community Advisory Committee: The advisory committee included chairs and appointed members from each community council in the Central Community and representatives from the Downtown Alliance,the Planning Commission and the City Council. Community Councils: The Central Community includes six different community councils. Each of these councils was briefed on numerous occasions during the plan development process. The community councils are Central City, East Central, East Liberty Park, Liberty Wells, People's Freeway and Rio Grande. The revised master plan with neighborhood descriptions was presented to the community councils between December 2001 and April 2002. All of the community councils have voiced their general support of the plan. In addition, between January and April staff met with members of the East Central and Central City community councils (at their request) to review the • entire document to clarify statements and eliminate unnecessary text. Open House: Several open houses and community workshops were held at various times over the past four years to gather public input and define issues. The latest open house was held on June 27, 2002. Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission public hearings were advertised in the newspaper and notice was mailed to the members of the East Central, East Liberty Park, Central City, Rio Grande, Liberty Wells and People's Freeway community councils. Relevant Ordinances: Utah State Code Section 10-9-304 Amendment of plan • • • • Proposed Ordinance • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Adopting the Central Community Master Plan) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-36. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held public hearings as required by Utah Code Annotated § 10-9-303; and WHEREAS, in 1974 the City previously adopted the Central Community Development Plan; and WHEREAS, due to recent developments in that area, the City Council finds that it is appropriate under U.C.A. § 10-9-301, et seq., and in the best interest of the City, to enact a new master plan for the central community; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: • SECTION 1. Adoption of Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan recommended for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on September 5, 2002, shall be and hereby is adopted, pursuant to U.C.A. § 10-9-303, for the area generally bounded by Interstate 15 on the west, by North Temple and South Temple Streets on the north, by University Street and 1300 East on the east, and by 1700 South and 2100 South on the south. SECTION 2. The City Recorder is hereby directed to retain three certified copies of the Central Community Master Plan, as it pertains to that geographic area, for the public records. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this _day of 2002. • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: _— Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR_.—— ---- • AT"I'PST: 7,77.1 CIIIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER a_2f al- — (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:Ordinance 02\Adopting the Central Community Master Plan-Nov 18,2002 doe • SEP 0 3 2003 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ;,.AFL USEFIT�.. 90 ti1I. l ROSS C. ANDERSON . PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Alison Weyher, CED Director SUBJECT: Central Community Master Plan, Petition 400-01-36 DATE: July 17, 2003 Attached is the Planning staff response to questions brought forward in the Central Community Master Plan briefing by City Council members. The briefing was held on February 18, 2003. If any additional information is required please let me know. cc: Louis Zunguze, Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey, Planning Program Supervisor Everett Joyce, Principal Planner 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535.7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 City Council Issues on the Central Community Master Plan 411 Planning Staff Response from the February 18, 2003 Briefing 1. Zoning and land use policy conflicts in the,Master,plan The City Council requested planning staff to identify the areas of potential zoning conflict with the Future Land Use map of the master plan. Response A zoning conflict map highlighting areas where existing zoning may conflict with the future land use policy is enclosed. A key implementation strategy of the master plan is that these zoning conflict areas would be evaluated through a rezoning process. This process will take a close look at land uses, development patterns and neighborhood character as well as obtain input from affected property owners. This evaluation process would also address the issue of the creation of nonconforming uses at that time. Detailed evaluation and public input will lead to recommended zoning changes or amendment of master plan policy through a public process culminating with public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. A final decision would be made to determine what zoning classification is appropriate and whether a unique zoning classification or zoning overlay is needed to implement the goals of the master • plan or whether modifications, to the future land use map for these potential conflict