Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10/21/2003 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Absent: Councilmember Eric Jergensen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Lyn Creswell, Assistant City Attorney; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use & Transportation/Subdivisions; Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Finance Director; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Steve Fawcett, Deputy Director of Management Services; Steve Wetherall, Golf Manager; Greg Mikolash, East Bench/Subdivisions/Condominiums Planner and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No report or announcements were given. #2. INTERVIEW JAMES FISHER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mr. Fisher said he was a retired businessman and was active in the Liberty Wells Community Council. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF GRANT FUNDS. View Attachment Gary Munford, Sherrie Collins and Gordon Hoskins briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Hoskins said the audit started the same time the Finance Division took control of grant acquisitions and monitoring functions. He said at that time some of the recommendations made in the audit were already being implemented and currently all of the recommendations had been implemented. A discussion was held regarding grant writers. Councilmember Turner asked if grant writers coordinated with each other. Mr. Hoskins said since moving to the Finance Division two writers had been centrally located and one was on site at the Police Department. He said they met on a weekly basis to discuss goals. He said one goal was to meet with departments yearly and understand what they needed from the grant writers. Councilmember Buhler asked about auditing of grant writing and monitoring of the grant when awarded. Mr. Hoskins said a grant writer's function was for acquisition. He said management and monitoring was turned over to departments and the grants monitoring specialist. Ms. Collins said compliance with grants for Salt Lake City was approximately 95%. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there were two parts to compliance, compliance with the Federal requirement and consistency with what the Council voted for. She asked the 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21 , 2003 Administration to report to the Council on the Council's appropriation and how funds were spent. Councilmember Saxton asked who applied for grants and who determined priorities for what grants would be applied for. Mr. Hoskins said Mayor Anderson had directed them to go after every amount of grant funding possible. He said they made an effort to meet with departments to understand their needs. He said in the past the Council had not been notified of applications for grants. He said that had changed and now the Council was notified in the beginning so they were able to have response in the beginning of the application. A discussion was held regarding what types of grants were being awarded. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Hoskins if he had the correct system to track grants. Mr. Hoskins said they were using an excel spread sheet that was on a common drive. He said this allowed access for multiple users. He said the spread sheet was in two areas, one was read only and the other allowed changes. A discussion was held regarding the financial tracking system for grants. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF THE GOLF PROGRAM. View Attachment Steve Wetherell and Gary Mumford briefed the Council. Councilmember Buhler said Salt Lake County had to subsidize their golf courses and Salt Lake City golf courses were enterprise funds. He said the program was well run and a service to customers. Councilmember Saxton referred to a questionnaire done by the League of Cities and Towns regarding how the public saw golf courses. She said the questionnaire reviled that most people did not see them as a priority city service. She encouraged affordable pricing for citizens of Salt Lake City. Councilmember Turner asked about inventory control. Mr. Wetherell said the procedure had been upgraded. He said golf professionals were given the latitude to act as buyers for the City based on their knowledge of the merchandise and what customers wanted. He said purchase requests were reviewed by the Golf Administration before issuance of a purchase order. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Wetherell if he had the internal resources to continue a successful golf program. Mr. Wetherell said he felt the program would be successful. He said his main concern was if the County put more funding into County courses, City courses would not be able to maintain competitiveness. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1665 EAST KENSINGTON AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-35 (Joseph Knowlton, Kathleen Knowlton) . View Attachment Janice Jardine, Doug Wheelwright, Brent Wilde and Greg Nichol briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Jardine referred to a memo with changes to information Mr. Knowlton submitted. Councilmember Buhler said the issue was a matter of balance between open space in an urban area and private property rights. He suggested an executive session to consult with the Attorney's Office. He asked if a developer purchased the property and wanted to develop, would the issue come back to the Council. Mr. Wheelwright said that would depend on what the development proposal was. He said if it was to modify or replace the existing home it would not come back to the City Council. He said a 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21 , 2003 proposal for additional units due to frontage limitations would go through the Planning Commission only. Mr. Wheelwright said there would be a presentation to the affected Community Councils, and then consideration by City staff. He said a staff report would be written by the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission would make the decision. He said an appeal would go to the Land Use Appeals Board and then to a court. He said the process could take several months. Councilmember Buhler said the Council' s decision was zoning not development. He said the flood plain issue was a dispute. Mr. Wheelwright said the Planning Commission recommended rezoning only the portion of two parcels which were not in the 100 year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. Mr. Wheelwright said the difference of opinion between the property owner and City staff was what portion of the two parcels were in the 100 year flood plain. Councilmember Buhler said he thought the elevation had been raised nine feet. Mr. Wheelwright said the property in the current configuration was in the 100 year flood plain. Councilmember Buhler asked if it was a possibility that the property elevation had been raised and the FEMA map had not been changed. Mr. Wheelwright said filling could have changed the hydrology of the drainage channel. He said Public Utilities Engineering had looked at the area and the understanding was that even the fill would be flooded by the 100 year flood based on data before the property was filled. He said filling could make the flood situation worse. Councilmember Buhler asked if the only way to determine this was with a new survey and study. Mr. Wheelwright said that was correct and the new data could be submitted to FEMA. Councilmember Lambert said litigation would occur and an executive session needed to be scheduled. Councilmember Christensen asked if other areas of the City in the flood plain were issued building permits. Mr. Wheelwright said the Federal Flood Insurance Program was administered by Public Utilities. He said his understanding was that building was prohibited in the 100 year flood plain. Ms. Jardine referred to Page 4 of the Planning staff report identifying Chapter 16.68 of the City Code. She said this chapter was about development in flood plain. She some construction was allowed. Councilmember Love asked about the Open Space Plan. Mr. Wheelwright said the area was in the Emigration Creek corridor. He said the connection potential of various public parcels along the creek was a concept not an existing trail. A discussion was held regarding Wasatch and Sugar House Community Councils recommendation not to change the zoning. Ms. Jardine said the Mayor' s Open Space Committee also recommended not changing the zoning. She said Bonneville Hills Community Council did not want to comment. A discussion was held regarding the noticing process. Councilmember Buhler asked how the noticing process would be handled today. Mr. Pace said notice would be mailed to the property owners, Community Councils and to a certain radius of surrounding property owners. Mr. Pace said currently proper notice had been sent. Councilmember Buhler asked how the parcels were zoned prior to 1995. Mr. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 Wheelwright said they were zoned Residential (R-2) . He said R-2 allowed single family housing and duplexes. Councilmember Buhler asked Ms. Jardine to find instances since 1995 when zoning had changed to open space and what kinds of precedences there had been. Councilmember Christensen said a hearing date would be set for November 18, 2003. All Council Members were in favor of the date. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD. View Attachment Gary Mumford, Jamie Knighton and Lyn Creswell briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said the change was to add members to the pool of the board to facilitate timely convening. Mr. Mumford said currently six members were elected by employees and four were appointed by the Mayor. A discussion was held regarding how often the board met and the need for a quorum. Mr. Creswell said there was potential for conflict. He said board members should not be from the same department as the employee. Councilmember Buhler asked if any thought had been given to trading off with County employees to sit on the City board and City employees on the County board. Mr. Creswell said the state statute was specific in stating employees of the municipalities. He said the statute was being looked at by the League of Cities and Towns for revision. Councilmember Christensen said the issue would be moved forward. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING FUNDING EMPLOYEE LEAVE. View Attachment Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked where the unfunded portion of employee leave would come from. Mr. Fluhart said the unfunded potion would come from departmental budgets. He said on occasions when a department was not able to fund leave a budget opening was submitted. A discussion was held regarding leaving portions open to accrue savings to pay for the cost of leave pay. Councilmember Christensen asked what future obligations would be. Mr. Fluhart said $13 million was the long term obligation and included employees hired 30 years ago and employees hired this year. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Fluhart for hard figures regarding future obligations and the cost of an actuary study. A discussion was held regarding funding projected leave expenses in the Police and Fire Departments and no other departments. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Administration had responded to a letter from the Council regarding an early retirement legislative statement. Mr. Fluhart said the issue was complicated and the Administration was working on a response. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Fluhart to submit last year's payouts outside of the fund. #8. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING AN OPEN SPACE TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD. View Attachment Lynn Pace and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Councilmember Love asked if the City acquired property and the property was put into an open space land trust, could the property at a later date be removed from the trust 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21 , 2003 and sold. Mr. Pace said the pending ordinance created a board and a fund. He said it did not create an entity to hold real property. He said if the Council wanted an entity for holding real property the ordinance would need to be re-drafted. Ms. Gust-Jenson said research had found that property given to the City could be held through other entities such as the Trust for Public Lands. She said they would receive the property briefly and place a conservation easement on it, then return title to the City. She said if this was done it could not be removed from the trust and sold. A discussion was held regarding legal protection of properties. Councilmember Christensen said the conservation easement should be held jointly by a private entity and the government. He asked if adjoining property owners should be noticed regarding the City acquiring property for open space. A discussion was held regarding State law for giving notice for real estate transactions. A discussion was held regarding representatives of several entities serving as members of the Board. Councilmember Love suggested getting input from various groups regarding who should serve on the Board. She suggested mailing a letter to key groups and individuals who served on the Mayor' s Advisory Committee on open space be sent before the public hearing. Councilmember Buhler said written comments would also be welcomed. #9. RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE DISTRICT SIX OLYMPIC LEGACY PROJECT. Councilmember Buhler presented a small clay version of the Children of Light sculpture that had been chosen for the District Six Olympic Legacy Project. He said a request for proposal (RFP) had gone out to Utah artists asking for a child of light sculpture to be placed at the Foothill Library and five miniatures to be donated to five elementary schools in District Six. He reviewed members of the selection committee. He said the committee narrowed down the selection to four finalists. He said those finalists gave the committee a presentation. He said the artist selected was Craig Varner. He said the sculpture would be completed in the spring, would be approximately 5 and a half feet tall, and be cast in aluminum. He said the five miniatures would be cast in bronze and be 18 inches tall. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. cm 03 - 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2003 SUBJECT: Grant Funds-Audit Observations and Recommendations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council contracted with Deloitte& Touche CPA firm for several small audits. The audits were not extensive or all-encompassing but were very limited-scope studies with rather small budgets. One of the audits was an analysis of Grant Funds. The City's grant process consists of seven main phases: grant opportunity identification, application development, Administrative approval, submission, award, City Council budgetary authorization, and management. All except for the last phase is under the direction of the City Controller. Grant management consists of grant coordination, which is located within the City Department where the grant monies are being spent, and grant monitoring, which is located in the Capital Planning and Programming section of the Department of Community & Economic Development. The audit noted that there were some opportunities to increase the effectiveness of grant acquisition and monitoring functions, by preparing written policies and procedures, by ensuring segregation of functions, and by considering a review committee and follow-up processes. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Grant acquisition and monitoring functions have undergone a dramatic reorganization within the past two years and written polices and procedures have not yet been developed for all aspects. The auditors recommended developing citywide policies and procedures related to all grant acquisition and monitoring functions. 2. A matrix is used for tracking grants, but data integrity could not be assured because the.matrix can be edited by a number of individuals in several departments. The auditors recommended establishing control procedures to ensure reliability. 3. Further effort is needed to ensure that grant management and grant monitoring functions are properly segregated to support appropriate internal controls over the disbursement and review of grant funds. There appears to be uncertainty surrounding the location and duties of the Police Department grant writer. 4. Consider creating a cross-functional Grant Review Committee to determine whether the proposals are consistent'with City policies, are coordinated with the City's existing programs and are evaluated for immediate and long term financial consequences. 5. Implement a follow-up process for denied grant applications to increase the likelihood of obtaining grant funding by modifying future applications. MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE The grant acquisition team has been centralized in the Finance Division for less than two years. In the past year,the grant acquisition team has developed policies and procedures with an accompanying flowchart documenting the grant acquisition process. These documents can be found on the City's intranet and also on the FOLIO information system. The Grant Matrix consists of several spreadsheets. Tracking grants through the acquisition process is only one function of the matrix.The Grant Matrix also serves as a research reference log and as an inter-department communication tool. Grant applications are listed in the different spreadsheets in the following categories: Research Grants being researched Grant opportunities pending a submission decision by departments Pending Grants applications submitted to a funding agency and waiting for a funding decision Received Grants that have been awarded Not Received Grants that have been declined Open Grants Grants being monitored by the Grant Auditor Declined grant applications and grants in the research phase have notes attached to them that the grant writers and departments can refer to in the future to guide the development and submission of competitive grant applications.The Grant Matrix is-updated by the grant acquisition team and the grant auditor. Other city employees may review the information on the matrix on a READ ONLY basis. The grant acquisition team is functionally centralized in the Finance Division in the Department of Management Services. The grant acquisition team meets with the Finance Director on a bi-weekly basis to review the team's progress. One grant writer is physically located at the Police Department. Because of the volume of grants and the technical nature of the Police grants this person is handling the acquisition and management of the Police grants. The alternative is to hire additional personnel in the Police Department for the management function. Many times an application for a grant must be processed in a matter of a few days. We believe that a Review Committee would delay the process and application deadlines would be missed. In lieu of the proposed Review Committee,the grant writers qualify each potential grant application to make sure that the purpose of the granted funds, as defined by the funding agency,is aligned with a department's goals or strategic plan. The grant writers meet with city departments throughout each year to gain an understanding of their current goals and programs that could benefit from grant funds. These meetings guide the grant application research provided to the departments by the grant acquisition team. The department contacts are tracked through the city's Balanced Scorecard. The procedural flowchart illustrates how grant applications are reviewed by the department then the legal staff prior to submission and finally approved by the administration for the Mayor's signature. The Council Office is notified via email or memorandum of all grant applications that are submitted. Once a grant application is awarded to the city,the Council has the final budget authorization on the grant expenditure. The grant team routinely receives detailed evaluations of denied grants. As mentioned above, once a grant has been denied it is moved to a different spreadsheet in the Grant Matrix. Summary notes of the evaluations are logged in the Grants Matrix and hard copies are filed in the grant acquisition teams'central files. The grant writers and the respective departments review the evaluations, and when appropriate,incorporate the recommendations from the funding agency in preparing subsequent grant applications. OPTIONS: a. The Council may wish to discuss some of the above observations and recommendations with representatives of the Administration at the Council work session. b. The Council may wish to follow up on the audit recommendations during the annual review of the proposed budget. c. The Council may wish to contract for a follow-up or expanded study. The expanded study could include comparisons with more cities and best practices. d. The Council has previously asked how grants are monitored to ensure that they are spent in the specific way that they are approved by the Council. Currently there is no mechanism in place to fulfill this request. This isn't applicable with all grants, but some grants have flexibility and the Administration presents their plans to the Council as part of the appropriation process. There have been two cases where it was later noted that part of the funds were spent in a different manner. While the funds were spent within the scope of the grant itself, they were spent in a different manner than the Council had approved. The Council may wish to ask for an update on whether the Administration is considering options to address this. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: SUBJECT: Golf Program a Audit Observations and Recommendations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council contracted with the Deloitte & Touche CPA firm for several small audits. The audits were not extensive or all-encompassing but were very limited-scope studies with rather small budgets. One of the audits was an analysis of the City's Golf program. The audit report includes an executive summary,background, observations/recommendations, and management's response. The Golf Program manages and maintains nine golf courses. The auditors noted that the City's golf operations, organization and staffing are generally consistent compared to Denver, Phoenix and Portland. The auditors made some recommendations to strengthen cash handling and inventory controls. Comparisons of discounts and off-peak green fees to other municipal golf courses are contained in the appendices to the report. Subsequent to the audit, additional frequent-player and off-peak discounts were approved by the Council to take effect January 2004. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Although the Golf Program has cash handling policies and procedures, there were some inconsistencies in shift closing procedures, opening balances and investigations of overages and shortages. The City should train employees so that they understand cash-management closing procedures at the close of a shift. Additionally, the City should consider revisiting written policies and procedures to ensure that they accurately reflect management's required procedures. Golf management reported that the cash handling procedures have been updated; staff members have been trained on their use; each staff member has signed an acknowledgment that they have read and comprehend the new procedures; the new procedures are currently in use. 2. The auditors noted that golf pros both order and receive inventory. The City should segregate ordering and receiving duties to ensure that inventory at the shops is properly received and recorded. Management reported that effective October 8, 2003 the Golf Program has fully implemented a centralized merchandise ordering process. 3. The City may want to consider charging an annual fee for the purchase of a reservation card. Management stated that it may choose to include this recommendation as a proposal in the next round of golf user fee increases, whenever that may occur. 4. At the time the audit was conducted, there were several concessionaire contracts with which there were some disputes relating to interpretation of the agreements. Management reports that the disputes have now been resolved. 5. The City may want to consider providing a free golf lessen or other free services to youth consistent with other comparable governments (Denver, Phoenix, St. George, Salt Lake County). This may introduce a greater number of youth to the game of golf and to the City's courses as well as educate youth on the rules and etiquette of the game. Management indicated that it has recently expanded junior golf programs that will more than double the amount of participation by junior golfers. Many of the clinics and events for juniors are held at the Jordan River Par-3 golf course. 6. The City may want to consider performing an in-depth study to better articulate the benefits and costs of privatization. OPTIONS: a. The Council may wish to discuss some of the above observations and recommendations with representatives of the Administration at the Council work session. b. The Council may wish to request an update from the Administration at the time of the Council's annual review of the budget for the Golf Program. c. The Council may wish to request that the Administration consider performing the privatization study suggested in the audit report. ■• Deloutte SALT LAKE CITY ■ CORPORATION To � SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH ■ & uc e t 11111 'C ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF GRANT FUNDS ■ ■ ■ ■ April 28, 2003 ■ ■ Deloitte ■ Touche Tohmatsu ■ U ■ 111 I Table of Contents ■ NI I. Executive Summary 2 Scope and Objectives 2 . Overall Conclusion 2 Methodology 3 II. Background and Understanding 3 ■ III. Observations and Recommendations 5 . Objective 1 5 Obtain a summary of grants that the City has applied for and those that the City has received 5 111 Objective 2 8 Determine the extent to which grant acquisition and monitoring are consistent with City policy. 8 Objective 3 11 Measure the success of Salt Lake City in obtaining grant funds compared to other cities and best practices. 11 IV. Appendices 14 Appendix A 14 Salt Lake City Corporation Pending and Open Grant Summary 14 . Appendix B 15 Salt Lake City Corporation Pending Grants 15 • Appendix C 18 Salt Lake City Corporation Open Grants 18 . Appendix D 24 Salt Lake City Corporation Denied and Open Grant Summary 24 Appendix E 25 Comparison of Other Cities to Salt Lake City 25 111 ■ I U • I. Executive Summary • We have completed our Performance Audit of grant operations. Consistent with the direction of the Salt Lake City Council, our efforts focused on the acquisition and monitoring of grant funds. . This Performance Audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 111 . Our audit included a review of the grant acquisition and monitoring processes for the Fire Department, Police Department, the Acquisition & Project Coordinator and the Grant Program Administrator, as of November 27, 2002. The Acquisition & Project Coordinator is one of the central grant writers for the City. The Grant Program Administrator monitors grant awards for numerous City departments. Data reviewed to determine the City's open, pending and denied grants as of November 27, 2002, were obtained from the Department of Management Services. • The Council identified four objectives for this audit: 1. Obtain a summary of grants that the City has applied for and those that the City has • received. 2. Determine the extent to which grant acquisition and monitoring are consistent with City policy. . 3. Evaluate the success of Salt Lake City in obtaining grant funds compared to other cities and best practices. OVERALL CONCLUSION 111 Based on our analysis and the test work performed, several opportunities for improvement were noted in the City's performance relative to the grant acquisition and grant monitoring processes. Opportunities for improvement include the following: • Based on the information provided by various departments, the City had $36.7 million in . 68 open grants and $3.2 million in 32 pending grants as of November 27, 2002. These results did not include monies received from CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG. While • the City does maintain a Grant Matrix, we noted the Grant Matrix was incomplete and contained discrepancies and inconsistencies. • .. - The City does not have a formal policy that governs the grant acquisition and monitoring process. Accordingly, we were unable to determine the extent to which the grant applications were consistent with City policy. b :. Additional effort and education is needed to fully achieve the City Council's legislative intent to centralize the grant writing function into one department and separate it from the U grant monitoring function. For example, grant writing and monitoring activities for the I . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 2 ■ ■ ■ Fire Department and the Police Department were still performed within the respective Departments. ■ ■ Based on a comparative analysis of grant acquisition and monitoring practices of Salt Lake City to those of Denver, Portland, Provo and West Valley, it appeared that Salt ■ Lake City's approach to the centralization of grant writers was uncommon. Of the 4 cities examined, only I city was centralizing its grant writers. The other 3 cities had a ■ decentralized grant writing setup. ■ Detail for each of these observations, related recommendations, and other less significant observations, can be found in the Observations and Recommendations section of this report. 111 ■ Our audit was not designed or intended to be a detailed study of every related system, procedure and transaction. Accordingly, opportunities for improvement presented in this report may not be ■ all-inclusive of areas where other issues may be present. ■ METHODOLOGY ■ To accomplish project objectives, we interviewed grant acquisition and monitoring personnel, ■ examined documentation, obtained an understanding of the current process, conducted analyses, ■ identified opportunities for improvement and developed appropriate recommendations. We also contacted other cities to gain an understanding of their grant acquisition and monitoring practices ■ compared to Salt Lake City. Finally, to obtain a clear understanding of Salt Lake City processes and better identify strengths, weaknesses and control points, we flowcharted the process. ■ The Grants team held work sessions with Deloitte& Touche to review and validate findings and ■ conclusions, and to jointly develop recommendations that would be appropriate to assist Salt ■ Lake City Corporation in improving its operations and achieving its goals. ■ ■ II. Background and Understanding ■ Grant operations within Salt Lake City have undergone a dramatic reorganization within the past ■ year and a half. Prior to the reorganization, the City had a decentralized grant writing structure. Grant writers were located in separate departments and wrote grant applications for their ■ respective divisions. Often grant application and grant monitoring/management functions were ■ located within the same department. Some degree of centralization did exist in the Capital Planning and Programming section. This section had both a grant writer and a grant ■ administrator who were responsible for application and monitoring duties for a few different City departments. ■ On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council wrote a Legislative Intent Statement directing the ■ Administration to complete centralization of the grant writing function by transferring any ■ remaining grant writers to the central grant writing team in the Department of Management Services. The goal of centralization was to ensure that all grant applications were tracked in a ■ central location, consistent with City policies and written to allow maximum flexibility in ■ ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 3 determining how the funds could be spent. The Statement further directed the Administration to confirm that the grant application and grant monitoring/management functions were appropriately divided into different divisions to ensure separation between those individuals that . submitted the grant application and those that monitored and/or managed the award. Further, the City Council directed the Administration to provide a quarterly accounting of all grants . submitted, received and monies spent. As a result of the Legislative Intent Statement, the grant writers from the Capital Planning and Programming section and the Police Department were transferred to the Department of • Management Services. One additional centralized grant writer position was recently filled. The . Grant Program Administrator in the Capital Planning and Programming section remained in this section and was to assume responsibility for the financial monitoring and reporting of all City grants. However, this section does not monitor the grants for the Police Department, Fire Department, Airport and some Parks grants. The Airport is self-contained with respect to grant writing. It identifies its own opportunities, writes its own grant applications and conducts it own program and financial monitoring. The grant process consists of seven main phases: grant opportunity identification, application development, Administrative approval, submission, award, City Council budgetary authorization • and management. In the grant opportunity phase, the funding opportunity is identified. Next, the grant writer writes the application in conjunction with the applicable Department or Division Director. In the Administrative approval phase, the application is routed to the City Attorney, Department or Division Directors and Mayor for review and approval. The City Council is not involved in the approval stage. The Council is not involved in approving grant applications prior . to submission. The Council is notified of the application after the proposal has been submitted. Once the grant has been awarded, the following parties are notified for informational purposes only: City Attorney, Chief Administrative Officer, Mayor, City Council Analyst, Executive Director for the City Council and the City Council. Committee of the Whole and Public meetings are held to discuss the award and open the budget to receive the funds. The final stage . involves grant management. Grant management is comprised of two functions: grant coordination and grant monitoring. A grant coordinator, located within the accountable . department, assumes responsibility for the fund disbursements and quarterly narrative reports to the funding agency. The Grant Program Administrator (grant monitor)is located in the Capital Planning and Programming section and is responsible for the financial monitoring and quarterly financial reports to the funding agency. U 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 4 I ■ III. Observations and Recommendations OBJECTIVE 1 • Obtain a summary of the grants that the City has applied for and those that the City has received. . METHODOLOGY To accomplish this objective, we obtained the City's Grant Matrix, which listed pending and received grants for the City. We noted that it did not include CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG monies. This Matrix was managed by the Grants Office for tracking purposes and was shared . amongst several other City departments. As there was no distinction between open and closed grants, the Matrix was forwarded to the Grant Program Administrator for review. The Grant . Program Administrator compared the received grant list to the financial reporting system to determine which grants had been closed and which were currently open. Open grants were defined as grants for which an award had been received and the grant was still open within the City's financial reporting system. In the Matrix, the dollar value for the open grants represented ✓ the total value of the award. It did not exclude grant funds already spent. Pending grants were defined as those grants for which an application had been submitted, but a funding decision had not been received. The Matrix was modified to list pending and open grants. It was then forwarded to the Police Department, Fire Department, City Prosecutor's Office, Airport, Youth Programs and Grant Program Administration for further review and verification. This final version of the City's pending and open grants is presented in Appendix A. CONCLUSION 111 As noted in Appendix A, the City had $36.7 million in 68 open grants and $3.2 million in 32 pending grants as of November 27, 2002. These results did not include monies received from CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG. • Of the open grants, the Airport received $26.5 million in funding from eight applications. This was the highest dollar amount received for a single department. In second place, the Police Department received $5.4 million and equipment from 21 grant applications. The Mayor's Office/YouthCity ranked third with $1.3 million in funding from 15 applications. It is worth noting that a single federal appropriation accounted for $1.2 million of the $1.3 million acquired for the Mayor's Office/YouthCity. In the pending category, the Police Department had the highest dollar value of pending grants. It had nine applications outstanding for a total of$1.3 . million and a computer system. In second place was the Community and Economic Development Department/Division of Transportation with two outstanding applications totaling ■ $801,646. The Mayor's Office/YouthCity/Global Artways had the next highest dollar amount with nine outstanding applications totaling $396,791. A summary of all pending grants and open grants as of November 27, 2002 is located in Appendix A. A detailed listing of all pending grants and open grants are located in Appendices B and C respectively. . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 5 I I 1.1 OBSERVATION During the course of our review, we noted that there were no comprehensive policies or . procedures in place governing the grant application or grant monitoring processes for the City. The Police Department and the Capital Planning and Programming section had written procedures, which included both the grant writing and grant monitoring functions. A large portion of these procedures were still being followed; however, other parts of the procedure did not reflect recent organizational changes. Written policies and procedures to reflect the new centralized grant writing and grant monitoring functions had not yet • been developed by the Department of Management Services and the Capital Planning and Programming section. Policies and procedures should be present to standardize processes, establish policy guidelines, assign accountability, enhance communication and create management controls. The creation of comprehensive policies and procedures may help to improve the following observations: I 4- During our validation of the Grant Matrix, we observed that there was not a clear definition of a grant for documentation purposes. Federal grant awards may include . loans, subsidies and non-cash awards. The lack of understanding in this area may result in monetary or other forms of compensation not being properly recognized or recorded. A large number of grant applications were written for small monetary amounts. Due . to their size, small monetary awards may not be cost effective for the City to apply for and manage. RECOMMENDATION I Develop City wide policies and procedures related to all grant acquisition and monitoring functions. Cohesive, City-wide policies and procedures will serve to provide direction to the City departments and unify the process. We recommend that the City prioritize the creation and implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures. The policies and procedures should also address internal controls over grant acquisition and monitoring to . support the process. This will help resolve misunderstandings, reduce conflicts and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. The City might consider implementing a cross department team to solicit feedback and determine policy and procedural issues that address concerns across the City. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Grant Acquisition Response: We agree with the recommendation that city wide policies and procedures established by the Administration would provide direction to the city departments in grant acquisition. We are in the process of developing policies and procedures specific to grant acquisition. The auditors' findings report that the city is successful in acquiring and managing grants and is diligent in disbursing grant funds consistently with award specifications. Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 6 Grant Monitoring Response: The Capital Planning and Program section, is currently updating their procedures to reflect the centralized grant monitoring functions. 1.2 OBSERVATION The Grant Matrix initially provided by the Grant Office did not accurately reflect grant applications and awards. For example, a Youth Works grant application for the Mayor's Office was listed as a pending grant; however, the grant was declined in 2001. As well, a HIDTA grant for the Police Department was listed twice as being a received grant. 111 Further, we observed that the Grant Matrix was located on the City shared drive and as such no one person was assigned ownership of it. As the purpose of the Matrix is to track City grants, data reliability and completeness is essential. 111 RECOMMENDATION Develop policies and procedures specific to the development and use of the Grant Matrix. Data integrity for the Grant Matrix could not be assured as the Matrix could be edited by any individual with access to the City shared network drive. Further, different grant individuals were responsible for updating the Matrix, which resulted in a lack of accountability for the accuracy and completeness of the Matrix. We suggest that a policy and procedure be developed specifically for the Grant Matrix and that the following recommendations be considered: Assign ownership of the Grant Matrix to one individual to ensure that it is both reliable and complete. ■ Remove editing access to the Matrix from the shared drive file. The file might . remain on the shared drive in a "read only" state for reference purposes only. Disseminate the Grant Matrix on a regular periodic basis to each City department for review and update. Separate the grants into open and closed grants according to departments to alleviate any confusion as to the status of a particular grant. . MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Grant Acquisition Response: The Grant Matrix is intended to serve as a working document monitored by grant acquisition and grant monitoring staff to facilitate inter- n department awareness of grant activity in the city. View-only rights to the Grants Matrix will be made to departments to allow information sharing without jeopardizing data integrity. The grant writers and grant monitor will have sole access to entering data in the Grants Matrix to assure accuracy and completeness. I I A • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 7 OBJECTIVE 2 Determine the extent to which grant acquisition and monitoring are consistent with City policy. METHODOLOGY . We reviewed the grant approval and grant monitoring processes in the Capital Planning and Programming section, the Police Department and the Fire Department. We interviewed grant . monitoring personnel and flowcharted the grant award process to gain an understanding of how City Council approval and grant award restrictions were communicated. We interviewed grant . writers from the centralized Grant Office, Police Department, Fire Department and City Prosecutor's Office to gain an understanding of the grant application and approval process. Operations at the Airport were not reviewed. The centralized Grant Office and Police Department grant application processes were flowcharted. Grant writers were interviewed to gain an understanding of how City policy was communicated and considered during the application and approval process. . CONCLUSION 1111 We are unable to determine whether grant applications were consistent with City policy as it . because City policies are not formally documented. However, some opportunities to strengthen internal controls relative to grant monitoring were identified. We also identified opportunities to . improve the flow of information between the City and the City Council. . 2.1 OBSERVATION Centralization of grant writing and separation of grant writing from grant monitoring, as . directed by the City Council in its Legislative Intent Statement of June 14, 2001, is not complete. The Fire Department and the Police Department had grant writers and grant monitors in the same division. Different practices existed for writing and monitoring grants. A lack of communication and understanding appeared to be the cause as some City personnel were aware of the move towards centralization, but did not realize that it had been mandated. 111 RECOMMENDATION Clearly communicate the intent of the City Council. Additional effort and education is needed to ensure that the City Council's Legislative . Intent Statement, dated June 14, 2001, is clearly understood. Further effort and education is also needed to ensure that grant management and grant monitoring functions are properly segregated to support appropriate internal controls over the disbursement and review of grant funds. I ■ . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 8 I . MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Grant Acquisition Response: The centralized grant acquisition is a new process for city departments. Departments are making progress coordinating grants through the Grant Matrix to prevent duplication of grant application submissions. Currently, the Grants . Acquisition & Project Coordinators meet annually with Department and Division Directors to discuss departments' long-range goals, funding needs, and grant opportunities. The departments are aware of the services the grant acquisition staff can provide in locating funding opportunities and in completing grant applications, and gradually, the centralization is being completed. 2.2 OBSERVATION • According to the City Council Legislative Intent Statement of June 14, 2001, centralization of the grant writing function was to be completed through the "transferring (of) any remaining grant writer positions to the central team in the Department of . Management Services". We noted that although the grant writer position for the Police Department was assigned to the Department of Management Services, this position essentially operated out of the Police Department. Our understanding of the cause for this arrangement was that the Police Department grant writer position included program development and grant monitoring components that were better serviced from the Police Department location. RECOMMENDATION . Provide direction for the Police Department Grant Writer position. The uncertainty surrounding the location and duties of the grant writer resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. We recommend that the City Council clearly communicate its intent regarding this position. • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Grant Acquisition Response: Administrative direction is needed for grant acquisition city wide to define the priority and scope of funds sought. Currently, the Grants Acquisition & Project Coordinators are directed by the Administration to apply for every grant available. The City Councils' budget approval process has proven to be more selective. The current philosophical disjuncture between the Administration and the City Council places the Grants Acquisition & Project Coordinators in an untenable situation. In some instances, physical centralization would require departments to hire additional personnel to ensure programmatic continuity is consistent with grant award requirements. Police Department Response: Administrative decisions have been made concerning the placement of the Police Department Grants Coordinator. The Police Chief and the Finance Director met to discuss this issue, and a decision was made [based on the responsibilities of that employee] to continue the connectivity within the Police Department location. (This arrangement is much the same as Human Resources U Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 9 assigning their employees to specific departments.) That employee keeps regular communications and meeting times within the centralized Grants Office. Further, the auditor's finding that grant writing is predominantly decentralized amongst comparable . cities, is in line with this department's belief that our needs are best served by the current arrangement. 