areas, are required. There are six different future land use categories within the Central Community Master Plan that have areas where they are mapped that existing zoning district classifications have a potential conflict with the land use category. The six land use categories are: A. Medium Density Mixed;Use, B. Low Density Mixed Use, C. Low/Medium Density Residential, D. Low Density Residential, E. Institutional and F. Transit Oriented Development. A. Medium Density Mixed Use conflict areas This land use designation allows integration of medium-density residential and small business uses at ground floor levels. Residential density would range between 10-50 dwelling units per acre. Medium-density mixed use neighborhoods will provide more intense residential land uses with commercial uses. The zoning conflicts in these areas are zoning districts that do not permit mixed-uses. • NOTE: The medium density mixed use areas are shown in purple on the conflict map. Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 1 B. Low Density Mixed Use conflict areas • Low-density mixed use allows a mix of low-density residential dwellings and small commercial land uses in structures that maintain a residential character. This mixed use designation encourages the type of business activity that owners can either operate out of their residences (live/work space) or in a residential structure. Residential density is limited to 5-10 dwelling units per acre. The zoning conflicts in these areas are residential zoning districts that do not support the mix of business and residential land uses. NOTE: The low density mixed use areas are shown in magenta on the conflict map. C. Low/Medium Density Residential Low/medium-density residential areas are mainly low-density neighborhoods containing a broad mix of dwelling units ranging from single family detached to single family attached dwelling units (three or more units per structure). The residential density range desired is 10-20 dwelling units per acre. The potential conflict is that the existing zoning designation may exceed the density ranges desired. NOTE: The low/medium density residential area is shown in tan on the conflict map. • D. Low Density Residential conflict areas This land use designation allows moderate sized lots (i.e., 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family detached homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached and detached dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning. The density range is 1-15 dwelling units per acre. The conflicts within these areas are that existing zoning densities exceed the low density residential character. NOTE: The low density residential conflict area is shown in yellow on the conflict map. E. Institutional conflict areas The institutional zoning conflict relates to the Salt Lake Community College at 1700 South and State Street. Along 1700 South between Edison and State Street there are parcels used by the college for parking that are zoned R-1-5000. The conflict is the residential zoning of parcels designated for Institutional land use on the Future Land Use map. NOTE: The Institutional conflict area is shown in blue on the conflict map. • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 2 F. Transit Oriented Development conflict areas Transit-oriented development districts within the Central Community have three designations: low-density, medium-density, and high-density. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is intended to support new residential and residential/mixed use development serviced by mass transit so residents and businesses can use the mass transit or walk to service needs, thus reducing automobile dependency. New development should be compatible with residential land uses and not negatively impact housing and mixed use development. The majority of the area identified with potential conflicts with the TOD land use designation are zoned CG General Commercial. When the appropriate TOD zoning classifications are developed these potential conflict areas will be looked at closer to determine whether or not they will be designated for land use and zoning designation changes. In reviewing the TOD conflict areas it was noticed that the Future Land Use map did not include all of the property for the existing Village Inn restaurant at the southeast corner of 400 South and 900 East Streets. The development consists of four parcels. The main parcel that includes the structure is zoned CC. The parking and landscape buffer areas are located on the adjacent three parcels. The Future Land Use map forwarded to the City Council designated these three parcels as medium density residential land use. All parcels of the restaurant should be designated for transit oriented development. The conflict map shown the three subject parcels in green and • that the existing zoning (RMF-35) conflicts with the TOD designation recommended for the Village Inn development. The Planning staff recommends that the Future Land Use map be adjusted to include the three adjacent parcels within the TOD designation. NOTE: The TOD conflict areas are shown in green on the conflict map. After reviewing and identifying the areas of potential zoning conflict the planning staff is recommending revision of the implementation strategy