2.3 OBSERVATION 111 We observed that the City Council did not have an opportunity to participate in the grant approval process. After the Department Director and the Administration approved the application, it was submitted to the funding agency. The Council was not notified of the application until after submission. The current notification timeline may result in grant . submissions that are inconsistent with the City Council's objectives. Although collaboration occurred between departments on a case by case basis, no formal procedure . exists to notify all City departments of a grant opportunity, regardless of the nature of the grant. As a result, synergistic grant opportunities and financial ramifications across departments might not be recognized. RECOMMENDATION Consider creating a cross functional Grant Review Committee. • We recommend that communication between the City Council, Administration, City departments and grant writers be enhanced so that grant writers do not pursue grants that . are inconsistent with City policy. The creation of City wide policies and procedures may reduce the likelihood that this would happen; however, they would not address any future . changes to City policy. We recommend that the City consider creating a cross-functional Grant Review Committee to review grant applications at their earliest stage. The Grant Review Committee might be responsible for determining whether the proposals are consistent with City policies, ensuring that the proposals are coordinated with the City's existing programs and/or evaluating the immediate and longer term financial consequences of the grant application. We recommend that, at a minimum, the Committee be comprised of the Grant Program Administrator and at least one member from each of the Mayor's Office, the City Council and the Department of Finance. Timeliness can often be a constricting factor for grant writers. The City needs to take this element into consideration when designing its model. A suggested process flow was provided to management. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE . Grant Acquisition Response: A clear definition of process would help clarify the role of the Administration and the City Council in grant acquisition. Currently, the Grants . Acquisition & Project Coordinators respond to department requests for program funding and must assume that all requests are consistent with departments' missions. When appropriate grant opportunities are located, the Grants Acquisition & Project Coordinators present the funding opportunities to the respective Department or Division • Director, who determines whether the funding opportunity is consistent with the department's strategic plan. The Research Section of the Grant Matrix, which in not . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 10 referenced in the performance audit, documents grants not pursued by the city because the grant scope did not fit current city programs or department missions. A three-tiered process is used in the Administrative review phase of all grant applications. The three-tiered review process provides three quality control points to ensure that each grant application meets the respective department's mission, is in legal compliance with local, state, and federal laws, and meets the Administration's mission . for the city. The City Council is notified of potential grant funds at the time of application. The City Council's budgetary approval is the final step in the acquisition • process and is the opportunity for the Council to exercise fiscal responsibility on behalf of the city. The recommended cross-functional Grant Review Committee would need to be comprised of all city department and division directors to truly serve as a cross-functional group. The sheer number of individuals involved would make the proposed committee cumbersome, unwieldy, and time consuming. Ideally, the committee would need to be involved in the grant opportunity identification phase, opposed to the application development phase, to determine whether the proposals are consistent with City policies . and to ensure that the proposals are coordinated with the City's existing programs at the earliest stage possible. In addition, the recommended committee would need to meet on a . daily basis to achieve a timely review of funding opportunities and not delay the progression to the application development phase, which is often a short window of opportunity to meet funder prescribed grant submission deadlines. The city has established hiring practices and minimum qualification standards to ensure qualified, professional individuals with sufficient grant acquisition experience are hired for the . position of Grants Acquisition & Project Coordinator. In addition, the intended function of the Grant Matrix as an inter-department information tool was devised to facilitate . synergistic grant collaborations between departments and prevent duplication of grant application submissions by departments. OBJECTIVE 3 • Evaluate the success of Salt Lake City in obtaining grant funds compared to other cities and best practices. METHODOLOGY We obtained a list of denied grants from the Department of Management Services and compared it to the list of open grants as determined in Objective 1. We excluded any denied grants with an application date prior to January 1, 2001 and segmented the grants by department. CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG monies were not included. A success rate was obtained by . comparing the total number of submitted grant applications to the total number of successful grant applications for each department and for the City as a whole. Our review of Youth Program funding was limited to the Mayor's YouthCity Program and Global Artways. The accuracy and completeness of the denied grants list was not verified. I . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 11 • Grant personnel in Denver, Portland, Provo and West Valley were interviewed to gain an understanding of grant operations, success and effectiveness in obtaining grants in each city. To determine the success of Salt Lake City in obtaining grant funds, we analyzed Salt Lake City's . success ratio against estimates from other Cities. Salt Lake City's success in using grant funds was determined by comparing continuation grant estimates among all five cities. Our analysis of success ratios and continuation grant percentages was based on estimates provided by City personnel as most cities did not track this information. • We reviewed knowledge centers for grant operations in an attempt to determine best practices. • CONCLUSION While the comparative success of the City relative to other cities in obtaining grant funds could not be properly evaluated within the constraints of this project, Salt Lake City's success rate in obtaining grant funds was 54.4%. This did not include funds received from CDBG, HOME, . HOPWA and ESG. Eleven divisions had a 100% success rate. Three divisions had a 0% success rate on a total of three applications. CED/Division of Transportation had a 20% success rate based on five applications Youth Programs had a 25% success rate based on 60 grant applications. When the Youth Program results were removed from the table, the overall success rate was 81.5%. • Other cities contacted did not formally track this information. A determination of the success of . Salt Lake City as compared to the other 4 cities examined could not be made without a more in depth analysis of the types of funding available to each city and state, coupled with the type of grants denied and received for each city. However, a summary table of information is attached in Appendix E. • In reviewing the ability of Salt Lake City to obtain continuation funding as compared to other cities, we observed that Salt Lake City appeared to be effective in obtaining repeat funding. As funding agencies had access to in-depth program results, an inference was made that the continued success of Salt Lake City in obtaining continuation grants was indicative of its success • in using its grant funds. We were unable to determine best practices relevant to grant success and utilization. • A comparison of Salt Lake City's grant processes against Denver, Portland, Provo and West Valley indicated that Salt Lake City was one of few cities actively centralizing grant writing and • monitoring functions. Although clear best practices are difficult to determine, our research indicated that the majority of cities were moving towards a centralized administration of grant • funds, along with centralized financial reporting and/or centralized monitoring. Grant writing was predominantly decentralized. . 3.1 OBSERVATION A review of independent grant fund literature revealed that follow up to unsuccessful grant applications was often recommended. In Salt Lake City, follow up to unsuccessful applications was not consistently done. No procedure existed to track or follow up on • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 12 I why grant applications were denied. Without discovering the reason for denied grant applications, the Grant Office will not be able to learn from previous proposals. I RECOMMENDATION Implement a follow up process. We recommend that the Grant Office implement a follow up process for denied grants so that it can increase the likelihood of obtaining grant funding by modifying future applications. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Grant Acquisition Response: Ten of the fifteen successful grants acquired for Youth Programs were through grant applications submitted by Salt Lake City Foundation. Salt Lake City Foundation is a 501c(3) created as a separate entity from Salt Lake City Corporation with the mission to support Salt Lake City's youth programs, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center Endowment, the Isaac Chase Brigham Young Home, and Salt Lake City Tennis Court Restoration Plan. Funds received through federal appropriations are similar to monies received from CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG. The acquisition of federal appropriations is outside the scope of grant acquisition functions. ■ The follow-up process for federal and state funding are built into the declination process. The Grants Acquisition & Project Coordinators routinely receive a detailed evaluation of denied grants and share the evaluation with the respective Department or Division Directors. The evaluation results are maintained in the grant acquisition staffs' centralized files and are referenced when preparing future grant applications. The follow-up for private and corporate funding varies from agency to agency and follows an informal agenda that often involves personal contact after the initial submission and ® before a second submission. The personal contacts provide the opportunity for the funding agencies to provide feedback and comment on declined and awarded grants. Currently, Department and Division Directors are the individuals involved in personal contacts with private and corporate funding agencies related to grant application submissions as well as general cultivation and stewardship activities. The Department and Division Directors relay the funding agencies feedback and comments to the grant acquisition staff when appropriate. Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 13 II II ■ IV. Appendices . APPENDIX A ■ Qualified List of Salt Lake City Corporation li Pending and Open Grants (Summary based on information provided by the City) O Effective November 27, 2002 III Excluding CDBG,HOME,HOPWA and ESG P.....-:GRANTS ..OPEN GRANTS . CITY:DEP.A1F2TMENT ..:. a T y rants -Award To tal otal Monietar Total Number ii : T`titallVlonetary A,jrP�ic buns:: Bequest G A�Ya . City Justice Court 1 $57,072 0 $0 . CED/Arts Council 0 $0 2 $110,600 CED/HAND 1 $225,380 2 $450,000 I CED/Planning 0 $0 2 $65,000 ICED/Transportation 2 $801,646 1 $90,000 . Department of Airports 0 $0 8 $26,511,768 Department of Airports/ 0 $0 I $120,000 IIIPolice Department Emergency Management Division 1 $33,675 1 $20,000 I Fire Department 2 $97,500 4 $796,764 I Mayor's Office 0 $0 4 $889,450 II Mayor's Office/ 1 $4,000 0 $0 Salt Lake City Green Mayor's Office/YouthCity/ 9 $396,791*** 15 $1,342,000* Global Artways Police Department 9 $1,316,621 21 $5,439,383** And Computer System And Equipment Police Department/ 0 $0 1 $51,700 Fire Department/Airport Police Department/ 0 $0 1 $55,183 Victim Advocate Program II Prosecutor's Office 1 $10,989 2 $191,547 II Public Services 1 $25,000 0 $0 Public Utilities 1 $90,000 0 $0 I Public Works 2 $110,000 0 $0 I Redevelopment Agency(RDA) 0 $0 2 $400,000 Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center I $30,000**** 1 $200,000 TOTAL 32 $3,198,674 68 $36,733,395 *Includes$1,200,000 in federal appropriations and$56,000 in Salt Lake City Foundation grants. I **Includes$926,682 in federal appropriations. ***Includes$22,000 in Salt Lake City Foundation grants. ****Salt Lake City Foundation grant. I I IReview of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 14 III IN III NI 11111 II MI IIII III III El MI III III III R ■ MI El NI II ■ ■ ■ III III IN ■ ■ ■ III ■ APPENDIX B Qualified List of Salt Lake City Pending Grants (Summary based on information provided by the City) Effective November 27, 2002 Excluding CDBG,HOME,HOPWA and ESG .............. • • No '' :.Department . Grant Name ..::Aiiiount. Description ... • � Funding Source .. Eutered: :.::; • 1 1.0/22/2002 City Justice Court VAWA 2002 $57,072 Domestic Violence Court and computer system Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations Project Safe Neighborhood Gun violence prevention education program for Weed&Seed Office of Justice Programs/Bureau of Justice 2 10/3/2002 CED/HAND Reducing Community Gun $225,380 area Assistance Violence 3 2/15/2001 CED/Transportation Beck Street Bicycle Route $425,296 Design&Construction-Beck Street Bicycle Route -Phase I TSTEA-CMAQ -Phase I 4 N/A CED/Transportation Emigration Canyon Bike $376 350 Construction funding State of Utah UDOT Awarded for 2003- Trails Infrastructure only 5 10/29/2002 Emergency All-Hazards Emergency $33,675 Emergency Operations Planning Utah Division of Emergency Services and Management Division Operations Planning Homeland Security 6 10/29/2002 Fire Department Citizen Corps/CERT $94,500 Citizen Corps-CERT Training Utah Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security Hazardous Materials 7 11/15/2002 Fire Department Emergency Preparedness $3,000 Hazardous material inspector training and development Utah Division of Emergency Services (HMEP) Mayor's Office/SLC Patagonia Environmental SLC e2 Business Program in partnership with Utah Society 8 8/27/2002 Green Grant Program $4,000 for Environmental Education Patagonia 9 N/A Mayor's International Rescue $2,000 Youth diversity film project International Rescue Committee Office/YouthCity Committee 10 5/21/2002 Mayor's Start up and expansion $40,000 Expansion for youth sites Utah State Department of Workforce Services Office/YouthCity grants I Pending Grants 15 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds . Dafe:. • ' No.... :; ... ...Detrartinent Gant Name . Amouiit. . .. .Descriptiion.. . •• Funding Source .. .:::::::::::::Entered Mayor's Cultural Partnerships for 11 7/30/2002 Office/YouthCity At-Risk Children and $250,000 Collaboration between YouthCity and Glendale Elementary U.S.Department of Education Youth Program 12 11/19/2002 Mayor's Philip G.McCarthey $3,000* YouthCity After-School &Summer Program Philip G.McCarthey Family Foundation Office/YouthCity Family Foundation Mayor's Lawrence T.&Janet T. 2002/2003 KennedyIMAGINATION CELEBRATION of 13 8/29/2002 Office/YouthCity/ Dee Foundation $5,000* Salt Lake City Lawrence T.&Janet T.Dee Foundation Global Artways Mayor's 2002/2003 KennedyIMAGINATION CELEBRATION of 14 9/19/2002 Office/YouthCity/ Fred Meyer Stores $7,000* Salt Lake City Fred Meyer Stores Global Artways Mayor's Bamberger Memorial 2002/2003 Kennedy IMAGINATION CELEBRATION of Ruth Eleanor Bamberger and John Ernest 15 9/19/2002 Office/YouthCity/ Foundation $5,000* Salt Lake City Bamberger Memorial Foundation Global Artways Mayor's Chuck Davis Dance Residency 03/04 as a part of 16 8/9/2002 Office/YouthCity/ Arts Learning $82,791 IMAGINATION CELEBRATION National Endowment for the Arts Global Artways Mayor's Junior E.&Blanche B. 2002/2003 KennedyIMAGINATION CELEBRATION of 17 10/10/2002 Office/YouthCity/ Rich Foundation $2,000* Salt Lake City Junior E.&Blanche B.Rich Foundation Global Artways 18 9/10/2002 Police Department Mervyn's California $2,000 Patrol hikes and educational pamphlets Mervyn's California Innovations in American Program excellence recognition for Methamphetamine John F.Kennedy School of Government at 19 10/1/2002 Police Department Law Enforcement $100,000 Initiative. Harvard University Innovations in American John F.Kennedy School of Government at 20 10/1/2002 Police Department Law Enforcement $100,000 Program excellence recognition for Verified Alarm Response. Harvard University 21 10/4/2002 Police Department Drug Endangered Children $36,000 Contractual,travel and supplies SAMHSA Conference Victim Advocate Program-Evidence-based prosecution 22 10/22/2002 Police Department VAWA 2002 $18,518 collaboration. Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations Award received and awaiting budget opening. Awards computer systems to send out Amber Alert on 23 11/3/2002 Police Department Amber Alert Computer Computer missing children or other law enforcement related National Center for Missing and Exploited System system alerts/warrants/wants. Award is system itself,not funds to Children purchase. Pending Grants 1 6 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds II U U IN IN I II IN I R II MI I • NI R I • ■ I R IN IN A IN IN II I IN II III U Date.:.:'::::::.:::•... No:.::.:: .. Departnnent. • iGrant.Name :. .:•Amount .. :•Description FundingSuurce :::Entered`:: :::..• : . . . 24 10/O1- Police Department Communications $640,000 Purchase 4 Quantar Repeaters-Grant Awarded U.S.Department of Justice/COPS 2002 9/03 Infrastructure Upgrade Technology Initiative 25 9/02-8/03 Police Department Methamphetamine $295,103 Purchase surveillance equipment,public awareness campaign IT.S.Department of Justice/COPS Supplemental team training and police overtime-Grant Awarded 26 To Be Police Department Early Intervention Systems $125,000 Development of comprehensive early warning system-Grant U.S.Department of Justice/COPS Determined Awarded 27 10/22/2002 Prosecutor's Office VAWA 2002 $10,989 Evidence-based prosecution for domestic violence cases Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations 28 11/26/2002 Public Services Tony Hawk Foundation $25,000 Fairmont Skate Park Tony Hawk Foundation 29 N/A Public Utilities Hazard Mitigation Jordan $90,000 Construction funding State of Utah,Comprehensive Emergency &Salt Lake Canal Management-Submitted 30 7/15/2002 Public Works Bikes Belong Coalition $10,000 Trail signage for Jordan River Parkway Bikes Belong Coalition 31 10/15/2002 Public Works Land&Water $100,000 Jordan River Parkway Trail Improvements Utah Division of Parks and Recreation Conservation Fund 32 9/3/2002 Sorenson Multi- Junior League of SLC $30,000* Request for$30,000 over three years and volunteers for Girls Junior League of Salt I,ake City Cultural Center Only Pending grants are defined as those grants for which an application has been submitted but a funding decision has not been received *Denotes grant applications submitted by Salt Lake City Foundation. Pending Grants 17 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds NI NI I■ NI I■ III NI ! NI NI 111 NI NI III NI III MI 111 MI NI NI NI III O NI III MN I■ MI I• MI NI APPENDIX C Qualified List Salt Lake City Open Grants (Summary based on information provided by the City) Effective November 27, 2002 Excluding CDBG,HOME,HOPWA and ESG Award:::: Reporting :•.Til::: ..... Department::.•.• Grant Name:•• , :: Amount .: . Description Funding Source Perniid::. lteggirement 1 7/02-6/03 CED/Arts Council Zoo,Arts and Parks-03 $96,000 Public programming support Salt Lake County Zoo Arts Rs Parks Quarterly Program 2 7/02-6/03 CED/Arts Council Utah Arts Council $14,600 Public programming support Utah Arts Council Annual 3 10/01-09/03 CED/HAND Weed and Seed-02 $175,000 Administrative costs,contractual services, US Department of Justice- Quarterly equipment and evaluation. Executive Office of Weed and Seed 4 10/02-09/03 CED/HAND Weed and Seed-03 $275,000 Administrative costs,contractual services, US Department of Justice- Quarterly equipment and evaluation. Executive Office of Weed and Seed 5 11/02-6/04 CED/Planning New Public Works Grant $90 000 Design competition for bridge over 13th National Endowment for the Arts Annual East/Sugarhouse Quality Growth Consultant to research and development Utah State Governors Office, 6 12/01-11/02 CED/Planning Commission $15,000 performance zoning plans and criteria. Envision Utah,RDA and CED Quarterly 7 9/01-8/03 CED/Transportation Traffic Control Center $90,000 To fund additional FTE for operation of Traffic Utah Department of Transportation Quarterly Control Center. Department of FAA-Airport Improvement After project 8 9/00-Open airports TVA-Land Acquisition $1,225,000 Construction funding reimbursement Program(AIP) completion Department of North Cargo Ramp-Phase FAA-Airport Improvement After project 9 4/01-Open ,Airports II $5,000,000 Construction funding reimbursement Program(AIP) completion Department of Construction funding reimbursement-Airport FAA-Airport Improvement After project 10 4/01-Open ports Security Improvements $2,000,000 Olympic Security Enhancements Program(AIP) completion Department of Apron Paving-Phase II FAA-Airport Improvement After project 11 5/01-Open Airports and West Deicing $9,000,000 Construction funding reimbursement program(AIP) completion Relocation Open Grants Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Fundy 18 III III II III 1111 II NI IM III MI III II 111 III In III MI III Ill MI III MI III 111 MI III MI III IM 111 MI In ----"-.'''' : •-:::::::::::':': --- - ----.. . ..• ::•:•......- •• 1 ..,:H.• . . :::.-. .::':'..:ii. •• • " --.. :.::::..:•: •• :H::•-:i-:•i •:.. Award se . I•t• p)rtiAg No Department Grant Nam Amount Derption undng Source te4uiremi.t. :•.. ...:..:::.....:•.. 12 9/01-Open Department of Security Improvements $1 200 000, , Security equipment funding reimbursement- FAA-Airport Improvement After project Airports Phase 2 Airport Security Enhancements Program(AIP) completion Department of Compensation for security FAA-Airport Improvement After project 13 4/02-4/03 $1,706,063 Security direct cost reimbursement Airports costs Program(AIP) completion Department of Runway 16L/34R Storm FAA-Airport Improvement After project 14 7/02-7/03 $2,270,720 Airfield construction and safety improvements Airports Drain Improvements Program(AIP) completion Department of FAA-Airport Improvement After project 15 9/02-12/03 FAA Entitlement funds $4,109,985 Airfield construction and safety improvements Airports Program(ATP) completion Department of Annual Deartment K-9 Explosive Detection Personnel reimbursement,handler salaries,benefits, After project 16 Airports/Police $120,000 Federal Aviation Agency(FAA) (if available) Program K-9 supplies,travel and equipment for 3 of 4 teams. completion p Emergency Comprehensive To reimburse partial salary and benefits for 17 10/01-9/03 $20,000 State of UT,Dept of Public Safety Quarterly Management Division Emergency Management Emergency Management Position. Metropolitan Medical To develop and implement a plan for mass casualty Response System $400,000 UT State Department of Health and 18 7/99-7/03 Fire Department Initial Grant Award-01 $200,000 incidents and to purchase supplies necessary to Human Services Quarterly assist in those events. Additional Funds-02 Emergency Medical For training and to purchase EMS supplies for the Utah Department of Health,Bureau 19 7/01-6/02 Fire Department $99,055 Annual Services Department. of Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Utah Department of Health and 20 7/01-6/03 Fire Department Services-Data Collection $25,000 To develop point of service data collection system. Bureau of Emergency Medical Annual Project Services Assistance to Firefighters To purchase personal safety equipment-PASS Federal Emergency Management 21 11/02-11/03 Fire Department $72,709 Quarterly Grant Program devices. Agency(FEMA) State of Utah Department of Natural Consortium of funds from County,SLC,22 11/00-12/02 Mayor's Office Parley's Crossing $100,000 RDA and Resources Division of Parks and Quarterly CED to complete the Parley's tunnel. Recreation Refugee Youth and Family Closing Y02-12/02 10/01-9/02 $344,725 Federal Department of Health and 10/02-9/03 23 Mayor's Office Consortium-Refugee $344 Administrative costs,contractual services and Human Services Semi-Annual ,725 Assistance Program equipment 24 7/02-6/04 Mayor's Office Million Dollar Solar Roofs $40,000 Funding for solar education U.S.Department of Energy Quarterly Open Grants 19 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds I■ Nu II um • • so li • so is • iii NI iii II ■ ■ ■ ■ MI ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i i II ■ • :•., :Award:: •-::::...::... ::.: Repnrtirig.. •: No: ::::., :....; Department. . Grant Name :.Amount:.. - ..Description';:'::;: Funding.Source Perzoii Requirement 25 7/02-6/03 Mayor's Office Clean Cities $60,000 Alternative fuel outreach annual grant State of IJ L CED,Office of Energy Quarterly Services,US Department of Energy Mayor's George S.&Dolores Dore George S.&Dolores Dore Eccles Private Donation 26 7/01-6/02 Office/YouthCity Eccles Foundation $10,000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Foundation Annual 27 7/01-6/02 Mayor's American Express $5,000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program American Express Centurion Bank 4/3/2002& Office/YouthCity Centurion Bank(AECB) (AECB) 10/3/2002 28 7/01-7/02 Mayor's US Bancorp Contributions $5,000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program US Bank Private Donation Office/YouthCity Program Annual 29 8/01-8/02 Mayor's R.Harold Burton Private $10 000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program R.Harold Burton Private Foundation 4/1/02&9/1/02 Office/YouthCity Foundation 30 1/02-1/03 Mayor's Private Donation Reebok $5,000 YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Reebok Office/YouthCity Annual Mayor's Private Donation 31 1/02-1/03 Office/YouthCity Equity Oil/Paul Dougan $1,000 YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Equity Oil/Paul Dougan Annual 32 1/02-1/03 Mayor's Private Donation Gastronomy,Inc. $5,000 Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration Mural Gastronomy,Inc. Office/YouthCity Annual 33 1/02-1/04 Mayor's AXA Foundation $75,000 Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration AXA Foundation Private Donation Office/YouthCity Annual 34 4/02-4/03 Mayor's Herbert I.&Elsa B. $4.000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Herbert I.&Elsa B.Michael 1 year after grant Office/YouthCity Michael Foundation Foundation award Mayor's * Program expansion support for YouthCity After- Stewardship report 35 4/02-4/03 Office/YouthCity The Skolnick Foundation $5,000 School&Summer Program The Skolnick Family Foundation due in 3/1/2003 36 4/02-4/03 Mayor's The Castle Foundation $2,000* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program The Castle Foundation 1 year after grant Office/YouthCity award Mayor's Private Donation 37 5/02-5/03 Office YouthCity Alcoa $7,500* YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Alcoa Annual Open Grants 20 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Fundy IN um so mi • ism iiii us is II IN MI • MI III MI MI MI IN III s III ■ ■ Ili III ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ::'Nix.:.:::::;::: >:::::::::: :.::::D .::.:. :. .:: ':.:: ... ortirig. ... :....,...epartme�rt grant Nam:.. . �imnuEnt.... , . . Description L�iinding:Saiiree.: .. ...:.:::::1:e> nu'' : .......:....•.•..... :. Aquireitien: 38 6/02-6/03 Mayor's Phillip G.McCarthey * Phillip B.McCarthey Family Private Donation Office/YouthCityFamilyFoundation $2,500 YouthCity After-School&Summer Program Foundation Annual Mayor's U.S.Bancorp * 1 year after grant 39 7/02-7/03 Office/YouthCity Contributions Program $5,000 YouthCity After-School&Summer Program U.S.Bancorp Contributions Program award 40 6/02-5/04 Mayor's Department of Education $1,200,000** Expansion for YouthCity sites Department of Education Quarterly Office/Youtheity COPS Ahead and US Department of Justice- 41 4/95-6/03 Police Department Universal Hiring Phase 3 $2,925,000 10 additional officers Community Oriented Policing Quarterly • Services(COPS) COPS Demonstration Position funding ended as of 6/30/00. Equipment, US Department of Justice- 42 10/97-6/03 Police Department Project $1,000,000 contract services-evaluation. Currently expending Community Oriented Policing Quarterly match. Services(COPS) 43 9/98-Open Police Department DOJ Forfeiture Field $76,000 Equipment-Partial funding of Cogent fingerprint FBI Federal Assets Forfeiture Quarterly Fingerprint System system. 44 7/00-open Police Department Weed and Seed $66,627 Directed overtime,equipment and buy money FBI -Weed and Seed Enforcement Reimbursement Private foundation funds donated for the 45 9/00-Open Police Department ALSAM $25,000 continuation of Methamphetamine drug ALSAM Foundation 1 Narrative enforcement. 6 FTEs,1 part-time,overtime,equipment,supplies 46 1/01-1/03 Police Department Local Law Enforcement $313,341** and contract services-Peer Court Drug Court- US Department of Justice -Bureau Quarterly Block Grant(LLEBG)00 McGruff Safe Kids Program. of Justice Assistance(BJA) State of Utah-Office of Crime 47 4/01-3/03 Police Department VAWA-02 $21,854 02 funds.5 FTE Victims Reparations Quarterly 48 4/01-3/03 Police Department Weapons of Mass $20,000 Continuation-10/00-9/02 State of Utah-Department of Public Quarterly Destruction Grant Safety 7/01-6/02 State of Utah-Commission on 49 Extended Police Department NIBRS 2001 $15,493 Travel,training and equipment Criminal and Juvenile Justice(CCJJ) Quarterly 9/02 State of Utah-Office of Crime 50 9/01-6/02 Police Department VOCA $62,291 3 Additional 0.5 FTE Victim Advocates Victims Reparations Quarterly Open Grants 21 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds .::::A.ward:: : :.:: :... ....... .:;;Repainting... Nt;::: .-. .Departmet>Et ' :: ..:: .:Grattt.Name..:::: .:°.Amount::. . .. . ..:Description:....., ..:. :::.: .....:: .::.: . .:Fundmg.Souree :::-renuu:... . .... .:.. .........:. .. .. : .mequirement 51 9/01-9/03 Police Department Local Law Enforcement $340,160** Contractual,travel/training,equipment,crime US Department of Justice -Bureau Quarterly Block Grant(LLEBG)01 mapping,annual report etc. of Justice Assistance(BJA) 52 10/01-5/03 Police Department COPs in Shops-02 $10,000 Enforcement overtime Utah State Highway Safety Quarterly 53 1/02-12/02 Police Department Rocky Mountain HIDTA $84,824 Enforcement and investigation of illegal drug Rocky Mountain HIDTA Annual manufacturing and distribution 54 7/02-6/03 Police Department CDBG-Crime Prevention $75,000 Personnel services CDBG Funds Quarterly 55 7/02-6/03 Police Department CDBG-Mobile $10,000 Supplies for Mobil Neighborhood Watch CDBG Funds Quarterly Neighborhood Watch 56 7/02-6/03 Police Department Crisis Intervention Teams $13,788 Crisis intervention team training Utah State University Quarterly Continuation Grant MADD awarded to Utah Department Mothers Against Drunk Patrol overtime for drunk driving enforcement and of Public Safety. All overtime is None 57 7/02-6/03 Police Department Driving(MADD) $12,000 warrant service for failure to appear in court. submitted to UDPS for Reimbursement reimbursement only. 58 7/02-Open Police Department Child Bicycle Safety Equipment 250 youth and adult bicycle helmets Salt Lake County Health Department Final Report 59 8/02-10/02 Police Department Utah Highway Safety $10,000 Enforcement of pedestrian safety and cross walks Utah Highway Safety Quarterly 60 9/02-9/04 Police Department Local Law Enforcement $273,181** Officer overtime,travel/training and equipment- US Department of Justice -Bureau Quarterly Block Grant(LLEBG)02 Contractual. of Justice Assistance(BJA) Enforcement and investigation of illegal drug 61 1/03-12/03 Police Department Rocky Mountain HIDTA-2 $84,824 manufacturing and distribution Rocky Mountain HIDTA Annual Police Weapons of Mass State of Utah-Department of Public Quarterly Department/Airport Police Victim of Crime Act Utah State Office of Crime Victim 63 7/02-7/03 Department/Victim $55,183 Advocates for Mobile Response Team Quarterly Advocate Program Victim Assistance Fund Reparations Open Grants 22 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 1.1 s• 1. mi NI m No mi • iiii • • iii III IN MIME • III . IN IN IN IN • • • • • • • ..•.. ..i.:•:••i-:•:••••:••AWard-• • • • .. •,:,:••:.:,:..".-.:•• ...... •. .: •• •••• • : :: . .. ---- :: • ::::-: ...---:...,:..:.. ::..: . :... .:•,••-• ••,:.::....•• :••••• ••••• --•,:..:....::.. .. ... No. i.. • .. •. :::::: Department•••••••,•, :..:Grain Niiik.. •• •' i ••.Aniouiti:.:'. . . . -ii&::kerriiiion.:,•.::.:.:.::..:..:i::..-.•i:::.::::.::i:.:Funding Source ..... . . ,, .:......•••••••..-r••:••,:: •••• •••- •• • • .R tequiremen • ••• • • ••.. . •••• • ••••••••• •• ••• ••••• •• - •- . ... . .. .. .. 2 FTE Community Prosecutors to handle US Department of Justice -Bureau 64 1/01-11/03 Prosecutor's Office Community Prosecution $150,000 neighborhood issues of Justice Assistance(BJA) Quarterly VAWAVAWA- $20,000 To fund officer overtime to arrest offenders who fail State of Utah-Office of Crime 65 7/01-6/03 Prosecutor's Office Quarterly Continuation $21,547 to appear for court. Victims Reparations Redevelopment US Environmental 66 9/96-11/03 Brownfields $200,000 Continuation grant Protection Quarterly Agency(RDA) Agency • Redevelopment Brownfields-IDA US Environmental Protection 67 9/00-11/03 $200,000 Study Quarterly Agency(RDA) position Agency $60,000 cash award to hire coordinator,$140,000 Sorenson Multi- 68 9/01-8/04 Computer Club House $200,000 for equipment,building improvement,etc.Paid Intel Foundation Quarterly Cultural Center from Intel directly to vendors. Open grants are those grants for which an award has been received and the grant is still open within the City's financial reporting system. *Denotes grant applications submitted by the Salt Lake City Foundation. **Denotes a federal appropriation. Open Grants 23 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds in • APPENDIX D IN Qualified List of Salt Lake City Denied and Open Grant Summary (Summary based on information provided by the City) III ■ Effective January 1, 2001 to November 27, 2002 ■ Excluding CDBG,HOME,HOPWA and ESG ■ D GR .. DENIED ANTS OPEN:GRAi�I3'S: ..- .: sU -t SS CITY DEPARTMENT:: :..• :Total Ntiniiber of Total Monetary : :Total Number of • :Total Monetary.: RATI • ... . ca ... .. .... G • APPIi iioiis::•.:.: Request rants Aivartl :::: ■ City Justice Court 0 $0 0 $0 N/A CED/Arts Council 0 $0 2 $110,600 100% • CED/HAND 0 $0 2 $450,000 100% I CED/Planning 0 $0 2 $65,000 100% ■ CED/Transportation 4 $2,292,685 1 $90,000 20% Department of Airports 0 $0 8 $26,511,768 100% 111 Department of Airports/ 0 $0 1 $120,000 100% Police Department IIIEmergency Management Division 0 $0 1 $20,000 100% ■ Fire Department 1 $750,000 4 $796,764 80% . Mayor's Office 2 $175,000 4 $889,450 66.7% Mayor's Office/ 0 $0 0 $0 N/A . Salt Lake City Green Mayor's Office/Youth City/ 45 $727,680 15 $1,342,000* 25.0% Global Artways • Planning Division 1 $3,000 0 $0 0% ■ Police Department 2 $110,782 21 $5,439,383** 91.3% And Equipment Police Department/ 0 $0 1 $51,700 100% inFire Department/Airport Police Department/ 0 $0 1 $55,183 100% . Victim Advocate Program Prosecutor's Office 0 $0 2 $191,547 100% I Public Services 1 $250,000 0 $0 0% . Public Utilities 0 $0 0 $0 N/A . Public Works 1 $308,708 0 $0 0% IIIRedevelopment Agency(RDA) 0 $0 2 $400,000 100% Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center 0 $0 1 $200,000 100% TOTAL 57 $4,617,855 68 $36,733,395 54.4% . When Youth Programs excluded from the calculation,new success ratio is 81.5%. *Includes$1,200,000 in federal appropriations and$56,000 in Salt Lake City Foundation grants. **Includes$926,682 in federal appropriations. 111 II . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 24 II U III III APPENDIX E ■ Comparison of Other Cities to Salt Lake City U As of January 16, 2003 III CRITERIA SALT LAKE . .DENVER PORTLAND .• PROVO WEST VALLEY :: I1T . � CO. .. ::OR - -ET UT • Partially Centralized Administration-Sets Centralized Grant III Centralized Grants Policy,Procedures, Administration Involving Partially Centralized and Funds. Decentralized Moving Towards Centralized Grant Standards,Training,Etc. City Wide Research, Moving Towards Grant Writing and Grant Centralized Grant Writing Decentralized Grant Administrative and II Complete Centralization. Department Assists with Writing Writing. Contract With Applying Process. Review. Decentralized Grant Writing Company Grant Writing. IIfor Smaller Departments. ■ Decentralized Centralized Financial Partially Centralized and Centralized Monitoring. Centralized Grant Monitoring. Would Like Centralized Grant Management and II MonitoringTowards Decentralized Monitoring to Implement Centralized Monitoring Decentralized Grant Complete Centralization. Monitoring. Monitoring. Administration. ■ - Total Dollar Value of Grants Received $37.6 Million-FY2001 $124 Million-2001 $15.8 Million-2001 $7.37 Million-2001 $12.4 Million-2001 ■ (Approximate) • 54.4%Overall 50%Success Rate Success in Obtaining 85%Excluding Youth No Award Tracking 90-95%Success Rate- 7 Accepted and 7 90%Success Rate- . Funding Programs Estimate Rejected Out of 14 Estimate Grants U . 80%Funding on High 90s%on Continuation Grant 100%Funding on Unable to Determine 100%Funding on Continuation Grants- Continuation Grants- Funding Continuation Grants Continuation Grants Estimate Estimate ■ Summary based on information provided by City personnel and/or documentation. ■ II 111 1111 111 111 II 111 111 Ill . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Grant Funds 25 ■ ■ • ■ Deloitte SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH ■ & Touche ■ \ ■ • //: ‘.., ■ ■ ■ PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE 111 GOLF PROGRAM ■ ■ ■ August 30, 2003 ■ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu I I I II TABLE OF CONTENTS I I II I. Executive Summary 2 Scope and Objectives 2 II Overall Conclusion 2 II Methodology 2 111 II. Background and Understanding 3 I III. Observations and Recommendations 3 . Objective#1 Review operations, organization, and staffing as compared to other municipal golf 111 organizations 3 . Objective#2 Review cash collection procedures and related controls at pro shops 7 Il Objective#3 II Review controls over safeguarding of merchandise and inventory. 9 • Objective#4 IIReview controls governing concessionaire revenues. 9 Objective#5 ■ Evaluate the marketing plan compared to best practices. 10 • Objective#6 Provide several options for the use of off-peak green fees that have been successful at other municipal golf courses to more fully utilize golf courses 11 • IV. Appendices 12 Appendix A 12 Appendix B 15 111 III I 111 II I I Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 1 III III Il I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 111 We have completed the Performance Audit of the Golf Program for Salt Lake City Corporation. II The Performance Audit was conducted consistent with the assignment received from the City IICouncil. The Audit was performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES Ill Our Performance Audit included the practices and procedures utilized by the Golf Program 111 relative to the seven objectives identified by the City Council. These objectives were as follows: ■ • Review operations, organization, and staffing as compared to other municipal golf . organizations. • Review cash collection procedures and related controls at pro shops. • • Review controls over the safeguarding of merchandise and inventory. • • Review controls governing concessionaire revenues. 111 • Evaluate the marketing plan compared to best practices. . • Provide several options for the use of off-peak green fees that have been successful at other municipal golf courses to more fully utilize golf courses. I ■ OVERALL CONCLUSION Several weaknesses in the Golf Division's cash handling procedures were identified. Additional ■ effort is needed to strengthen internal controls to improve compliance with the Division's Cash Handling Procedures. In addition, the Golf Division is currently attempting to resolve several I disputes it has with its concessionaires. The disputes are related to the fees due the Division. We encourage the Division's continued focus on resolving these disputes. Additional detail for II these issues, as well as other observations, can be found in the body of this report. Information comparing the junior and senior discounts as well as off-peak green fees to other municipal golf I courses has been provided in Appendices A and B. 111 METHODOLOGY I We obtained operational documentation, marketing plans, concessionaire contracts, 111 organizational charts, policies and procedures, and other pertinent documentation to obtain an understanding of the Golf Division's operations and objectives. We also interviewed Golf I Division management and staff and gained an understanding of the practices for managing daily golf operations. We performed Internet-based research to obtain an understanding of the I practices utilized by other cities and jurisdictions. I 1 I I I Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 2 111 I II. BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING r Salt Lake City's Golf Division has provided City residents with access to golf facilities for more . than 70 years. Its mission has been to provide competitively priced golf opportunities for all segments of the golfing public on a self-funding basis. Currently, the Golf Division is responsible III for the management, maintenance and administration of nine City golf courses. I Its nine golf courses give Salt Lake City a unique mix of facilities that appeal to every type of golfer in the Salt Lake Valley. Four of the golf courses — Bonneville, Glendale, Rose Park and II Wingpointe— are full-service 18-hole facilities with on-site clubhouses, restaurants and driving ranges. Two courses— Forest Dale and Nibley Park—are nine-hole facilities with clubhouses and restaurants. Nibley also features a driving range. Forest Dale features a newly renovated II clubhouse and Golf Division offices, but it does not include a driving range or practice tee. Mountain Dell is a unique Salt Lake City Golf facility in Parleys Canyon, which features two 18- hole golf courses, central clubhouse, restaurant and driving range. Jordon River Par Three has recently been added to the City's list of golf courses. I The financial challenge of golf operations is rooted in a simple economic fact: It takes a fixed I amount of money to maintain a golf course in premium condition, regardless of how many I golfers pay greens fees to play it. The natural processes that affect golf course conditions— grass growth, the grooming of greens, tees and fairways, arboriculture, and pest control — I demand short- and long-range attention. Spending on materials, staff and equipment to manage these processes cannot be turned on and off as sales of golf rounds fluctuate from season to season or from year to year. In the best-run golf operations—those that consistently attract and hold the loyalty of their clientele—spending for regular maintenance follows a careful plan that promotes long-term course quality. The Salt Lake City area has become a highly competitive golf market. Since 1985, 11 new golf I courses have been developed in the Salt Lake Valley, giving the golfing public its choice of 43 public-access courses and 12 private courses (country clubs) in the immediate region. In I addition, six new golf courses are either in the planning stage or under construction in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, three of which will be fully operational during 1997. I I III. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 OBJECTIVE#1 Review operations, organization and staffing as compared to other municipal golf organizations. I METHODOLOGY I We obtained operational documentation and gained an understanding of the operations, organization, and staffing of Salt Lake City's Golf Division. We also interviewed Golf Division I management and staff and gained an understanding of the policies and practices for managing I daily golf operations. We compared our observations of operations, organization and staffing to those of three other cities (namely Denver, Phoenix and Portland) to gain an understanding of operations, organization and staffing methods employed. I I Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 3 II II II CONCLUSION I Based on our review of the City's golf program as compared to Denver, Phoenix and Portland, we noted that golf operations, organization and staffing are generally consistent across these II cities. In addition, operational budgets, staffing and personnel costs, per course, are also 111 generally consistent. During the course of our review, we identified some best practices and trends, which have been included as points of information for the consideration of the City . Council and Golf Division management. ■ 1.1 POINT OF INFORMATION-ADDITIONAL REVENUE II Some municipal courses reviewed generate additional revenue by charging an annual fee for the purchase of a reservation card and number. This enables the customer to reserve a tee I time greater than 24 hours in advance. Currently, Salt Lake City provides this service free of charge. II RECOMMENDATION • Consider charging an annual fee for the purchase of a reservation card and number. Il MANAGEMENT INPUT I Most public golf courses with automated tee time reservation systems do charge a fee for user access to stratified advanced tee time reservations. When the City implemented its automated system in 1993, the City's golf program administrators indicated that they would offer the service to its customers free of charge and that commitment has stood for the past decade. With the golf program's new addition of online tee time reservations via the Internet to the I current automated phone reservation system, it may well be time to reexamine whether a I minimal annual user fee to assist in supporting the expense of offering the service would be well received by the golfing public. 1.2 POINT OF INFORMATION-ADDITIONAL YOUTH PROGRAMS Salt Lake City's golf youth programs are not as developed as those in other cities. Currently, I Salt Lake City charges a fee for two week lessons for youth. Some programs offered by other cities are as follows: I ✓ Free lessons for junior golfers (Phoenix). ✓ Two week instruction from a Golf pro as part of the school system's physical education program (Denver). I ✓ Outreach programs for deserving, high-risk youths consisting of free on course instruction, instruction during school hours, part-time jobs on courses, college I scholarships, etc. (Denver, Portland) RECOMMENDATION The City may want to consider providing youth with free services as well as access to other golf activities, similar to other cities surveyed. I MANAGEMENT INPUT I Set to begin in the spring of 2003, the Golf Division has recently announced significantly expanded junior golf programs that are anticipated to more than double the amount of I Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 4 II II O participation by junior golfers in the first year. City and County golf administrations have been . cooperatively working for some time to develop a jointly-operated program to benefit all the junior golfers in the area. The joint goal for the City and County has been to create an "all- encompassing"junior golf program for all levels of junior golfers, with the following areas of emphasis: • • Introduce a much greater number of kids to the game of golf • Educate kids on the rules and etiquette of the game • Help kids develop golf skills that will foster a love for the game of golf 1111 • Facilitate affordable, quality competition utilizing both City and County golf professionals IIand golf courses I Building on the opportunities provided by the recent inclusion of the Jordan River Par-3 golf course into the City's golf course inventory, many of the junior program's clinics and events are . scheduled to be held at this facility, which lends itself so uniquely to teaching novices the game of golf. O In addition, cooperative agreements have been reached with the local chapter of the national . First Tee foundation to use the Jordan River facility for its home. Through a mentoring program with special emphasis on those youth who have not had access or exposure to the game of golf, First Tee's mission is to use the game of golf to focus on teaching children various life skills such as how to set goals, develop leadership skills, and accept responsibility. These skills can II be learned through golf and applied to other aspects of a child's life. Encouragingly, the National Golf Foundation's "2003 Golf Participation in the U.S." report has just been released and 111 indicates that national programs geared towards juniors, such as The First Tee, USGA, and Hook a Kid on Golf, are having a positive impact on participation. 