time frame of 1-5 years to 1 year for initiating appropriate zoning petition changes to make the zoning district map consistent with the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. (Master Plan Text-Revised text is bold and underlined) Future Land Use Map and Future Specific Plans Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 1 Zoning: Review the zoning district map and Community- Planning 1 year initiate and process appropriate zoning petition wide changes to make the zoning district map consistent with the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 3 2. Nonconforming industrial land uses The master plan contains the policy "Industrial land use strategy—Encourage relocation of heavy industrial uses". The Council requested staff to better define this policy and provide examples. Response The policy noting relocation of heavy industrial uses reflects existing policy of the 1974 Central Community Master Plan. The 1974 plan policy indicated that the Industrial Districts within the Central Community should be limited industrial type uses because of proximity to Downtown and residential areas. Limited industrial uses refers to uses, that are not noxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odor, smoke, gas, vibration or noise such as cement plants, flammable liquid storage, forges, medical waste incinerators and other heavy manufacturing uses. The 1974 zoning district map prohibited heavy industrial uses in the Central Community. The policy to encourage the relocation of heavy industrial uses has been a passive policy in that the zoning within the Central Community has not permitted heavy industrial uses since the 1960's. Limiting expansion of such industries encourages relocation if and when growth of the business makes it necessary to relocate. The relocation policy is a general approach and is not targeted at specific businesses but targets types of industries (i.e. assembly plants). Heavy industrial land uses are permitted in the M-2 zoning districts of Salt Lake City which are located in the western portion of West Salt Lake community and the northwest portion of Capitol Hill i community. Heavy manufacturing is defined as the assembly, fabrication, or processing of goods and materials using processes that ordinarily have greater than average impacts on the environment, or that ordinarily have significant impacts on the use and enjoyment of adjacent property in terms of noise, smoke, fumes, odors, glare, or health and safety hazards, or that otherwise do not constitute light manufacturing". Examples of heavy industrial uses are chemical manufacturing and storage, drop forge industry, explosive manufacturing and storage, flammable liquids, gases or heating fuel distribution and storage, grain elevator, incinerator for medical or hazardous waste, paint manufacturing, and refinery. Examples of existing heavy industries within the Central Community are steel or iron fabricators and processors and cement manufacturers. Examples: Allen Steel (1340 S 200 W), Mark Steel (455 W. 600 S), Valley Steel Processing (557 W 600 S) and Mountain Cement Co. 615 W 800 S). The "Encourage relocation of heavy industrial uses"policy was specifically placed in the master plan text to reaffirm existing policy of prohibiting expansion of such industries. This policy is presently supported through existing zoning patterns. There is no intent for a specific program to assist in the relocation of heavy industries to more appropriate locations within the City. • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 4 3. Central City SAMP - small area master plan The City Council requested that planning staff address the impact issues of commercial encroachment, light rail, TOD, walkables ordinances and the desire to protect the low density character. Response Text has been included in the master plan for the development of a small area plan for the Central Community neighborhood. This plan would address the items/issues listed above with analysis and policy direction that would protect the neighborhood character. The Central Community Council neighborhood boundaries are from South Temple Street to 900 South and from State Street to 700 East Street. During the process of developing the small area plan the specific boundaries of the small area plan would be established. (Master Plan Text- Revised text is bold and underlined) Future Land Use Map and Future Specific Plans • Implementation Applicable Agencies Time Area Involved Frame 2 Specific Plans: Develop the following plans: Community- Planning 1-10 a. 1100 East Street Residential Business zoning wide years district small area plan. b. West Temple Gateway Plan. c. Salt Lake Community College expansion area. d. State Street corridor plan. e. 450 South small area plan. f. 900 South between 200 and 500 East Residential Business zoning district small area plan. g.Central Community Neighborhood small area plan. • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 5 4. Include the City Council's downtown,development policies" The City Council requested that planning staff include the Councils downtown development policies in the Central Community Master Plan. Response Text has been included in the master plan. (Master Plan Text - Revised text is bold and underlined) Future