6.1 million juniors are now II participating in golf, up from 4.4 million in 2001 and 4.0 million in 2000. • 1.3 POINT OF INFORMATION - PRIVATIZATION O During the course of our research, we noted that not only were many cities considering ✓ privatization, but also there appeared to be a general industry trend toward the privatization of municipal golf courses. • RECOMMENDATION 111 Since there are many factors that impact the trend toward the privatization of public golf courses, the City may want to consider performing an in-depth study to better articulate the II benefits and costs of privatization. . MANAGEMENT INPUT . The statement regarding a trend toward privatizing certain types of municipal golf operations may have been valid for the 1990's, but the current business environment of a sagging I economy, tumbling stock market and the generally over-built state of golf courses have delivered a heavy blow to golf management companies across the nation. Any trend toward privatization has stagnated. In September 2002, American Golf Corp., the largest golf management company in the U.S., struck a deal to sell itself to an investor group after facing 111 technical defaults on its debt covenants and public pronouncements that it likely could not make its rent payments to its owner, National Golf Properties, through the winter. III I IISalt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 5 II II I Recently, private golf management companies have found particularly tough sledding in the local market. In point of fact, most recent attempts by private golf management companies to III enter the local public golf course market have resulted in the eventual divestiture of their golf I courses to local government agencies after their operations failed to prosper within the low fee structure present in the local golf environment. Several examples serve to illustrate this point: • In 1998, Crown Golf Properties of Chicago, IL, constructed and opened South Mountain golf course near Draper, UT, as an upper-scale public golf course. Two years later, due to low operational revenues and investor returns, the course was sold to Salt Lake County. O • In 1999, Evergreen Alliance Golf Ltd. (EAGL) of Dallas, TX, opened Stonebridge Golf Course, a 27-hole golf facility designed by Johnny Miller and located in West Valley City. 111 EAGL initially opened the course with $49 weekend fees, but found that was too high for the market. Despite scaling back rates to attempt to match the market and lowering I profit expectations, lack of ongoing operational revenues caused EAGL to sell the course to West Valley City in July 2001. In parting, Larry Corson, president and chief O executive officer of EAGL, said the state's municipal courses pose stiff competition for private owners. I I • In 2000, River Oaks Golf Course opened as a public course operated under private management in West Jordan. In 2002, on the verge of bankruptcy, the golf course was sold to Sandy City. Privatization of governmentally-operated golf courses usually occurs due to lack of operational efficiencies and the inability to fund capital improvements. For municipalities that attempt to I operate their courses as part of general fund operations, those conditions sometimes apply and the resulting taxpayer burden creates a situation where privatization becomes attractive. Municipalities that choose to operate their municipal golf courses under the Enterprise Fund model are much less susceptible to conditions that predispose favorably toward privatization. I In July 1998, Golf Digest published a ranking of 309 major cities in the United States on the I basis of the affordability, condition and accessibility of the area's public golf courses. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area was awarded the first-place ranking among all metropolitan areas I having a population of one million or more. In 2002, in a more detailed study by Golf Digest, Salt Lake City public golf courses ranked second in value and third in average green fees I among the 62 metropolitan statistical areas with a population of one million or more. • With nationally-recognized efficiencies in its golf operations; the program accountability and the I absence of taxpayer burden created by operating as an enterprise fund; the continuing robust level of funding annually applied to capital improvements; and the comparatively low golf fee structure currently enjoyed by its golfing citizens, it will likely prove difficult to make a strong case that the City's golf program is a viable candidate for efforts toward privatization. I I 111 I I Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 6 I OBJECTIVE#2 Review cash collection procedures and related controls at pro shops. METHODOLOGY We obtained the City's Golf Division Cash Handling policies and procedures, as well as interviewed the Golf personnel to gain an understanding of cash handling procedures at the pro shops. We then performed tests and reviews relative to cash handling procedures at selected courses, including shift closing procedures, opening cash balances, and cash overages and shortages. . CONCLUSION Based on the test work performed, several weaknesses were found. Additional attention and effort is needed to comply with Division's Cash Handling Procedures. I 2.1 OBSERVATION—SHIFT CLOSING REPORTS We noted that golf courses inconsistently adhered to shift closing procedures. Inconsistent 111 procedures included the research of cash differences and closing packet documentation, among others. Some of the inconsistency appeared to be a result of employees misunderstanding the policies and procedures. 111 RECOMMENDATION Additional training is needed to ensure employees completely understand closing policies and procedures. In addition, management should consider revisiting the policies and procedures to ■ ensure that written policies and procedures accurately reflect the closing procedures desired by management. • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE r Management agrees with the recommendation to revisit the policies and procedures and will make the necessary amendments in order to reflect the latest requirements by management. • The published cash procedures dated August 21, 2000 were written around the time of a major change in our point-of-sale software. In the subsequent months there were various observations and adjustments made to our accepted cash-handling practices. Unfortunately the cash . procedure document wasn't updated to reflect the various decisions that management had made over time to further refine our practices at the courses. An example would be that the City's central accounting office in the Management Services Department had instructed us to generate an end of day Shift Credit Detail Report rather than a report for each shift. This change was instituted in practice but was not reflected in our written cash procedures. Another example has to do with retaining redeemed coupons. The most common discount coupon redeemed at our courses is from a PGA program and doesn't provide a copy to be retained. This should be acknowledged in our written procedures. A final example is where the deposit bags provided by the vendor had changed, no longer having a tear off top. Originally, the top of the bag was to be retained as part of the daily documentation. The procedures weren't changed once the nature of �j the bags and our practices changed. ■ Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 7 I • 2.2 OBSERVATION—OPENING CASH REGISTER BALANCES I Some of the golf courses tested had opening cash balances different than the amount reflected in the Cash Handling Procedures. In most cases, this appeared to be the result of current ■ practices being updated and the policy remaining unchanged. II RECOMMENDATION . The Salt Lake City Golf Division should determine the appropriate opening balance for each golf course and then update the Cash Handling Procedures to reflect this amount. Internal controls II should than be strengthened to facilitate compliance with this procedure. laMANAGEMENT RESPONSE There were only two cases where a golf course opened the register with a different amount than ■ stated in the Policies and Procedures. Both cases were because the Policies and Procedures weren't correct. One was an error in the preparation of the Policies and Procedures, one was ■ because a new course had come on board and the course wasn't listed in the Policies and . Procedures. I 2.3 OBSERVATION—OVERAGES AND SHORTAGES I The Cash Handling Procedures state that the cashier is to review each overage/shortage and perform an appropriate amount of research. If the difference can not be located, the cashier is I to sign the report and include an explanation. Based on our test work, we noted that there were several small overages and shortages for each golf course in our sample. Only one golf course a had any documentation, as required by policy, to indicate that any research had been completed to identify the difference. Based on discussion with golf accounting staff, we noted N that only overages and shortages over$25 are researched. II RECOMMENDATION I This procedure should be reviewed and updated to reflect the current policies involved in overage and shortage investigations. If only overages and shortages over $25 are going to be I investigated then the procedures should reflect this policy. I MANAGEMENT RESPONSE The observed overages and shortages ranged from a shortage of$1.15 to an overage of$5.01. I Management considers these to be well within the range of reasonable variances (especially considering that such variances represent a very small percentage of typical deposits) and I hasn't been requiring any considerable investigation of small dollar amounts less than $25. This threshold is reflected in the written policies in conjunction with progressive discipline. Since I implementation, this policy has brought about tremendous improvement in the accuracy of cash I handling and related recordkeeping. The Division's actual practice, with management's approval, has been to only investigate extensively amounts that exceed $25. Management will I update the Policies and Procedures to reflect this conscious decision and current practice. I I I I I Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 8 I ■ I I OBJECTIVE#3 f Review controls over safeguarding of merchandise and inventory. ■ METHODOLOGY i We obtained the City's Golf Division Merchandise and Inventory policies and procedures, as well as interviewed the Golf personnel to gain an understanding of inventory procedures. In N addition, we reviewed Division practices to safeguard inventory. . CONCLUSION Based on the test work performed, duties relative to the purchase and receiving of inventory II should be segregated to enable proper internal controls. I r 3.1 OBSERVATION—SEGREGATION OF DUTIES As part of our review we noted that Golf Pros purchase and receive inventory. These duties III should be segregated to provide proper internal controls. II RECOMMENDATION II While it appears appropriate for Golf Pros to place orders specifically for their shops, additional controls should be implemented to ensure inventory is properly received and recorded. For II example, inventory purchases could be submitted centrally to the purchasing department and approved by accounting staff. In addition, receiving documents could also be initialed by two • individuals at the golf shop. ■ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE II in agrees with the recommendation that additional controls should be implemented, in particular the suggestion that the Division centralize the purchasing process. We will institute III centralized centralized order-placing process. As far as receiving the merchandise, the costs of centralized receiving would exceed benefits. Management attempted this practice a few years I ago and found the process to be very cumbersome and impractical. We believe that other steps could be implemented to tighten up the security over the merchandise being received, without 11 requiring that all merchandise be received at one location. We would like to point out that it isn't always practical to have two individuals on location when merchandise is received and consider i the costs of scheduling a second individual to be present whenever received would exceed the benefits. III ■ OBJECTIVE#4 i Review controls governing concessionaire revenues. IIIMETHODOLOGY We obtained an understanding of the City's policies and procedures relative to concessionaires. II We obtained and reviewed all concessionaire contracts and evaluated concessionaires' compliance with their respective contracts. We obtained reports that reflected balances due r from concessionaires and reviewed the aging of receivables. I II Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Progrwn Page 9 I I II II CONCLUSION I Based on the test work performed, controls over concessionaire revenue need strengthening. . Additional effort is needed to resolve the disagreements between the City and concessionaires. 4.1 OBSERVATION—CONTRACT COMPLIANCE IN Several concessionaires are not complying with their contracts. Further, the Golf Division is not II enforcing compliance until specific disagreements surrounding the contracts are resolved. Testing for compliance was challenging because both parties have agreed to be in IN noncompliance with the contracts until the disagreements can be resolved. Issues to be resolved include, among others, the concessionaires' share of utilities and the timing of the 111 percentage of sales payments to the Golf Division (i.e. monthly percentage of sales vs. yearly percentage of sales). 11 RECOMMENDATION I We encourage the City resolve the disagreement as soon as possible. In addition the City II should consider a standardized contract with concessionaires to enable consistent compliance efforts. I MANAGEMENT RESPONSE II Management agrees that, at the time the audit was conducted, there were several concessionaire contracts with which there were some disputes among the parties to the ■ agreement as to how the contract language was to be interpreted. The disputes have now been resolved and there is now a mutual agreement among all parties on interpretation of the I contract language. I II OBJECTIVE#5 . Evaluate the marketing plan compared to best practices. METHODOLOGY III We obtained and reviewed the marketing plan for the Golf Division to gain an understanding of ■ their marketing plans. The marketing plan and its contents were compared to the information found in other marketing plans for other municipal golf courses identified on the Internet. 111 CONCLUSION ■ Based on our review of marketing plans, we noted that format and content of marketing plans were varied and diverse. To this end, a clear acceptable standard for marketing plans could not IN be identified. The Golf Division's marketing plan compared favorably to other well-written marketing plans. IN ■ II I ■ ■ 111 Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 10 t I OBJECTIVE#6 ✓ Provide several options for the use of off-peak green fees that have been successful at other I municipal golf courses to more fully utilize golf courses. METHODOLOGY We obtained a schedule of off-peak green fees from the City's golf courses. We also performed I research over the Internet for selected golf courses, as well as contacted personnel at these courses. These courses included Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake County, and St. George. Our O research focused on the rates and fees charged for off-peak golf rounds. The results of our research can be found in Appendix A and B. Appendix A reflects junior and senior discounts I and Appendix B reflects off-peak green fees. 1 CONCLUSION ■ Off-peak discounts at the different golf courses reviewed revealed that off-peak discount practices varied from course to course. The discounts appeared to specifically reflect the ✓ particular off-peak course availability and revenue strategies of each course. Consequently, off- peak discount strategies are dependent on the desired activity at each course and an evaluation I of best practices for off-peak green fees was not considered useful. I However, while the City utilizes off-peak green fees discounts at several of their golf courses, these discounts are only available for juniors and seniors players. Golf programs at other cities I provide off-peak green fees to all golf players. See the information provided in Appendices A and B. I RECOMMENDATION I The Golf Division should evaluate the desired outcome for each type of player and course and determine if the use of off-peak discounts would support that goal. For example, as noted in Appendix B, Phoenix courses use a "Winter Twilight" discount to attract players to certain Il courses at specific times of the day. Salt Lake County offers a "Spring Special" on certain days of the week. I MANAGEMENT RESPONSE I In Appendix B of this study, Salt Lake City's Frequent Player's Discount card offers off-peak II discounts of 30% in green fees and range balls to all members of the golf community who choose to purchase an annual card. For junior and senior golfers, the discount applies in • conjunction to the other discounts for which they are already eligible. Implemented in January 2002, this off-peak discount program has proven to be very popular with the City's golfers. At I the current time, approximately 2,300 golfers have elected to participate in this program. II Additionally, over the last several months the Golf Division has worked with the Golf Advisory Board to develop a number of other off-peak discount fee programs that will be proposed to the II City Administration and City Council for adoption as part of the upcoming fiscal year 2004 budget process. II Il IN ■ IISalt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 11 111 111 IN III NI 111 >• NI 1 ■ IN IN ■ 111 III IN IA IN ! >• IN IV. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Junior and Senior Discounts Salt Lake City Courses Discount Background Information Forest Dale 35% for junior golfer Junior golfers are charged a fee of$6.50 for 9-holes and $13.00 for 18-holes Monday-Friday, excluding holidays, on all Salt Lake City courses, except for the Jordan River course. This is a $3.50 savings for 9-holes at Forest Dale. 20% for senior golfer Senior golfers receive a $2.00 discount for 9-holes Monday- Friday, excluding holidays, at Forest Dale. Glendale 41% for junior golfer At the junior golfer rate, this is a $4.50 savings for 9-holes at Glendale. 18% for senior golfer Senior golfers receive a $2.00 discount for 9-holes Monday- Friday, excluding holidays, at Glendale. Jordan River 18% for junior golfer At the Jordan River junior rate is $4.50, which is a $1.00 savings. 18% for senior golfer Senior golfers receive a $1.00 discount for 9-holes Monday- Friday, excluding holidays, at Jordan River. 15% on green fee Regular golfers receive a $1.00 savings off of the weekend rate of$6.50 when they golf Monday-Friday at Jordan River. Mountain Dell Canyon 48% for junior golfer At the junior golfer rate, this is a $12.00 savings on 18-holes at Mountain Dell Canyon. 24% for senior golfer Senior golfers receive a $6.00 discount for 18-holes Monday- Friday, excluding holidays, at Mountain Dell Canyon. 20% on green fee The twilight special saves $5.00 on 18-holes. It saves senior golfers $4.00 off the senior rate for 18-holes. The evening special allows golfers to play 9-holes at half of the 18-hole green fee. Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 12 IIIIIMIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111 .1111M1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111MMINI Denver Courses Evergreen 10-15% on green fee Golfers receive a $2.00 discount on either 9-holes or 18-holes Monday-Thursday. John F. Kennedy 15% on green fee Golfers receive a $2.00 discount on 9-holes Monday-Thursday. 45-54% for junior golfer Junior golfers are charged $6.00 for 9-holes Monday-Friday. This translates into a $5.00 savings Monday-Thursday and a $7.00 savings on Friday. 36-46% for senior Senior golfers are charged $7.00 for 9-holes Monday-Friday. golfer This translates into a $4.00 savings Monday-Thursday and a $6.00 savings on Friday. Phoenix Courses Discount Background Information Aguila & Encanto 25-37% for junior golfer Junior golfers are charged $5 on-season and $4 off-season, which is a savings of$3 and $2 respectively. This allows junior golfers to play anytime Monday-Friday and after 12 p.m. weekend, holidays, and winter as space is available. 25% for senior golfer Senior golfers receive a $2 discount on-season Monday- Friday. 36% on green fee The winter twilight saves golfers $8 on 18-holes after 1 p.m. Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 13 • ■ R R R R R R R • R U R R R • R R R U R U R U U U R R U R R IN Salt Lake County Discount Background Information Meadow Brook 40% for junior golfer Junior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $6.50. This is a savings of$4.50 per round. 27% for senior golfer Senior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $8. This is a savings of$3 per round. Mick Riley 45% for junior golfer Junior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $6. This is a savings of$5 per round. 27% for senior golfer Senior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $8. This is a savings of$3 per round. 43% on green fee The heat of the day special allows golfers to play 9-holes with a cart for $13, which is a $17 savings. 36-43% on green fee The twilight special allows golfers to play 9-holes for $7 without a cart or$13 with a cart, which is a $4 or $10 savings respectively. Old Mill 38% for junior golfer Junior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $8. This is a savings of $5 per round. 23% for senior golfer Senior golfers can golf 9-holes Monday-Thursday and Friday before 11 a.m. for $10. This is a savings of$3 per round. St. George Courses Discount Background Information Dixie Red Hills & 34% on green fee Purchasing a punch pass for 20, 9-hole rounds nets a Southgate savings of$82.50 in the off-season and $130 in the on- season. This translates into an off-season savings of$4.12 per round and an on-season savings of$5.37 per round. 47% on green fee The twilight special saves $18 off the 18-hole with cart price. Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 14 i ! ■ ■ U ■ ■ ■ ! ■ ■ t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ R ! ■ ■ ■ ■ U ■ • ■ I• APPENDIX B Off-Peak Green Fees Salt Lake City Courses Discount Background Information All 9 Salt Lake City 30% on green fee The frequent player's card saves golfers 30% on all 9 Salt courses Lake City operated courses. 50% on green fee All 9 Salt Lake City courses offer specials to golfers with the PGA Utah golf pass. They all offer a buy one round get one round free. Valid for two golfers only and a cart is mandatory. The offers vary in number of uses and available times. Phoenix Courses Discount Background Information Aguila & Encanto 36% on green fee The winter twilight special saves golfers $8 on 18-holes. This allows golfers to play after 1 p.m. or play the back-9 for the first 1.5 hours of daylight. 37% on green fee The replay special allows golfers to play another 9-holes immediately following a 9-hole round for$5 during the regular season, which is $3 off the regular green fee. Salt Lake County Discount Background Information Meadow Brook 18% on green fee Meadow Brook offers a punch pass for 10, 9-hole rounds for $90. This saves the golfer $2 per round. 50% on green fee Golfers with a PGA golf pass can play 18-holes as buy one round get one round free. Requires two golfers and a cart rental. Valid Monday and Tuesday all day and Saturday and Sunday after 2 p.m. This offer is unlimited. Salt Lake City Corporation-Golf Program Page 15 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ t ! ! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1. ■ ■ ■ ■ ! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Mick Riley 18% on green fee Mick Riley offers a punch pass for 10, 9-hole rounds for $90. This saves the golfer $2 per round. 50% on green fee Golfers with a PGA golf pass can play 9 or 18-holes as buy one round get one round free. Requires two golfers and a cart rental. Valid Saturday and Sunday after 2 p.m. and the offer is unlimited. Old Mill 15% on green fee Old Mill offers a punch pass for 10, 9-hole rounds for $110. This saves the golfer $2 per round. South Mountain 13-20% on green fee The spring special allows golfers to play 18-holes with a cart for $39 Monday-Sunday. This saves the golfer $6 Monday- Thursday and $10 Friday-Sunday. 25% on green fee Golfers can purchase a punch card for 10, 18-hole rounds with a cart for $375. This saves the golfer $7.50 Monday- Thursday and $11.50 Friday-Sunday. St. George Courses Discount Background Information Dixie Red Hills 20-35% on green fee Golfers with the PGA golf pass can play 18-holes with a cart for $20 from June 1-September 30. They can also golf 18- holes with a cart for $30 from October 1-May 31. This saves the golfer $11 and $8 respectively. This offer is good for 4 rounds. Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 16 IN ma mi no s ■■ III Ill w ■I II■ IN IN 11111 III IN MI III I. l• ■ ■ ■ ! ■ ■ ■ !! ■ ■ ■ ■ Southgate 50% on green fee Golfers with the PGA golf pass can play 18-holes as buy one round get one round free with another golfer. This requires a cart rental and can be used for 2 rounds. Valid from June 1-September 30 and December 1-24, excluding holidays. 20-35% on green fee Golfers with the PGA golf pass can play 18-holes with a cart for $20 from June 1-September 30. They can also golf 18- holes with a cart for $30 from December 1-24, excluding holidays. This saves the golfer $11 and $8 respectively. This offer is good for 4 rounds. Dixie Red Hills & Both of these courses offer an 8 month season pass. The Southgate price was unavailable. Residents of Washington County can get a resident card and receive discounts at all city operated courses. The savings were unavailable. Salt Lake City Corporation—Golf Program Page 17 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2003 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A POOL OF MEMBERS TO SERVE ON EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARDS AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Jamey Knighton,Labor Relations Specialist cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jamey Knighton,Brenda Hancock,Steve Fawcett,Lyn Creswell,Ed Rutan,DJ Baxter KEY ELEMENTS: Employees of Salt Lake City Corporation that have been discharged or involuntarily transferred to a position with less pay can appeal the action to an employee appeals board consisting of three City employees chosen by election and two City employees that are appointed. According to state law, the employee appeals board must certify its decision to the city recorder within 15 business days after the board receives an appeal. Under current City ordinance, one additional alternate employee is elected and one additional alternate is appointed so that a board can consider appeals during times when one member of either elected members or appointed members is on vacation or otherwise not available. Even though there are two alternates, there have been times when it is still difficult to convene a board and conduct the investigation within the 15-day time restraint. The Administration is requesting the establishment of a pool of six employees elected and four appointed. For each appeal,the City's labor relations officer will select a five-member board (three elected and two appointed) to consist of those who are least likely to have personal knowledge of the cause for the appellants discharge or transfer. MATTERS AT ISSUE: State law provides that the employee appeals board consists of five members,three of whom shall be chosen by employees and"two of whom shall be members of the governing body." Under the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance, the appointed board members are designed by the Mayor. Council staff discussed with the City Attorney's Office whether this could be in conflict with State law. The informal response was that although the statute refers to the "governing body," the Utah Supreme Court in "Martindale v. Anderson" (1978) stated that such term is an antiquated holdover from the time when there was only a unified system of municipal government. With the advent of the strong mayor/council form of government, the Supreme Court indicated that rather than be governed by the historic definition of"governing body," under the strong mayor/council form,it was necessary to look at the actual power being performed. • While the Council adopts staffing documents and compensation plans, the actual hiring, discipline and termination of executive branch employees is an executive function. Accordingly to the City Attorney's Office,when reading "governing body" as to executive branch employees,the term "mayor" should be read into such term. If the Council has further questions, a representative of the City Attorney's Office is prepared to respond. Police officers and fire fighters can appeal to a civil service commission and are not eligible to appeal to the City's Employee Appeals Board. Department heads and at-will employees are also not eligible to appeal to the Board. All other City employees, including those represented by AFSCME, are eligible to file an appeal. Members of the Board receive no additional compensation. Elected and appointed members serve for three-year terms. The duties of board members take precedent over all other duties. Appeals are to be in writing and filed in the Office of the City Recorder before the close of the 10th business day following the employee's receipt of a written decision by the employee's department head effecting or upholding the discharge or transfer. The written appeal must include the specific reasons for the appeal. The City's Employee Appeals Board has authority to investigate,take and receive evidence, and fully hear and determine the matter that relates to the cause for an employee discharge or involuntary transfer from one position to another with less remuneration. The appellant may be represented by any person to act as an advocate and may request City employees and other persons to appear as witnesses,during the appeal proceedings. The City's labor relations officer serves as procedural advisor to the Board. Decisions of the Employee Appeals Board are not merely recommendations but are the actual outcome of the appeal. If the Board's decision is to overturn the discharge or transfer, no further proceeding is allowed by state law. The employee is to be restored to the former position on the next business day after the decision is certified to the City Recorder. The Board may as part of its decision, provide that the appellant receive his or her salary for the period of time during which the employee was discharged, or any deficiency in salary for the period the employee was transferred. If the Board decides to uphold a discharge or transfer,the Board includes in its decision a notice to the appellant of the right to appeal to the Mayor or designee. The Mayor or designee may overturn the decision of the Board only if the Mayor or designee determines that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. OPTIONS: The Administration plans to hold board member elections during November 13-20. The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Advance the ordinance to the November 4th Council Meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional information or schedule a follow-up briefing prior to considering the resolution. 10-3-1105. Appointive officers and employees-- Duration and termination of term of office. All appointive officers and employees of municipalities, other than members of the police departments, fire departments,heads of departments, and superintendents, shall hold their employment without limitation of time, being subject to discharge or dismissal only as hereinafter provided. 10-3-1106. Discharge or transfer--Appeals--Board--Procedure. (1)No officer or employee covered by Section 10-3-1105 shall be discharged or transferred to a position with less remuneration because of his politics or religious belief, or incident to, or through changes,either in the elective officers, governing body, or heads of departments. In all cases where any officer or employee is discharged or transferred from one position to another for any reason,he shall have the right to appeal the discharge or transfer to a board to be known as the appeal board which shall consist of five members,three of whom shall be chosen by and from the appointive officers and employees, and two of whom shall be members of the governing body. (2)The appeal shall be taken by filing written notice of the appeal with the recorder within ten days after the discharge or transfer. Upon the filing of the appeal,the city recorder shall forthwith refer a copy of the same to the appeal board. Upon receipt of the referral from the municipal recorder,the appeal board shall forthwith commence its investigation,take and receive evidence and fully hear and determine the matter which relates to the cause for the discharge or transfer. (3)The employee shall be entitled to appear in person and to be represented by counsel,to have a public hearing,to confront the witness whose testimony is to be considered, and to examine the evidence to be considered by the appeal board. (4) In the event the appeal board upholds the discharge or transfer,the officer or employee may have 14 days thereafter to appeal to the governing body whose decision shall be final. In the event the appeal board does not uphold the discharge or transfer the case shall be closed and no further proceedings shall be had. (5)The decision of the appeal board shall be by secret ballot, and shall be certified to the recorder with 15 days from the date the matter is referred to it. The board may, in its decision,provide that an employee shall receive his salary for the period of time during which he is discharged, or any deficiency in salary for the period he was transferred to a position of less remuneration but not to exceed a 15 day period. In no case shall the appointive officer or employee be discharged or transferred,where an appeal is taken, except upon a concurrence of at least a majority of the membership of the governing body of the municipality. (6)In the event that the appeal board does not uphold the discharge, or transfer,the recorder shall certify the decision to the employee affected,and also to the head of the department from whose order the appeal was taken. The employee shall be paid his salary,commencing with the next working day following the certification by the recorder of the appeal board's decision,provided that the employee, or officer, concerned reports for his assigned duties during that next working day. (7) The method and manner of choosing the members of the appeal board, and the designation of their terms of office shall be prescribed by the governing body of each municipality by ordinance,but the provisions for choosing the three members from the appointed officers and employees shall in no way restrict a free selection of members by the appointive officers and employees of the municipality. OCT 0 9 2003 SALT; LAKE C J 1I CORPORATION: ROCKY J. FLU HART — �__-r= ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council /2-7 FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart 'a Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Amendment to chapter 2.24 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to the employee appeals board. STAFF CONTACT: Jamey Knighton, 535-6604 Labor Relations Specialist Lyn Creswell, 535-7772 Senior City Attorney DISCUSSION: The current ordinance provides for the election and appointment of 7 persons who may serve on a 5 member appeal board. The administration requests the ability to increase the pool of members from 7 to 10. This proposal amends the ordinance to be consistent with a recent legal opinion from the City Attorney. The City Attorney interpreted the State Code regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the employee appeals board. That opinion concluded that the actions of the board are final and are not advisory to the Mayor. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amendment to the chapter 2.24 of Salt Lake City Code. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: B01-535-6190 aecvc�eo PnPcw ` M SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Employee Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2'.24 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Employee Appeals Board,be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: Chapter 2.24 EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD 2.24.010 Promulgation Of Rules: The labor relations officerpersoi e' officer shall promulgate rules to provide for the creation and function of an employee appeals board within the following parameters set out in this chapter. (Prior code § 25-2-1) 2.24.020 Board Composition: EachThe appeals board shall consist of five (5)regular members: three (3) elected members and two (2) appointed members. and two (2) alternate members. The purpose of alternate members is to encourage the presence of five (5) board members on each case. (Prior code § 25-2-1) 2.24.030 Appointment-Of-Member Pools: The City shall establish a pool of ten(10) employee appeals board members: six (6) city officers or employees chosen by election, four(4) city officers or employees appointed by the Mayor.Three (3) regular board members and one alternate member shall be city officers or employees chosen by election. Two (2` regular members and one alternate member shall be city officers or employees appointed by the mayor. (Prior code § 25-2-1) 2.24.040 Conduct Of Elections: The labor relations officerpersonne officer shall adopt rules for the conduct of elections for the six officers or employees chosen by election.free selection of the three (3) elective board members an,a ^ alternate member by the . ntive ffcers and . : es of the city. (Prior code § 25-2-1) 2.24.050 Terms Of Office: Terms of office for elected board members shall be three (3) years, unless terminated prior thereto by disability, resignation, or for reasons relating to cause. (Prior code § 25-2-1) 2.24.060 Duties. It shall be the duty of the appeals board to conduct hearings and make recommendation to the mayor concerning disciplinary matters referred to it under applicable provisions of law or memoranda-of-understanding. (Prior code § 25-2-1 (part)) SECTION 2. That 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 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHI t F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS FO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Datei° 3 By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinance 03\EmployeeBoardordinance l-clean doc • f SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2003 SUBJECT: FUNDING EMPLOYEE LEAVE LIABILITY AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Rocky Fluhart,Chief Administrative Officer KEY ELEMENTS: In June 2003,the City Council issued a legislative intent that the Administration provide options to the Council and a recommended plan to budget for payments of vacation leave and other retirement payouts. On October 10,2003,the Administration provided a memorandum to the Council giving options for funding the employee leave liability and recommending that the City continue with the current practice of funding the liability in the year paid. MATTERS AT ISSUE: In the event of termination or retirement, Salt Lake City reimburses employees for unused accumulated vacation leave. Upon retirement, employees receive a cash payment equal to 25% of accumulated sick leave or they can convert 50% of the value of accumulated sick leave into medical benefits. In the City's initial program,there was no limit on the accumulation of sick leave. In 1997,the City implemented a personal leave plan that contains an 80-hour accumulation limit. Those employees that voluntarily switched to the personal leave plan received a retirement leave account for a portion of their accumulated sick leave. The retirement leave account is paid out upon retirement. The primary purpose of the personal leave plan was to reduce the accumulation of sick leave and, therefore,the liability for cash payouts upon retirement. Since November 1997, all new employees, except police officers, are required to participate in the personal leave plan. Over time, the limitation on personal leave accumulation will reduce payouts at retirement. The City's unfunded employee leave liability was$13.3 million as of June 30, 2002 for the City's general fund and internal service funds. The liability hasn't yet been calculated for June 30, 2003. By state law,the accumulation of fund balance in the General Fund cannot exceed 18% of general fund revenue. Any fund balance in excess of 5% of the revenue may be utilized for budget purposes. The City's fund balance is approximately$19 million or 11.8% of general fund revenue. Of this amount, approximately$11 million is in excess of the 5% minimum. In the past, some individuals have questioned the necessity of reducing programs or employee positions when there is a large reserve balance. During labor negotiations, union officers are also aware of the reserves. It is tempting for the Administration to propose or the Council to balance on-going expenditures with fund balance or to finance interim budget amendments from reserves. Transferring a portion of the fund balance to a separate employee-leave liability account may provide a more accurate representation of the City's unencumbered fund balance as compared to its liabilities. Establishing a separate employee-leave account by reducing fund balance should help both the Administration and the Council to closely evaluate needs before appropriating fund balance in the annual budget or in budget amendments. In the case of a true emergency,the Council would have the option of restoring the fund balance from remaining balances in the leave liability account. OPTIONS: The Administration identified three options and recommends that the City continue the current practice of budgeting$650,000 per year and handling the few exceptions with a supplemental appropriation from fund balance. The Administration surveyed several other cities regarding funding of leave liability and found that most cities fund the liability in the year paid rather than the year earned. 1. Continue the current practice of budgeting approximately$650,000 per year for leave payouts in the Police and Fire Departments and requiring other departments to cover additional amounts from their operational budgets or to request a budget amendment if they cannot cover payouts from their operational budgets. 2. Appropriate$1.1 million per year to fund the average annual cost of leave payouts in the General Fund. 3. Establish a reserve in the Risk Fund to reduce the unfunded liability for future leave payouts. This liability totaled$13.3 million on June 30, 2002. The reserve could be increased over time by annually appropriating an amount greater than the amount anticipated to be paid to employees in each fiscal year. Another option that could be considered is to designate a portion of the fund balance in the general fund for employee leave liability. 4. Designate a portion of the fund balance in the City's financial statements. A designation would allow a more accurate representation of the City's available fund balance. The cash would also be readily available in an emergency by un- designating the leave liability. (Note: Designations of fund balance are not considered by the State Auditor's Office in the calculation of the 5% minimum and or 18% maximum amounts.) A few months ago as Council Members were discussing the issue of the leave that City employees receive, there was brief discussion of reducing or restructuring the benefits. This briefing does not address that issue. Just as the City now requires new employees to be part of the"new" program that caps accumulation at 80 hours,the City could elect to create another program for employees that are hired in the future. It may be difficult to require current City employees to move to a new program, since the City made an agreement with the employees that included giving up the right to use their sick leave from the former program. The Council could request that the Administration provide additional information on this issue,including perhaps a review by the Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee and the City Attorney's Office. The Administration has noted that a change could have an impact on the City's recruitment ability. Currently the City administers two leave programs, and administering a third may be somewhat cumbersome. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Gordon Hoskins,DJ Baxter OCT 0 2003 ROCKY J. FLU HART Sly a T. Y CORPORATION'' ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR MEMORANDUM FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: October 10, 2003 RE: Funding employee leave liability The City Council requested that the Administration provide options and a recommendation regarding funding for leave balances at the time of employee termination. The table below lists leave payout costs for the past 6 %2 years. Retirement Costs Enterprise and Calendar Year General Fund Other Funds Total 1997 1,509,964 225,879 1,735,843 1998 735,810 301,232 1,037,042 1999 1,077,080 363,713 1,440,793 2000 1,243,051 440,918 1,683,969 2001 757,014 486,974 1,243,988 2002 1,132,864 423,505 1,556,366 2003 Through 6/30 309,442 107,730 417,172 The average annual cost of leave payouts from the General Fund is $1,040,803. We budget $650,000 per year for leave payouts. These funds are used primarily to cover leave payouts for police and fire personnel. Other departments fund leave payouts from departmental operating savings or attrition. If a department cannot fund leave payments from the department budget, a funding request is included in the June budget opening. Fully funding the average cost of leave payouts would require an additional $450,000 per year. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-61 90 In 1997, the city implemented a new personal leave program intended to reduce the accumulation of sick leave. The plan, called"Plan B", limits personal leave accumulation to 80 hours. At the time the new program was implemented, 60% of employees moved to the new plan. Currently, 70% of employees participate in the new personal leave program. All new employees, except police officers, are required to participate in this program. In the long run, this limitation will significantly reduce accumulated leave payout costs. Previously, the city provided employees an early retirement incentive. This incentive expired in June, 2002. The expiration of this program will also significantly reduce payouts at the time of employee retirements. The accumulated leave liability includes: vacation, sick leave, personal leave, the"plan B" retirement leave account (this liability will diminish to zero over time), comp-time and Fire banked vacation time. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statement#34 which was implemented in financial statements for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 requires the city to report leave balance liability on the Statement of Net Assets for Governmental Activities. The liability amount that was reported for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 was $13.3 million. This amount is reported as an offset to net assets in our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). After this offset we reported net assets of$490.1 million in the combined General Fund and Internal Service Funds. We have surveyed several cities regarding funding of leave benefit liability. City Annual Appropriation Separate Fund Reserve West Valley City Yes No Bountiful Yes No Ogden Yes No Sandy Yes 62% of total liability Phoenix Yes No Henderson Yes No Boise Yes 100% of amount determined by actuarial study Boise is obligated by Union agreement to reserve 100%of the liability. The liability amount is determined by an actuarial study each year. The funded amount is not the amount needed to pay out all leave balances in a single year. Options 1. Continue the current practice of budgeting approximately$650,000 per year for leave payouts and requiring departments to cover additional amounts from their operational budgets. 2. Appropriate $1.1 million per year to fund the average annual cost of leave payouts in the General Fund. 3. Establish a reserve in the Risk Fund to reduce the unfunded liability for future leave payouts. This liability totaled $13.3 million on June 30, 2002. The reserve could be increased over time by annually appropriating an amount greater than the amount anticipated to be paid to employees in each fiscal year. Recommendation The Administration recommends that the City continue the current practice of budgeting $650,000 per year for employee leave payments, and handling the few exceptions with a supplemental appropriation from fund balance. MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 2003 TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Council Members Lambert and Love - Open Space and Parks Initiative -Proposed draft ordinance FROM: Janice Jardine Please find attached for your review and comment a draft ordinance creating an Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board. On August 12th, the Council discussed this issue and indicated support in requesting that a draft ordinance be prepared by the City Attorney's office. 1 Draft Oct. 14, 2003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Enacting Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code creating the Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 2.88 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CREATING THE OPEN SPACE TRUST FUND AND ADVISORY BOARD. WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to protect the diminishing open lands within Salt Lake City or its environs; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan to facilitate the need for management of open spaces; and WHEREAS,the City's zoning ordinance and site development ordinance recognize the need to protect the unique values offered by wetlands, foothills and urban trails; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 2.88 Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board 2.88.010 Purpose. The Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund and Advisory Board is established to facilitate the City's acquisition, management, promotion, preservation, protection and enhancement of open space lands and to encourage public and private gifts of land, money, securities or other property to be used to preserve the natural, scenic, historic and scientific open space lands. 2.88.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meanings given in this section: A. "Open space land" means a parcel of undeveloped real property, (1) within Salt Lake City, or(2)outside Salt Lake City if the Board determines it is in furtherance of the objectives of this Ordinance, and(3)which is provided or preserved for nature parks, neighborhood parks or outdoor recreational purposes; trails; conservation of land, wetlands, or other natural resources; or historic, hydrological, geological, ecological or scenic proposes. As used herein, the term "undeveloped" does not include manmade structures of historical significance. B. "Board" means the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board. C. . "Fund" means the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund created by this Chapter. D. "Open space inventory" means those real properties or interests in real properties held by the City which are identified in the inventory created and established pursuant to this Chapter. 2.88.030 Creation of Fund. There is created a restricted account within the general fund, to be designated as the "Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund." The fund shall be accounted for separately within the general fund, and the fund shall be used exclusively to acquire and maintain open space land. No expenditures shall be made from the fund without approval of the City Council. 2 A. There shall be deposited into the fund all monies received by the City, regardless of source, which are dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of open space land including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Grant, loan repayments, bonuses, entitlements, mitigation fees, forfeitures, donations, redevelopment tax increment income, and all other monies dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of open space land received by the City from federal, state, or local governments; 2. Real property contributed to or acquired by the City under other ordinances for the purposes of preserving, developing, or restoring open space land; 3. Monies appropriated to the fund by the City Council; 4. Contributions made specifically for this purpose from other public or private sources; and 5. Any amounts in the City's Land-Open Space Matching account or the Open Space Land Trust account. B. The monies in the fund shall be invested by the City Treasurer in accordance with the usual procedures for such special accounts. All interest or other earnings derived from fund monies shall be deposited in the fund. 2.88.040 Creation of Board. A. There is created the Salt Lake City Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board, which body shall consist of seven appointed and voting members. The members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Each member shall serve for a term of four years and may not serve more than two successive 3 terms. The terms of the initial members shall be for such periods from one to four years so as to provide that two terms expire each year. B. The members shall be appointed as follows: 1. Members shall be appointed in a manner to provide balanced City wide geographic distribution and, to the extent possible, members shall be knowledgeable in conservation, environmental, real estate, financial and fund raising matters; and 2. One member shall represent a non-profit outdoor conservation organization. C. Members shall sign the oath of office required by law to be signed by City officials and file the same in the office of the city recorder. Every member who shall fail within ten days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the City Recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully, honestly and impartially the duties of the office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment, and thereupon another person shall be appointed in the manner prescribed in this Chapter. D. Members shall receive no compensation for serving on the Board but may be reimbursed for costs reasonably incurred. E. The Board shall be provided with direct access to and assistance from the City Attorney's Office and, when needed, shall have the authority to direct legal issues to and to request legal opinions from the City Attorney's Office. 2.88.050 Removal from Office. Any member may be removed from office by the Mayor for cause, prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such member was appointed. Any member 4 failing to attend three board meetings in one calendar year shall forfeit membership of the board. 2.88.060 Members' Ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of this Title, or its successor. Any violations of the provisions of said chapter, or its successor, shall be grounds for removal from office. Members shall recuse themselves from voting on any decision to which they are a party or which vote may constitute a violation of the City's conflict of interest ordinance. 2.88.070 Meetings of Board. A. The Board shall meet on as needed basis. All meetings shall be open to the public and shall be subject to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Meetings may be convened by the call of the chair of the Board, a majority of the Board or the Mayor. B. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the business of the Board. The Board may act at any meeting at which a quorum is present, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. C. The Board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection. The Board shall record the yea and nay votes of any action by it. The City shall make available a secretary to the Board when required. D. The Board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The Board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the Board who are present at the meeting. The Board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. 5 2.88.080 Election of Officers. Each year the board, at its first regular meeting after the last Monday in December, shall select one of its members as chairperson and another of its members as vice chairperson, who shall perform the duties of the chairperson during the absence or disability of the chairperson. No member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairperson. 2.88.090 Powers and Duties of Board. The Board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the Board as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this Chapter or its successor, or other City, State or Federal law. B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall, from time to time, deem in the public interest and for purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other City, State or Federal law. C. Consult with experts in areas such as conservation, environmental, real estate, financial and fund raising matters to obtain advice on specific projects. D. Advise and make recommendations to the City Administration and the City Council on open space and preservation issues which may include, but are not limited to the following: 6 1. Prepare and recommend, to the City Council, a plan for the preservation and protection of open space lands within the open space inventory. Such recommendation shall, from time to time, be amended as the Board deems appropriate. 2. Recommend acquisition, exchange, and conservation of interests in open space lands and access to open space lands including acquisition of real property which is encumbered with preservation covenants or similar restrictive provisions and, in conjunction with the property owner, identify appropriate restrictive provisions. 3. Make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the proposed expenditure of monies in the fund to acquire, preserve or manage open space land. Such recommendations may include the following: a. Purchasing property to protect sensitive areas, including areas in and around the foothills; b. Purchase and development of small area neighborhood parks; c. Increasing the amount of open space citywide; or d. Increasing and improving the number of trails. 4. Establish a management program to preserve, protect and enhance open space lands_ 5. and to Eencourage the public and private gifts of land, money, securities or other property to be used for nature parks, neighborhood parks, or outdoor recreational purposes; conservation of lands, wetlands, or other natural resources; historic, hydrological, geological, ecological or scenic purposes; and assisting in the shaping of the character of the community. 7 56. Recommend the demolition or disposal of any facilities which may be detrimental or inconsistent with the open space lands within the open space inventory. 67. Plan, establish and approve, subject to appropriations, any limited construction or enhancements to open space lands within the open space inventory. The approval required in this section shall be in addition to all other approvals required by the City. 78. Identify external funding sources and prepare and recommend an annual budget and periodically review such budget. 89. Prepare, from time to time, but at least annually, an inventory of real property and interests in real property which are subject to this Chapter. 910. Request and obtain staff assistance, review and monitoring from the Parks Division in the City's Public Services Department. -1-011. Provide recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding any proposed modifications to or implementation of the City's Open Space Master Plan. 44-12. Provide reports to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the activities and goals of the Board. 1213. Cooperate with and support other entities in the furtherance of the objectives set forth in this Chapter. 114. Submit to the Planning Commission proposals that open space land within the inventory be included within the general master plan of the City. 2.88.100 Board Priorities. In the exercise of its powers and duties, the Board shall observe the following priorities: 8 a. First, establish a process and criteria for identifying and funding projects, including the development of an objective evaluation format to establish priorities and to evaluate funding requests. b. Second, identify properties within the City which would provide good open space opportunities and that potentially could be acquired for the City's inventory. This would include both public and private properties. c. Third, inventory existing open space land, including both public and private properties. d. Fourth, establish an outreach program through neighborhood community councils or other sources to actively pursue locating potential properties. The Board should actively collaborate with community organizations and private organizations to enhance or maximize funding from all potential sources. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 9 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Enacting Ch 2.88 of SLC Code creating Open Space Trust Fund and Adv Bd-Oct 14.2003.doc 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21,2003 TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Work Session Item A-5 Request to rezone a portion of property located at approximately 1665 E.Kensington Ave from Open Space to Residential (Joseph&Kathleen Knowlton petition) Mr.Joseph Knowlton contacted the Council Office this morning to bring to the attention of the Council Members a few changes to his paperwork that was submitted by his attorney, David K. Broadbent,of Holland and Hart LLP. Memorandum in Support of Zoning Application No.400-02-35,page 1 Last line-change R-5000 to R-2 Affidavit of Joseph S. Knowlton Page 2,4th line from the top-change "my development"to "the development" Page 3,item 12-it should read"January 21,2003 and June 23,2003." Also on the same line it should read "Exhibit E and Exhibit 3" 1 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-02-35—Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton. Request to rezone properties located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Ave.from Open Space to Residential R-1/5,000 AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If approved,the ordinances will affect Council Districts 5 and 6 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Greg Mikolash,Principal Planner POTENTIAL OPTIONS: 1. Schedule a public hearing after the Council's briefing on October 21st. Council staff has identified Tuesday,November 18th as a tentative hearing date. 2. Request that the Attorney's office revise the proposed ordinance to include additional conditions specified by the Council. 3. Request that the Administration provide additional analysis of issues identified by Council Members and identify options for Council consideration. 4. Any combination of the above. 5. Other options as identified by Council Members. KEY ELEMENTS: A. This is a request to rezone two properties(owned by the petitioners)adjacent to the petitioner's home at 1665 Kensington Avenue.This action would facilitate completion of a pending sale option for the petitioner's home and the two adjoining parcels.The Administration's transmittal notes that the intent of the petitioner is to sell the land at residentially appraised value to a potential buyer for the purpose of constructing up to three single-family dwellings. 1. The petitioners have indicated that the Open Space zoning was a mistake or mapping error that occurred during the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project,that they received no notice of the zoning change and wish to reinstate the residential zoning for the two properties. (The City did a mailing to every property owner regarding the 1995 Zoning Rewrite. Prior to 1995,the properties were zoned Residential R-2 that allowed single-family and duplex residential uses.) 2. This petition has generated significant community interest due to the proximity of the parcels to Wasatch Hollow Park. Some members of the public have perceived that this property is public open space adjacent to the park,rather than private property. Page 1 B. An ordinance has been prepared based on the recommendation and conditions specified-by the Planning Commission. Key elements are summarized below. (Please see the ordinance in the Administration's paperwork for details.) 1. The property owner is entitled to develop the portion of the property which is located above the base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain. 2. If at some future date the property owner is able to demonstrate that the remainder of the property is not within the 100-year floodplain,or that the property is otherwise developable notwithstanding its location below that 100-year floodplain,the City Council is willing to reconsider the zoning of the remainder of the property. 3. The proposed change of zoning for the portion of the property,which is above the 100-year floodplain,is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. 4. The intent is to rezone the portion of the property which is located above the base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain as determined by a licensed engineer. 5. The rezoning is conditioned upon the submission of information and/or documentation by the property owner sufficient to determine and map the location of the base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain on the property. 6. The ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. 7. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record the ordinance until the condition identified above(#5)has been met,as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. 8. Ordinance time limit— 1 year from the date that the ordinance is signed. City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the condition. C. Surrounding land uses include Emigration Creek to the east,Wasatch Hollow Park and the Wasatch Presbyterian Church to the south,and single-family dwellings to the west and north. (Please refer to the maps in the Planning staff report for details.) The Administration's transmittal indicates that the larger of the two parcels consists of approximately 25,700 sq.ft.and the smaller parcel contains approximately 13,939 sq.ft.both are currently zoned Open Space. 1. The purpose of the Open Space district is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas.(Sec. 21A.32.010—General Provisions) 2. The purpose of the Residential districts is to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens,to offer a balance of housing types and densities,to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live,to promote the harmonious development of residential communities,to insure compatible in-fill development, and to help implement adopted plans. (Sec.21A.24.010—General Provisions) D. The Zoning Ordinance identifies the following general standards to be considered when reviewing requests to rezone properties or amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance notes that a decision to amend the text or zoning map is committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. (Sec.21A.050.050—Standards for General Amendments) 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies of the City's adopted master plans. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional standards. Page 2 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. E. On January 22,2003,the Planning Commission identified findings of fact for 4 of the 5 criteria to be considered for rezoning requests as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from Open Space to R-1/12,000 for the area of land above the base flood elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year floodplain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer(rather than R-1/5,000 as requested by the petitioner to better match the existing density of the property). (Note,the petitioner elected not to retain a private engineering firm to conduct a study,although that was required by the Planning Commission. Please see the attached letter from the petitioner's attorney. In order to process the petition,the City Surveyor completed an initial survey working with Public Utilities.) In addition,the Planning Commission noted that the property below the 100-year floodplain would remain zoned Open Space until it is determined that the floodplain elevation is incorrectly depicted or an exception is granted to construct in the floodplain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)regulations. F. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission meeting included: 1. Public process and notification during the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project. 2. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),City Public Utilities and other technical requirements regarding exceptions and design criteria for construction in flood hazard areas and possible development of the properties. 3. Loss of open space,master plan compliance and potential subdivision issues. 4. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility relating to noise,traffic,lighting,density and building scale. 5. Adequate public utilities and services relating to sewer,water,storm water,emergency vehicle access,snow and garbage removal. 6. Potential environmental impacts and protection of sensitive areas relating to steep slopes, potential flooding,loss of wetlands and riparian habitat,etc. 7. Various residential zoning classifications that could address potential development and neighborhood compatibility. G. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a detailed,technical discussion regarding to the proposed rezoning and issues relating to establishing an accurate floodplain elevation boundary specified as a condition of rezoning by the Planning Commission. Major points are summarized below. (Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for ailditional details.) 1. The Planning staff report indicates that due to a variety of issues,Planning staff was not able to make findings of fact relating to the criteria to be considered for rezoning requests as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. (Please refer to the following sections in the Planning staff report for details:Pgs. 3-5—Identification and Analysis of Issues,pgs. 5-8—Code Criteria/Discussion/Findings of Fact) 2. Development issues relate to: a. Driveway access limitations due to steep slope topography, b. Restricted driveway access for fire and emergency vehicle protection, c. Storm water detention capacity, d. Water supply,sanitary sewer and fire hydrant availability, e. Flood control of Emigration Creek during high water periods, £ The boundary location of the petitioner's properties located in Federal Emergency Management Agency's(FEMA)floodplain hazard areas and designated floodways g. Discrepancies between Public Utilities data and private engineering data provided by the potential buyer's engineer in establishing the base flood elevation level along Emigration Creek. Page 3 3. Chapter 18.68.100 of the City Code,Floodplain Hazard Protection provides specific criteria and requirements for new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within floodplain hazard areas. Residential structures are required to have the lowest floor(including basements)elevated to or above the base flood elevation.In addition,nonresidential structures, utility and sanitary facilities are required to be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable building codes and flood-proofing methods certified by a registered engineer or licensed architect. (Please refer to page 4 of the Planning staff report for details.) 4. The petitioners have indicated they are reluctant to submit documentation to the Planning office substantiating the developable limits of the property because they are not developing the property. 5. The Attorney's office has directed that the owners are entitled to residential zoning unless the property is determined to be undevelopable. 6. The properties proposed for rezoning are landlocked and currently only accessible by foot from the petitioner's single-family residence. 7. The City owns an unimproved 66-foot right-of-way(1700 East)located directly east of the petitioner's property. This section of 1700 East has never been constructed as a street due to constrains created by Emigration Creek. 8. Wasatch Hollow Park(located to the south of the petitioner's properties)was expanded and improved by the City in the early 1990's(implementing recommendations in the East Bench Community and Open Space Master Plans). H. The public process included review by the Wasatch Hollow,Bonneville Hills and Sugar House Community Councils and the Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee.Written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within an approximate 366-foot radius of the proposed rezoning was also completed. As noted by the Administration,numerous e-mails and letters have been submitted to the Planning Division voicing concern about the rezone request. (Please refer to the Planning staff report,Exhibit A and E for details and written correspondence.) In addition, Council Members and the Council office have been contacted by the petitioners,residents and interested parties regarding the proposed rezoning request. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: Council Members may wish to request additional information from the Administration regarding the following items in order to have a full understanding of the issues relating to the rezoning and potential residential development. A. Recent information submitted by the petitioner's attorney indicates that two additional properties,one with a house located on it,not owned by the petitioner are also zoned Open Space. In addition,there appears to be portions of other privately-owned properties at the southern end of the park and a portion of property owned by the Wasatch Presbyterian Church that are zoned Open Space. (Please see the attached map and page 4 of the Memorandum in support of Zoning Application No. 400-02- 35 submitted by David K.Broadbent,Holland&Hart LLP,attorneys for Joseph S. and Kathy Knowlton for details.) The Council does not have the option of expanding the petition but the Planning Commission could have elected to do so at the start of the process. The disadvantage to that approach is that it may have been unfair to Mr.and Mrs.Knowlton since they paid the petition fee. The Council should be aware that there could be a future petition for the other properties that remain zoned as Open Space. B. The Administration's paperwork contains written correspondence from the Wasatch Hollow, Bonneville Hills and Sugar House Community Councils and the Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee. In addition,numerous a-mails and letters have been submitted to the Planning Division voicing concern about the rezone request. The Planning staff report also notes that a community meeting was held at the City and County Building where several City Department representatives Page 4 were present to discuss the conceptual development proposal for the properties. Council Members may wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview of the issues and comments raised at the Community Council meetings, how they were addressed and whether it is the Administration's perception that community issues have been resolved. C. Currently,the Administration does not have a mechanism in place to notify individuals who write to the Administration about a land use issue,attend open houses or subsequent public hearings including the City Council hearing. Does the Council wish to urge the Administration to expand the notification to include those who have attended previous hearings? D. Given that the Planning Commission advanced the petition on the condition that an engineering study be provided to determine the floodplain elevation,and the petitioner elected not to provide that,the Council may wish to add a condition to the ordinance that the petitioner is required to reimburse the City for survey work performed by City staff so that this petition could move forward. This action would ensure that the general taxpayer population is not covering costs that lead to the benefit of one property owner,and would help ensure that precedence is not set that would cause petitioners to decline to provide information with the expectation that the cost for professional/technical documentation will be borne by the City taxpayers. E. In the past,some Planning Commission recommendations and ordinances prepared for zoning requests have included a condition that specifies that the ordinance rezoning the property would not become effective until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. Council Members may wish to consider requesting that the CityAttorney's office prepare an ordinance that specifies the rezoning would not take place until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued The Planning staff report notes: 1. The petitioners requested that the Planning Commission process the rezoning petition prior to planned development and subdivision application and approval. 2. The petitioners have indicated they are reluctant to submit documentation to the Planning office substantiating the developable limits of the property because they are not developing the property. 3. Typically,technical information is provided with the Planned Development and Subdivision processes. 4. Standard practice by the Planning Division is to package all the information and applications together for Planning Commission consideration. MASTER PLAN&POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Planning staff report notes: 1. The East Bench Community Master Plan(adopted in April 1987)future land use designations are not intended to be property specific and are fairly general as to the appropriate future land use for the two parcels indicating low-density residential and park land uses. (In addition,the Plan identifies a future park site at 1600 East and 1700 South noting that the City plans to develop a park along Emigration Creek north of 1700 South,access and frontage onto 1700 South must be obtained,property for access will have to be acquired from the adjacent Wasatch Presbyterian Church. The City developed Wasatch Hollow Park in the early 1990's with property donated by the Church.) 2. The Open Space Master Plan Emigration Creek Corridor map notes that development along Emigration Creek at the Wasatch Hollow Park site may be difficult but is possible and purchase of residential properties for access points and small neighborhood parks is recommended. The map is not property specific other than identifying Wasatch Hollow as a future park site.The Plan also notes increased concerns of many residents and public officials regarding the need to: a. Conserve the natural environment, Page 5 b. Enhance open space amenities, - c. Connect various parts of the City to natural environments, d. Educate citizens on proper use of open space,and e. Continued urban encroachment would be very damaging to the fragile ecosystem and scenic beauty. B. The Council has adopted housing and transportation policy statements that support creating a wide variety of housing types citywide and changing the focus of transportation decisions from moving cars to moving people. The Council's policy statements have been included in the City's Community Housing Plan and Transportation Master Plan. 1. Housing policy statements address a variety of issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. 2. Transportation policy statements include support of alternative forms of transportation, considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. C. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 3. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 4. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 5. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. D. 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. E. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments. CHRONOLOGY: ➢ BACKGROUND The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the rezoning process. Key meeting dates are listed below. ➢ KEY DATES • Aug.28,Sept. 4,&Oct.23,2002 Wasatch Hollow Community Council meetings Page 6 • September 23,2002 Community meeting with City representatives • December 18,2002 Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee meeting • January 4,2003 Sugar House Community Council meeting • January 15,2003 Bonneville Hills Community Council letter • January 22,2003 Planning Commission meeting cc: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Greg Mikolash,Jan Aramaki, Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Rezoning, Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton, 1665 Kensington Avenue Page 7 HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER•ASPEN SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE(801)595-7800 BOULDER•COLORADO SPRINGS 60 E.SOUTH TEMPLE FACSIMILE(801)364-9124 DENVER TECH CENTER SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111-1031 BILLINGS•BOISE David K. Broadbent CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE (801)595-7806 SALT LAKE CITY•SANTA FE (801)364-9124 Fax WASHINGTON,D.C. dbroadbent@hollandhart.com 47037.0001 May 8, 2003 Lynn H. Pace, Esq. Salt Lake City Attorney's Office 451 S.-State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Joseph and Kathy Knowlton Dear Lynn: I am writing to request that you forward the Knowlton's petition regarding rezoning of their property to the Salt Lake City Council. We have been informed by the engineers retained by the purchaser of the property that they believe that the 100 year flood plain mark will be in the gully and not on the Knowlton's property. However, they have told us that it will require several thousand dollars to complete the FEMA studies necessary to officially change the flood plain line of demarcation. Given the excessive costs, my clients have determined to proceed with their request that the property be returned to its former zoning. The issues of the actual location of the flood plain can be postponed until such time as a future purchaser seeks to develop the property. Please provide me a copy of the materials that are forwarded to the City Council. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, J� David K. Broadbent of Holland & Hart LLP DKB:ls Cc: Joseph Knowlton 308 1920_I.DOC .,, „..,„... ......, _,,,:,_,,.._,,,_-----------,- -,-;-.; ' ilif4,:i ,'S:,n ''• l'.171 I ,1"'"1,1,191&Pill 6. i ±,:. : - -''-''1,- -4:: -,=:-.-- -44.`;',,,i'"-.1 ... , f„,in- „::.I. _,,,_ ., I. 4, 6---/!- ••• 4- V-41. '4 ' ..'" l'-''''''-,-#.47t4--'' ___,-..,-" '''--;•:7-.:-:.---,'„:- ,_--I-::>: , :-."'; ,'2-:'-e-:"...;71'..?“ 4 Lt r-g- , .-'",--- - .--,-;--.%...m..... -Zr.-.-77---Vr7 :, 1:,CI:,:`,..:41- --`-i,';. ..,t-- :.;---"-a:'' ” l'----:'-i'i.,.1 ,_•:-!,t,4?---..,:-i, -,,''').-'.,„;‘, „.,-z-,-78,- --2,.:;-3,.;_tz_;,,,y,,7;.:71.,--;-d,,,:,-,:,,---.6. •.:.;,,, , • ---. 14 -, "-,-,-: .-- _:, r:-.f?4- "°"1".'"m'", lil .j- '-3•Z_It ' " ' - 1 44""1-''' '''' 'A ,‘ 4 l'871--i'-' '");--'v:--.;',i,"'-:';,,-.., .7 ,,e-4--" lz.,-'4-„- , - ,,,, -, ' '•i•1,, i. :24' .` ',:-..:4.:'.1-'-_,--:4!.A4:::1 1),t7;-.4-.;74:-4,-i' '' ---'isil li 1 ., . . , ,,„:,, ,, _ _.4: • .. no i leo . - -„ 1 All ''-'. 4`r t--c :,":,''''A e4" ,-, ',',':...`-' ' --,i,--..-----,--;.--:—?t,-7-' .--- . eVii.,--"*- • ' - - • ' - - 1 ....A.-•-•-" ,,--• - - '" ---. '1'i I ":4-.„, -i-A.4;'''',-;11&. '''----i-.1"-•-' ' - --:4: ' • a :+ 1 4-t 4 -4 .414 •,....• ._,,I . „Fri " '6 iil.,.--:7 mak__ ,. -'„ L ' - , 1 ,,71.4.)0 -171.,,,-: .11 4 ,-.•'. , - - Pi A lir ,I,,,• ,,,:„....„,,,, _1.k;114.,,i.,:...4m.__ _:,,,,„, ,, ...., •,::: t.-I q , ,,,,. , , ,„ 1 _I 2 - :- -.,..'!..' --' k 13 3)4;r ill&:;;,....:-,,,Pg'.:-. . , _ .4.r,,,.f`:.-f-- 4,-,.4',,iir' -- -',..,,, ,,..-A---- . .AA, -•:-.4 ,;-4,•-: :' . • 'roe ,i1 ., ii.',',:,• " _ 1-1,..,,,,V. 7+,.,_ :_,,::;-.0_ :,;.,-,...--„::',7,-„:,"gf-,-? _,,,,',,:4--' ::----,:-.-- '-'_,- ''~-z,•1_.,,-;;:1-' ;'1'''.1'.1.0 ..., 4 ,- • ,,,,,_' ' ' 11 it ' '''''''' -4 @Nu -,,-.y.„,a,elf-,43,---71,_.?-4-24.f.?, -V,V'1--:,--,0,_,,Ai-W'-„eti.,*Vel,-. ,:". k. ,':,,- ''' 5'-, ,.. --,'", ,.-Itzli:=7..'-'-'7-11--1,.,-, r. ,,,., , • -•,g_-21. ,_.7,-,„ •, ,,,,-,K„--,,,,,- -‘,,,'":"‘"Ni4-„,:50,,-:,-;--,-- VIVA'--6-' -''' ._.•- -:'--, ' , -Iti'-'rejMr - ,,,, 1, .,-..{I ' ',s_c"ifity:,;,.,- -•-14„1&17,-;i1:[-Z-:•,,,-,,;-:-,2,-:.7::" - 1..L,•'.1 , ,- ---- ....„....,, _ ,-..- ,.--f,:- -'. /-4,_. --_,,, .,,,-. 7 -- ... It _ t.,:ir L,,.._., - .iiii ,:,z-_. 1 c- . -„_,..,,,y 1 1::"---w---- -..; •.,:f:‘--t:-±:. - ''...;_ , -- ,;-:.::- - , ':-. ,i...1' . _, te.; i',f -,,,r-*- ,. I Fr, . )1 ,;Z:.; %,.......,,, U. ' ii -"-'1,-:s ,.; 1 . • : . •.1 i• ci ' t'l. ii.ima 41 ' ,L' ,;,;-_,-- •- ,,'';'i;.1, ,,, ,,%.1•,E, ,14 ' ' f- 1 _0*-',-- ' =, 7T-', '. --i' ---.:1' --ieq4'• '-`'‘'' -3 '',:V- *.„7,' • ' (6)0 011°,il;=_; 1:L.- -.-1,-, g , -hi 11_ , .--,--,.5*,!,..-1- -,,- ..,L ',,. -,-. : -,.::-_,,,, ;-te;-,.!-,,,j ,.'e, ti i I I, j.._ 4 -..-.I7g11 ,•• -,- - ' -- ,6 , •_;--..-, ' -- ir At _. :,;...___,. .,„, .1 Eli ;,--uli , ,,,.. . .-,-, -?„._-,,_,._'_, ,...,--4 ,,•,.-`-'* V it_r .i..2-.--tz Nit. -1.fc' I 'Arc 6 z„...,.w. — -,,,,t,,, - ...:>p,Alit.„. .7 E6.4 '-- d: -.. _ 1, 0 PL „„ .,,,,: ,, . . ,... •-.. IL7._ .T.:„,„.„ ,-w, ,,,) , ,.. ,.,..„- --.1, oi-' '9 -: /- '' ' --I ';'-'1.4;1 `'' ''' '-'4----. ' -',„ -;-,„7„-,,,r -'..=`-- 4, ' - • ,1 .1-...' . "-._ ', -_-.,-44*----•—"-- .-:' ' - '; 1111-.' '' ef I-4' ' • 0,-;-,-"t At I , ,, i -7,4 • k-':'.:.'...- -' li- '' 3,-::::!`:'-'1: -',...,,.. ----„;--7,-,; ' ' -' •;,---, , — El !. -4 .:7. "";,'"':;'''', - sTruMihiithari===.&. ------- .„.- . ......... ., - -„,,,,,. ,, ,,,,,...,,-..,...,,• ;,, , e-Ale ; -2 .1,--9 , - I .... Agf-. k -.Tr ' , ----y.K, , '''';: itr; 111 24(11114,44.1gietAigii*,*6011,:,,, ,,,,,. ' ' - 1 ,I ,, 'Or ,-<-tf' , s--X , -11 ii$-4 . ',4' 1,110:1 .„.. . • • in N Privately Owned Properties the Open Space District Zoning Districts Property Owners . sat Lake at)li..hg DM",______phk i.f.,...11.WA*. 7-Wasatch Presbyterian Church OS-Open Space as3 R_1.5000_single Family Residential 1-Roxanne Blaisdell 5-Charles S.Anderson R-I-7000-Single Family Residential 2-Melvin Nosanchuk I-Institutional P 43--jDoasVeh s l R.Buggley &Kathleen C.Knowlton &Amy M.Geroso 6-Corey D.Godrey&Miche Harrison/Godfrey AL'�' "\ . C��T1T.,,����COI Pe ° A. I,O iNf ALISON WEYHER s� dtiama ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITT Ci " J TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: September 4, 2003 FROM: Alison Wehy RE: Petition 400-02-35: A request by Joseph S. and Kathleen C. Knowlton to amend the existing Zoning Map from Open Space (OS)to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5000)for two landlocked parcels of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue. __. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Mikolash, Principle Planner E-mail: gregory.mikolash@ci.slc.ut.us Phone: 535-7932 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: In September 2002, Salt Lake City received a petition requesting a zoning change for two parcels of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space(OS)to Single-Family Residential (R- 1/5000). The petitioners, Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton, contend that the OS zoning designated on the property is a mistake, or a mapping error,that occurred during the 1995 Zoning Text/Map re-write. The intent of the petitioner is to sell the land at a residentially appraised value to a potential buyer for the purpose of constructing up to three single- family dwellings on the properties. Analysis: The properties under consideration for rezone are located directly south of the petitioners 1.05-acre, single-family residential property located at 1665 South Kensington Ave., currently zoned R-1/5000. Involved in this request are two access restricted parcels bordered on the east by Emigration Creek and 1700 East St. (paper street only); on the south by Wasatch Hollow Park; and on the west and north by single-family dwellings under the R-1/5000 zoning designation. The two parcels being proposed for reclassification are both zoned OS. The larger of the two parcels,Parcel 2, is 25,700 square feet in size. The smaller,most southerly parcel,Parcel 3, is 13,939 square feet in size. Prior to the adoption of the 1995 Zoning Ordinance/Map for the City,the two properties in question were zoned R-2 (Two-Family Residential),which required a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling or 6,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The intent of the petitioner is to reinstate the residential zoning for the two properties that were zoned OS during the 1995 re-write. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 6J nee.oeo a.PEa PUBLIC PROCESS Wasatch Hollow Community Council: The Wasatch Hollow Community Council initially heard the rezone and development proposal for the Knowlton properties on August 28, 2002 as presented by Michael Bradley, a potential purchaser and developer of the properties. Council Chair, Beth Bowman, submitted a letter noting that the proposed rezone and development was brought up for discussion to the Council at an October 23, 2002 meeting and a vote was taken. The vote was unanimous against changing the zoning classification from Open Space to Residential and against any new building on the site. Public Comment: Since the initial proposal to rezone and develop this site was presented,numerous e-mails and letters have been submitted to the Planning Division voicing concern about the rezone request. Many neighbors argue that zoning the properties as Open Space was not a mistake as the petitioners claim. Planning Commission: On January 22, 2003,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public comment and to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the zoning map amendment request. The Planning Commission approved a motion to transmit a recommendation to rezone only the area of land located above the Base Flood Elevation of the FEMA 100 Year Flood Plain to a residential zoning classification. Based on the findings of fact,the Planning Commission amended the requested Single-Family Residential (R-1/5,000)request to Single-Family Residential (R- 1/12,000) for those areas above the 100 Year Floodplain. The Base Flood Elevation line was to be determined through survey by a licensed engineer as hired by the applicant,but due to costs associated with such a survey, the Knowltons proposed to go forward with the rezone petition based on existing survey flood information prepared by Neff Engineering. Believing that there is no reason to prepare a separate and additional survey as requested by the Planning Commission,the Knowltons requested that this matter be advanced to the City Council without any further delay. In response to the request,Neff Engineering only prepared an ALTA Land Title Survey,which does not accurately depict flood plain elevations—which is the very reason that the Planning Commission has recommended that an official Flood Plain Survey be prepared. After reviewing the information provided by Neff Engineering, City Staff determined that, in order to adhere to the Planning Commission recommendations,more reliable data regarding the location of the 100 Year Flood Plain would be necessary; therefore, Planning Staff asked that the Salt Lake City Surveyor prepare an accurate survey of the property. Attached within this report as Exhibit 3,Survey Information, is the City initiated flood plain survey conducted by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division. This contour elevation map identifies where the elevation of the 100 Year Flood Plain line is located based on F.E.M.A. Flood Profiles for Emigration Creek. Also attached within this Exhibit is a legal description of the area on the Petitioners property that is located above the 100 Year Flood Plain Line and copies of the Emigration Creek Flood Profiles, revised on May 15, 2002. The Planning Commission motion for forwarding the request to the City Council was quite specific in stating that, only the land area above the base flood elevation of the FEMA 100 Year Flood Plain be rezoned from Open Space to Single-Family Residential "R-1/12,000", and that a licensed engineer would need to reconcile the conflicting data evident between Neff Engineers 100 Year Flood Plain elevation line and that depicted by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department. The motion added potential exceptions as stated below: a. Grant approval to fill and elevate the land through an Administrative FIRM Amendment; or, b. Determine, after further examination, that the Floodplain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted; or, (2) administrative approval of a FEMA amendment of FIRM is granted, depicting a new Base Flood Elevation. Planning staff,the Public Utilities Department and the Engineering Division have determined that the floodplain elevations as surveyed by the City using the revised FEMA Flood Profiles are accurate. With this survey, Planning staff is comfortable with the rezoning of all property above the 100 Year Flood Plain line as R-1/12,000 as suggested by the Planning Commission. All other areas depicted as being below the elevation of the 100 Year Flood Plain shall remain within the Open Space"OS"zoning classification. Relevant Ordinance: Section 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Ordinance TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Survey Information 4. Notice of City Council Public Hearing a. Newspaper Advertisement b. City Council Public Hearing Notice c. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice 5. Mailing Labels and Lists 6. Original Notice and Postmark 7. Planning Commission a. Agenda b. Minutes 8. Planning Commission Staff Report a. Application and filing fee receipt 9. Original Petition 1. CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY • September 19, 2002 Petition delivered to Planning • September 19, 2002 Petition assigned to Greg Mikolash • January 7, 2003 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing mailed and Property posted. • January 22, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing • Jan.—Feb. 2003 Preparation and refinement of transmittal packet. Preparation of the final ordinance and completion of transmittal letter and packet. • February 20, 2003 Transmittal packet complete • February 24, 2003 Draft Ordinance complete • February 25, 2003 Forwarded Transmittal packet to Supervisor for review and approval. 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Rezoning a Portion of Property Located at Approximately 1655 South Kensington Avenue) AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1655 SOUTH KENSINGTON AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO RESIDENTIAL(R-1-12000), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO.400-02-35. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration the citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations; and WHEREAS,the City Council recognizes that the property owner is entitled to develop the portion of the property which is located above the base flood elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood plane; and WHEREAS, if at some future date the property owner is able to demonstrate that the remainder of the property is not within the 100 year flood plane, or that the property is otherwise developable notwithstanding its location below that 100 year flood plane, the City Council is willing to reconsider the zoning of the remainder of the property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its deliberations,the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the portion of the property located at approximately 1655 South Kensington Avenue which is above the 100 year flood plane is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The portion of the property located at approximately 1655 South Kensington Avenue,which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Open Space (OS)to Residential (R- 1-12000). In enacting this ordinance, it is the intention of this City Council to rezone the portion of the property which is located above the base flood elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood plane, as determined by a licensed engineer. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Condition. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the submission of information and/or documentation by the property owner sufficient to determine and map the location of the base flood elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood plane on the property. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition identified above has been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the condition identified above has not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on • Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) ._ tz—Ly—o3Elf Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Rezoning 1655 S Kensington Ave-Feb 24,2003.doc 3 3. SURVEY INFORMATION KNOWLTON AREA OF FLOOD ZONE EXCLUSION(16-16-252-002) BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF JOSEPH S. AND KATHLEEN KNOWLTON PROPERTY ACCORDING TO BOOK 6029 PAGE 1391 RECORDED IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, WHICH IS 30 FEET EAST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 6,BLOCK 12, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE NORTH 163.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF SAID KNOWLTON PROPERTY; THENCE EAST 25.26 FEET ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF SAME PROPERTY TO A POINT OF CURVE WHICH IS THE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THIS 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: 43.28 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 43.52 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE S 22°06'59"E 41.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE 51.06 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 29.78 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE S 14°48'46"E 45.03 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE 41.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 56.41 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE S 02°40'20"E 40.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE;THENCE 33.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 41.65 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE S 00°43'49"W 33.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7.49 FEET; THENCE WEST 53.