Commercial land use changes As with residential land uses, this Master Plan recognizes that changes in commercial land uses are inevitable and need to be managed. Future Commercial Land Use designations are based on existing land uses,the1995 zoning patterns, and light rail construction. Central Business District The boundary of the Central Business District was expanded in 1990 with adoption of the Urban Design Element to create redevelopment opportunities south and west of the historical downtown Salt Lake City core in order to discourage large-scale commercial land uses from encroaching into lower density residential neighborhoods to the east of Downtown. The • purpose of the support area is to encourage reuse of existing warehouses and industrial buildings located west and south of the Central Business District. The boundaries of the Central Business District and the support area are depicted in the Central Community Future Land Use map. The January 2003 Salt Lake City Council policy statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown urges the administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. Downtown development should address the following elements: Business center,Retail, Institutional center,Local government and related public facilities,Arts,culture, entertainment and nightlife,Tourism and Housing. Commercial land use policies Variety of commercial services CLU-1.3 Central Business District: Increase multiple land use activities within a dense urban area following the guidelines established in the Downtown Master Plan and in the City Council's Downtown Economic Development Policy.The area should become a 24-hour center of activity. • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 6 • 5. Number of businesses involved in master plan The City Council noted concern about the lack of businesses involved in the development of the master plan. (i.e. Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, Business Advisory Board, RDA) Response Review of the mailing lists soliciting comment at open houses and public hearings included Downtown Alliance, Downtown Retail Merchants Association and over 100 individually listed businesses. In addition, a representative of the Vest Pocket Business Coalition was a member of the master plan advisory committee. The Redevelopment Agency along with other City Departments was involved in the development of the master plan and had opportunities to address their issues and concerns. It appears that there was adequate outreach effort to affected business representatives, as well as individual businesses. • • Planning Staff Response to the City Council briefing on the Central City Master Plan 7 Inset#1 Inset#2 • r znusouTH w mJ-- Central Community „s a i7i Y � @ Rne , a _ T 1 Potential Future Land Use/Zone n .. it _■.:_ D2l .: �R 1 � __ ..la �__�_Q Conflict Map ��Ig 300 SOUTH u I F. CN• a V°YLES Fn N of} 1 -- -___ - w� ti I ' �� NeRa -_ CB-CommBssRam CC-Cos aR-L soao - CG-Ge^° . � J R-_`_. CN-Neighborhood Commercial Low Density Density Use FLU/Zone Conflicts x^.errs^v n uwoar n �,aoo SOUTH CS-Community Shopping ®Low/Medium Residential FLU/Zone Conflicts _ A I I'�" _ -- --- -- 1 -- ,� ep LowtDensity Residential FLU/Zone Conflicts_ = Il - -- RI4tF3 D-1-Central Business District0.Ip _ D-2-Downtown Su ort Insti uti na FLU/Zone Co icts � x�etsd r- -- I e^B5us A°I_ - i r'uL o4 ���� _ D-3-Downtown Warehouse/Residential TOD FLU/Zone Conflictsnfl v^1 `� -. o �_ D-4-Seconds Central Business Distirct ��� pi d , ,g pL 1 $ GMU-Gateway Mixed Use 7 2 a a L J re,. ^xo a I -os I- - Fz _ � ., ..o r: —,_, I-InstitutionalOpen pace a xxsno"r a s..me K r,w xnav '„P-3$ - PL Public Lands 8 s g r ve� N . -aos p a a n"'" -5 y,,, _ r— R-1-5 •Single-Family Residential N 1 - a ' �' i ,EmEv - � _-_ m R-2-Singla and Two-Famlly Residential g "a'A° L sp' R MU Residential/Mixed Use J g L 1 as"" �@mmos R.8 45 g W 8 RB-Residential/Business _ o I ai _ — - •' RMF-30-Low Density Multifamily Residential . ��^ nL I-I_ n; RMF-35 Moderate ensity Multifamily Residential e s k E- IN o I s,`-1 _- d - RMF-45-Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential 0o FFF LMI ` m -' - --- _ - - wo SOUTH RMF-75-High Density Multifamily Residential I - PL4� 35 r --_ RO-Residential/Office d 1 -Uri I li--f 7 n 1 cowrvtn I- SR-1-Special Development Pattern Residential r. -j m SR-3-Special Development Pattern Residential • Inset#3 'Note:The following Future Land Use Designations N xrq.�C re,c have no confldiem ctsDe-Density R sid Density 1,High D el, L __ High/Medium DensM Residential,High Density Mixed Use ri,II .°, Medium Dens Mixed Use Medium DensityResidential, Ft35 $ 1-7■ ��� �;�1 • '[I In.-. e3 Community Residential/Office Mixed Use tonal Co CommerGal, Ft i xe ■l 3 Commumry Commercial,Regional Space Commercial, " It J W Central Business Disintt end Open Specs III III 1F�I' i I 11R 9u„max *R El 1— - _ I o v _ - -. r re I wo�gl I s ����u. ��..in" ■..:,r'ir.'_\HAMS HAMS^ _ n 0 I ;�—tea.. �� � �� 1111!� _ '�� '� � - ri Hi I �Ll - 5 L. .�-4 , I 1 II lt ' ___ .. a t CG < - 7'.� RO k O- - I. J� - n kr kte ` A- po.x lxx n {1- k 'u ..,,, —,--:-•- - _,, -e E J I x - i c um x urrox^v a fi ri axae BP �_ Hap �Z' �r °- [ 1 o ir� ■ - wsi •_ fi_ _r_i � � 1H 'r »�—i 1 I J 1 tl l I 11-Pi 1- ,r--i u I g I 1�-4,,� ;rey�08�v c iw,vo==;,