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.1696 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Note: All contour elevations and elevations of inlet structures relative to Emigration Creek shown on this map are based on Elevation Reference Mark "RM 106" at 1700 South and 1600 East in Salt Lake City,Utah. This Reference Mark is listed as elevation control for the Flood Insurance Rate Map,Panel Number 301, effective date September 21, 2001. The Line within the Open Space Zone area shown as "100 year Flood"is based on F.E.M.A. Flood Profiles for Emigration Creek,pages 74P, 75P, and 76P,revision of May 15, 2002. Surveyed locations of the existing stream channel were determined. The 100 Year Flood line is based on elevations relative to the 100 Year Flood profile and coinciding stations along the stream bed. These elevations are projected at right angles from the stream bed to intersect with the surveyed contours shown within the property. Based upon this available information this drawing represents the 100 year flood line as best we could determine. No certification as to actual property boundaries is being made by this survey. Property line gaps, overlaps, and error of closures do exist. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmommummmummmemmommmmmommummommummommommmommiimnammmmomitmamodailuamilmmmommmommommommommmommommommommommommommommm IIMOmmommmmmommommommommommummmmommmmommmmommommommommmommmmommommammmommsmommmommmmmemmommmmommmimmmommemmommummm mmmmmm 4520■..■■.::.■.■■■■..■.■.....■■.■■■.....■...■...■■■..■....■■■■■.■.■.■■.■...■..■.......■■....■■.■■.■.....■...■■III%%/I./T/.%//%% mummommommummmmummommummummemmommemmommommommumummlammammmem ■■■■■.■■.■.■■..■■.■■■.■■■■■........■...■:...■■.■....:.■■■...■■■.■._■...■■..■■m.■..■....■■■.■....■...■■....III%'I.'%%%'/.//.I/.%% ■■■■.■■■.■■.■.■..■.■.■.■■■..■■...■■.■.■. .■■■..■.■.■■■■■■■■.■■.■■. ■.■■...... ...■■.■..■.....■■.■■■■■■..■.III%//.%%%%%%%//.' ■■■■■■■.....■■■..■■...■......■■.■■■■■..■:..■■■....■■■■....■■■■■■■■...■■m......■■.■....■..■...■■■.■■■..■...II;/%%%//.mm%% ■■...■■■.■■.■..■■.■■...■....■■■.■.■■...■■.■.■■■■■■.■■■■■■....■.■....... ■.■..■..■■■.....■■■.■.....■.■■■..III%%//.%%%%%%x ■■.■■■.■■■■......■..■...■■.■■..■■■.■...■■.■■.■..■..■■■■.■..m.■■....■■■■. ..■■■■■.■■.......■■.■..■.....■.■■II•.%%%'/•%%%'/.%%' ■■.■■...■.■.■.■..■■■..■■■.■..■■..■...■■.■■...■.■■.■...■.... ■.. ■..■m.■. ■■........■..■■■..■m..■..■..■■...III%G%%%%%%%% mmommommummmummmommommommmmmommommommmmommmommommommommommmommsmommommmommmommomummmommommv 4510.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmzmmmmmm :.....■.■. ■■■■..■.■■■■.......■■■■■■■■■...■..■.....■■■■..■■...........■■.■..■...■..■■■..■■..■...■..■■.■■.IIJZZEM%/EMX .■...■.■..■...■■...■.■■■.■■.■■. ■.■■. ...■......■..■.■.■■■■.■.■■.■.■■.■■■■■■■ ■..■.■■.■■■■..■.■■■■..■..■III%%%%//,%%%// ::::::.....U... U..... :: ........... ::::::::::::::::::::::_■:::::::::E l::::::::::::::::::::::::::: % m% m%0 MPMAROZOOMMA ::::::••..•...•.. ::• •••••••••••••mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm••• :::::::::::::::::::'.'.':::::::'.:::::::mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm : :::'■:::::::::: :::::mmommommommmommom = Ily m ;:;:y";:: omm 4500■■■■■/■■■■■/■■.■■■■.■.■■■. ■ ■..■■■■..■■. ■..■■...■■■.■■■■■.■ .■.■■■.■■■■.■.■■■■.■■ ■■■.■■■■■■■.■.■■■■■wmA6izjha •:•uu••••lu...uuu.........■...............................•..::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::�::i� o O% , mummo::::::mmumm:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::i::::::::::::i mornm::::•■_ommmo�•:•:ii� o e mommommommmommmommummommommommommommommummommmommmommmmmommummommmmommommommommommommommommommommmmemmommummmmmommon mmommmommommommommummommmemmmmmommmommommommmommommmommommmmommummmommmmulmmommommmmmommommommommmmommommummoyammppmm 1- 4490••••• U..... ••uuu••::■ mmmm ■■m:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::u:: :::::::::: .::::::::::::mmommummommommmmmommummmommmommmummommommommommommommmum_::::::•::: :::::::IG%%%%%`%%% , ••:••::: ::::::::■:::::::::: ■:■•■....■■■. urnmommmommommmmopmppmppram m■■■■......■....■■..:......■..mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMmmmMmmmmmMI:••••••••••.•....■...■■..■.....:■III%%„%/!%%/ w4480MMINIMMEMOMMEMINIMMEMEMEMMEMME..■..■...■...■...■.■■.■....■.■■■■■■.■■.■■.■�:MIIII:::::�:.■i:.■......■....■..■■■ ■■IIIIIM ..■..■■■.■MMIII.■■.■5.a.1 w ■■■..■■■**:..�..■■.■....■■. :.■■■■.■■.■.■.:■.■.■■.....■.■.■ ..:■....■.. .. ■.....�•■:■■.■.■. ■■.I.■�J..• '•Gr"i■RJm■2:44I"1' w .MMEMEMMIll■......■ :MMEMMEMMEMMEMMOMMEMMEMMEMEMEMEM : ■...■■■■. OMMWAMME -.I .■.■■..■ ■..■...■■.OMMEMMEMMMOMMEMMOM: .■..■■. ..:.■■...■■■■...... C3 /■■ .rN:■.►.I ■.....■.'I •■ :off....:■■■■..■.■■■■■■..■.■■....■ C22”a� i■■■...n. ...::■.....■■■m::o.:::::::::::::lsm:::>•:■:i::.m■.1.4m:o1�::::: imam■/■■■om ■■...■■..■..■■.■■.■..■■..■■■...:■■.■■■■■■■......■.■.■■..■.■ECim■■.■■■■.■./L.■■.■ ommommmmommommmumemammommommmmommemmemmommmmommommmommm ■■■■.■■....■■■.■■■:..■■....■..■.■..■■■......■■....■...■■■■.■.:■.■.■■.■.EMMEMO■.■.■.■.■.■.EEir■....■■■..■..11 .= MUM ...■.. IIIM■...■■■■..■.■...■.■■■......■....■■■..■.■....■. INIMII.■■■ES■i■.■■.■..■.�.EM:i....■......■■...■■1: s11 ..:.■ mommummmummommmammmmommommommumummommmwommommommommmemainmmummmmummswimmummo.■■■....■■■■■■...■■..■.■■...■.■....■...■■■■■.■...■..rG'iili.e.■.■..■.■.iS.:i■..=.■■..■.■..:.■■.■■■■:.■■■■..■■l ► omm mmummommmum : .:.■. mmmommommommommommommmmmommommommmommmmmommmmmommmammommommmmommwm7Romammommmommmommemmmmmommomommmommommlmmammmomm .....■■■.■..■...■■■■■■..■....■.■..■■....■.SCfi■....■.■■.■m.!S�amni /uff■.■■■■■.■.......■:...■...:.■■.■.■..■`mom .■.. 4460mamemmommommommmommummmemmmmommommommommommmommmomm .■..■■■........■....■.■......■■E=ir■■...■■.■■...Smi.■...■..■.■■■.■.■■■.■.■■■.■■.■■.■■■■.■■.■....■■■/.■■■■.■■::�■■■■■ mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .■■■■.■■..■■.■■■.■■■�1!Gi...■■■■■.■■.■E'SSSm■■■.■■........■■■. ■■.■■■ ■..■. ..■.■.■■ ..■.■■■... ...■■= LEGEND .■■...........■.smw.....■..■....._:.■■..■..■..■...............■..■.....■:■■■...■m...■..■■......■.... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .■.■■mmmfir■.■■■....■.EmGi■.■■■■..■.■■...■.■■■.... ■ ....■.■■■■.■■■......■.■.■.■■. ■■■■...■■■■■■■■■ 501 INESMN....■...■■.ESiU■■...■....■■■..■.■....■.■.■..:: .■...■......■■..■.■■.....■....■...:■.■..■.■..■..... ■■■■■■■■../!rai1•.....■.■.■■■.■.■■..■..■■..■■..■.■.■■..........■■■■......■...■..■■■.■.■..■.■....■■...■■. 101 Comm■m!CGm ....■...■...■■■■.■..■.■..■.■.■■.■...■..■■.■■■.■....■■■....■..■■■.....■.....■.........■.. -- rr..■■.■.■.■....■■■.■.■........■■...■....■■...■■■■■■■...■....■■.■.....■■...■.....■■■■.■■■.■.■.■■■■ 50 4450■..■.■■■.■■...■.■■.■.■...■■..■.■.■.■........■.■. .■■ .■■■.■.■.■....■....■■...■........■.. .■■■...■■■■■. MEMMEMOMMIIMEMEMMEMEMEMEMMEMEMEMMEMEMENIMMUMEMMEMMEMEMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMMEMSEMINIMMONEMOMMUMMEMMIIM MEMEMMEMENMEMMEMEMOMMOMMMEMOMMEMMEMMEMMEMEMEMEMMEMMEMMINIMMINMEMEMMIMMEMMEMEMMEMMEMOIMMOMMIIMOMEMEMWAM ::::::::::::::::::::m.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.o::::::m.:.o:::::::::::::�:::•::::::m■::I11rom CR is .....■.■.......■.........•...■.•..•.■..•••■... .•........... .•............ ■ ■ .rr................................■..■..■............•..•.•.•...•.. ■•■••••••..... ...•..........■........■...... i!:I EIIIII!11 E 1 • !1 1Im 11 iI l E •1 111E 114550 ... 1111 1 1 ■, 11111111,1:111:1 .1:,11 11 !!!I lilijIoll 111 " . m" j'm"I'n"IIIi1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!IIIIIIil1IIIIIII......I �m m.....•.■■...._s ti 45 ■ 1 'I ••1:111111E`�Ir11111111111s111 ��111111111� 1�1 �� 111111l1111_/�aii//_III!111111111111.11. 111.■..■■................. .............. ........... . .... ..••......■•.•.. IIIIIII..■... : immummommEmm ..■........................:.■.........._........:.I..■.■•••.•_•.■....■..•.•.........MEMMEMEMMEMEMMEMEMMEMMEMERMEMENUMEMMEMEMOMMMEMMEMEMMAIMMEMEMMEMEMMOMMEMEMEMMOMMINOWIMMU m-m room■..-.r...•I••=...._■•.... 4530 EIE!111!!! IIIIII!!!!!!IIIIII!!E!!!!!!!!!!_°?°°°°°°°°°1�IIIIIIIIIIIIII:' ;i m : ii�IiiiiiiIIIIIIIIlIIIII1II IIIIII •••••••••••• ■ 11 1111111111_li• �• mommi ■..E...■..•.•.......•.:■!I••......•_... mmummorn mu ■o■mess.■. ■■_-:m.••..•.••....omemm.■.••■ •.....••• op III�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII==IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII11/••l MIII111IIII/IIIIIEE1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11:111II III/111 ■....■..■...•■•••.•.......•.•. .•.■..•.■...■� .1 I�- E•••••••••••mmmmommumm••••••:Ei!••••••••••• 1:../1.i==.1...1111E111111111111111111111111111111 umms11II111/111=1mo: ......................... ......■_s-.�.i....•�ss�.ii.... .................................. ■fie ar.. .....zr.■.. o •.....•.■...mummom.••.••.:I:E.■ momma:.•�.. mme—arm...=_..•_.••.••■.........■..m.••.•......m.....msma.■■.muoma i.r.... ..■■.....■■■....■.....Blom.■.. ■.oir...... � mdmm mmu ... ........m..........■m■■. ..•......smMr.......mmig.■/Q.■..... ". Li4520 n 7 g %.%e■■■■■■I■■■nMa::: ..UU.....U..UUU..U::E::•UU....•••••U••U••U:!::,:r: ::: :::' ::::::::::::I : mummm w mxarm wmmmoamommommam . anxmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......■■..■..........■■■MEMOMMEMEMEMMOMMEMOMMEMMOMMEMMI■■:I:...............n'm.■....mmemw..■.......■.....1■.=..... MMEMM OZOOMOZOMOOOMOVAKOOOMOMMEN EMMEMMMEMMOMOMMEMOOMMEMMOOMMMOMMEMMEMOMMEMMOMEMOMMEMMEMPEOMMEMEMMEMMEMOMMEMOMMUMMENMEMOMME MOMMOMMOPEOOMOMMEMMOEMIMMEMMEMEMEMMEMEMOIMMEMEMEMMEMEMMOMMEM Z , , , , , , , , ,,,1•••::11:...•••...•:.....••.•••••..1..:....■ES._•••..•.._.r•......■.■•.....••.•••___••■..••...■__• o paom ::::•••mmiummomm ommom: • ••om•smomm:■.:bizammu E:::ommommommommummommommmomm •mmom s >4510 yll � %ylr ��l:r'r' , ,, , , 1111!1111E11111!!!111111111111111��11!�MIII1111111111111E11111 !l11111111111111l1111111118E w %%/II,,%//.,%%//./I%%O,z%//,4,%/�:■. .■ ...............5a... .._r••_..,,./V..■■....••.!.■m..........!■..•.••••.........•.•!._••.... :,` iIiai. ,. i�iOi %/¢%/zt iRIII:::...1..•.:r::r..■ .■:::.�i=.i:ii•••...U:U•UI..U••.••.•••U..I..UUUUUUU..U.I•i.•.•'•. .1U••UU•: '0r %2K% �• Vl % ■•.�11E •i■a;.... ■•.1•••..■.. .•••••.■...........•__••••••.•....■•■..•••...•••.•.••.:...•••.•.. 4500E ���'�����1"1"; z�. !1111111 II g igiililliid :rl111moor 1111111 I 111E 44901111E111:1111111E1111111111111E1111E1E11111111E1111111111111111111111111111E1111111111111111111111E LEGEND! 5 IiiiiIIIII111!!!!!!11111111111E!!1111111!111111111111!III! 11111.IIIli11111!!!!!!111IIIIIIIIIIII111 500- .4,...ot,,J, „ II IIIIII1IIiIJIiiIIIiIiIiIiiIiI '11 ' I ' __4480 ■ - -i 10-YI I 11� STRD f !! 11 1 i1; I Illi '•lo CROS1 sir _ I 1 L0, ■ • - ` I - • ■ ■ i _ • -- - • I _ • - — ■ . - - - ICeN!]e1TYilalyT ybT.10 -K.)mf - > — -- 2.4570 _ 1- - , u, -- ---- _-- - ui - Z -- _____- _-' , , , _ -+'� O > 4560 --- ------ -- -- -J w __ 4550 ••—� Ammag —� -. '4540_ - I -- - LEGEND 500 - 100 - J - 50- 453d - - 10_. %'���✓'���✓'� STR CRO LI .inn 6. ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK STEPHEN A.GOLDSMITH + '=t.LZ a_J� ��d �d'" v�a�a©.L%+ ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NnroR BRENT G.WILOE PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Division will review Petition#400-02-35 from Joseph S.Knowlton requesting that the Zoning Map for two properties located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue be amended from Open Space"OS"to a Single-Family Residential "R-1/5000"Classification. The Planning Commission Hearing will be held: Date: January 22,2003 Time: 6:50 p.m.* Location: Salt Lake City&County Building 451 South State Street Room 315 * After 5:00 p.m.please use the eastside entrance of the building. Please direct any questions you may have concerning this proposal to Greg Mikolash at 535-7932,Salt Lake City Corporation,451 South State Street Room 406,Salt Lake City,Utah 84111. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. To request accommodations;please call 535-7757 at least 48 hours prior to the hearing. Thank you, Greg Mikolash Principle Planner January 7,2003 051 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B4111 TELEPHONE:BO1-535-7757 FAX:BO1-535-6174 NOTICE OFHEA IN.. _ ii t it lilt' i tii i_ rrrria ttiIrrrt rtrhttrth,I t r n tint,q J C , .1112 _ ;:i7 3f �:$ F I .� `A .. Residence - _ ytl�- a - i r Le... J Rezone request area �; a. 1 IZ f t t OS to R 1/50D0 a- y. g tyt7�e�� � 4 H—��F S�JR �`� ...Jr* .'..� W d ` C { 11, .,), hH011ow P ark '-1it,5' -1 w //• 9L ' 'g�j 4 5 e. W T v ,r. f :`B 'ii"+"y tirt �. '`SL Y' ' , � VI .g... ti"� r M a a : -.er r �i t l ss _.a.:I_ e,a{� ,41,;i: ::44, 1:0-t -]--I-:;, --'1.'- ''' R.' '-j`"?V. --Y!::' 7__ a t - i 7 not f -~ 53 bz ._ter".. 7. C� !h k '' =a t Salt Lake City Planning Division Greg Mikolash 451 South State Street,Room 406 , Salt Lake City,UT 84111 6, M: ,-ola5t, ea Sa- $. t..+.i..-.1So=- G1...e_. L) 3--i 1 U 5 - I 7. PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Minutes PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-35, by Joseph S. Knowlton requesting that the zoning map for two parcels of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue be amended from Open Space "OS" to a Single Family Residential "R-1/5000" Classification. Mr. Wilde disclosed that David Broadbent had done legal work for him and his family in the past, and their last association with him was several years ago. After learning last week that Mr. Broadbent represents Joseph Knowlton, he conferred with the City Attorney's office, and it was determined that his association with Mr. Broadbent did not conflict with the Staffs decision or Mr. Wilde's ability to participate in this matter. Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as contained in the staff report. He referred to a map in the staff report drafted in 1994 which allocated the area of the two properties to be zoned OS from R-2 during the Citywide rewrite in 1995. The property owner contends that this zoning was a mistake because the properties are privately owned. The applicant is also concerned that he was not properly notified of the rezone. The owner, Joseph Knowlton, is requesting that the City administratively handle the mapping error without going through the public hearing process. Mr. Mikolash stated that the City cannot determine whether the parcels were rezoned as a mapping error. Staff could not speak to the intent of the City Council in 1995 and whether they knew the properties were being zoned as open space. Mr. Mikolash noted that in 1995, the only notification required was through the newspaper. In addition, a courtesy notification was sent regarding a public hearing for this blanket re-write. Mr. Mikolash provided a brief background on the diversion dam and flood plain and used a contour survey map to review engineering data on the flood plain. He explained that the Staff does not know exactly where the survey line is or where the 100-year flood plain exists on the properties. Brad Stewart from Salt Lake City Public Utilities provided background on the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and flood rules. In 1968 FEMA started to address development in flood prone areas with the purpose of trying to identify where those areas exist and what to do with construction and development in those areas. Another component of their study was how to provide flood insurance to these properties. In 1983, Salt Lake City completed a study of all potential flood areas within the Salt Lake City boundary, and a map was drawn showing all the floods expected once every hundred years. In 1983, the City Council adopted ordinance language approved by FEMA on how to deal with new construction and existing properties. In exchange for adopting that ordinance, the City bought into the flood insurance program, and properties existing within the identified flood plains received subsidized Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 22,2003 insurance rates for flood insurance in those zones. The FEMA report and City ordinance contain language regarding exceptions and design criteria for building in the flood zones to address existing properties and commercial construction. Residential construction is precluded below the base flood elevation or the 100-year flood plain. He attempted to transfer the FEMA flood information onto a map showing the topography of the Knowltons' property but had to make several assumptions, which makes it only an estimate. It would take an engineer with flood data and survey instruments on the property to arrive at a precise line that describes the non-buildable area on that property. Such numbers are available and accurate and were validated in the early 1990's with the FEMA Flood Data. Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Stewart if the City Council adopted the city ordinance (Floodplain Hazard Ordinance) before or after the 1983 floods. Mr. Stewart was unsure of the exact month of adoption, but the language was suggested by FEMA, and modifications were made to fit Salt Lake City's conditions. The changes were submitted to FEMA for approval and taken to the City Council for adoption. Changes have been made once since 1983, and any changes must be reviewed by FEMA. Mr. Chambless asked if the flood conditions of June 1983 were a factor in this decision. Mr. Stewart explained that the study was a 15-year study that started well before the flooding of 1983. The flood in June 1983 was a coincidence but was a motivator to obtain flood insurance. Chair Jonas asked if facilities that have gone into the park have affected the existing flood plain. Mr. Stewart replied that nothing habitable and nothing mechanical is allowed at or below the flood hazard elevations. Chair Jonas confirmed with Mr. Stewart that the construction standards do not apply to new residential construction. Chair Jonas asked if someone could build a new residential structure in the flood plain if the lowest floor, including the basement, were elevated above the base flood elevation, which is the 100-year line. Mr. Stewart replied that they could if the habitable floor is at or above that elevation. In the case of the Knowlton property, there is not a gravity sewer available to the property because it sits so much lower in elevation than the sewer on Kensington. A sewer lift station will be needed, and the bottom of the lift station must be above the flood elevation, which will cause the houses to sit a few feet higher than they otherwise would. Ms. Funk asked if the fill previously placed on the property affects the flood plain and if it was considered stable. Mr. Stewart stated that he could not speak to the stability of the fill, and a geo-technical study would be required. The fill does reduce the volume of the flood plain but probably does not affect it greatly. Under today's rules, no additional fill is allowed in floodplain Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 22,2003 corridors. Mr. Stewart felt that scraping out the fill would do more damage than leaving it in place. Mr. Muir referred to a subdivision drawing from Great Basin Engineering in the staff report and clarified that the subdivision is not before the Planning Commission this evening. He felt that including the drawing in the staff report was misleading to the public, and he wanted them to understand that the subdivision was not a topic for discussion. Mr. Diamond asked if other properties exist that share the same zoning issues. Mr. Mikolash replied that these properties are fairly unique. The Staff reviewed open space properties that may have been along other riparian corridors, and there are a few, but they are not developable because of their size and orientation. This property isunique because it can be built upon with the exception of the flood plain issue. Ms. Seelig asked if a permit was issued for the fill. Mr. Mikolash stated that a permit would be necessary, but the only records he had available were the building services records, and he could not find one. He also added that he was not sure if a permit was applied for the fill— though required. Mr. Muir stated that, normally when an applicant comes to the Planning Commission to plat a new subdivision, land-locked parcels like these with no direct connection to a public right-of-way are not permitted. The Commission could insist that the property be re-platted as part of the rezone to compensate for the land-locked configuration. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the City does not control recording of deeds at the County Recorder's Office, nor does the County Recorder insure that a deed complies with local government land use regulations. Therefore, parcels are created without approval or knowledge. The control point in State law and City ordinance is building permit review when the Staff compares the ownership lot record and insures that it complies with zoning. At that point, they evaluate and sort out those lots considered to be legal non-conforming, those that have gone through an approval process, or those where an approval process is needed. Mr. Wheelwright explained that as part of building permit regulation, they find sites that consist of multiple parcels, and part of the building permit process is to force those parcels to be combined into one tax ID number. Mr. Muir asked why the Staff was not suggesting that these properties be consolidated into one lot. Mr. Wheelwright explained that they are not into developability approval. Due to the Knowltons' request, they are only forwarding a re-zone issue to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Muir asked if consolidation could be a condition of approval. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City also has Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 22,2003 a priority to not split-zone zoned parcels. They try to make the zone boundaries follow the lot and vice versa. Chair Jonas felt that Mr. Wheelwright implied in his comments that recording these deeds may have been improper. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the City did not approve the deeds, and no subdivision approval was given which is required by State and City law. Chair Jonas stated that he understood the parcels were not part of any previous subdivision and only existed as metes and bounds descriptions. Mr. Mikolash reviewed the Staffs recommendations contained in the staff report. Joseph Knowlton, the applicant, requested that his time for comment be given to David Broadbent, an attorney he had retained to represent him. Mr. Broadbent stated that he had reviewed the staff report, and he felt it was important to go back to 1995 when the Knowltons' property was changed from residential zoning to open space zoning. The Staff had admitted that the inquiry taking place tonight was not undertaken at that time. A review of the Staffs record indicated that there was no examination of thoughtful process or other consideration. The Knowltons first learned of the zone change while trying to sell their property. They contacted Mr. Buhler from the City Council and contacted the Mayor's office stating that the zoning was a mistake and that the property was probably thought of as part of Wasatch Hollow Park. An administration fix was suggested. If it was implied that the Knowltons were trying to avoid a public hearing, it was because this was considered to be a mistake that could be fixed administratively. However, the City was determined to go through a more lengthy process to resolve the issue. Mr. Broadbent noted that the Knowltons learned of the rezone recently and had not had an opportunity to review or respond. He stated that the issue is whether the zoning is correct and whether the change was correct. The Knowlton's would like to return to the zoning that existed prior to 1995 or to something compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Broadbent believes much of the discussion in the staff report would be more properly addressed in terms of assessing the viability of a particular project when presented. He noted that the drawing referred to by Mr. Muir is a concept drawing prepared by the party who wants to buy the property from the Knowltons. He stated that the property owner believes he was dealt an injustice when the zoning that would have permitted development was taken away. If the Knowltons are successful in selling the property, they did not want to go through the proper building permit and approval process with the cloud of open space zoning. Mr. Broadbent stated that the City does not have a practice of designating developable property as open space. Placing an open space designation on property that can be developed takes away from Planning Commission Meeting 4 January 22,2003 a property owner's valuable and important rights. At some point the issue of developability should be addressed, but not in the context of showing a particular project at the same time. The discussion about flood plain evidences that the property can be developed even if it is within the flood line. Mr. Broadbent referred to a letter from Great Basin Engineering addressing the flood plain issue. At the time development would be proposed, the Knowltons acknowledge that identification of the flood plain corridor should be accomplished. Great Basin, which has been working on the property, has performed field work to determine the elevations of the flow line of Emigration Creek and the flood control structure located down stream. Mr. Broadbent turned the remainder of his time over to Ed James and Randy Green. Mr. James, a principle architect in the firm of EPJ Associates, stated that he was asked to look at several factors as to the property's viability. In-his experience in Sandy and Draper in sensitive hill overlay areas that include flood plain, slope, and seismic issues, he believes this property had realistic solutions that could be developed through engineering techniques to fit within the City's ordinances. Randy Green, a resident at 1459 Emerson Avenue, stated that he is a registered architect and real estate developer. He stated that he came voluntarily this evening because he felt the work done in 1995 was inappropriate and unfair to the Knowltons. Their land is developable in his opinion, and they had lost half the value of their land with the down-zone. Mr. Green believed it was inappropriate to allow the OS zone to remain. He stated that a competent developer and responsible designers could develop the land in a way that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. Beth Bowman, Chair of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council, stated that the Community Council heard from the potential developer over a period of several meetings, and the first time it was presented as a development. She was unsure about the process of only addressing the issue of the rezone. Since most of these cases depend on the development, the developer's plan makes a difference. She stated that a lot of work goes into drafting the master plans, and they should have some power or purpose. The East Bench area master plan identifies the Emigration Corridor, and she understood that it was general and did not specifically address private property. However, she believed it would behoove the City to look at these issues when it comes to zoning. In addition, there was some question as to whether the open space zone was legal, but if it is, the City should stand behind that decision. Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 22,2003 Lynne Olson, representing the Sugar House Community Council, and chair of the trails and parks committee, stated that the committee studied this issue for several months before it was discussed at a Community Council meeting earlier this month. The Community Council decided to oppose the zoning change based on policies that have been articulated in the Sugar House community master plan, which include the need to protect sensitive areas, particularly those that have special habitat qualities and that would affect water quality. The trails and parks committee and the entire Council voted to oppose this petition for rezoning. Ms. Olson stated that the Knowltons invited the committee to visit their property, and they had an opportunity to walk the site and see the preliminary development plans. This provided a better picture of what was happening but confirmed their opinion that this is a special place. Standing on the edge of Emigration Creek enjoying the wildlife and understanding the connection to the open space also confirmed that this special place deserves special protection. Ms. Olson noted that with the population growing in Salt Lake, open space is scarce. Riparian open space is even more scarce, and it is sad to offer any of it for development. Kent Alderman, a resident at 1681 Emerson, stated that the zoning on this property should remain intact and the zoning map amendment request should be denied. He noted that he grew up in this neighborhood and has lived there much of his life. He believed the staff report supported the existing zoning. He noted that the enabling statute for zoning comes from the State of Utah and requires municipalities to develop plans. This plan was developed for the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council and identifies this area as open space. The main master plan was implemented further by the 1995 rezoning, and this property was properly zoned at that time with proper notice. Mr. Alderman commented on the presumption of validity of the actions taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Robin Marcus, a resident at 1643 Kensington, echoed Ms. Olson's sentiments. She understood that the value of this property depended on the developability of the property. She stated that she and others have made purchasing and remodeling decisions for their homes based on this being zoned open space. She felt there were two issues, one that the subject property is currently zoned open space, and the other was based on a previous statement by Mr.Wilde that public property zoned open space is zoned as such because it has been deemed undevelopable. She stated that was what they had all been led to believe. She stated that she felt so strongly about living adjacent to this open space that she has invested substantial resources in her property. The land is a riparian area, and she encouraged the Planning Commission to explore every opportunity to find alternatives to rezoning this property. Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 22,2003 Chair Jonas referred to Ms. Marcus's reference to a statement made by Mr. Wilde and clarified that this property is not public property but rather private property that was zoned open space. Ms. Marcus stated that she understood this was private property, and her comment came from the staff report. Mr. Wilde agreed that he made that comment, but this interpretation was not his intent. In the correspondence he sent, the statement would have been that legal justification for open space zoning is a determination that it is not developable. Ms. Marcus reiterated her comment that people in the neighborhood have invested in their properties based on the land being zoned open space. David Thompson, a resident at 1638 Kensington, did not wish to speak but submitted the following written comment which was read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Thompson understood that the property was rezoned as open space because it was undevelopable. Not only is it in a flood plain, but he had invested in his property based on the open space zoning. He chose his property and continued to develop it because of its adjacency to a riparian area. Few portions of streams in the valley are above ground, providing exceptional habitat for birds and other wildlife that help put a damper on urban noise and density. Losing this open space could be a shame and irreversible. If the zoning change to open space was a mistake, that mistake should have been identified and challenged at the time, not when the Knowltons are leaving, having enjoyed the open space while there. Tim Komlos, a resident at 1664 Emerson, opposed the rezoning. He stated that a person might want to know what good open space is in a neighborhood. The answer is that animals depend on it, residents enjoy it, and the value of the property around it is enhanced by its presence. He explained that Emigration Creek is an important riparian corridor that Mr. Knowlton has loved for nearly 40 years. Mr. Knowlton started caring for the property when it was common to see wildlife wander from the mountains. Last week Mr. Knowlton told him the creek was dead. He agreed that it probably did not look the same as when Mr. Knowlton first moved in, but last summer he and his children had tried to catch the fish they saw in the creek. It is a riparian habitat because it supports a diversity of animals in their natural environment. In the nine years he has lived there, they have seen bobcat, porcupine, deer, and coyote come down the corridor on their way to other habitable areas. Mr. Komlos believed this green belt was important to the animals and to those who live and work in Salt Lake City because it gives them a chance to be close to nature. Mr. Komlos stated that it is too late for cities in the East Europe, Japan, and other places around the world, but it is not too late to preserve open space in the West. In Salt Lake City, with its close proximity to the mountains, there is a unique opportunity to preserve the Planning Commission Meeting 7 January 22,2003 wild heritage their children can cherish as they grow old. Allison Leishman, a resident at 1835 East 900 South, stated that she currently has this property under contract pending the zoning and development issues. She stated that she plans to live there and she would not propose any development she would not want to live in herself. She believed the development she would propose would be an asset to the community. She has no intention of ripping out trees and wanted the area to remain as natural as possible. She noted that the Wasatch Hollow Community Council commented on a meeting where everyone voted against this petition. She reported that she attended a meeting and presented her idea in August and held a special meeting at her home to address any concerns or issues. After speaking with Ms Bowman, she was informed that there was no reason for her to attend-another community council meeting because they would not be voting on the issue. She was not notified of another meeting and later learned that the Council held a meeting in October and voted without all sides being represented. Ms. Leishman commented that a City planning meeting was held without notifying her or the Knowltons. She believed that, if public forums are held on this issue, it was important to include everyone. She would have no problem if people had other issues and wanted to compensate the Knowltons for the difference in the value of their property, but no one has come up with any other solutions. She believed the Knowltons deserved to receive proper value for their property and should be compensated for the land they have taken care of for 40 years. Chair Jonas asked about the planning meeting for which Ms. Leishman did not receive notice. Ms. Leishman replied that a meeting was held on September 25, and she heard about it because someone in the neighborhood mentioned it to Mrs. Knowlton. Mrs. Knowlton called the realtor so he could attend. Chair Jonas explained that the meeting was not a public hearing and did not require public notice. Ms. Leishman noted that the Wasatch Hollow Community Council was a public hearing, and she was not notified of the meeting that was held when they voted on the rezone. Michael Bradley, a resident at 1246 East Roosevelt Avenue, stated that he is the broker who represented Allison Leishman in the contract with the Knowltons. He felt that people were misinformed about the open space. He explained that this is private property which is fenced, and the public does not use the property. Open space is generally designated for parks, golf courses, and cemeteries and not designated for privately owned property. If the property is non-developable, that is an issue that should take place in a development and planning meeting with Staff. Zoning is a separate issue, and the Knowltons' property should be designated as residential zoning. Mr. Bradley discussed the actions of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council and not informing them of the voting meeting. He noted that the open space adjacent to Planning Commission Meeting 8 January 22,2003 everyone's home is the 12-acre Wasatch Hollow Park. Penny Green, a resident at 1459 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Green favored development of three homes on the property and supported returning the zoning to R-1/5000. Dan Duggleby, a resident at 1650 East Kensington, felt strongly that this rezone should not be allowed to proceed. He believed there may be evidence to support that this zoning was not a mistake, and he had provided detailed communication with Mr. Wilde. In talking with the Planning Commissioners, they were aware that private properties were being considered for zoning to open space. They also unanimously stated that it would be difficult to believe that this was a zoning mistake. He felt that the Knowltons had adequate opportunity to know about the zoning when it occurred since it was a lengthy public process. All legal notifications were made, and courtesy notices were sent out. Mr. Duggleby questioned whether the noticing mattered. If the appropriate zoning classification is open space, it makes no difference. If the staff report is correct and this property is not developable, the appropriate zoning designation is open space. It is in a riparian designated corridor in a sensitive area of the City and should be kept that way. Mr. Duggleby stated that if the Planning Commission contemplates returning this open space to residential, because it is not developable anyway, they have already heard testimony that the next battle will be over a site plan to build houses in the flood plain. He urged the Planning Commission to head off the fight now. Andrew Briefer, a resident at 1575 South 1600 East, expressed opposition to the rezone. His concerns were the precedent this might set with regard to other parcels designated as open space and his value of the open space which was a significant factor when he purchased his property. He believed the zoning accurately represented the values of the community, and the Knowltons had shared those values in the stewardship of the land. It seemed that, as they leave the community, they are willing to compromise those values. Mr. Briefer urged the Planning Commission to deny the request to rezone and to maintain the open space zone designation in honor of the Planning Commission's historic efforts to accurately represent the community's values. Amy Geroso, a resident at 1650 Kensington Avenue, opposed a zoning change from open space to residential. She stated that the Knowltons have been friends and neighbors over the past 10 years, and she would like to see them receive fair compensation for the value of their property. However, the property was only on the market for a matter of days before there was Planning Commission Meeting 9 January 22,2003 conversation with the developer. Ms. Geroso hoped the Knowltons would find an individual who would value their home and land for what it is, a quiet and peaceful open place with trees along a stream and park. She stated that she and her daughter spend time several days a week at Wasatch Hollow Park, and she and other parents oppose development along the stream and borders of the park. She acknowledged the effort the City went through to establish the open space master plan and believed it was invaluable to the neighbors and the ecosystem it protects. She urged the Planning Commission to sustain this natural setting for the good of the neighborhood and the community. Paula Pinkham, a resident at 1800 Logan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Pinkham opposed rezoning of this property. The open space is used and appreciated by many in the area, including herself, her family, and her neighbors. She noted that this is a flood plain area. Many people in the community visit the ravine on a regular basis to walk dogs, bird watch, kid play, watch for trout, and experience a bit of privacy only found in a natural setting. Open space and its preservation is crucial for the enjoyment of the many. Changing zoning to benefit the few would be irresponsible and short sighted. Ms. Pinkham hoped that the open space designations would not be threatened by situations like the one posed at 1665 Kensington. The public wants to believe that open space will always be open space. Christine Madsen, a resident at 1636 Emerson Avenue, supported the rezone. She stated that she attended a number of community council meetings and asked her neighbors about their concerns. She did not understand some of the responses, and she tried to see the other side of the issue. She understood some of the concerns associated with the rezone but felt that the bigger picture might be somewhat lost. In her opinion, it looked like what had happened was a taking of private property. She believed some of the inherent rights given by the founders of this country were more important than looking at an extra roof top or two. She believed this was the bigger issue and had nothing to do with how much money the Knowltons have or how many people have enjoyed the land over the years. It is the Knowltons' property, and it appeared that there was a government taking. Ms. Madsen believed the Planning Commission should approve the rezone. Thomas Meyer, a resident at 1709 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Meyer lives on the east side of Emigration immediately opposite the planned development. The prospect of rezoning the property to allow development into multiple home sites raises a number of concerns. The gully containing Planning Commission Meeting 10 January 22,2003 Emigration Creek tends to magnify sounds, and people speaking in the bottom of the gully have awakened him on a number of occasions late into the night. Additional noise related to multiple houses with associated traffic, etc., would be untenable. In the winter, he looks directly down onto the property now zoned as green space and large, oversized housing is not an appropriate change for the current use. He noted that the development is within the creek flood plain. Laurie Goldner, a resident at 1709 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak but submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Goldner opposed the rezoning of the Knowlton property to allow development of multiple home sites. She lives directly across the Emigration Creek gully from the Knowlton property and believed development of the property into multiple home sites would impact her directly through additional noise and visually because, in winter, they look directly down into the Knowlton property. Ms. Goldner was concerned that the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing master plan and green space allotments. It appeared that some of the proposed home sites would be located in the flood plain for Emigration Creek. She did not believe rezoning should be allowed, and to her knowledge, the Knowltons had not tried to sell their property under the existing zone. Dave Winters, a resident at 1623 Blaine Avenue, stated that he looks across 1700 South into the park and the Knowltons' property. He favored the rezone and disclosed his professional interest as the Knowltons' realtor in the purchase with Mr. Bradley. He recalled that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Green had discussed diminishing the value and was pleased that all the people who commented were concerned about the value of the Knowlton's property, because the only way they could realize that value was for the property to be rezoned. They all seemed to be happy to be the Knowltons' neighbors, and he asked what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and this was their land. Mr. Winters stated that he was at odds with how passionate people are about use of the land and stated that, since he has been privy to the land over the past two years, it has always been fenced, and he had never seen people on the property fishing. He stated that there are plenty of other accesses to the public open space, and it is not through the Knowltons' driveway. Dave Richards, a resident at 1749 Kensington, opposed building on the property. He identified the corridor and Wasatch Hollow and stated that flooding is a major problem. He was interested in the letter from the Fire Department, but he wanted the Planning Commission to look at the bigger picture. He stated that he walks his dog through the area every other day. It is a • beautiful place, and it would be a shame to lose sight of its uniqueness by focusing on the technicalities. He stated that there are technical reasons to oppose it. He understood they Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 22,2003 could hook up a geotechnical life support system and perhaps make it work, but this is not Draper or Sandy. It is a unique place 10 minutes from downtown Salt Lake and is one of the few places left in the City that is unique. Mr. Richards urged the Planning Commission to keep the zone as it is. Although this is private property, everyone who lives around it has to look at it. There are reasons why he cannot put a billboard on top of his house, and those same reasons affect the aesthetics and quality of this area. Kandy Richards, a resident at 1749 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Richards opposed the request for a zoning change and did not wish further development of the Hollow. She wanted to keep as much open space as possible. She was concerned about water quality and preservation of the riparian area. She was also concerned that this would set a precedent for future development. Kathleen Warner, a resident at 1745 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Warner opposed rezoning the two lots for development. If this starts in this canyon, it will open the way for others to sell off their property for development and the canyon would be ruined. Many people, like her, who purchased their property backing on the canyon for the open space would lose it. Robert Volker, a resident at 2169 Roosevelt Avenue, addressed the sentimental issue, stating that he played in the neighborhood and knew the gully, and it was a beautiful place to grow up. If they lose this, it will be lost it forever. He appealed to the sentimentality of the Planning Commission regarding woods, streams, elbow room, and contiguous open space. He agreed that there are private property issues, but investments in the economy are risky. People deserve just compensation, but that is a different debate. He wanted the Planning Commission to catch the vision of open space for their children's children's children in this city of beauty. Jonathan Gunnip, a resident at 1705 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Gunnip stated that he wanted to learn about the process, but he felt that every reasonable effort should be made to preserve this unique open space in the City. Katie Treiber, a resident at 1705 Bryan Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Treiber opposed the rezone and believed this should remain as open space. Planning Commission Meeting 12 January 22,2003 Anne Cannon, a resident at 1647 Kensington Avenue, immediately adjoining the Knowlton property, stated that her family purchased the property where she now lives in 1925. At that time there were no homes across the gully, and there were only one or two on the street. The land has changed over the years, and the remaining portion that the Knowltons now live on and manage is enjoyed in memory and in vision. That is all they have because the use of the property is private. In their decision and need to move, she appreciated the fact that the Knowltons would like to get appropriate compensation. However, part of that is the legacy of the land, which is all that remains of a beautiful land that has changed many times. Karen McCreary, a resident at 1681 Emerson Avenue, opposed the Knowltons' request for a zoning map amendment. The current open space zoning has been in place eight years, and sufficient legal notice was given, and she believed any contention of a mistake should have been made long ago. Ms. McCreary stated that the staff report highlights many problems that support the conclusion that a rezone is inappropriate. The Knowltons insist on rezoning without further review of the proposed development because they say they are not developing it. Ms. McCreary believed this was both disingenuous and duplicitous since it is known that the petitioners have accepted an offer to sell their land contingent on its being developed. The staff report states the proposed amendment cannot be evaluated according to the five criteria due to insufficient information. Ms. McCreary believed they were putting the cart before the horse, and that at this point there was insufficient information to proceed and the amendment should not occur. It was clear that most of the land is zoned open space because it is a flood plain, and in 1952 and 1975 those parcels were under water. Ms. McCreary stated that she is a member of Wasatch Presbyterian Church which donated its land along 1700 East to help start the park. The Church considered other uses for its land and had even created models of proposed development, but one reason it did not proceed was the understanding that it was a flood plain. Larry Ann Castle-Fericks, stated that she is not a member of the neighborhood but is a member of Wasatch Presbyterian Church. She opposed the rezoning because of the criticality of riparian open space in the valley and reliance on the master plan which can only be changed with serious consideration once open space status has been given to properties. The master plan has been in place for eight years, and many people in the area and surrounding communities have relied upon that designation in making decisions, including the church congregation when they decided to give church land to the City to develop Wasatch Hollow Park. The congregation relied upon that area's open space corridor, recognizing that the flood plain caused the space to be undevelopable. At the time, the Church had considered a retirement center and other uses as part of their outreach to the community. Ms. Castle-Fericks Planning Commission Meeting 13 January 22,2003 encouraged the Planning Commission to honor the master plan which was duly and rightly proposed by the City Planning Commission at the time. Russell Fericks stated that he is the scoutmaster of Troop 38 which meets at Wasatch Presbyterian Church and frequently uses the Wasatch Hollow Park. He confirmed that when the property along 1700 South was donated to facilitate the building of Wasatch Hollow Park, the area defined by the flood plain was a paramount consideration for giving the land to the City so the park could be built. Recognizing that a portion was private property, nevertheless it was included in the park concept and was part of the overall amenity and facility for that property. He noted that the Knowltons have recognized an increase in the value of their property as a result of the park being there, and the park is there partly because of the reliance the Church gave that property. He encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward and not backward. If there has been a taking, there are appropriate procedures to compensate the Knowltons fairly. Based on past history, Mr. Fericks believed the property was properly zoned because it cannot be developed without circumventing the flood plain plan. Bruce Baird could not stay for the public hearing and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Baird felt that the rezoning and proposed development plan must be tied together. It did not make sense to rezone just to open the way for unapprovable development. Donald Brown did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Brown believed that it is the open spaces in the heart of a City that create value and beauty for the residents. This is one of the finest features of Salt Lake City, and he did not believe it should be given up simply for development's sake. This area was declared open space for good reason, and those reasons have not changed. Brian Fox, 1626 Kensington, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comments read by Chair Jonas. Mr. Fox opposed the rezone of open space in this area. He purchased his home last year, and the areas of open space and Wasatch Hollow Park were what made the area desirable. A rezone would be an injustice to all the people in the area who have purchased or improved their property. Erin Fox, a resident at 1626 Kensington Avenue, opposed the rezone of the open space. She believed the Knowltons' property could be just as valuable to another buyer if such an offer could ever be considered. She encouraged the Planning Commission to take a different route. Planning Commission Meeting 14 January 22,2003 Barbara Bean, a resident at 1651 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Bean favored maintaining the original open space plan for Emigration Creek published in 1992. Lori Komlos, a resident at 1664 Emerson Avenue, did not wish to speak and submitted the following comment read by Chair Jonas. Ms. Komlos was opposed to residential development on this open space and flood plain area and asked the Planning Commission to preserve this beautiful land. Elizabeth Bowman, a resident at 1359 South 1600 East, expressed concern that this meeting was a deviation from the standard practice where there is no plan for development when they all know that development is the game plan. She was concerned that the Knowltons' position permeated the staff report, yet there is no support for the belief that this was mistakenly zoned. The staff report refers to the possibility of a mapping error that was never defined, but no one knows what that is. It does not appear that noticing was inadequate. Ms. Bowman was concerned about the criteria the City Council must eventually weigh. Four out of five criteria listed in the staff report indicated that there was inadequate information to make a decision. Ms. Bowman read the criteria and felt these were concerns that would prevent this body or any other body from making an adequate determination because they do not have all the information. She believed the petition should be denied and that the land should remain open space. She disagreed that the only way the Knowltons' could get their value was to rezone, because this has not been marketed as open space property. It was marketed and quickly snatched up by someone who thought they could develop it. Denying the rezone would not prevent the Knowltons from getting their money but would prevent the rest from getting things that are irreplaceable. David Broadbent, representing the applicant, was provided an opportunity to make final comment. He confirmed that the Knowltons were not invited to the community council meeting where a vote was taken. They were invited to one meeting that they attended, but the community council held two other meetings to which they were not invited. Mr. Broadbent referred to comments about a wildlife corridor and stated that this ignores the fact that the Knowlton property has been enclosed by a 6-foot chain link fence with two wires on top and that this area has not been available as a public park or wildlife corridor. He remarked that the Emigration Corridor plan included in the staff report indicates that development along the creek may be difficult but not impossible. He explained that the Knowltons did not object to the open space zoning years ago because they did not find out about the zoning until the prospective Planning Commission Meeting 15 January 22,2003 purchaser checked into it. In response to comments about water, Mr. Broadbent stated that the area has never been under water the entire time the Knowltons have owned the property. He referred to comments about Wasatch Presbyterian Church relying on the open space designation when the property below Wasatch Hollow Park was contributed and believed that was impossible because the open space designation was adopted in 1995 and the land was contributed in 1990 and 1991. Mr. Broadbent stated that he loves open space, and the Knowltons are in favor of open space. That is the reason Wasatch Hollow Park was formed, and he was one of the members who formed the park. A lot of work was done with the City, and land was obtained due to the generosity of Wasatch Presbyterian Church. County funds helped put in a flood control basin and make improvements. He commented that is how a community gets open space and parks, not by taking someone's private property. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Mr. Muir stated that the Planning Commission cares very much about the master plan and the call for Emigration Creek corridor and other urban trail initiatives. They cannot hope to someday implement that unless the City abides by due process for compensation of property, and he believed they had an opportunity this evening to correct some past wrongs. He did not believe designating this land as open space was an error, but the error was in aligning the boundary of open space with the parcels as opposed to the flood plain. The actual flood plain boundary is to be determined, but a FEMA designation can be demonstrated. He believed another error was the carrying forward of non-comforming parcels. He could not support the recommendations of Staff without including a consolidation of the property to create a conforming parcel and move forward from there. He was unsure how to accomplish this and requested input from Mr. Pace. Mr. Pace commented on the subdivision issue and referred to the map designations of Parcels 2 and 3. It appeared that Parcels 1 and 2 were combined and subsequently divided. Research needs to be conducted to determine whether that subdivision required City approval and whether it met the requirements of State and City law when it was done. The record shows that Parcel 3 was always an independent parcel purchased by the Knowltons from the Department of Corrections. Apparently the Department of Corrections was taking water from the site for the State Penitentiary at Sugar House Park. If the question is how to address the rezoning and request that these parcels be combined, he felt the Planning Commission could recommend rezoning all or part of the property conditioned upon the consolidation of all the lots into one lot. Mr. Muir asked if that could be done if Parcel 1 is not part of the application, noting that Parcel 1 is key because it is the only one with direct access to a public right-of-way. Mr. Pace stated that Planning Commission Meeting 16 January 22,2003 Parcel 1 appears to have access to Kensington Avenue. Since they are commonly owned, it would not be difficult for the owners of Parcels 2 and 3 to obtain access. Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission has discretion over zoning recommendations, and if they are only willing to recommend rezoning, they can make that recommendation as part of the motion. It will get sorted out by the City Council as to whether it is essential. Chair Jonas asked whether they could join the parcels as a subdivision amendment prior to City Council action on the rezone, because the parcels would be zoned differently. Mr. Pace was unsure if the Planning Commission had authority to initiate an involuntary subdivision amendment or consolidation. If the Planning Commission sends a recommendation to the City Council for a rezone provided the lots are combined and that package is enacted by the City Council, they would have an ordinance rezoning the property conditioned upon the property owners combining the lots. If the owner did not combine the lots, the ordinance would not take effect and the rezone would not become effective. Ms. Funk stated that she did not understand the advantage of following Mr. Muir's suggestion. Mr. Muir explained that whether or not this property is developed, they would have at least created a conforming situation. Chair Jonas replied that this allows an opportunity to do some housekeeping, but it has not been noticed, so that is not something the Planning Commission can take action on this evening. Ms. Seelig noted that creating a parcel that conforms to what was originally intended would be the right thing to do. Chair Jonas expressed his personal wish for the Knowltons to sell their property as an existing home with a large lot, but that is not the issue being addressed. He discussed noticing requirements and commented that the average person might not know that something was happening that could affect them if they are not involved in the City's processes. Ms. Funk stated that she was troubled that they were only looking at rezoning, which is a step that may not need to be taken, but that will not be known without a development plan. She hoped the petitioners realized the difficulties of coming in later for a development plan. The staff report indicates that the Staff stated their preference for combining the processes. She felt that would have been a more desirable procedure, but based on the information presented tonight, she believed there appeared to be a possible taking that the Planning Commission should look at carefully. Planning Commission Meeting 17 January 22,2003 Mr. Diamond recalled that he had asked whether there are other properties similar to the one being discussed, and it appears that there are several private properties with an open space designations. This is an important issue to discuss, and he believed it was inappropriate for the City to apply open space to private property. He asked if R-1/5000 is the only option for the rezone. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the master plan would not call for any other designation, and there is no other higher density development zoning in the vicinity. Mr. Diamond stated that he was not suggesting higher density. He felt R-1/5000 was not appropriate for a 55,000- square-foot lot and asked what the Planning Department would suggest. Mr. Wheelwright explained that R-1/5000 sets a minimum lot size, and there is no maximum lot size. Through a planned development process, they would use R-1/5000 density of one house per 5,000 square feet of developable area. Mr. Diamond felt the issue for development was whether it is appropriate to have 10 homes on the property. Half of the property is dissected by flood plain, so obviously 10 homes would not be allowed. The issue for dialogue was how much is appropriate. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the petitioner has requested R-1/5000. Chair Jonas asked if they could approve a different zone. Mr. Pace replied that the property owner has indicated that open space zoning is not appropriate and has asked for R-1/5000. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine the appropriate zoning for the property and make a recommendation to City Council, and Mr. Pace believed the Planning Commission had latitude in deciding what that is. Chair Jonas did not believe R-1/5000 was appropriate and suggested that it be more like R-1/12,000. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the FR-3 zone allows 15,000 square feet, and the FR-2 allows 20,000 square feet, or a half acre. FR-1 is one acre, and FP is 16 acres. Mr. Diamond did not think they could appropriate the foothill restrictions on this property because it does not have the issues of a foothill sloping lot. Chair Jonas noted that R-1/12,000 is the largest they can go without a foothill overlay, and he did not favor an overlay. Mr. Muir suggested that they preclude a consolidation by having three different zones. The only way to consolidate the three parcels would be to use a zone similar to Parcel 1, which is R-1/5000. Ms. Funk asked if R-1/12,000 would be considered spot zoning since there are no other R- 1/12,000 properties in the area. Mr. Muir stated that R-1/5,000 allows the Planning Commission the discretion under a PUD to decide what is appropriate. He did not see much advantage in changing the zone from R-1/5000 as requested. After discussing the options, Mr. Muir suggested tabling the matter and remanding it to Staff to Planning Commission Meeting 18 January 22,2003 determine the exact location of the flood plain line and provide a calculation of the underlying developable density. Ms. Funk referred to a letter from Great Basin Engineering indicating that they are in the process of defining the flood plain. The square footage of Parcels 2 and 3 is approximately 39,000 square feet, so R-1/12,000 zoning would allow three homes. Mr. Broadbent felt that R-1/12,000 would be a workable zone. Chair Jonas asked about the slope. Mr. Wheelwright explained that slope prohibitions exist only in the Foothill Zoning District. The slope would not rule out any of the property as developable. Chair Jonas asked if it would be possible to put conditions on R-1/12,000 zoning to prohibit development over a certain slope. Mr. Pace replied that the City ordinance does not have those provisions. Overlay zones provide an additional level of review, but the City does not have the same provisions as the County to address slopes. He felt the Planning Commission needed to address the issue of appropriate zoning and whether the property is buildable. Chair Jonas stated that Parcel 1 is zoned R-1/5000, and that will not change with their recommendation this evening. He suggested zoning Parcels 2 and 3 R-1/12,000 and make the steep slopes open space. Ms. Funk did not believe the Planning Commission had any basis for making the steep slopes open space. Mr. Muir supported Ms. Funk's concern. Instead of imposing a slope restriction, he preferred to see what the developer comes back with. Motion for Petition 400-02-35 Prescott Muir moved to forward the request to amend the zoning map from Open Space to Single Family Residential R-1/12,000 to the City Council, recommending approval of a residential zoning classification of R-1/12,000 for the area of land located above the base flood elevation of FEMA 100-year flood plain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer to reconcile the conflicting data and including the potential exceptions A, B, and C to that determination and based upon findings A through E as outlined in the staff report: Exceptions A. Grant approval to fill and elevate the land through an Administrative FIRM amendment. B. Determine, after further examination, that the Flood plain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted. C. An exception is granted to construct in the Flood plain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and FEMA regulations. Findings A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, Planning Commission Meeting 19 January 22,2003 and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The finding being that it is in compliance with those general goals, purposes and objectives. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. In reference to the adjoining parcel to the north, the finding is that it is very much harmonious with the density of that parcel. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment is adversely affected by adjacent properties. It will have no adverse impact upon adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of any applicable overlay zoning, which may impose additional standards. No overlay zoning applies. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. There are adequate public facilities to service the properties subject to verification through engineering studies. John Diamond seconded the motion. Mr. Muir referred to Exception A and asked for clarification. He was concerned about someone filling the area to bring it above the flood plain which would destroy the vegetation. Mr. Stewart replied that Public Utilities would be opposed to that, and it would be difficult to circumvent the City ordinance to cause that to happen. Mr. Muir amended his motion to exclude Exception A. Mr. Diamond seconded the amendment. Mr. Chambless noted that he had expressed concern about the context of the sloping grade and asked if Mr. Stewart was expressing the same concern regarding water. Mr. Stewart replied that there is a strong sense to keep people out of harm's way in the flood hazard area, and that includes building on fill to make a property developable if it currently is not. Ms. Funk referred to Finding E and asked if they should eliminate that finding as a reason for approving the rezone because they are not prepared to say whether the facilities are adequate. Planning Commission Meeting 20 January 22,2003 Mr. Muir amended his motion to eliminate Finding E. Mr. Diamond seconded the amendment. Amended Motion for Petition 400-02-35 Prescott Muir moved to forward the request to amend the zoning map from Open Space to Single Family Residential R-1/12,000 to the City Council, recommending approval of a residential zoning classification of R-1/12,000 for the area of land located above the base flood elevation of FEMA 100-year flood plain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer to reconcile the conflicting data and including the potential exceptions B and C to that determination and based upon findings A through D as outlined in the staff report: Exceptions B. Determine, after further examination, that the Flood plain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted. C. An exception is granted to construct in the Flood plain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and FEMA regulations. Findings A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The finding being that it is in compliance with those general goals, purposes and objectives. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. In reference to the adjoining parcel to the north, the finding is that it is very much harmonious with the density of that parcel. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment is adversely affected by adjacent properties. It will have no adverse impact upon adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with provisions of any applicable overlay zoning, which may impose additional standards. No overlay zoning applies. John Diamond seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Ms. Planning Commission Meeting 21 January 22,2003 Arnold, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. McDonough were not present. Jeff Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting 22 January 22,2003 8. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Zoning Map Amendment request from Open Space (OS) to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5000) for two parcels of property located at approximately 1665 S. Kensington Ave. Petition # 400-02-35 January 22, 2003 Overview Petition Number 400-02-35 is a request by Joseph S. &Kathleen C. Knowlton to amend the existing Zoning Map from Open Space (OS)to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5000). The properties under consideration for rezone are located directly south of the Knowlton's 1.05-acre, single-family residential property addressed 1665 South Kensington Ave., currently zoned R-1/5000. There are two access restricted parcels involved in this request, bordered on the east by Emigration Creek and 1700 East St. (paper street only), on the south by Wasatch Hollow Park, and on the west and north by single-family dwellings under the R-1/5000 zoning designation. These two parcels being proposed for reclassification are both zoned "OS" Open Space. The larger of the two parcels,Parcel 2, is 25,700 square feet in size. The smaller,most southerly parcel, Parcel 3, is 13, 939 square feet in size. Prior to the adoption of the 1995 Zoning Ordinance/Map for the City, the two properties in question were zoned R-2 (Two-Family Residential), which required a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling or 6,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The proposed zone of R-1/5000 has a 5,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for single-family dwellings, allowing for a gross density of 8.7 lots per acre. The intent of the Petitioner is to reinstate the residential zoning for the two properties zoned "OS"during the 1995 re-write. The Petitioners,Mr. &Mrs. Knowlton,believe the - - Open Space zoning to be a mistake(mapping error) on the City's part,maintaining that since there was a mistake, the City should correct the suggested error _ _ "5 •f administratively rather than subjecting them to a _ rezoning process. Planning Staff and the City 032, Attorney have informed the Petitioner that under the . circumstances,the City cannot make an administrative map change. At the Knowlton's a R 3 > • insistence,the Planning Commission will consider • s the rezoning request without further review of a •Planned Development and Subdivision as is our - standard practice,which is to package all the r" information and applications together for Planning Commission Consideration. r F SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 1 General Background Property Owner!Applicant: Joseph S. &Kathleen C. Knowlton Purpose of proposal for the amendment: To "restore"the zoning as it was before to the 1995 Zoning Ordinance re-write project,prior to a pending sale to a potential developer for a residential use Affected Parcel Number(s): 16-16-252-002, 16-16-252-004 Lot Size/Area of subject property(s) 16-16-252-002— 0.59-acres or 25,700 sq.ft. in area 16-16-252-004— 0.32-acres or 13,939 sq.ft. in area Existing Land Use on subject property: 16-16-252-002—undeveloped land—taxed as vacant land 16-16-252-004—undeveloped land— taxed as vacant land Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts on subject property: "OS" Open Space Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: The subject property is located in the general boundary. between Low-Density Residential and the designation for Parks Public Comment and Review: Wasatch Hollow Community Council: The Wasatch Hollow Community Council initially heard the rezone and development proposal for the Knowlton properties on August 28, 2002 as presented by Michael Bradley, a potential purchaser and developer of the properties. The proposal was heard once again on September 4th and then again at the City& County Building on September 23Td where several City Department representatives were present to discuss the conceptual development proposal for the properties. Community Council Chair,Beth Bowman, submitted a letter noting that the proposed rezone and development was brought up for discussion at their October 23rd meeting and a vote was taken. The vote was unanimous against changing the zoning from Open Space to Residential and against any new building on the site. Since the initial proposal was presented to rezone and develop this site,numerous e-mails and letters have been submitted to the Planning Department voicing concern about the rezone request. Many neighbors argue that zoning the properties Open Space was not a mistake. Please review Exhibit( )where each of these letters are attached. SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 2 Identification And Analysis Of Issues: The parcels being proposed for reclassification of zoning are essentially landlocked and are currently only accessible by foot from the developed residential property located directly north of the two parcels,where the Owner's single-family residence has been since 1963. Directly to the east of the Knowlton's three properties is an unimproved 66-foot right-of-way - 1700 East St. This section of 1700 East has never been built as a street because of the constraining natural course and gully created by Emigration Creek; nonetheless, a right-of-way still exists and Salt Lake City remains the owner of the property. To the south is Wasatch Hollow Park, which was expanded and improved by the City in the early I990's, partially implementing the recommendation of the Emigration Creek Corridor Open Space Plan. The three Knowlton properties were not always separate. The two northern most properties were originally a single parcel of land approximately 1.6-acres in size. Mr. Knowlton claims that he originally purchased this large estate parcel from a relative with a provision for a Life Estate over a portion of property,which became parcel 16-16-252-002 or Parcel 2. This 1.6-acre parcel was later split, leaving approximately one-half an acre under separate ownership for family recreational purposes with the remaining 1.05-acres as residential property under Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton's control and where they placed their residence. The southern most property, now Parcel 3, was originally owned by the State and used as a drinking water spring site for the old State Prison. Ultimately, the half-acre parcel (Parcel 2) was deeded back to the Knowitons and the Knowitons purchased the southern most property under the State's control (Parcel 3). The three properties were never consolidated into a single parcel; however,the owners have utilized the two parcels in question as a single open space amenity parcel in conjunction with their residence. Adjacent to the east property lines of the Knowlton properties is Emigration Creek with the Salt Lake City 17th South & 17`h East Street Stormwater Detention Facility being located approximately 700 feet downstream from these southern extent of Parcel 3. This Stormwater Detention Facility is used for flood control of Emigration Creek during high water periods, necessary for handling drainage and to avoid potential hazards and damage resulting from overflowing creeks and inadequate drainage facilities. The facility is essentially a dam with an outflow control box consisting of two different sized inlet pipes and an overflow inlet at different elevations. The two inlet pipes are 48-inches and 54-inches in diameter, with normal creek levels flowing through the lowest 48-inch pipe during most of the season. Just above the 54-inch inlet is the overflow inlet and two feet above overflow is the top of the diversion dam. This detention facility was constructed in 1993, a cooperative construction effort between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City. During a flood event, the storm waters of Emigration Creek will back up within the stream corridor to the level shown on the contour map (Sec Exhibit ()in red at an approximate elevation of 4530 ft. (USGS datum). In addition to high water levels created by the detention dam is the 100 Year Floodplain elevation areas. Along Emigration Creek are areas delineated and identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) as floodplain hazard areas. Located within the floodplain hazard areas are designated floodways; the location of these floodways has been delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Salt Lake City Public Utilities has been SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 3 provided with the Emigration Creek Floodplain Profile for this specific area. Based on initial calculations, which factors in the relative distance between the detention dam and various elevations upstream, Salt Lake City Public Utilities assumes the 100 Year Floodplain Elevations for the Knowlton property to be between 4534 ft. and 4543 ft., converting S.L.C. Survey Datum to USGS Survey Datum. What this suggests, according to the City's calculations, is that a large portion of Parcel 2 and all of Parcel 3 is within the 100 Year Floodplain. In effect, these floodplain elevations determine the develop-ability of the land. Chapter 18.68.100 of the Salt Lake City Code,Floodplain Hazard Protection, states that: B.) All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within the Jloodplain hazard area shall have the lowest floor(including basement), elevated to or above the base flood elevation. C.) All new constructionand substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within the floodplain hazard area shall-have the lowest floor (including basement): 1. Elevated to or above the base flood level; or 2. Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable building codes so that below the base flood level: a. The structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, b. Structural components have the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, c. Where floodproofing is utilized to meet the standards of this subsection D, a registered engineer or licensed architect shall certif}'that the floodproofing methods comply with the building codes and are adequate, according to accepted engineering standards to withstand the flood depths,pressure, velocities, impact and uplift factors and other factors associated with the base flood. (end) The potential buyer/developer of the property did submit an ALTA Land Survey showing a delineation of the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain elevation line suggesting that the floodway elevation is between 4530 ft. and 4535 ft. According to this ALTA Land Survey,the 100 Year Floodplain envelops all of the southern most property(Parcel 3), and the eastern 1/3 of the middle property(Parcel 2). Public Utilities has calculated the elevations of the floodplain at Parcel 3 to be between 4534' & 4536' and for Parcel 2 to be between 4536' & 4537'. The Knowltons residential parcel appears to have floodplain elevations between 4538' &4543'. See attached Exhibit (). To reiterate,the Owner's have contended that the rezoning of these two parcels to Open Space during the 1995 re-write was a mistake, and to not correct the mistake is a property"taking". Opposing the Owner's are the neighbors who argue that zoning the properties Open Space was not a mistake. The Owner's are requesting that the Planning Department should correct this mistake administratively, which the City has stated it cannot do. To determine the appropriate zoning, today, Planning Staff must establish what portions of the two properties are developable and to do so would require adequate site development plans and a Certificate of Survey SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 4 establishing the Base Flood Elevation at regular intervals along Emigration Creek where it coincides with the Knowltons property; however, the Knowlton's have indicated they are reluctant to submit documentation to the Planning Office substantiating the developable limits of the property because they are not developing the property. As a result, Planning Staff and the Public Utilities department have pursued analysis of the issues to determine what the appropriate zoning should be based on information currently available. The Attorney's Office has directed that the owners are entitled to residential zoning unless the property is determined to be undevolapable. Code Criteria / Discussion / Findings Of Fact: Section 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states, "A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not-controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors:" 21A.50.050 STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: Not intended to be property specific, the East Bench Community Master Plan (1987) is fairly general as to the appropriate future land use for these two parcels— split between Low-Density Residential, 4-8 Units per Gross Acre and Parks. This Parks future land use classification (for this area) appears to follow the Emigration Creek Open Space Corridor, which also appears to traverse the two parcels in question between a residential land use classification and an open space land use classification. The Emigration Creek Corridor Open Space Plan denotes that development along Emigration Creek at the Wasatch Hollow Park Site"may be difficult but is possible." Also indicating that, `purchases of residential properties for access points and small neighborhood parks is recommended." The future land use map is not property specific other than calling out for the future development of the Wasatch Hollow Park. The Master Plan denotes that there is an increasing awareness of the value of the City's vanishing natural resources, and that there are increased concerns of many residents and public officials regarding the need to conserve the natural environment, enhance opens space amenities, connect various parts of the City to natural environments and to educate citizens on proper use of open space. "Given the value of the natural setting to Salt Lake City in improving the quality of life continued urban encroachment would be very damaging to the fragile ecosystem and scenic beauty. " Finding: Due to the generality of the East Bench and Open Space Master Plan,Planning Staff cannot effectively determine if the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 5 and objectives adopted within those plans. The fact that the parcels are privately owned would ordinarily suggest a development right, favoring an implied residential classification; however, a zoning change may not be warranted if the property is undevelopable. As a further matter, the Emigration Creek Corridor Map calls for the development of public open space for trails and pedestrian access corridors. A full review of that issue can only be considered as part of a development plan. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: A large majority of the parcels around the subject properties were developed within a traditional grid pattern subdivision. Because of topographical encumbrances, the Knowlton's residential and open space properties could not be placed within this traditional planned grid and were subsequently divided through deed, left out of the original subdivision plat. Construction of the Knowlton residence on the northern most lot is essentially construction on what today would be considered a flag lot, because of its irregular configuration in which the main body of the lot is not adjacent to the street, nor does it have adequate street frontage. Under today's ordinance standards, a flag lot requires Conditional Use approval from the Planning Commission. Many infill lots and flag lots are inherently out of character with traditional development patterns and are therefore subject to Conditional Use approvals where overall development character can be scrutinized. In addition to infill lot characteristics, the three Knowlton properties are a defacto, single estate-type lot consisting of just under 2-acres of property. Subdividing the property will initiate a Planned Development process that is approved through condition and not granted by property right. In itself. a planned development is unique in that it allows for more flexibility in an effort to encourage efficient use of the land,but subject to a list of specific development standards and criteria. Finding: Planning Staff believes that there is an inherent conflict with new construction on infill lots within established traditional, gridded subdivisions. Until adequate site and building design information can be provided, establishing a compatible development character and incorporating mitigation measures to buffer development conflicts, staff cannot determine compatibility or if the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposal for a rezone amendment itself may not have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. Recall that these two parcels were zoned R-2 for quite some time prior to the 1995 re-write and map change. At the time the property was zoned R-2,there was no development proposal for the Knowlton owned properties. The Knowltons developed upon and enjoyed an estate lot of almost two acres. If in fact the owners had pursued development of the vacant parcels, a rezone application/process would not have been necessary and one entire step of the process would have been eliminated. fi►9e 6 Nonetheless, a Subdivision and Planned Development process would have been needed to do anything more than leave the properties in their natural state. Finding: While rezoning the subject property by itself will not adversely affect adjacent properties,potential subsequent development would certainly be of a different character than the traditional grid pattern residential character present in the surrounding area. Subsequent development would be of an infill nature and would require the site planning flexibility offered only through the Conditional Use—Planned Development Ordinance provisions and standards. Lacking the ability to analyze and review both the rezoning and the proposed development concurrently, a finding for this standard cannot be determined. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The site is not located in any official city overlay district. Finding: The area is not subject to any official overlay district in the City. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and lire protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Planning Staff has been provided with conceptual development drawings, which typically only depict general site information. Conceptual drawings do not have detailed information regarding proposed utility services, storm water drainage, etc. Typically, technical information is provided with the Subdivision and/or the Planned Development process. Although we do have a conceptual development plan,we do not have site development, construction, landscape or building elevation drawings which would provide the necessary information to answer the question of whether adequate public services are available or not. Consolidating these applications is standard practice with Planning Staff and helps determine the physical attributes or impediments associated with the property and the proposed development. From the conceptual development information provided by the potential developer of the property, the following development constraints have been identified: 1. Both subject parcels are landlocked, and although they do abut the existing 1700 South dedicated street,the right-of-way is neither improved nor will it ever be improved due to the thoroughfare being impeded by Emigration Creek and it's carved corridor. 2. By Salt Lake City Public Utilities Departments calculations,in conjunction with the ALTA Land Survey, Parcel 3 is completely within the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain and the eastern two-thirds of Parcel 2 lies within the floodplain and are thereby are subject to FEMA regulations and Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 18.68—Floodplain Hazard Protection. SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 7 3. Since there is no sewer service connected to any of the Knowltons three parcels, sewer will need to be pumped from a proposed sewer lift station to Kensington Avenue. Sanitary facilities are required to be designed and placed at a level that is above the base flood elevation. 4. Access to the properties for emergency vehicles via the private drive may be inadequate due to existing topography, and the proposed access road appears to be too steep and too narrow for emergency vehicles. Finding: Adequacy of public facilities has not been established; therefore, this finding cannot be made at this time. Conceptually, there are significant development constraints on this property, including but not limited to: driveway access limitations due to steep slope topography, restricted driveway access for fire and emergency vehicle protection; storm water detention capacity; water supply and fire-hydrant availability; sanitary sewer availability; and Floodplain limitations. Recommendation: Based on the findings of fact contained in this staff report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the request to amend the Zoning Map from Open Space(OS) to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5000)to the City Council, recommending approval of a residential zoning classification (R-1/5000) for the area of land located above the Base Flood Elevation of the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain as determined through survey by a licensed engineer to reconcile the conflicting data. All remaining areas determined to be within the FEMA 100 Year Floodplain for these two parcels are to remain zoned as Open Space(OS)until such time that Salt Lake City Public Utilities and FEMA either: a. Grant approval to fill and elevate the land through an Administrative FIRM Amendment; b. Determine, after further examination,that the Floodplain elevation is, (1) incorrectly depicted; or, (2) administrative approval of a FEMA amendment of FIRM is granted, depicting a new Base Flood Elevation. c. An exception is granted to construct in the Floodplain in accordance with City Code 18.68 and FEMA regulations. It is further noted that the City is willing to re-examine new information as provided by the Applicant or future owner that proves develop-ability of those areas currently deemed undevelopable and/or zoned Open Space. Greg Mikolash Principle Planner SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 8 EXHIBIT A • Community Council Comments • Mayors Open Space Advisory Committee Comments November 4,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Commission do Greg Mikolash City and County Building 451 South State Street Members of the Planning Commission: Our Community Council members are very concerned about the proposed rezoning and development of the Knowlton property (1665 Kensington Ave,)along the west side of Emigration Creek at Kensington Avenue. After the proposal was presented at the August Community Council Meeting, we have had several organized discussions;a second presentation by the developer on September 4th and a meeting with city representatives at the City and County Building on September 23, 2002. This proposed development and rezoning change were again brought up for discussion at our Community Council meeting on October 23`d. At this time,following an update of the current facts of this petition, a vote was taken.The result of the vote was unanimous against changing the zoning from open space and against any new building. The actual count was 26 in favor of the motion and 0 opposed. This attendance was exceptionally good for one of our meetings. Sincerely, -f 1 Beth Bowman,Chair Wasatch Hollow Community Council 1445 Harrison Ave Salt Lake City,UT 84105 SUGAR HOUSE , r, COMMUNITY COUNCIL . sue:. Member of Salt Lake Association of Community Councils • y� H/y . D C( Ufl COUNCIL Brent Wilde,Acting Director January 9,2003 SLC Planning Division 451 S.State Street SLC, UT 84111 Brent.W ilde@ci-sie.ut-us RE:Recommendation against approval of Petition No.400-02-35,by Joseph Knowlton to re-zone property at 1665 Kensington Ave. During public comment at the January 4, 2003 meeting of the Sugar House Community Council,Dan Duggleby of Wasatch Hollow Community Council asked the Council to take a position on a petition to rezone property at 1665 Kensington Ave.Wasatch Hollow opposes the petition to rezone two parcels of the Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton property from Open Space to Residential. The property abuts Emigration Creek and Wasatch Hollow Park,and was rezoned as OS during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite_ The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee for Sugar House Community Council had previously investigated the rezoning petition, and support Wasatch Hollow's position. Committee chair Lynne Olson said the property to be rezoned was part of a sensitive riparian corridor, and that the current open space zoning was necessary to protect the water quality of Emigration Creek and the wildlife habitat in the corridor_ The purpose of the Open Space district is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. Committee members weighed the interests of the private property owner against the interests of other property owners in the area and the public good, and recommended that the Sugar House Community Council should oppose the petition to rezone Sugar House trustees voted in favor of that action_ Comments regarding this issue included the hope that Salt Lake City will explore every avenue for alternatives to rezoning this property,including the granting or purchase of public access and conservation easements across the property,tax breaks,and outright purchase of the land. Additionally,the Council urges the City to consider recommendations from the SLC Open Space Master Plan to explore general fund and bonding possibilities for the acquisition of open space in the urban area, in order to negotiate with private owners for the purpose of maintaining the natural open space corridor along Emigration Creek. Furthermore,the City should establish an Open Space trust to receive and manage real property and easement interests along open space corridors in the City. Respectfully, /211/L 1/1— Helen M.Peters,Chair Sugar House Community Council MOSAC MAYOR'S OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Office of the Mayor 451 South State Street #306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 January 6, 2003 Mr. Brent Wilde Acting Director Salt Lake City Corporation Planning Division 451 South State Street, #406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Wilde- At the regular MOSAC meeting held on December 18th, 2002, our committee was presented information regarding the proposed rezoning of the property at 1665 E. Kensington Avenue_ After discussion, the Committee decided unanimously to oppose the rezoning of the property from open space to residential_ The purpose of the Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee is to support and promote the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan. The Emigration Corridor is an important part of the Open Space Master Plan and we feel the zoning change would strongly adversely impact this Corridor. Thank you for your consideration_ Very truly yours, MAYOR'S OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Rita Lund Board Member September 3,2002 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to certify that Kathleen C. Knowlton attended the Wasatch Hollow Community Council meeting held on Wednesday August 28, 2002 at the Andersen Public Library, where the subject of rezoning and development of the Knowlton property was discussed. Kathleen C. Knowlton Bonneville Community Council January 15, 2003 Dave Buhler Council Member- District Six Brent Wilde SLC Planning Director Re: Rezoning of property at 1665 Kensington Ave. - Petition No. 400-02-35 Dear Gentlemen, The Bonneville Hills Community Council residents find the issue of rezoning from open space to residential a very complex and emotional issue. We feel that the rezoning issue is not an issue that belongs with the Community Councils. It is an issue between a private property owner and the City Planning Department. Only these two parties are privy to all details and information regarding this issue and we, as residents, do not feel qualified to render an informed opinion. Our concern is the property development driven by a new owner/developer. The Knowlton's have beautifully maintained and improved this property during their ownership. We wish everyone would care and maintain their property as the Knowltons have done for many years. Care and preservation of open space and support of the Open Space Master Plan is the desire of the Bonneville Hills community. We appreciate and value this area and wish it to remain as pristine and undeveloped as possible. We request that you actively pursue the task of guiding the development of the property in the future to guarantee that the land is not overdeveloped, not eroded and the riparian value of the land maintained. The flood plain is of great concern and should affect and limit any future development to no more than two houses in this area. We realize this is an arduous endeavor but well worth the effort. If we, as a community council, may assist this effort in anyway please let me know. Thank you for the time, commitment and dedication to this issue. n erely, Ellen ed Chair Bonneville Hills Community Council EXHIBIT B Site Maps • Sidwell Map • Current Zoning Map • 1995 Draft Zoning Map • ALTA Survey Map (showing assumed Floodplain elevation) • Emigration Creek Corridor Open Space Map -- 1 V;' 1. 1 b I ROOSEVELT ? AVE. J Is , a I L 7 0 40 40 50 52 N 42 42 50 1111 : 13J Pf• / 0- .... `a 111? Ai 4 �� 'R � ,: �!Pa °717Jes (na1 , qh♦ ,,jo �O I":7::trirzlit:s 0, 6 3✓Bll.,s ti :1111111111 (i Ili ap 4":: 1e-s9 t� su s,�a Pf. 00/ 17:- F2 v.. 42 17 I N e43 V y SO/4 O��A s�-)• / 03250::,_ �/I))v EMERSON w AVE. w /� io • n /ls'J . . 50\> j4 eksV 1 W n4 --ne.aJo . .- J1 d 0 ,2-Oo7 Zix -y a ^o ' 13 2�.. . ."• 1,, , •� 04..1 n na 9 • 11-� -0 5 e a es-a7� -� o " 0 111°I is - 9 ',B-oo `; vi 7/.122 52 to (o a`q �,A\ n ' i d VH d K n 222 e7 a•50 2 IP, 2.7 e ";,-.1 ° 394 T_N SUB. oFz Y n o o .5 hg ", 8 hp 1 1 25y --- 13 rye; N - ;, o li a o� o �.. $\_ 8 P Yen. to •e. q SEG. 16 y Y o o h .59 •--' 1\� - ` /1 - h, 0 00 -•0 35 `�, `s o' 35.- 50 50 J 50 -a05 ti 72 35 a6 • S0 a q O /00 27 �- Pt Cv ` - tQ '� . AVE gs 'f' 2 0 —2 -e o + 3955 �5 75 s7. K£ pV617 , "moo s GG --- 50 -50� 54 15 a 23 el 13 Co O _' ;_ - Q'"'iti. ►�;8ri: pl •� �, o ' T''' ., -002 x� �a `�.� • 0 Q9G. ��h �� 114111?".s y g$ 2.J15W g �Sy.G� c ��o _tra °o :r.e� � 0 004 ?� 9 ,I, 1\ ..o,. ° o uqI) o : \o1 C.13 o 0 1 'SNl o� x t. - afl3 >? 8?.z GG so 5a Al,y1p 55 1 r 1 5 - o . -R73 „1 kfK o 2c 60. h1U `q BRYAN a aF x 57 o -- Pe u — AVE . P R�n0 _ t 52 az.4 v r10s 3- o. .c. 45.,. �fB3 50 .• ,, w . 50 6424 3 55 53 \o 3i �5 0 ` o o 5 g 1 $ o Mu Ati v"' P,< /G-/G-/79-030 h may^ u ° to ^1n C (0 h ,t; ,, V ,n V ^ 0p o: p \ N 41 o t�4 -:..—. o ¢Fr .,.o, .A6 ''132 oat a 'h +h to �h ,h 'h h �1 Cl as t 53 5.1,1 .az. _ 50 pot Oa Q fi i, 0 T 10 1 1 T P/./ 5 i y p U o h ^ 4 a 1O� n' v Ih Va a1`-s9 e o 4 O o �� 1 p o 4 4 1P oa 1 252 ' , , N nl h 1 Ir< a of �6 - 024 v 1 85.5 �} {/�� /52 57 0 i e . r� c....7 " I • I 57 ' . 57 p o9 26-1- 1T � 244 Si ---k LOGAN { 4��� AVE B-o,s O o f to A`V /i5 5G 67 1 75 5 1 57 w .i 1 . .I I n) p BS.Sv B5.5 t n w w 37.94 i o -00/3-' I I ,--' 1 '-' I .--' I I .-- I .-' .3 9a) 2,415 4) 8 '41ioti Cl-o,4 a 411 -ao2,-' 1 %. $ I u ct-` 0 �o 10 1 0 0 (0 0 0 ( c o 0 :—CO 33-—__--- *,V� 003 {L�lik\A y-----b I `f -007 7/ 1 m 2 r 0¢ T hl -000 tl`�J .. I F 1i I I CO gr— 1 o 1 , 1 B�. - tv Inf, I m ro3.5-1 ��% din I p IIy�D 1 .. O °h1 '. 1 (O (�u' {�O �Q,1 _---- y. R,v I n Oh11 I 1' 1 h10 " l 1 '�( �( 'Y -t 33{0 N -005 1 I I 1 I I 1 .508 o es.s 1 - I I '-4 . I •. I I f /035 G •5 57 595 9-3 4 Bo.S 57 ., ��57 -57s• Z/o.BG 329G- - g--;- -.1 4i UM ST /OO 5/0 G5.52 6552 1'6591.zaso29 GO t G0 1 5/ 5/ 50.7 58 55 G3 /7th S. ST. 1 1, '!' i 1 Pi51 n 1 1 I o P/ H°I .-'�/� + 50 131RG /50 ^ 44 ` I h Y 1 V1 1 0 1 I I` ^qI N ` `+IPs 2 H - o I og $ 1 4 .58 81 ho „1k ',, c.CIb oo/ 2153 I,9�Poe'.3-2n ! tt .0 . 31 v a o s $ v M�°. j t'I j $N m� $ 59 1 "; -a�z 1 1 {{ ,s1i 9 1 • I v'-t-1 I F 1--r --,--J 1 I 16-16-41I� 10- off I P+ao5-028=,1 SALT LAKE CO. W.1/2 N.E. I/a SEC. 16 T. S. R. I E. -- -____ -- 1:41--,,---7.--7- • -.1:77:-..r.r -1,;:i:-.,z- ',"•.;•-.-..-F- "i!,_----'-r..-k r•-:---7-3' .-:.•"r.`-r L-44'- - t', -...4,,47,1,=.7_LIS!i:;•.l'::--.:-.Y---•-"7-•j'. ..':!•-fP•z3.4.1---2-:- ...,-•2..71_ ._,_ ...,1-;_-_, -.:---- .:,Y•i= -'17.-"-'4 - ' ,i,_ .:'.,-•'1:::i'''''''"i„...- - •... .g. - - - t'•..•il'.'-''•C: _ '%-.=.-i--.1*-ri'M..---- _ - • ----:-•-•ie-•-•:-'''''''7'-'.-'''''- " ' - ' tt- ,s,.....--,„?.:" ., -1,"',•""xiik, If .-...:.. .:.• --!__,A -e,..,..,4- •,.-, .- - - -31 -,- -`.---4-:.' "'".. .--1 -,;44 ' .,--'r••:41",i----•• 7 El :5-:v . -;,----- -- - -': -. ,------... -.'---,..-„,.,:;A;-„- —.--.-:----„..,v ...„ - r--;lii.j.,,..,,,4.4--.7 -. ..;;; -. -•=;iL . .P.,ili-Vi'.;.„--,-;--;-;;=i..-.,.-i*,,-`, ;.:.; •'m.---.‘; _! IF4. i -- .77i-------_ .r..:-.A-r- - . .- 4, , _. _ ____.,1P-4,-,4.. •.4,...4:',_.... 4 11 -_-_-_,-,- ---,-,--f--,--"i9 -2-4- . ._..,,,,. :-„,--„-4 _-..4-. 6. , ......,;,-.....„:',.• • ,'--,..,'"-.:.,:-- -a '....-...----„,", ,,, -:::n7-51. 4.1...:*,....„.,...;,.. ....!.cM - let.,-,,,Itle.,-.i 7, _ ..!:Ti4V'tli 4-_si,".• LE:•-•-_,--,-*1 ..L- -4-c_' If,---- . "... .il:iy," . 't,61 ale!,:',..,1,-.1%...'',z,.;•;.„, _-, • , g.r--,--•-:`,.4...;,:-...;:"-c..40-- ;:::.-••_;;,..--..-.:'-r-- -,;:‘,7''v -,,,' s-',:;.-ti -------- -.-T.. -4i ;',--i-ie::::.fLIK.,:.:'-'.';/.-t-.4--...ki-W---,,,f_;71 t Ni... -, , , • -w s ,t5;,.--;A: 1 :,-isio,:.'-;,..,-,1,4L.--; - .- C7, ,, --_-_--,...----.1, '...;,-,.i;,.-..L.--.--...; 1,-=•:i.--'".---- - . -4.-- - -..• _- . , ,,--•'.",,,'f•:=---r-f;-_-,z-,=;-al- .'•2!-- .,7:"}-:-.!,,',Y.. '•:-,,.-_-.1-2,•-•"5--',-,---..N. ''.!...-,-E :- :,. _. ,,,..,,._.3-1-rig_::-.,;.4-. i.,z-iir____.=.,...410,„,...!,;,, --,.,-_,.! ,..,-.,i ,..-_,A.i--1- _/_...,, ., :-.:-.4.4.- 1-;.--E,--wK76.1.p•__-; -- -1,,4 . .,,:,..'kL-1.W_'=.A-41.4-_-'1.-:':-;r:iz--"?-, ,-'.-' :-. ---- . -----. -,--tr1.-, -1- iv '-'-i; .•'-',,Z-e,!- " "-tv-VI-Z4-4-__._ ---__":::::f---"'- -,:;:,; -- -;,•1--.` -i&----- - „;- *.,;•; ',,1--1,,•,'„,-,,,ii,L,Ni-rii'.?.--:0' -;.,_.,-.'‘.21-.----7.V4,i'',--,-L-:'i.:. -.. ..`;:7-i-ir-;,' 4,3-•_:_--'-'-.4,._ f%-i --.4--,:,-II:- -;‘-- - ---4 '--,--4't--;,-1F-'7,-.i--.r.trA_:;:!---"t It i. illir , , -. •,..._, ..e. ,P,-,_----:-.4....,:, c•.n•.• - --,,....,-,.:.,,*;.,_,;-•-iv-w--,-,-..- ,---..--_-: -',-;--- ...f• -..1'5.4:., ':.. '..,,,... s, _. •- - '.i:."- . . .-2-. i ----,-.', iz...-i-ci-til4t-TISf-i_ 1-.-L _7 L-4, -..!-",i1LA-6"-= ---•' "-'-:,- '-'' -1:"-'-:,:b - :-.,. -,_ -zrE-,. -V---s-...... • :".•. =P,-_-_- II ;17' , .----,-- .1.' '•t- ,- ----,-: •:,--._ i. ----1,,;-,:•:?,-t- -- -,T--'' .--='--7-4;...-,;1 - -::1.c.:1::;',"'-,'' - p r=:........t',-- ::11.- -- ----- --_- ,,,---,Ps- -t-',-.•:----,--4"."--,: .-;,.:-- '.-.... , ;L.:, -,4.'. . -:-..-21,..2-7,_...---:-,.1_ --r-5,-4--. • .77;..,-..- 5-.-- 11-••':' -,'1 *‘--L:-'-''.4-7- 3"-7;:li';'•';'7.;• *4-r...-' ''''' •!...-.--' **•'''' 7.- t''''.* • •;4.7 •• -;,-;_,... .- • --,.:-.--4_,,,, :,----, ,-7401-;-,, ,,f.:_,I,..._i..4, - -. ,,..,-. 1 --:,..,•i _ t.;:.-,-• ,•,-,---..,_:t:-.-..•-•:.,•_,•,,,-.k,-;:ii i e[M-;-*,;;-4-:4-'t,:-!'--•,-4;:-.=:-' ' 'A.-----J:: .-:--.F- it=,=-'.- .:4. _ _, :_,, ,..-- ,...:-...,. ..kigirk-.; '.:;::.'s,:'.'-'77!7,-:TE--':-.-*::14..,L.,?? --._'-'--- -. --','.." '',..;:::•••'-'_*--:--' ''--7`--iiiii-ati ." ,,,.;„-,n;.--:....:_,,---.--.•.-,-...,',. -..,,,i...• - _=>.1-„.,,,......,..,:s 1-11 ;--r4-..t-- i . .;,..-_-_ .;,1_ '-:--,- :•f:-.7:;Wi,,-- - ".r..-i'..7-17..."." ' ' - :, -:-' . - ,,_ „.:',=-, ,-_ i---- - ":s---.•-:;- ;317i;i,'„w•-:...]-;41."--,.S„.4-7„-•!-'•! -.;;0;Z,-;:•"•,17-.1„..,7-7,r";:':.,- • ,--T ',,,N-,=,...tz-f,..7.7.4.V- - , •- Ve-4.-4, .,___ , k- -*- r:k - Mli ••.,'".,-*---,-.,--'-';'-'-Ail-_:1-4 -'- -42;4 is3f.•-..-' -'--'----.----':.-..-Ai-- L_ I--,...::141--kr:71.1- 44 .,.,A.--,,. 4 as ---.--,. •: ,- -. ef,=1 iii.,1- ''-•=7---:!.11„. ___„.-_,,,,...:‘,,_,N ,_ . .,-,7---n.W . ----.----.- -''. -- ---, --•' .----f--,---- . ',-,------,,- 4, t - ''---"di.--.57 -el",-.1i4.- -.-illet ..,-.3-T44= it ti---:-.„--i--.-43*-',-.-S, -''''' ''. ." 44:-tk.,_-!F4-,.- 1.-,- F. .: . ,.4A-A c c. I ' -------' - 444,-."--N. • --1111-"A 1...----.,.---.-•-..t-f...4-u4r•.-,.,--zyl•..„.....!..t.,-,-,,,.i.-,.-;; :-...','..t.-,f -4 0 u) ,--.,.-- ::.-.. w,,.._- •,,,,,-4..7... __:,.. .: ,...,,,...,_,-;_:•?,..-j 7. -74------• -- •-..- a-,,-;-..,-- '.'..--- ','...,,.-''' ..:,7k. ;:.51:-:-.-;-11:.-.. t:' 'W,i,.,,,:S.Z.:',.:i,::4',-.1'-.7.,--4 l' - ,., .-,.-f. N --- ,...e... -.4s,"-7-PT.,-...--7:-,,`...cf,,,,4114-7;i-.;,.:41 :',,,, ::,..4.;**t."-:-.-='-'4'44-.1 -'•-• ' MU 4'•-..44_ ,:---- '''-‘7.,„•-...,.:•.5.;q: -:"...kr,,,,,,,4-.-,-,-. ..•,-":.....--,,,, t---:,-,,,,-;.-26.,-1•E---.1--„... .-_- . _.-•.,,„',•:" 0 7 .47,....,..„,..„_. ',.. ,.---'(.;,,,,'''_!_-•:.:,:t;k-g4:,.. i-,-f-,,,.,.... ;.0,':---- :.:„:___._ _., 7_.....,*.--- , - -:-.4. ..:4--.-7t---'-': -.41,,,..4.,;-. a, . ::''': ''''''-li*I"•:-...... - -..---A ';':"'-'•".- '-'•*-''',, ••'...i. 1:t .L,-:47,-.F :' •.;----.'=-,?,'L;• >:-.,..<.:'• .... ...- -- 4 .- ;i;.-. T :.':-.41 1.1 ,,,,0 t.141 .„,„;: -,..„. ',:•.'a,'!"-L4.1-i•_„,Z*-§7Z-ZA.-5-.:-•_,..ji.t.••_.•:,,,4 -.*‘'.4;-.:.•':!--,74, 13 L' 'Y.s4.__,.,,,, , ,-,- -,,-;."--Ziek .,-, ',It,. ; -,.4 i-.1..k - :„:.-- --..2f,-„„-- -,,,,A.--44y-4_14...;-- „,-.-•-4-3,1,g..4,-.1/-„,-,,-. (1) . -,4-.----`-ii,-,-..-' - -- Ak.- :7 P' -.'4,-4-1-.--'".2",-..' .i4:444,--44-'?:,:.;;;-=''''-'4'.P4--,;-4.?l'.,-- ' : 41..4 -, 4*-<:,rii'ii• ....-5,2i,;!•- ,."1-_._x-4, •;.-f....,--t...i,w.t.tl.-,..-„-5--,-,,-,-'-,'-;.-..A'.-'-:--•'.-i•..---,7--,.--t•.*-:.-.."'.::5.”--;'-°':,1.-;.-,--,----..-_...•,. O-fr•r.v,,-"----;- 0 = ..•-4-iit-;..--:.A.•----/-,a%4:-,r,,;o.,:-. k.,-f.-7-t-,_.--•.;---I- 4‘1.411 1..: 4:1_!..-. *,:,: - •,''—..,,--,3,,-.=.":''''--,-4E-i.,,.,,,,- ,..:-±..,'';,f.:41gs,t,"-,;.-..'.'.''''''-.. 'W-:-IitI Za-4••=-,•-r*:,-.-,•.,1'•Tr---, CO - v '-',441. -.-,.:4.,ie- ,• '.,,,,- - :.,:-...-••,-. •-,i -..-.. . „..„..-,!...,..„E•ti•.- ,,,-1-1-.iv,- • "-•-•••• -- ii2,,,-.4 -'_,,,,,-,-..•i a...--,,'...,•••11., ,,,...'4•-ti? ...4-I.':--:--,•-7.,.. -‘,,•,•;...-,- ,#,, E.. 0 ,,-. •.:':',66:illIte;;,5- -....!"--- ---.;,_,..14....,- -..•;;:,--z '1. , •.4-- •P'4?`.4- :- ' .,,._- :‘,..:,",.-.•-'_-„,i 3,„ i,:,____-_---_,:_--:--.' -.1,7,1 '--,ai,Y W'L'-fds- -`-,--t:L-2=---•'-------,'-. ,'-',.4.--"_=-:-L=.',F,-,„,-4.,-,?gi"f-,-1-,-„; EL - .:-.:V.-t-Ilsiv-.m*I,.--',L.-ri,----,1.---.1,---,-------,,,,,sis-=:..#11-='5-- -.:.-:--!.,---:,„---.=•-•-•.•.7-F---F--:--7 •-,-.-.:••t--',.,--r-.--t-..--:•:-.L.,x,..,...r-s- ,..,=;,--•.-,01,-----1.--_---.-. I--.•ii.'..--"-'---§4-43&?„-='-- rie.1,b..,--.--.--,-e....i:•---------,--T-4-1-±z,----•i...--•,:1,.. ..,. - .-:-.:1-r.:Ni.,,FAI-4,.7.411, ..-;, --'45.7;-,.=i,, ,:;-:--.'- ':',., '---:- - - ,-- .'-;.'*"-fr:-'.--• • -_-'-'1...7-.'---':- : f..- -.;:::: .,-; '-': .1-...'::•-•-' It ...... __,. -.-- _:;1-- .7,--.7.,-/- -,,,t,i.:-. ---..,,,,t--,.., ,- -,,,,..,-,,,,,,,,,,,311-?„-.45,-- --i-t.z, ..,-.,,i,..,-., .-••-•ezi,--410...-.---..--;•:.,_ -- - „rn,,„._.- --,,..-- ,--2--2..:•-_ -- =- -----.,--------7,-.-- ,,--. .-----. ------ --,w -- :-•--; •• --•-1•4`•:--:- 1 - V.i7- , : _ ...:,,-. --.,.-4:! .. .:7, .-'..,,:.-,•_.:,, ----':-..;:---,=.4,--- 1,-- '.-- -- -,--,---,: -...-T-,-.--'..--r--::-.7(-4-:7--7,----:i,-:--•,.:-- 11-7..:-' '- --';t:-„t-'. -:'::--'--..."---',.=--i-,-.:--- --'zi,-.,.e-A‘-.*:*;-'.'•*;: -$-::•• i , ''..• ---',t-':••:::-*-Lrf* z7- '-•-°-*' . .:Si;.-- .,-w- + •--,A,-.:47 t%;45-f:41 .-.,. '--..f--.-if -. ..:,..4,1-07:b.i.. ..,-,1,:ft:.:',..--.*,,,,,:w r.--_,0.: , ierE-73'-'' -`---- :--- '--".--.‘4-,'.- -•.',.'-- ----'' -''. ,71 ''',. I: --1---..‘::.ti-,I.---:;),..2--:-- -,,,...,..•-• ....--..;;-..-% ,--i-,?... -..-...:,,:-,.--,J.,..,. -*.0,..._1...tc--1.1-zi--,,,c,... ..,...-,,,,-.,,,,,,,...,,...,,,, , .,„. ,-, ,,.,..,.:-„itiAe--.—•.-.•.,.-..-'t-.,-.•,.-_-...,,.-":_.,.....-,w-,..--,;_:.,1'i,.4...-_.-_.4.,2,-'..:--...__-.r'.1.•.E,.'--f.,-,;q,-.v,,,-„..-.a.v.,•,.4,g'c'.'4i,.,.=..•-•..,...-.......-:•.,.,,•_''„'••-.:•.1.-_.:'„:,-,--:--4,-.-...':..--,--,"•t„,-1„f,.„-'.4:••-.-•-.,:.-..-.,:-.i!--,.•.-4-.,;3'"•.,-7,..,,"-1--t-i-,i-,>;.,..r.„,'4,..,...,,,A,44•,,•••3,fS.-is,-3r,.,e„,-A-.-:,_-'.-,...,-,..-F..-,,,.fr..--2-,:.:'.:•':•-.-,..,.,,..1;..t-z,,-,i,'-,.,t_',,T:•_1,.".1-,.2v.,.-,,,-_,,i,-„'4.,.,6i-'•,-.;--4--,,',,--•,.•:..-r-•-'4,-.-,•..:,";-,..'.„..1.,_.,.-,,-,-',-,-_41-,A.-.,'.sr_F.-_=-.z:.,-t*,.-p V.!t...,._r-,.„-;•,-,t-•.7,2--•--,..,`.-,,-.•.*..„-..•.-.-_'";x-:.-:,.=...I,.--,-i:..;---t,i--r:-,;4...,-7'-.-,I.:=,{N-,#,---y,.'.,s0:'',,'.-.A,-.'.1-.‘..'4,--;0271.'.,..._-.'....,,.-,,..-.e,,.,_.'---.'---.,,..!.,-:_•,-..-•,.,Y",;-'-.,=,_---43.,`'.-,.F,.vs.--,.:-'1-,--,,,-t,,,.--,z-f-..4,..-..1.-,...-,Ve-n::.,:t:`.,--.•,..,-.4.,;.-'--':',:-'-,7-•*;,,1.----.-,.Z-.i--.-'.-.-,-,_'_'-:-•„.'‘-::...4.„;:-•7,.--,;,.•:-1---,--,4'.4,.4,,,-,.-.%,.•,,,.,:;..:,.-:`3r,i,,'7',:i,.-:47--4,,,-'-..`...0.--,(-,1.1c'fl•..,,-'s''',,_,!:'_".,,,.,:.--".-4•,';-',,....A•'.•-;.-1.:.4,13,,--:-,--,-A;':.-.-.,.!i...„-..'i,.,',.-.;i,.....,.,;.,-•-'-"-47,,-:,,,:,a.-•.-'--K.f1'......,.-.---.,.,.,--=,.,,---,-a S-.-:'.•,Z.•-,-;1....---.•-.----:.e:-'--='-,„-,•-,.,,...1_,.,.-.,.i-...,_:',; ,''-,•,.f-i-c-:-t----..!,:i-.;.-..t-,--.•1"'•,P..-,-.-'".-A-„,lf..-a-.,-.-.i''-e'-'''-..,.„ ...,, .,. -,,r.,.-,.-.h-„4.,,i-=„t:-.'-‘i-,•.'...',,.i,,i,...,..•..:•1--..'..",:-.,..-.:i?-.-,.-...;.-„....w.,•:..--,'e•-.•:..-,.''l...-',''..--..'.-f'.':_'',-4.--•`i--.,it.,-.,e.4tn,-..r't,-5--,-'!...'.:,,.-, ,,,0;v,••;,.-•l,,.,:,.1',,.g ,•_-_----:-. ., = , ,--4,*,- ....-L, '_ ..-"t- ---,-"."-;"- zfar, t",.•-•.i.z.:.-z:.-,AT•.-----,._?*;•r';':---"-q-'2,...---177"..---.4:"1 -- ="-'-'"" .'.F--, ' ',.-.---.--"I- i - •-t. --S-,c.IA, 4-..___. -...,.„-: ,„-.:i ,f., *.-,4= •,-'-'-'-e-Ni--",---. -•..-':r---,,,,.•-' ...,JX"-'3'4,:"-.----i.e-L..Z.-i-,t4 1..r-- ';',-:1*-7*-..,1171W` z--A'.":',-'' -'.-..,3,_ ,..,''''''' ‘ri.:;.- -----r.;'''--'-'''- :?:':'-'--6'''''':*;:".'"''sis,---,s'-') --- ,--':---',,-•-.2.•-`L-'17---- : , .4. -....• •:.,.;,_: _ --•,./. 4 .,--.--;;--:.---,-:-.-t-t7:4.'''7-•'.....:c'', : - ".'4•.. .''''''-j, ,..:- v.;.".:...-5•?..•-.7...., ''''',.-'.'''''g'.- -r.'...!•77:a.';'-'..7.--`..:-., ' ' -.f-•,•.-•,"" E- .,,,fz,„, ..,_,...4„ • . it.g., .,""z!".-••-it'f..Sr•-• ,..-- -•'.-,' * - - .I! 4.,,„:P'4*”.: _IN ..:3- 4 ' ''-'"I' .- --1 ''''.*--. *7i•,,,-.*- ;r--•'::,,p,:•---•••-•--1.44q-1 ,---%.-iri:SZ''.Zr•-•:;47EV-...*'-',,, - ''•' • .1k:'r•--7: - -1.4 Thr ,,`"- .1' f•-.,k.:.,i: -11'.: .i'..., .....1':*";::.2" ...*'--.E.;i:V*;.:.'W".:17';'!,,i'1157icfe:- '• ..'•::-,,,'":,,,:i.:!.'`.:,-.54....-. ."::::,i .::.1;::::..'-'21:4148.,.... •-.' -.-. ,,,,:iii: . -0 _, :_- 5 :„ .4'7730-kritar"'-. ''''"IAV-'''''....C,.4,4-44.-';''•',X07.-.'iy;-. ''.:i;.1""--4.;'...'..ri'''. S--,,ifc''','1,'',-;=.?'.:C% ..':''-g,':?:'-e-47,-_-".:‘:'.:-....-;''.--,.--=',,'::•:.•-s..-44.,.'.'-.-r- ,i, lit.4,-il 4' '---'......,' '.,-G1411741,7.7-IT:.-••= ".', .--.?'it;-,AL ; .,,.-., ...,.- fj40:-.,,,-'..-:-.,-..-:f.4 .1--- .s;"....-....-. .,.!- „I* --'f! .-:::-.'--- -.-!-••.- - ..q.-L -- Ll-, .',. .4.-` ;'--'=4.x.t r.',,,,i' li,"4"..--,---i--- 4 -`-' ---=---.'----Nrjr--,:-... .';:'rictRi,g.:-iti .-;'•_,1•74;;:ft-:?_----";'--,r4,-.:::v-'..- ",-4,----%".7f-k-!,•11,)..44.-1'`..g,Wri;-fiVI'->--.----. -1 -.1'Fr' .,---..?-.H7Erk-',Vf-N-, v - I -,-- f -.:-,'r ._-_,..-:•.-c .",-.... .-• -- s:4.- ,,,,-..._r.•,. „..,,.:--_-,.•,k, .,--,-. .:,.....,,-1... -,-•-r-', ./._,,,.....„---_,,7.,--t.:. ,, ,.. ,,. ..,,,_.,....„,,.- __,-,:,...„,..k. - „..-..C..,....„,.....,,,, „„,-: ..,..., .,-.7-'- ..•J t.-1 . -. :_,.:::7, '''..s.. _-,• 7 . . . - ',--7r... 1 :f-`„..,=. -:?-1?,.5.,':':'.6??7,-1'. ,„A.i‘,-/;.„i.,,%V.4„,..:',;.k?,„T,,,-_..,-. . '''-.;,.f.10/..„'-' .",'S',..s.:tr,ei ..- a_.=''J 7-t•,'''A'''.,, ..,i,„0.;24.,'"1, •-...4 „..,. . - .,, . ,-.1Z.71111r...3. . -. - •..,....,::1,,,t,..:-- ' ..;,:-....7.:F.::::::-.--"-.. . .......,,,:":-.4%,7-7',04.-. ?.1.:.: . ...'''' 'eal.-:-?•A!-- •:-•:.s. -,..;:- , 1,-.,.:.v,.,..,„.r.;- .?....,..„,,- . f,-,-. ! - ,- ---. --, . .,. . - •r-g..----:-,;;;;-.1,,,e-..44,..--.;,:-.- -ir.„ ...,-_,;,i':-,',E ',..4',.':' -4,9. ,5 .--,-..''.. ..'''','4..-.;,,4..'''.:4.:i."7,-- - - ., It-,,,, - ...-_ .: 4*----,._..,__,.--.,_lb.., . '-. .,''-'''-:,--a.:,-.,....,..;t4,:---i...i .'71, ; ...::',,,,,.4.-,7-•-•,-,-•-..".' -.--‘-'•-4:‘Nr••••.'A'., '-r-•••••§.":•.-',1.; --: •• .,t,..--:•• ---'4•7,'''. ',-, - •••.' ''''-'-1,1"":**- 4-g• - • 't. ' r . 'Mgr - - 'r .- , -- -•,- ::-:A''''+?--.1*--:-.- -''''..T.- --4•1--';':-':-'-`-'1'.:74' -:;*: .;•ik-EZ*4;4.•- - •• . -4.114,- . ',• -:*-:-r•;-. ' . '''--;- It 4r•' Iiii 4 :....._._ ., . -,,,,,.,,,-.,,:-:-.... , . -, ..4:....-„,-....-',.,..';',_,.....i.z....,:-....„--,,-„--„,-,..-„,- -_----4_, 44.- ----,-,..--t,,,.,:)----5 -,-Ite-‘.---'.4i..-„_.-.,--.--::::„--,--,.---,.-..-.:-„ .-:-----,-.,..t..--„---!-,----::-.if',..';--itc-L-.16---:,. ..4-7/.1.-. -_ •- .._:..,- • .,_ -..---,,i.,2.,,...„,,,,.i- ---.-=_;q1,4-:--.pf-:.,,,,,,,,1i F';'- . -i- -..,,..;•;,-,i .;: r;-,•,-7- ..- ,..7"._--,- - ---:-- .-7--.. --71--.._ -.- ' --11--;- .' -.: -- --,:..-.....--':-' ...--7,- '?'7,--f.:-'---"1 -;<4.,'5;-'-- '' -'-- -AA•,..-. ;...,-,. .---,--4,..-..--'.. .-.;::,:57 r.,`‘.:-.$--.,4i- i,.':,.z,--i,_:'..,-.,. .44-_-'t, i..--•,,,__ . - • -- , .: •- -- . t6 .-._.- '1,''''''',.:...7'-''' '':''' ' -.I 1,,... :A...*‘''-- --'.",f-r, ".. .w.r. gari'Ll s-5'F:';,-__mr,ifir.-- -'-'i••. ;77-'-:„.• "013,,7.',.'.- -- ..!:t---1 i" .; : .-,-. i':.-- `" '''.---.,.4 '.'...--i''- '::: li , ' .. -' --*', L.-- ,- ' .. i-.,---- ' ''• mum-1 -,,--4- .,---,..-- --. . • ir. - ,:47.," i, .2. ct-,:.-i ,=.; . 1 . -.: ! • __,_ df,--.tEi-i..1 '..:-'., :,•-c, ,.".,;•-1',. .,,.-,--... 1,..,.. _ ._-__-',.-.‘: I - -'.- - *4 i• • .:., :•.,-- "N -. ,,, •.4,.'- ,- . ,-- Ia. , .1.0 ., ',_,...i.------..•,,-:._-4. -_ •,--k-z--4. r.,•.----.,4,4-•.,--'-..•-•. :7,-,,r-',._-: ,,,,,....!vet.i4. ..,„„z ii,, •••• i kgai,:,„. .. ,... , , • :_.--. ,....2,...„. .: .„._,..._, i 14: f7. ,,,,•. e---. -,-.,-,:,---,:--.;-;,::. .. :--- -- -..e- i, .:.. - a . -, .- - • - -'•;.•!"-'•••,,N-4*/ !-.',.., ;-,s. -A '.. •17:7-*•---Ai .3,0,4—,_.,.Av-_-,z_ •,- ., ,v, ,..., :,',A.k.--W. . ' --.'zi•_-, ...--...:.:_e,i ,.. - tt ti., •,,,,,,..., hi, ..',.. - ''.'.'..... .. . .:•'',- ' -:' l'..''''.1-- ;.....,.':',.11F:--...-:'itZ' -..,--.=_:'. -7----:--4:__,L.---..-.,-,- ----,-.,.,_.-4,--_-•- :-. ..,',4-s-•-:::---:.-,. 41---,,L--•-••;---,,..L-T, - ,,: ,--.,, r ---',4-- -.-..- •-•&.!...4,- :C•sll'ai-=741, •---------- -,)-'-- --z "."--"7---is-:- 771:'-- ---i-' '-'-'•---',:-'•:. ,- • ...:'-------'s. :;•••,4':-:,--- .., '''''' ,'-'-,-,-- r 1:1;rk.'*,-; ' -.,`..',-4''-.....-..:1---;-----f',.:,;:ii,:f.;-_-_..-7,----?-.:4- t _ ,..,•-i.: -q-• .. ,...,,--,,,-; ..--E=7:-..vas:R.----;....:111.„ . .-i.."' :,,,17:tji=":".11-, _'-• -- :_,• -4„--,- "'3. '=3 , .,/i -I ,; ,7,1;:.44„, i.,- .;-,•-•:.!;r2,,-4,:.-. -- 7-7,--:-: c.,.77.._.--0..,,::.:7-,,,:. ,..i."1,n';'-::.? .'..-..," '''F'`''''', 7•1'. ,•;*1:', 4'31- e,..... ' ..-(2;11,r--:..LNI-fl...-- -.- ' ' ,lps.L.. i..;.... ----"... -;;;,.* •: -..--, ,,.-:-... --'-7':7:-'' e(i.-.. )?.4.3...:4,:_::-4.-,,,,:',17:',...-'4,-':::•-•.;'..:!......j: ''-:*;.:$3,-.'..:,.. .a/R.4.; # I.4':. 14-:.- iftlif 4,7--'‘,4:l'• .:;''''' : ,'''':,* 4-klt'''' -.-' _ -.', '- ':-... ....rifil-421.wais.' ,. : . _,7!4',.4!'':-1::!.i':.‘__ __. :04:., t r i: i-r--F-7----4-,--v,„!;:-.--k6„:-I-:--•,;••---,_.,•,,,, --,-, .;', '.__ --4:4:.;._ ---,-.5, -.14,15„.- !.r-..1*,4,,: ,. . 1---_- , -i- ' -,:-.1,-. 7.y7:14--.: it r ,i - .. --_-:amr, "'w-7-7-'?,-el' -,3.- ,-„,.., -...T3‘ .•-- -,,,,-;-;-_.:i -•,-,- .,------ ,,_.,77-3.77,;:q--- •"' :". 4 "-.,-.!'",,.-7. -___.-7.--- '...., .,..--.-3-=„34--t...-_-- ..-•; _..-„--6 : , •e,..,, ,._„,--,:..---•k_ , t j.,-:-,!-.r- .:•tmci„...f.:t--.. •: .: • -. -:.:-....-; -,'-'.-.,A ..•.. .:„„ '''-.F.:,,-.:'..f., „:,..' t. ;. • --;,,,L"-.- ''.i...1...''''--"' '''''' I C.- ' wilL. ..__,,;;,.. :--,- .'' .. 7.„..,; ..1 ,,-..-,•1 '.,-,Ait:th, -....---- -`,T7zt,,--;.3*!:,:-t-- • ;.;'.z; -;;;:....q. ,t .----7 ----:3 - •1-''z-44'-''' -• - -.-11.-7y .k,..i.,i.,!_.. .'--•,:.0!7'',..-- _ A ' ,,,- i Z.. : .- '., 1.'s :,:•7,.- ,._„.,,F.:: _., :'-... ,=. ._1,,,r&-i-...1k-,-,-V..F...-:- --*--....0,.c z __......,.. ,--:-, ___ -4-,...--1T...- in.-,1 _ •-" ,-.._;,.: .,t-1-..... J.-"i -.....At : .,±.7., ,,:- -= t= 1 -.d:--;7.C;Q ------. _ -- '1!.W M...„.4.ebo,pri '' ;4!I.--i...'"—.7.,irk 99=trill. j'-- 'I'':.•-I ',,i, )=1:1 V.- tii't ' i -. ..,.,A-,W'IVI:- L " .t.-,e!.!'"..i,,..=_.*2-- " s:-' '. -t- 'Li,,,i.,'--, --,'. '"I '.,.•,-_; •''--. --.-`-'-t. ==, ':-..--- '-_ -3 ' '-- ,-"--,f, -:•-• - -•• -*,*=-4'.• -f- -_,..-,_ ma.,....,%.ag Li•-•i_..•1%., - - • ' --..-**: -1:, ..."! _.-4_=.**--A,:i,it•••••••;: -••,_ -, --, •••,-.-,..4,•_' -...ar5"--;• .„,,,,,r_ :---"'•-•• ;:..f..';':..7-..---_---.-. .. A, . ...,... -- .-;',..- r ..4 .,5247-1-:-At'.....-znit... •/.$5, •'i-•f!--1,•'----_._._,,:, ...:,---;', .':::,--- _.,.-„-;4,- •-1.-,-%,--..4 '--77,111W 1 _ -414...1-...,0- ..:• , .-;-.. .-c'S.#1 -r: :;..-- -,....--------,-..;„ ':- ‘''''• ---%'-..-_,...., . p :,., '-aa-4-m,.-1.,:,1 - --., 4 ft-.,, ....aluze-, -.--06--',:::?r-,...---,,, -,J.?-,i. - .:: ,'.N..!"7--- . , . --:;1.7.,-;4 ,--''----Tr--3t, Id..'. - 1-.--1 ---;,..:,.,..;--':•-• 0.ilir:-. .1,1;,,iirk i 1 ------t-_.- ----,'•• -• ; 41, • • - -'-'`'.--5--''''''Ez.-- --- ---•1 • - -• 't - -----7- ili'•• 1--!.--: ''.,:4:.'.----' ":;itt'-0 .7-'1=- - E ,T-. ...i:71"7-L-i5k1:-f.:1,-, 7,.--.t :,.:1..„.7, .:-•.:-.- ,.._..-4. ' 1 -f.--''',,V---- -,-7,.,_-,i••• .4---------f•ems-;,.- T.-- -1 -.' - ''',"-•'-'"---'•'111._-`-:r-.4..-4--,-,.,-A. i - . -...lw -,.. i - ,-,..7--*-4.-,-.----?,s ,,,......._—,-,--.'-tifit'---''',is---:-.'1 '---. "-*"‘7:-...- '':.,--'.: '.:',..,-';- --- ..:=N7, - --_,s,.0• ..,.., ,...."--- •,--,f, . L- ,.-...„,. " ..., ..-.- im---.: ,,F.„*„.-„,--.. -',.-1 7,-- ...w.1_- -.:;:-.-.....,...-, • ..:::-1.1 .- -,,,litig......4',f-.1-• . -46- ,._..,,_z-.T.:-.A---liiiii-3.1 : -::11-..4-.:•.:6:_--..;_ ,.--:.--.;•-•:-:.;?.L:f- - "--,.,6 •1' !Wr,••.::-'43"" . ''... ..',.1.-:,%:.-• 4 4:-_, •,-7:"-Z::_ ,__,..,....„,-. „,_„.. - .„ ;,-..1 1,,-.-„en,,,,,,,,,,,,,.... .,_j,,e,..i._,,`' '.-",..,,,S li..,''''.2V i i p-• t :--,-I--.:-1,,-,...-,---: .- --'''.....7,-- ;_,-;,4'151-144.-.---- ,4,--7,4-Z,---'6V e":17---4--- -E-V:---:-:"::Z-', '- ---''. t;'--- ' "-S; -.."----:,-- --'-- •''''' ' '- --41:--;'-91. .- - -- : ' a Wc....;-:;.-----.: '.. "''''"-. ,-.2E-t.11:-1 rf .---''' -• 'r.:;:''' _:74,-S4.4 -7-"-- ::-:;:-•-':,4_,:,,,, St-';•:-EL. -:':'.. t,"4-:-: f.---4:-.,---,---r-'io'Elf 7.--.13::-.1-----z-.-.•-ti-k . ';.-'...'-:-'''''''' At.Z-3,1 = ' .. 4'.g I-. ''''-'.'"'"'i I- ' -- . - ,ZZ-• 7!-.'-- .•,-:,Sl.. ..; ,.„ ..,,,• ,',.,1_4.,_.. :- .. ..? ,= - - - . 2 '. w.�r Note: All contour elevations and elevations of inlet structures relative to Emigration Creek shown on this map are based on Elevation Reference Mark"RM 106"at 1700 t, South and 1600 East in Salt Lake City,Utah.This " 4.1 Reference Mark is listed as elevation control for the Flood Insurance Rate Map,Panel Number 301, effective date September 21,2001. The Line within the Open Space Zone area shown as r '100 year Flood'is based on F.E.M.A.Flood Profiles for s- Emigration Creek,paps 74P,75P,and 76P,revision of May 15,2002.Surveyed locations of the existing stream channel were determined.The 100 Year Flood line is based on elevations relative to the 100 Year r a Flood profile and coinciding stations along the stream .„ r bed.These elevations are projected at right angles from the stream bed to intersect with the surveyed � t 4, contours shown within the property.Based upon this available information this drawing represents the 100 ,sv� year flood line as best we could determine. No certification as to actual property boundaries is beingmade this survey.Propertyline gaps, overlaps,and error of closures do exist 4 -:�cIF_•.„,: '� Ge"rtt..v. iriy 1 , ,Z $r a.,' 1 1, �t t'Ya Tv' t' ' '- .-..''''- '''.: .nF" a .8 • '�;4'a• ,yL�r .fie#� t �`'a#.t •4, . :'y'� �' t � ;d �!'�� }'� Y�.�`+ xf* rS �'a #� ' i � 117:-.:..1'1',.; sr • -err 1r .a,.*.w // -lit// \ ... +'% r <7" 1.. ,.y'''" .OOP- ; .a'a`s + r i - y s of inlet structures - d 7 • -'-: r �f V '. ( .r t � If... tom; `:e .r on this map are 'tjn ,e *. ):: ' i l • '" 4« Mrw q+ "flM 106"at 1700 a °"-r rw b,Uah.This w a �.• \ !.�` �n +t } k -' t , , i control for the {� /. 7► ,+d' - ,.Dvi +# ,!^ mbar 301, ° ° s e area shown as ;�. t rw y i/ / l lry '�V 1r A.GE +'•• r ` 4` s,...1 'r 4.Flood Profiles far v.,-'S,,,.+2 .r t t )4'1;1 x. / '/ ''/ ,i(n'r <: ''d tnd 76P,revision of is:.rs `!Y' , - I i CF /9•r, N -r��a ±R�,2.69, 7 .K�• I the abating r+� Y - t' r _ - te 100 Year Flood ?'+ �. ° I I r tt�� I f S- _ ._s h.o '" tare: r the�00 Yeer K a yx t • 1•�./ I ..�.. I H-.,' I ��ai`�'" .r ,�+ R « r ela the stream ,a- ,,a '� 'f' 3 �, at right angles `R - ¢' t '� M-' - J,° - thesurveyed '^ 'l$ � a. +'• ��' a� �. '-� 1 J '` R .- 7 ��. 3esed upon this i t o i ��, "1,., r , .�- rt resents the 100 r .-. - - a •. -; � I,:r:/ i •I 7 � 1 r 4 (i� ,i .t mine. t4 • y •• ' t -•r r °' j _ • • q,1 .•., r.• •�h • 4 t � " 152 p pn !�' Y t .. Y' {1^ v 4 r t 4r Cl „ i a v 4' �. r. ?� y� 'Wi \. - 1!4 4f ' 5".. ' s' . yE.s i,.r 4- ' e , - 1 ° ' of i f 3 3 •e-1 AA., ! .,4,,,,. �/'I j I / i' 0 +L, . - 'b ee ,,.._.._.. ,= p, A Ij ' �1 « °, ,kw,. :yet -tt , ! , J ' 1.F + `e. _c #, / ' ;tip , . t 1 �• ' �� �� #w ° ' .n,.: . Y fit$ « -, ; 1�„ ,' , tilkp •.• r 1 ,r "MI �/ , s. , . �� .< g f�;` F ol { : /r y 4 • ,�� '�a. / WM VAULT NUMBER 4o SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWI n q CULLA ENGINEERING DIVISION ACCT.NUMBER WAS BY / j'-- f L,.c ci�t PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 12, SECTION 16, 84940000 •g�g. CA,,:: Ti S. R 1 E, S L B & M SHEET NO. 4t Cl.,...: �♦ , 1700 EAST LOGAN AVE., S.L.C., UT. 84105 I OF, 4>63 Fc`/04ti oe-19—loos 44 4,ty_ �,TFa BASIS OF BEARING N 89.59'51' E 787.91' MON, TO MON. 0 • w V _lL ( 1 111 C_1_13-U111 i '711111111111111111 - I-::( I \— I. 11 I , / 111t'LI I l ® lin 1300 S 1300 S 1300 S La ED ��h'O.p.,IC��i�l� ��'I'�� •���p :■ 1�11111�1 �z�, `,�w CLA E�\\� � IMIIIIIi1PINII 1111 ►9hiIIIIIII! = = _ �0 a 5 . wc, IS) Z y%z�•. magi 15 ��� Y �.. •■. a ..�_.z a_a_� c^ .__ . o ins _a4 �V�=a �G-1 _,3•'•Now _ �= -imA ___ I? iI • . N :N AVE (13 1 _ —Nf��_H N �� _ I111 Imio �..�m �\ --ffi,6111111111 - �ip��,' �(i ia,:- ai: u I rl�� -'`' _W tD iiI! !i ..EN N iiimummL e CMN a�� HARRIc��f�� ��i� �� 1 �"f '� II�I11111111111� ��IIIIIIII jIEP ON � `► '. Itc+ HARRIS❑yAVEM1370 S> 1 !WUiVIHhIi1UIPTi 1� C1 . . � i11 BROWNING AVE (1430 S) BROW MARYS DR (1450 S) DR (142 "'N. �IIIIPIIIIIIIIIIIi= W --.-, r �I��� ,�� �. III.III-III �11111R1111 illli�is�.�lllllll== wMaEMI�O®v��. ROOSEVELT AV •.0 5) I f) _ II.'P==LIMED J RpOSEVEL •• '•1 F _—I -ma - g.._..g�� ! _ Mgr IMBE min -� 'r'• �- ---. __ \ , Na _.._ _A ..P_���NIII III'��I. �o =ate ! t% ri �M■N©za EMERSON AVE (1500 S) KENSINGTON AVE (153C S ': `_ �� .E ...N AVE (14* ' G wii ail iiiiiliiillira (� J�-'•"•' ` • EMIGRATION DR MEI :: ,A£N KENSINGTON A• (, _ KENSINGTON AVE (1530 S> -- 04 _111111111$111111101 — :: _ L*01* �� �I11 -t �: �MIMI�il ��.11 I a/1 '� �_� ::�•1� '�/� . J. lif li (I >b J AVE (1560:c'.� •V 6 S Illlli�lIRMII1IIIMBRYAN :RYAN BRYA �-- BRYAN AVE (1 '-_� '/11 �": r i1111=1111 '" �.' LOGAN AVE (1600 S> �_ ' -„1_11"1 m LOGAN AVE U620 yp¢AN AVE (1 LOGAN AVE (1.0 � ' �.� L., , L., �- /7°J(". a '-- LOGAN AV I •-�� 1 w k 7 ) , 7;C} Cr 1 Cr -- n- �00.7 ti7oo s 1700 .9 .111 !!!I! EN BLAIN IViL �111111I0.�AVE (1 0 ,�,,= ON AVEP�� h�I -.111111111111111111I:__ - --/6�,1I I N 111 Ill N...I1 jIHHIf WILSON AVEU : • : WILSONA E rl/9 = 111111118111111:1 NI �11111111.. ,19 '� '' DOWNINGTON AV : 1 DOWNI 20 �) a '. I- NIIVGTON A F <R > D WN (18 2 Will —)oUti1 I l il I . et es-es.s.-E 764.764' ^t'". "e'` "•" _Basia of D%v"9 ftt Paced 3 .._..__._..,..��._..__,.__.__.._. -_ '-"— —._'—. — — — —. i ,..,..3(Dlork 12 5-Am Plot C) N:.:.00'W ZAavmeA) Pa tl No,l N 89'4Y54'E 784.76♦'(Actual) Cammendn9 at Ue Northeast c«na of Lat 2i,Block 1. UNNERSIY HEIGHTS,SECOND ADDITION.West 25 teat North moot Axe. and• I JS het Emt 13 feet Nor.163(at at. sal 3 feet Sou. - z; NEronmam aces and 1800 East Stint 163 feet West 229.3 het Sou.33 feet,West 30 feet to N chmark eh 4563.18 Lot 6 the point of begnnn4 UN VERSITY HEIGHTS, SECOND ADDITION Pon:.Na 2 a uBlk 12 Comm.., 30 feet Emt of the Southeast coma of lot 1, m . .-_- o e Block I,UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS,SEC0N0 a001Tl0,being a as u a �. m< - -. _ _ sabfrvidm of Oat of lot b,Mock 12"Section 16,Township 1 __ Voter Nerar South.Rmge 1 East Salt Lake Maldlm;and funning thence _ 458 Y North 163 feet thence Ea.229.3 feat then.South 69.15 "°' Block 2 /""/j�� �I zs4« Vat. location) feet thence South 755254'West 1526E feel thence South 0 3 . �4�/ AS feat more or less[o a print due East of the Dort of o �. � /�' /• EAST 25• i j 1 t y_ , _ - I4 � bb beginning.thence West 80 fee-more or Iam to the point at y : m i- /%� - il'ulTO RJ2' Parcel No.3 '� -2. _ "j�i/� Cemmmcln at a point whitlr Deaa Su,.1358'West.,747.51 t / /act tlislmt(min qtY Mmummt at the nte-aecllon of "i so " JJI�/ / / j % " RaaaeMt Avenue and Seventeen.East Street anal mooing ^I tia/ thence South 05'WeN 95 feet Nmce North>552'S4'Easl Fg ����. /������/////[Ly// 15Z60 feet.thence North OB"East 95 feet thence South JS y so t ' / Q 5T54'West 152_68 feet to the point of beak. . 742 /` �ma // `•0 1 y oo'flit Also(Be nog at the Northwest comer of tot 1,slack i. _ r° UNIVER9 HEIGHTS SECOND AMNION.a...Won on of Part of f Ili 'I Bloc.12 of 3.tI 16.Town Biwa°y / _ •1 S� E ship 1 feet Range 1 t 26 Sat g� - / Lake Mvldlm�and thence North 33 feet.ante Eoat 25 fcet feet to S @ n \ _ Po6p �, V thence o1 a Subject of a 10 f West l of War over-the South 1 S Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot I `� �, n tero �� �; /S oint of en Hong. Subject ena ID not `E L I.:i / sill N , / \ .,L t • Together Nth a perpetual easement b:right o/way over the a PG • , - c /�' / '\ Y - n6oNng:Cunmmcn9 at a Paint 33 feet NaU f the 00 S'c // ///) \�% Nor.amt cane-of In[1.BbcA 1.tINIVEIt9TY Hf1Q11S y Y =a m y O //'�/' / k SEcoND AMMON,a webdteimon of pat of Bfack 12 The Acre s W o �/ \ 5-•/r Tu� // Plot•C.Salt Lake Gty Sunny-I Section 16,Toareehb t •g m h ir ��\ fro�Ioc) // IfJ00 n-:I.- Sautlt Rmge 1 Eml 5Nt take Boa anal Nerldlm,and.asv §O• 8 �-- \�J' Y1 oint 8.5 feet West of the Pant ah b ¢'me / / Jnn 9 North 33 Mt thence n a Sw.wtaly a au.,too 0 i xn sC �," � ' 1 f ySI-�Qfly feet to.a paint of 6e9rnn4 -9wnn4 and.encv Emt' (t\ Ret.. Wal\ (...,,z NARRATIVEnmaw`11,,1'\\, l • -�i b pose m I $'. t \ /: (^ r/i / Q'^^- Veda ee Scam k v Jose.,a Pat CC _ rant ‘rili �I LV `` \ / yp+� SCNEOULE 9-Section.2 Exception w �\•`/\ / t a u ��� \ tq5@Y \ MT or orell.e.Inc.nakea ma rem abeam.a1e4*ad,aaccc um r..as Cr)U mungtm(Found) w-dmd 1600 Eaet Siraet y O$ I I ( I ' \`\` • / .. l • lark er h..far ace sassy b so-.eat'.Von seem. • it- CL ` eL�\e\e \ e� rreo nit as sbm V vet*wet the e.rr eeeea to "e..�rf.a reve.ee..enati `' .,_( 6.k ....la Li `\ \ .\ �� /� W�Ir4e4rm ee at UCr) o c i •' 6- + - iC _. t , •11 I _ ! 3 3 _Sr— A.sm...<,.>Qa«..,, ® \ UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, o'ECOND ADDI ID \ � ®a �} � t .-. \ \ ° a DIN..in.. rQ, amAY Pa. s ) ' l ,.\\t Part 2 JL l w —P— ace«.ea .t..a Block 1 w, a lei-15:16 —7— TN.pear[a. ram* a w I ea,u,. teem w,nd. - I Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 16-16-252-003• ),/) / ,/ / \755T5i. tC,�bq l � a4d • s � • tsz��0 - /� 1 / /6 f / S 7591 11 -1 ] SURVEyaR' CERZIFICATE SUROET LOCA➢ON: o< (. LR I,L Nark Neff,of Sa(t Loke pty,Utah do herebyscalet6o_ {s o 1 a ouWtLayildrh-Slmve-n nh tarn UF'protz Abn17 assTISbE• _q m SLLiLg�B.lEa16A• oi �' W �l/ O� prescrroedbr m.s F uK state dF uhh,and shot t,n • y have nn ea vey vF the obese pr stewedpropertyandRENSIONS:wN n m t uul/b t K be ns shown hereon TfrC 000 Ft ALTA/nr NthOAIE tttt w 'J the?/nieun Standard'I'etaa Requlrener�ts Ib'ALTA/ALSNo itT°' _ 101 "1s A L«#ITlfe Surreys',pMt/Y estabf(shed and adopted by the l € '� $ Merk:an Lantl Rife Assdc/a tkm d the Ar'erlcan Can-�r o m / /�// „4 3 `e �' � Sure,eta and NvpWro 'Survey, a sets u¢ cY -. reWa' is of a Gass A'Shs y as defined therein n - Parcel 3 ��// ) m 11111 2. �///� :IC..' 'w .Dais LS k 2-Zr 0.WWNG BY. Leaf R': / d h6l0 3 16.02'rm O d. e J1i' " b 9 CHECKED RtL/ � E e(D 2 ➢ 6 526/ N"l5'SZ�E1526g( ,�/ / NTS� -... Corp 15 $ Scale:1'=20 1-17-02 „ma,i(Eaana)__- Lot 6 6-16-179-029lvh I .. - IS-6�36-V9030 ALTA/PCSM Land Title SurveyFlIE NO.-2227 A$5 ,tA Ed FErnA 1OO 'EAR 1-1 AA 0600 ?Jo ONoAl y • . . .._ _ .__. f1�•Y I1� r1.-Hoof MAP 5 EMIGRATION CREEK CORRIDOR ISO0 EAST TO 2100 EAST INTRODUCTION ofcmy�ewrie of�.e.�ea.,s.u�.c�•e u.n M_aeein a vrvel ap...pace u., 1 ,r..g9�.sert C.ee.Con eo.ro' Car"_ m-. `V. .nugr,._�e.ea_ryewroce..w w..e�, we .ce ao w u.p..or uy.m.,.se EMIGRATION CREEK c s.u..�'�. .. J e9ee e�op.an e�N[.rg� o_i..ey be a rna r bH prn.N e. ue.n�a oy.ma�..1 \ BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE crow.w.uo�""�. ,'ap.'.i�: e.'.:pe`" \ -\��`jr-------) Q I //C �\//)\�—�//�// OOP Q i C \ BOO EAST ion oea ca..m. �� �v ppQ '�'� - EMIGRATION CREEK . ....--... .-:., .:**. /(3 n D 47 . _. ..... _ pOpO }i' '� e °oo ° ,O v i, 0 d o aO p �� :• ,. 4ESTMINVER r ti I EGE \. .�//\\ ° ��'Y' 4 .p.� V%"'� '� `.; �,'J - Q Lam 6 00 � '� \ j "uwei.T�+ tilli;P#1,:tof, � j oo� �,.kcv C� a.e'.,,4 /\ 4a t \\��ieuoort cor++E nON \\ / \ t l`r 4� / _�q \'/ \ v Li \ Ylf'/. Onp q --- l' `SL ` .. o� 4�{ rT too cLArT /1 �- \ 09 ` y suor�T,vff Trtrm.cd+ccTlcsl 0/ Op ,.. \ O O p Y.•, C Y �409 o C�tiu o 00 \ U13- p 5"• pp9� O e/ .���A\` FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 7uO�L //�\\\� p gA10\PARK\\ 00 A O - o OQO \ �'Lr's/ � ♦ \. ..rasa wwui un. \� /0) oQo % R \� \ fir.►►ar �� `� liNSTER COLLEGE .Y BLAINE AVENUE / ��r'411/11� �♦J, _ % ;,--red r '� j I' .s,,, ce«ieg.w a .a.prnbn�n o usbee N ee.y Ilf 1. . S. 1 : spa.a..s.» n,ed. I I lull. ���I����.��►�; � .�,����,,,�.! ',� � _J ALLEN PARK SUBDIVISION F0R""L'� RESIDENTIAL ��- ��I'�II�� �� 3 I ��,�� n 'rI 7:11°Nri-j---:"‘ ',��j1,�1jr���;r '\�. d,rvim11 � �sloExrlx l+ �� �` ����:��Cor do' E GR TIP eREIX .VVT PAR � pl IyI V�1iiI'=,, ��: ��� .. wBOO EAST _ 1 �M���I it 4 !��� Ir �� c�.�i�:.. .rip a u�.� _ _/ � mot. ,-L fe ue.M..rs reiwge waur �_.. a fop.^apern , ^���� �� FOOTHILL BLVO.CROSSING Pwn [fill NThO TnEy:nap ecoo rron eo dormktil rome '"ee bs yeym vN.oHOOao:, f f SECTION-EMIGRATION CREEK anam,g! o&ukgth Cnrorr,aoropponnniry r s gin waareaI rti Clry.Anyacn,wit or evela raren rtl oa..eey. inocomdnflf w.designation,fac f0t �, ��,.. ,erd. r rigni o(w�ay implcmenuuan cttort winsbcdercocess conducted by Sal Lake plan �ppro.a pmuss ronenaca by Sal Lane say oryonrrvn. EXHIBIT C Petitioner Info./Miscellaneous • Conceptual Development Plan 1 1 I I I I goo 3g I gore iIrf, I Aar 37 I Log Xi I ¢r>xl f?f?9 I goo'&a)I Loa Oa I (Log Oz?16 tig I floamgron.S2creaverm I I I I oo I G3GY&raOg I ill Wig= I I I Uv7lf a.�ltlf/ o[rc.tf T.Q 2b➢D fJL DBa77Llry55Y Anit I it _:, -0 § I I I I I 1 I I I I I I MO I tr 17 r J cosy- - — - _ / j — '' r , _____„_______ __.___.„„0 ,..._..._ _ / / 1 q LOt 1 / ,, s///h i<i f a q _ E,. oV 9s9 a1� _ _ / sole:.7'-ZO' 'Ty f t? Y .0- 9 ,, ¢M? gate ¢xaa /,i/ / LLY J �_� rJ / j� �' Curve Table Wax ti I a1i- ,r 4 B _. -Bq'" _ 1� �,I m O (.0 W o , !I ,r s'1:q. rf. . � `•V 1 v revoo ou' rra- - Z i o %jj ! F53 11 i' a �� ` y ,� =rrr,9 ,rr r 2 t B6 IJ 7 L —�--�— ; Lot 2 ^I h A,a"' A, ` rn CV o� 9rai �� -- f-d-P 6 j1, . :.9 ,Lvs,rq. f5 _ j m m j 9 0 o w zs o0 ,s s� ti4� ---� - - -- n Ir i1 ,.�,� - / i �,o-,B.B w ,.eB�9�e r w.,f � �r„� r � _..._ I c� if S a` - I (J16 OW Pry SQ al If/. /7 8 / y Kensington Ave. ,�95,/ , / i 5 1,/16 f-�—� _-T-._.__r_--�_- � ear', 550 .S, 6 p/�l� / _ ! Project Rrce-t-9S Acre. I ( w jz/ Ip) ` \ / — sro.o., Lot 3r 4330 __—`'^ I nvu C... .r.. m 1"`FFF777 10.99E s9. I [f/K ..ea,ri9,9e `. I �h Ca �aPf 6 wY a floe ..�J sa c en pace ,a \ i . r....I h �'' Q0,9er a 'e,izl w. r. / 1 — ` I Q a Lbfil. aay t / Iy r -Sao _/ I `� s .y ¢� J an 8 ¢tea a / / _s 6 39 y !-� ( _ cs, ' / U E i / ) :` s. �ot 4 -1 B� BB y -/ - 9(vV,) /6.256 sq. /f. ` 2 / o o /N - - - - 0 4 a -- / BO 60 s 0.81qo B SB.Sq ....17 ._..._..__ __._...-_. — /6Nr0g0 / I . 15268 C ors -- - / .sya�\on P iv.re Drive P file ¢W 6 6,Yogam¢G)mLt FBI L'vdm - �� -W / �: 5 75,6 a8 C•7aLt a1! / P ---•--•_.—�/`/ gag¢r63 Car({bap. 18 Scp,1002 / P,00 17 „Y/.,. EXHIBIT D Departmental Comments SALE' f.\ G nrIAT GORP A� ,I,(�JN Lc.W. HOUTON, Jr _ --- --_.� ROSS C. `ROCKY"ANDERSON D"'[crow DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC UTILITIES ..Avon WATER SUP,'LY AND WATFVWD,ZK5 WAS('e RL CLANAT/ON AND STWINIAATC4 January 9, 2003 Doug Wheelwright Deputy Planning Director 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Knowlton Rezoning petition — 1665 East Kensington Dear Doug, The following are the Public Utilities' Department's comments regarding the rezoning of the Knowlton property from open space to "residential". Public Utilities understands that the rezoning is being considered to accommodate the sale of the property for development as a three or four lot Planned Unit Development. There are two very significant, unique, issues that will greatly effect the developability of this property— FEMA flood zone elevations and the need for a private sanitary sewer lift station_ 'The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Salt Lake City, Utah", dated February 1, 1983 (updated in 2001) delineates flood plain hazard areas. These studies are the basis for the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)which became effective September 21, 2001. An initial review of the proposed site and the 100 year FEMA flood elevations of the Emigration Creek indicate that the three proposed building pads will be below the 100 year flood elevation. FEMA rules as well as City Ordinance (see section 18.68) prohibits new development below the base flood elevation. The same standard applies to mechanical systems, in this case,water and sewer systems will not be allowed below the flood elevation. This is a particularly important point because the subject property is at a lower elevation than the public sewer in Kensington Avenue. Therefore a private sewer lift station will be required. This lift station must be above the flood elevation (this will raise the minimum floor elevation of the houses by at least several more feet). )930 COUTH WEST TEMPLE.SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 04115. TELEPHONE:901-4B3-6900 FAX:8D1-4B3-60)0 Attached is a drawing with the flood area highlighted. This information is approximate, based on information available from existing maps and drawings of the area. As the property owner or a developer pursue this project a more detailed engineering analysis of flood hazards will be required. All elevations must be verified and certified for accuracy by a licensed land surveyor. Brad Stewart (483-6733) is the Public Utilities contact for this project. Sincerely, LeRoy W. ooton, Jr. Director BDS MEMORANDUM To: Doug Wheelwright Greg Mikolash Planning Division From: Dan Andrus Fire Marshal Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Date: January 9, 2003 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW_OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 1665 KENSINGTON AVENUE Thank you for the opportunity to make a site visit to the property at 1665 Kensington Avenue. The proposed development raises the following concerns with respect to the City Fire Code: 1. Water supply: The entrance to the proposed development is located approximately 500 feet from the closest fire hydrant. Additional fire hydrants would need to be provided for the required fire flow as required by Appendix C of the Fire Code 2. Road slope: The current slope of the road is approximately 14%. The Fire Code permits a maximum slope of 10%. 3_ Access road width: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 500 feet in length shall be at least 26 feet wide. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance in this matter. TO: GREG MIKOLASH, PLANNING FROM: SCOTT WElLER, P.E., ENGINEERING DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Knowlton Rezone 1665 East Kensington Avenue City Engineering review comments are as follows: I. Engineering has no objection to the proposed zone change. Development engineering design review will be required if the zone change is approved. cc: Joel Harrison Brad Stewart Barry Walsh Vault SALT` r' .' '`I ITX1GOTPO °�'/ - 11.0 ROCKY J. FLUHART a� ate, � - gQ- .m .,pas-ja ROSS C.ANDERSON CHIEF ADMIN IST RAi1VE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR PURCHASING, CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Property Management Room 245 17 December 2002 TO: Greg Mikolash Planning FROM : Linda Cordova Property Manag r RE: Proposed Re-zoning of Two Privately Owned Parcels by Kathy & Joseph Knowlton, Dead-ending at Kensington Street and Approximately 1650 East. Property Management has no objection to this petition request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 245,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:SD1-535-7133 FAX:801-535-6)90 www.co.W.CI.SL C.LIT.US/F'URCNA SIN6.1-IT Mt_ ii Rccvc.eo..P.n EXHIBIT E Letters Of Concern City Response Staff Letter To Applicant SLC Planning Dept. 1-22-03 Staff Report Petition#400-02-35 Page 9 HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER-ASPEN SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE (8011 595-7800 BOULDER-COLORADO SPRINGS 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE FACSIMILE (BIM 364-9124 DENVER TECH CENTER SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84111-1031 BILLINGS•BOISE David K- Broadbent CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE (801)595-7806 SALT LAKE CITY-SANTA FE dbroadbent@hottandhart-corn WASHINGTON,D G May 3I, 2002 Mr. David L. Buehler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Corporation 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Zoning of property located at 1665 East Kensington Avenue Dear David: - - Joseph and Kathy Knowlton have asked me to assist them with regard to the change of zoning which was affected on their property in 1995. As Joseph has explained to you, the re-zoning was accomplished without any notice whatsoever to them as the property owners. This of course is contrary to the requirements for effecting a proper zoning change. In looking into the matter, it appears that the rezoning of the parcels to open space "OS" in 1995 was the result of an incorrect assumption on the part of the City that the parcels were owned by the City and were part of the Wasatch Hollow Nature Park which abut the Knowlton parcels on the south- The parcels involved are parcels 2 and 3 as shown on the attached survey plat. Because the zoning change would take away any value of the lots, the landowner of course objects to the change and requests that the zoning be reverted to:its status prior to the re-zoning_ The zoning prior to the 1995 change was Residential R-2. We do not believe that a re-zoning process requested by the owner would be appropriate, inasmuch as we are seeking to correct an error and not asking the City to approve a change in zoning. If you conclude that a zoning change is the only way to remedy this matter, we ask that the City Council initiate the zoning change and process it as soon as possible_ Thank you for your help_ Very truly yours, G - I David K. Broadbent of Holland & Hart LEE DKB:ls 2947724 I.DOC Outline of Community issues to the Planning Commission Petitioner allegations I. A LVi WI,mistake 2_ The Knowlton continued to pay taxes as residential property 3. They had inadequate notification and never had an opportunity to comment 4_ This represents a "taking"and the city "stele" land value from them Comments 1_ The Commission knew at the lime that private land was being zoned OS - Cindy Cromer "Of course we knew, it was inherent in the process" - Ralph Becker "Very difficult for me to believe this was a mistake" - Judy Short "Very unlikely to have been a mistake" - Mayor's office "This rezone was not a mistake" - The successive plat maps and overlays from 1992 to 1995 (when the rezone took place)show this property as"OS"on every one - : The map of the Emigration Creek Corridor showing the "future site of Wasatch Hollow Park"has.a line drawn directly to this property with a comment about development potential and recommending other options 2_ This is simply a tax issue. The Knowlton may petition to have their taxes changed and this has nothing to do with whether the property should legitimately be Open Space_ 3. All legal notifications were done_ The Knowlton were sent two secondary notices, which they acknowledge they likely got and "threw in the trash bin". - Opportunity they bad for 43 years with an R-2 zone but they didn't want houses built while they lived there.-_now that they're leaving, it's OK - Kathy Knowlton "The neighbors don't have anything to say about it" - Joe Knowlton "1 don't give a crap about the community. I'm leaving. I'll be gone." 4. There is still very substantial value to the property and thus it is a zoning issue and not a taking_ They have been offered over$600,000, which was vigorously rejected_ We all believe they have great options including tax breaks, easement purchases for conservation, City Parks,etc. Physical Issues 1_ Riparian habitat,stream corridor -The city and the community have an expressed interest in preserving city streams and their environs_ 2_ Open Space Master Plan designated"sensitive corridor"with good reason_ The specific intent here was to limit development in areas such as this. 3_ Floodplain - FEMA designated 100-year category. Area residents will state that this is real and not just a theoretical concept,circa 1975 and others. - Why are we talking about zoning floodplains as suitable for homes? - Mr-Knowlton states that it's not really an issue because"t put 6 feet of outside fill in the lower lot". Legally? 4. Storm water disposal and runoff would be truly an issue for an area this size. Community Issues I_ Open Space Master Plan - Does it mean anything? The community believes it does. And that we should support it_ In the real world,not just conceptually_ - If this is rezoned back to residential, how will we say it has meaning? The Allen Park community will be here in about 2 minutes asking for the same consideration and for the whole OSMP to be thrown out (already a petition to this effect in the Planning Office)_ And subsequent petitioners? 2_ Opposition to the rezone is extensive - Opposed by the Wasatch Hollow Community Council, unanimous vote, 25-0 - Opposed by the Sugarhouse Community Council (see letter) - Opposed by the Mayors Open Space Advisory Committee (see letter) - Opposed by the Bonneville Hills Community Council (see letter) 3. Is there legitimate development potential here? The crux of the matter_ There probably is. Please note that if what we were talking about was another home built as a "flag lot"on the upper portion of the property that left the stream corridor and the floodplain alone, we would grudgingly support it_ Obviously we would prefer to see it left as is but this may be a justifiable use potential. 4. No one is saying that the Knowlton do not deserve a fair market return for their land_ This is obviously tied to development potential_ We do believe they have substantial value as it is and very good accessory option_ But they must be willing to talk about it. S_ What we hope to gain is that if the zoning is essentially left as it is that they would choose not to pursue litigation but would, instead, finally be willing to talk about community oriented outcomes..__ones that we could all work for_ Thank you for your time and consideration )u3 ST 1N - cte, €vta- t_--eucpx.0V KO-C • zus -fa._ N [b39 E_Kest Avr /4,3f 6 i Z:3 A-r3' 1/- s. i�c t .erh 4_ 8a4N / LcsC am .. v January 10, 2003 504 East Fremont Drive Tempe, Arizona 85282-6937 Dear Mr. Mikolash: l own the property at 1627 Emerson Avenue in Salt Lake City. I received your notice of the proposed change in zoning for the two properties owned by Mr. Joseph S. Knowlton. This proposed change in zoning is identified in your letter as Petition #400-02-35. I am opposed to this change. Further development will do nothing positive. It will only impact the neighborhood with more people, traffic, and noise. Doing away with what is now"Open Space"will only diminish property values in the area. Those who live on the rim of the "gully"will be looking down on roofs instead of"Open Space"as will those who can now stand on the rim to enjoy the view. Further development will also have a negative impact on the city budget. Development will produce more sewage and waste water which will need to be treated, more storm sewer run off, more police, fire, animal control, and other services will be required including street maintenance. Zoning for development will have an adverse impact on the quality of life that hundreds of people who live in that area now enjoy. The only people to benefit from this zoning change will be the developers who, after making their money, leave and never have to face the negative consequences that their actions have on the neighborhood. The nearby Wasatch Park, the old Van der Ende property,has benefited a few, but the overall effect has been negative_ Instead of Open Space (read: undeveloped natural space) in the city, we now have another park for people and dogs. Just because it is there, do we have to develop it? I am opposed to any change in zoning that would allow development of the area in question. I am opposed to Petition##400-02-35. Sincerely, Philip G. Garn Copys to: I. Neighborhood.Watch. 2. Mr. Richard N. Cannon, Attorney At Law. 3. Personal Files 1626 L. Kensington Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84105 October 14,2002 Greg Mikalash,Planning Division City and County Building 451 S. State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Dear Mr_ Mikolash: My husband and I live in the Wasatch Hollow Community(1625 Kensington)and are concerned about the cuurrent rezoning application at top of our dead-end street, 1665 Kensington. Currently this property contains a single home and a beautiful piece of open space visible from the Wasatch Hollow City Park The owners of this property are under contract with a developer contingent upon a zoning change. The developers would like to build 3-5 houses on this open space. As a dose neighbor,and a member of this community we have several concerns. • Sewer and storm drain issues-extensive construction will be required to hook the current house and any new developments into the city sewer. This construction will likely destroy a large portion of land with many trees. • Emergency vehicle access-major construction will deter any vehicle access to this dead end street,including emergency vehicle access. • Snow removal and garbage removal-major construction will also interfere with these activities. • Increased traffic-adding 5 additional properties basically doubles the current population of our dead-end street creating an unsafe environment for the multiple children who live here or visit their grandparents. The increased traffic would also spoil the dead end street environment that was so important when we purchased our property. • Noise disturbances-major construction adjacent to the open space of the Wasatch Hollow City Park will devastate the pristine environment • "Fit"-we are told the estimated size of these houses will be triple or quadruple the size of any house in the neighborhood_ These houses will not"fir into the neighborhood and will certainly be an eyesore in Wasatch Hollow City Park • Environmental Impact-the area to be developed is a recognized flood plain. During a drought,it is easy to underestimate the need for a space in the city for water to flow, however,this is a critical need.Additionally,this sensitive corridor is home to the quail,squirrels,and birds that make Wasatch Hollow park such a beautiful piece of nature within the city. Construction will destroy not only our neighborhood,but will deeply impact the park We understand this corridor was going to be a bike path connecting pats of the city through the park,this dream is also impossible with development • Destroying Open Space-Open Space within the city is highly valuable, particularly in the environmentally sensitive Emigration Creek corridor. Open space is so highly valued by residents of the city(and the rest of the state)that the Wasatch Front Regional Council is currently developing a long range plan. The Emigration Creek corridor is an essential part of the current open space. We very much appreciate your attention to this matter. We are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact this potential development will cause. We hope that you share our commitment to Open Space within the city and understand the importance of Open Space in Salt Lake City neighborhoods. �Sincerey, J [/` � Erin R Fox Brian C.Fox September 30,2002 Dear Mr. Buhler, My name is Dan Duggleby and my wife and I own a home at 1650 East Kensington Ave. I am writing to you concerning an application to rezone property at 1665 Kensington from its current Open Space to a residential classification so that it may be subdivided and developed. Brief history. In the early 1990's the city was searching for a master plan and by 1992 the "Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee" proposed some goals for the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan. These recommendations were endorsed by the City Planning Office and were formally adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. Among the proposals was a recognition of a number of "sensitive areas" within the city and it was recommended to designate these as "Open Space". The intent was to limit development in these areas and the 'Emigration Creek Corridor' was among the primary concerns. Specifically mentioned was the area adjacent to the(then)future Wasatch Hollow Park. Following a 3 year period of comment and discussion, this resulted in several properties along Emigration Creek and adjacent to Wasatch Hollow Park being rezoned as Open Space in April of 1995. There is currently an application to the City Planning Office and the Planning Commission to change some of the Open Space designations back to a residential classification with the specific intent of developing this area with a subdivision of 3 to 5 new houses. The property location is at 1665 East Kensington Ave. What you will hear from a number of local citizens is that there are numerous issues with the proposed PUD that affect the local community. At a very minimum you will hear about; - Street and access issues including emergency vehicle access and turnaround - Lighting,street and residential,and concerns with "light pollution" - Increased traffic and noise and disturbance of the "natural quiet" or "natural environment" - Garbage and snow removal - Sewer and storm drain problems, the sewer alone requiring the construction of pumping and holding stations - Flood plain- the property is,in part,classified by FEMA as a "100 year floodplain" - Compatability issues - the proposed houses are not very much in keeping with local existing dwellings and more Several of the above issues are quite serious and even considered individually would merit the casting of a jaundiced eye. Taken together it is pretty clear that the project is marginal,at best,even if these concerns can technically be satisfied. But you will hear quite a bit about those issues from others and I would like to address a more overriding context for the project. That is the issue of the current zoning designation as "open space" and the application to rezone it as R-1 5000 so that it may be developed. What you will hear from Mr. Michael Bradley (the proposed developer)and the Knowitons are several contentions_ Among these are that the property was "incorrectly" rezoned "by mistake" and "without intent". The point of the above history is not to bore you to death but to clearly note that this area was evaluated knowingly,included purposefully, and zoned as Open Space with clear and knowing intent. It was not accidental in any way. Further, the same considerations which lead to the original zoning change in 1995 are even more salient today. There is literature published by the City Planning Office detailing "The Importance of Open Space" and there is much to say philosophically about the concept. Too much to detail here. Suffice it to say that the value of Open Space designation is being recognized as an increasingly valuable principle by almost-all parties, especially as pressures from growth and developers increase. The next objection you will hear is that there was no opportunity for them to comment or object. That they were inadequately notified and that they didn't know. That they continued to pay tax on the property as residential property. And that this constitutes adequate reason to change the zoning back to residential. Well Again, the history...There was a very public development of the master plan and a period of 3 years before the zoning was changed in 1995. Proper and legal notifications were done and it is a bit absurd to say that there was no opportunity to comment. No objections were raised at the time and it is only now,7 years later, that it becomes an issue. They will say that it is because they didn't know but I put it to you that there is a much different reason. It simply was not important to them. My point is that Joe and Kathy Knowlton lived on that land for 40 years with an R-2 zoning designation and could have developed it at any time but did they build houses while they lived there? No...because they did not want them. What they would never have considered while they lived there has somehow now become palatable....because they are moving. And leaving the community with something that they never would have consented to while they lived here. And continuing to pay tax on the property as residential? That is simply a tax issue and has nothing whatever to do with whether it should remain as open space. And finally there will be an allegation that the rezone to open space constitutes an illegal event....an "unjust taking",in the vernacular. The basis of the allegation will be that the property is worth more if sold,subdivided and developed and that they cannot get a'fair market value'if they try to sell it "as is" with the open space designation. And that the city unjustly stole this potential from them. Well..again, several points... Firstly,no adequate attempt to find out what the market will bear has been undertaken. The total duration of time that the property was on the market is three days. Three days! The estimation of parties such as Mr. Bradley or the selling agent are automatically suspect due to self-interest. And,it must be said in all fairness, they may be correct....but, insofar as no earnest effort to find an equivalent buyer who would be happy with the current designation has been made, the facts are simply not known. Secondly,and more importantly, zoning restrictions to properties do not, in and of themselves, constitute an unjust or illegal restraint. Every piece of property in the Salt Lake valley is zoned in one way or another and carries guidelines as to what may be done to it_ This is recognized as a communal and societal good and is the raison d'etre for the Planning Office and the Planning Commission. No property was condemned or taken. The Knowltons still own it to use or sell as they see fit....within the zoning guidelines, the same as any other property transaction in the valley. There was no "unjust taking". It was simply determined through lengthy and due deliberation, that communal interests were best served by restricting development in the area.And this was not objected to by the involved parties at any time during the process or in the intervening 7 years._..until now. Nothing has changed regarding the original reasons for including this area in an Open Space designation. If anything, the recognized value of keeping some areas of the city undeveloped, in their "natural state", is much more acute today_ We need these places. There is so much that needs doing in so many areas of the city that to encourage development in the more sensitive areas seems folly indeed. Mr. Buhler, nobody in the Wasatch Hollow community voted for you.. you became our representative through a process of redistricting. Needless to say, we will be voting for you in the future. I have been told (true or not)that you are a person who does not support restricting development of private property without a 'darn good reason'. Well....I would appeal to you on at least two fronts to help us as a community oppose development in this area and to keep the open space designations. First....whatever your personal feelings may be,you represent us as a community. I have spoken to about 60 homeowners in the area (and I am hoping that you hear from some of these)and I know of one (yes, one._.)who says they don't care,let it happen. The others are uniformly against it to one degree or another. Whether they will speak out publicly...well,we will see. Secondly,there is,indeed, a 'darn good reason'. The City Council that you sit on adopted the Master Plan that included the proposals for open space. If you are a person who does not believe in the value of'Open Space'or sees a reason why it should not be applied or continued in this instance,I am sure that we would Iike to hear your position and comments very specifically. And publically. We strongly urge you to help affirm the original decision of the city planners and the Planning Commission in 1995. Recognize the value of Open Space. Help us to deny the application to rezone this area as residential. Encourage the Knowltons to look for an equitable buyer or to pursue other options(of which there are several). Help keep some places around us in their natural state. It's worth it to all of us....even the Knowltons....in the end. Thank you for your time. For any questions or further discussion our home phone is 486-8842. You have our address and e-mail. Sincerely, Daniel Duggleby 1650 Kensington SLC, UT 84105 Lisa Monson November 29, 2002 Mr. Brent Wilde, Acting Planning Director Planning Division, Salt Lake City Corporation City and County Building 451 South State, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Wilde, My name is Lisa Monson and I own a home on the corner of 1600 East and Kensington Avenue. I am writing to express concern about a proposed housing development in our community. It has come to my attention that there is an application before the Planning Commission to rezone the property at 1665 East Kensington from its current "open space"designation back to residential with the express intent of putting a housing development on this land_ This would be a so-called PUD with plans for three to five new homes.. There are numerous physical issues with the proposal both with zoning codes and with community concerns. These include, at least,problems with increased traffic on our quiet dead-end street, increased noise and "light pollution", emergency vehicle access and turnaround, the fact that the proposed homes are not in keeping with the surrounding residences (witness the now-infamous"Hubbard House"), road width and grade, runoff and holding pond/tank issues (the property is over 2 acres)_ and very significant problems with sewer and the fact that they want to build this in a recognized floodplain(can they really do that?). These are things that you should be directly aware of in discussions with your staff and by themselves would serve as a serious restraint to any consideration of this proposal as viable. It appears,however, that you have made some comments to the effect that the rezoning in 1995 may have included this property`unintentionally"or "by accident". More about that in a minute. The owners of the property are apparently contending two major issues. The first is as above_.._that this was a mistake that their property was rezoned as open space. The second assertion is that they didn't know about the rezone and that this alone is sufficient reason to return the zoning to a residential classification so that they may sell it to a developer who will build houses. This is one of the things that you might help us with. I have heard a presentation from the"Mayors Open Space Advisory Committee"where it was quite plainly stated that there was awareness of these properties along Emigration Creek and it was recognized that they constituted part of what.has come to be designated as"sensitive areas". There is also at least one former member of the Planning Commission during this period of the early to mid 1990's who has quite clearly stated that there was recognition of the rezoning of private properties as open space including the"Emigration Creek Corridor". The point is that there was very specific knowledge and intent here and that any assertion that this was a "mistake"is completely erroneous. This is something that you could help with. Talk to the Open Space Advisory Committee and to former members of the Planning Commission. Talk to your own staff members. And then help to squelch this idea that this was in some way "accidental". It was not. And the issue of"Open Space" itself and the statement that they didn't know_...and that therefore it is invalid. To keep it brief, firstly all legal notifications were done. But, I am told by the Planning Office that there were at least two individual notifications sent in the several years of public comment. If these were ignored and thrown away then they have some responsibility here. Mr Wilde, I am told that your office is on record as supporting the recognition of these "sensitive areas" in our city and supporting the idea of Open Space_ Property rights are about as fundamental as anything in our society but so is the balance with community interests and values. No-one is advocating that the owners should have to accept anything less than a fair return for their land. But I believe that there are much better solutions here_ Could this be added to Wasatch Hollow Park? Could the city negotiate the purchase of an easement to make up any difference in perceived value? Could a tax break be given in return for the donation of an easement? Are there third parties who would contribute to the property remaining as open space (e.g. the Utah Open Lands Council)? Some combination of the above? Or other outcomes, such as a private buyer who would meet the asking price (this has apparently never had an adequate trial). This has never been explored. To date the owners have steadfastly refused to consider any other option than selling to a developer....and this is contingent on having the zoning changed back to residential. If the zoning is not changed then this may open the door to discussions about solutions that would benefit the community. Help us preserve the very open space that you advocate. Help us convince the property owners that there are better solutions that benefit us all. Help represent us to the Planning Commission and the City Council, if it comes to that_ And help us keep the type and level of information going around accurate and fair_ The current owners are well-to-do and apparently pretty well connected politically_ Those of us who aren't find ourselves at a bit of a disadvantage here and our appeals to public officials are our means of finding representation. Thank you for your time and consideration_ Sincere e-`44-7-77 Lisa Monson IS a`7 S • /Gdo c. . cc: Greg Milcolash S I,,,C v T $r{ tar- CITY RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS LETTER i.' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY v,\\\\i- • l Petition No. ?` j �:Gc=� : ' ''s Receipt No. Amount$ s,mri-;,, Conditional Use ?4) :M!wu i i &I Date Received - m3f iTTn ' . = ``�,' Reviewed by ' 1 ,.,,---:**/ Will the project require a variance?0 Yes 0 No "',• .1,,,,"`, Type of Conditional Use Requested Date of Pre-submission Meeting Name of Applicant Phone Address of Applicant CDE-mail address of Applicant Cell/ Fax z Address of Subject Property Applicant's Interest in subject Property z Name of Property Owner _ Phone Address of Property Owner E-mail address of Property Owner Cell/ Fax Existing Use of Property l County Tax #s (Sidwell #s) CLI Zoning Acreage Please include with the application: 1.The names and addresses of all property owners within 450 feet—exclusive of streets and alleys in any direc- tion—from the border of the subject street. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner E-1-4 must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate �� Community Council Chair. The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of applica- ` tion. Please do not provide postage stamps. (`./) 2.A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the project to the appropriate Neighborhood Organization and/or Community Council(s). A letter from the Chair may be substituted 3.A legal description of the subject property 14 4.A preliminary development plan prepared according to the attached guidelines I 1 5.Questions on the back of this form 6.Filing fee of$300.00 plus$100.00 per acre in excess of one acre. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757) prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps& names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder E-4,‘ 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 .____ Telephone: (801)468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning C/I) 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801)535-7757 Signature of Applicant or authorized agent Title of agent 1/26/2001 Please answer the following questions. Use an additional sheet if necessary. Please explain how the proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How does it implement, and how is it compatible with the planning goals and objectives of the city and the applicable Master Plan? Explain how the proposed conditional use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Will the proposed development have a material net adverse impact on the neighborhood or city as a whole? CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE Uses in each zoning district are divided into two categories: permitted uses and conditional uses. Permits and licenses can be issued administratively for a permitted use if it meets all requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. A conditional use is a use which may have potential adverse impacts upon the immediate neighborhood and the City as a whole. It requires a careful review of this location, design, configuration and special impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a particular site. Whether it is appropriate in a particular location requires a weighing, in each case, of the public need and the benefit against the local impact, taking into account the applicant's proposals for ameliorating any adverse impacts through special site planning, development techniques and contributions to the provision of public improvements, rights-of-way, and services. STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with:conditions, or deny a conditional use based upon written findings of fact with regard to each of the standards set forth below and, where applicable, any special standards for conditional uses set forth in a specific zoning district: • • The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in the zoning district; • • The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans; • Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets; • The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed; • Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources; • Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts; • Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood; • • Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development; • The proposed development preserves historical, architecture and environmental features of the property; • Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses; • The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole; and, • The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. CATEGORIES OF CONDITIONAL USES Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: • Uses impacting other property: Uses that may give rise to particular problems with respect to their impact upon neighboring property and the City as a whole, including their impact on public facilities; and • Planned developments: The uses which fall within these categories are listed in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of Part III of this Title for each category of zoning districts. CONDITIONS ON CONDITIONAL USES The Planning Commission may impose on a conditional use such conditions and limitations as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the conditional use, upon the City as a whole, or upon public facilities and services. PROCESS • Schedule a meeting with the appropriate community council(s) to present your conditional use proposal, and provide written verification (agenda, letter from community council chair(s) or prepare a letter yourself) of the meeting. Identify any concerns or suggestions from the Community Council relating to the proposal . The Community Council is not a decision making body, they are to hear proposal for their area and add input only. • Application: a complete application shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator along with all the required information listed on the application, the appropriate fee, and postage. • Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application, the Zoning Administrator shall make a determination of completeness of the application. • Staff Report/ Site Fan Review Report: A staff:report shall be prepared by the Planning Division and forwarded to the Planning Commission along with a site plan review report prepared by the development review team. • Public Hearing: The Planning Commission shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Part II, Chapter 21A.10. • Planning Commission Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3)deny the conditional use. • Notice Of Application For Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a condition use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, such as a variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for all required approvals. For more information on application requirements or specific conditional use requirements please refer to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.54. STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALE' f 16 `Yr "R-'O--'-'�`O-`I as- C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRE CTDR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAY DR BRENT B.WttDE PLANNING DrvrsroH DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRE CT OR December 23, 2002 Lisa Monson 1 527 South 1600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84I05 Re: Knowlton Property Dear Ms. Monson, Thank you for submitting your concerns regarding the re-zone request for the Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton property located at approximately 1650 East Kensington. The Planning Division received a re-zoning petition for the subject project(s)in September 2002,subsequent to Kathleen Knowlton attending the August 28, 2002 Wasatch Community Council meeting, where the re-zoning proposal for her two parcels was discussed_ Typically, when an applicant has several processes to go through (in this case, a Zoning map change, planned development and subdivision approvals are required), the applicant prefers to file all applications together and the Planning Commission considers all applications at the same time. The Planning Commission is the final decision maker on the planned development and subdivision application and they make a recommendation to City Council on the zoning change. Therefore,processing all of the applications together streamlines the process for the applicant. The Planning Commission will take action on the planned development and subdivision petitions subject to City Council action on the request for zoning change. However, the Knowltons have insisted that their zoning application go forward and that their request for a zoning change be heard prior to processing the petitions that will address the development of that property. After discussing this issue with the City Attorney's office,we have decided that even though we would prefer to process these applications together,the Knowltons are entitled to have this petition processed. However,we have informed the Knowltons that even though the staff report addressing the zoning change is not intended to address developability of the property,our report will clearly itemize the technical issues that must be addressed prior to advancing any future petition for planned development or subdivision approval. We have also informed them that we will not process any future petition for planned development or subdivision until City Council acts on the zoning change petition. We also have clearly conveyed that any potential re-zoning from Open 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 i 1 TELEPHONE:B01-535-7757 FAX:BO1-535-6174 �� ..e•e.en.A.e., Space to a Residential zoning classification will not vest any planned development rights upon the subject properties. In response to the question of public notice regarding adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and maps in 1995, the City's position is that notice for that process was adequate. In response to the question of 1995 "Open Space"zoning, the only justification for zoning privately owned property"Open Space"thus eliminating most private development rights, would have been to have technical documentation that this property is not developable. I have discussed this issue with staff and we are not aware of any technical documentation that was considered in the 1995 process showing that this property was not developable. We are continuing to pursue this issue. The technical analysis required as part of the planned development and subdivision application and processes will specifically address these issues. An engineer from the Public Utilities Department has been included in meetings with the Knowltons and the Utilities Department will continue to participate in the review and analysis of petitions pertaining to this property. I also understand your desire as a neighbor to see this property remain as open space and perhaps added to the Wasatch Hollow Park. It is certainly your right to pursue the "better solutions" that your reference in your letter. I assure you that the Planning Division is not advocating the development of this property on behalf of the Knowltons. The purpose of the City's zoning and development regulation and standards outlined therein is to provide for proper balance between private property owner rights and the public interest. We will do our best to properly balance those nghts as this case goes forward_ Please call me at 535-6180 if you have additional questions. Brent Wilde I, , uv Acting Planning Director Cc: Lynn Pace Dave Buhler • Janice Jardine Doug Wheelwright Greg Mikolash PLANNING STAFF LETTER TO APPLICANT STEPHEN A- GOLDSMITH SALT ,�� ..�=��: " KIRK)-:� ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR PLANN/NG DIVISION BRENT B.WILDE DE PUTT PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR December 13,2002 Joseph S. Knowlton 1665 East Kensington Avenue Salt Lake City,Ut 84105 Re: Rezoning Petition#400-02-35, regarding property parcels 16-16-252-004 & 008. Dear Sir or Madam: The Salt Lake City Planning Division received your re-zoning petition in September 2002. As a requirement of the re-zoning process,an applicant must show proof that they have met with and explained their proposal to the appropriate Community Council. A letter has been submitted by the Wasatch Hollow Community Council certifying that Kathleen C Knowlton did attend the August 28,2002 meeting and that the re-zoning proposal for the above referenced property parcels was discussed. During our meeting held in the Planning Office on December 3,2002,you and your wife expressed displeasure with how long it was taking to get the re-zoning matter before the Planning Commission and City Council_ The Planning Staff present at the meeting explained that we have been having development feasibility discussions with Mr.Michael Bradley,an interested developer of the property. As denoted to Mr.Bradley in a meeting held September 19,2002,additional applications were to be filed that would present the development proposal for the subject properties,so that the residential Planned Development and Subdivision approval could be considered together with the Re-zoning Petition. This is our standard practice and is in accord with Planning Commission policy. Also at this meeting on the 31d,you inquired if the property owned by Melvin Nosanchuk(1646 East Kensington) could be absorbed into the re-zone petition filed byyou. Planning Staff and the City Attorneys Office have determined that to do so would require written permission from the property owner,and would also require that the Wasatch Hollow Community Council review the expanded re-zoning request. Planning Staff has tentatively scheduled your re-zoning request petition for the January 22,2003 Planning Commission meeting. A Public Hearing Notice will be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to the Wasatch Community Council Chairperson and all property owners within 450-feet of the subject parcels. A staff report will be prepared by Planning Staff and forwarded to the Planning Commission on Friday,January 17,2003. At this Public Hearing,the Planning Commission will consider your re-zoning request and possibly make a decision on a recommendation to the City Council at which time a second Public Hearing will be scheduled before that body- 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 64111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:B01-535-6174 is Because of your insistence to have the Planning Commission consider your re-zoning request without waiting for a review and consideration of the Planned Development and Subdivision issues (which may be brought forward in the future by others),the City Planning and Legal Staff-will clearly convey to the Planning Commission that any potential re-zoning from Open Space to Residential R-I/5000 will not vest any develop-ability rights upon the subject properties. Similarly, Planning Staff will not accept any development review applications from any party for the subject properties until after the Planning Commission and City Council have considered the re-zoning request and the City Council has made a final decision. Please notify me if you have any further questions regarding the Zoning Amendment process. I can be reached by phone at 801-535-7932 or by e-mail at gregory.mikolash a(?ci.slc.ut.us. Sincerely, Greg Mikolash L Principle Planner Cc: Lynn Pace Doug Wheelwright Brent Wilde David L.Buhler EXHIBIT F E-Mails Of Concern City Response to e-mail Howdy, neighbors— News and update regarding the proposed development on Emigration Creek.... To dale the application has not been completed.._.meaning that there has not been a set of specific plans submitted to the Planning Office. This is largely due to the difficulties with the floodplain issue, although there are other significant problems as well. The Knowhons have asked the Planning Office to separate the rezoning request from the"developability"issues. They continue to contend that the zoning as Open Space was a"mistake"and unintentional and that they didn't know about the rezone and that therefore it should be changed back to residential zoning. This would allow them to complete the sale to Allison Leishman and Michael Bradley (the contract to sell is apparently contingent on getting the zoning changed). They also continue to claim that this represents a;"taking"and that if the zoning is not changed back that they will sue the city. The acting planning director,Brent Wilde, has pretty much caved to these arguments. He has agreed to push forward the request to rezone without regard to any consideration of developability. This is certainly not standard in that usually any rezoning request is inherently tied to plans for the use of the land_ He has also started espousing the line that this may have indeed been a "mistake"_ lie has said that there was no intent to rezone any private property as open space. He states that he has spoken with the city attorney who stated that this may represent a "taking"and that the city would likely lose in court. When asked directly he has said that we may eventually wind up with at least one additional house and possibly more. And that this is"right" in that if there is any potential for development then the city has stolen this from the Knowlton and they have the right to do as they wish with their property. Yikes! Apparently any consideration of the designated "sensitive areas"of the city, the Open Space Master Plan, and community interests and concerns is out the window. If this goes forward as proposed it will be heard by the Planning Commission sometime in January__._.currently a tentative date of Jan 22°1_ It is very unclear at this time how much the process can be influenced. Mr. Wilde appears to be representing the Knowlton interests and very little else. The issues of preferential treatment, "spot zoning"and opening the door to the eventual destruction of the Master Plan are pretty lost on him.. lie does state that any proposed development will still have to go through a rather tough approval process and that issues of developability will be fairly considered. l am trying to set up a discussion with the Open Space Advisory Committee(their next meeting is Wed 12/18 at 5:30pm 31d floor City-County Bldg in the Cannon Room, if anyone wants to attend)to see if they have any knowledge of the Master Plan process in the early 1990's and if they can help..__maybe with a short discussion or presentation to the Planning Commission_ l am also trying to contact members of the Planning Commission from 1992-1995 to see if they have any input regarding"what they knew". At least one former member has indicated that there may have been specific knowledge that private property was being rezoned as Open Space_._.we need to know more. The Sugarhouse Community Council will write a letter of support for us as they are currently struggling with a similar issue.__.homeowners in the Allen Park area are asking for the whole Master Plan to be thrown out because of easements for biking trails on their property...__one argument for us might be that if the Knowltons request to be rezoned and exempted from the Master Plan is granted that this will open the door to what may eventually be the destruction of the Master Plan .h�nmmm So what can we do? First, if you haven't written a letter or an e-mail, these are important. It doesn't have to be much,just a couple of paragraphs identifyingyourself and what your concerns are. I am told that letters are slightly(but only slightly) more weighty than e-mails, but either one is good. I am told that things like traffic, noise, lighting, etc, are less weighty concerns to voice than things like integrity of the Master Plan,the value of the designated "highly sensitive"corridors like Emigration Creek, building housing developments in a riparian area, and "isn't this a floodplain, anyway?' (it is)....not that the more "neighborhood concern" issues aren't important, they are just that the more overall "socially aware"points are more likely to catch the eye and concern of those reading them.... Important folks to write are Dave Buhler (City Council member for Wasatch Hollow), Jill Love (same), Rocky Anderson and Brent Wilde. When you send something to Mr_ Wilde please send a copy to Greg Mikolash. I have attached the e-mail and physical addresses for these folks_ Again, it doesn't have to be a lengthy discussion, 2 or 3 paragraphs will do....but it does mean something. Please take the l5 or 20 minutes to do this if you haven't. Beth Bowman is the chair of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council bbowman@hsc.utah.edu ,ph—582-0708, Lisa Romney is the Environmental Relations coordinator in the mayors office 535-7939, Barry Esham is the Community Affairs liaison in the mayors office barry_esham@ci.slc.ut.us ph—535-7971 It may be important for everyone to note that there is no suggestion that the Knowlton should have to accept anything less than a fair market value for their land. But that there are much better"community oriented"solutions to this. Such as purchase by the Parks Dept (which Mr. Buhler has said he would support), or the purchase of an easement by the city to make up any difference in offered price,or the sale to a private party who would meet the asking price, or contributions by third parties with an interest in keeping areas undeveloped. None of this has been explored. The aim, of course, is to stop any development in this area. But it will be far more palatable and considered if we offer other solutions. Of course,the Knowlton will have to be willing to listen fist..... Rezoning concerns Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:47:39-0600 From: Fox House<fox-hollow@attbi.com> To: bbowman@hsc.utah.edu Dear Ms. Bowman, _ My husband and I live in the Wasatch Hollow Community (1625 Kensington) and are concerned about the current rezoning application at top of our dead-end street, 1665 Kensington. Currently this property contains a single home and a beautiful piece of open space visible from the <?xml:namespace prefix = stl ns= "um:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>Wasatch Hollow City Park. The owners of this property are under contract with a developer contingent upon a zoning change. The developers would like to build 3—5 houses on this open space. As a close neighbor, and a member of this community we have several concerns. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns= "urn:schemas- nwcrosoit-com:oilece:otiice" I> Sewer and storm drain issues— extensive construction will be required to hook the current house and any new developments into the city sewer. This construction will likely destroy a large portion of land with many trees. Emergency vehicle access—major construction will deter any vehicle access to this dead end street,including emergency vehicle access. Snow removal and garbage removal—major construction will also interfere with these activities. Increased traffic—adding 5 additional properties basically doubles the current population of our dead-end street creating an unsafe environment for . the multiple children who live here or visit their grandparents. The increased traffic would also spoil the dead end street environment that was so important • when we purchased our property. Noise disturbances—major construction adjacent to the open space of the Wasatch Hollow City Park will devastate the pristine environment. "Fit"— we are told the estimated size of these houses will be triple or quadruple the size of any house in the neighborhood. These houses will not "fit"into the neighborhood and will certainly be an eyesore in Wasatch Hollow City Park. Environmental Impact— the area to be developed is a recognized flood plain. During a drought,it is easy to underestimate the need for a space in the city for water to flow, however, this is a critical need. Additionally, this sensitive corridor is home to the quail, squirrels, and birds that make Wasatch Hollow park such a beautiful piece of nature within the city. Construction will destroy not only our neighborhood, but will deeply impact the park. We understand this corridor was going to be a bike path connecting parts of the city through the park, this dream is also impossible with development. Destroying Open Space— Open Space within the city is highly valuable, particularly in the environmentally sensitive Emigration Creek corridor. Open space is so highly valued by residents of the city (and the rest of the state) that the Wasatch Front Regional Council is currently developing a long range plan. The Emigration Creek corridor is an essential part of the current open space. We very much appreciate your attention to this matter. We are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact this potential development will cause. We hope that you share our commitment to Open Space within the city and understand the importance of Open Space in Salt Lake City neighborhoods. Sincerely, Erin R.Fox Brian C. Fox 1626 Kensington Ave SLC, 84105 Page 1 of 2 Mikolash, Gregory From: Amy G, (danda@aros.net) Sent; Monday,'January 06, 2003 5:a2 PM To: brent,wiide( ci.slc.ut.us Cc: Suhler, Dave;jill.loveQci.slc,ut.us; Subject: Zoning, Kensington development Mr.Wilde, As you get ready to prepare your staff report to the Planning Commission, we (residents of Kensington, Emerson, and Logan Ave.'s and 1700 East)wanted to comment on what you have expressed to date and offer points to consider in your report. We feel that what you have stated so far has left an important and key element out of your considerations. Your office is charged with representing the city and this (with your fear of a lawsuit)you are doing. You are also charged with protecting individual property rights, and this you certainly are doing. But Brent, perhaps the,most Important aspect of your mission Is to ask the question"what is the long-term community benefit and interest" and to represent this. Nothing that has been heard from you to date seems to address this. We all understand that individual property rights are, quite rightly,one of the bedrocks of our society. But the entire reason your job, the Planning Office and the Planning Commission exist is the understanding that"communal benefit" is the single thing that may impact and supercede individual rights. It's why we have zoning at all. And it's why there was a struggle literally for years to create a Master Plan, What we have not heard you voice to date, is that there is potential here for a neighborhood oriented outcome that is positive. Imagine what use you will That the Open Space Master Plan has meaning and is worth supporting. And that all of the reasons why this was designated as a part of one of the"sensitive corridors"where development should be restricted, and then subsequently zoned as Open Space, are even more important today. As we infill every available nook and cranny of our city (and please note that this Is not some empty corner lot next to an Arby's) the "open space" debate has become, rightfully, one of the "hot button" topics. But if all we are going to do is pay lip service to the principle and to then except every individual objection, the principle itself and the Open Space Master Plan will mean nothing. This implies the difficult task of looking property owners in the eye and saying "yes, we think that bike trails on your land are in the neighborhood interest"and "yes,we think that restricting development in a riparian environment on a city stream next to a city park is a good thing". This should be part of your job. There is concern that what we are headed for is a losing situation for everyone. That the City, the Planning Office and the Planning Commission are going to look for a compromise.This might look something like rezoning only part of the property back to residential and severely restricting what may be built on it, This would make the Knowltons unhappy and might still result in houses being built,which would make the local residents unhappy as well. A classic compromise resulting in a"lose-lose" for everyone. And please, note here, that once houses are built it's over. Done. The community interest is severely diminished or washed away and can never be regained. There is, however, a much more optimistic"win-win"outcome. This would be that a way is found to provide the Knowltons a better than fair market value for their land (it may not be the 995,000$offered by the developer.,.)and still keep it as open space, This might involve a combination of purchase by a private party, purchase of an easement by the city, interest from the City Parks Department(we have spoken to Rick Graham (?sp)who is sounding out the depth of interest on their part and who has stated "obviously, all other things being equal, we would prefer this to remain as it is") and involvement of Utah Open Lands about structuring tax benefits (Wendy Fisher has expressed a willingness to work with this). What we mostly feel Is that the above stated neighborhood and community interests must be represented as being equally, or more, important than the Knowltons "right to whatever development potential exists. And that a fundamental and overarching aspect of your job is to vigorously represent the community in this. We are alarmed that we have heard nothing to date addressing these concerns, And we feel that it is one of, if not the, most basic aspects of your responsibilities. Please 1/8/2003 Page 2 of 2 consider this,talk to your staff and the city and community representatives. Ano'et us know what you intend. And as an aside here,Brent,let's address the"mistake"thing once and for all. This property was included in one of the"sensitive areas"or"highly sensitive corridors" with good reason. And it's not enough to simply talk to Everett Joyce who says he doesn't know and doesn't remember. Please look a little further. We have spoken to Cindy Cromer,"Of course we knew that private property was being rezoned as open space....it was inherent in the process",Ralph Becker,"It is very cifficult for me to believe that this was some kind of zoning mistake"and Judi Short"Seems quite unlikely to be a mistake". And Lisa Romney has stated that the mayors office does not believe that this was a mistake. In writing, We are waiting for replies from Jim McRea and others involved with the Planning Commission at the time,but this is as far as we have gotten....but we will continue to pursue other memories and evidence. But please,at least,talk to Cindy Cromer and others and satisfy yourself that there was knowledge and intent. Look at the successive plat maps drawn from 1992 to 1995 where this property is designated as OS on every one. And maybe look at your own OS map of the Emigration Creek Corridor where there Is a line drawn directly to this property with a comment about the development potential. It was looked at and they knew. And it's time to put the"mistake"thing to bed. For good. Apologize for running on a bit but this is important stuff, And there's g5g more to say and consider. Enough for now,though. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dan Duggleby 486-8842 • 1/R/1(1(11 aoard cases as of 09-07-01 Mikolash,Gregory From: Sonja VanHala(svanhala@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday,October 23,2002 4:18 PM To: gregory.mlkolash@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: rezoning application Dear Gregory: I am writing to express my concern about a proposed property development along Emigration Creek Corridor at 1665 Kensington Avenue, I live in the Wasatch Hollow Communityand value the Open Space designation along Emigration Creek. I understand the owners of the property at 1665 Kensington are applying for rezoning of open space in that region so that they may develop the land,adding a subdivision of 3-5 new homes. I am very opposed to any rezoning of Open Space. We,the people of Salt Lake City,need to protect the natural beauty of our city through appropriate urban development plans that uphold the goals published in the Open Space Plan: *To conserve the natural environment. *To enhance open space amenities for all citizens. "To connect the various parts of the city to natural environments. "To educate the citizens on proper use of open space. (created bythe Open Space Steering Committee and the City Planning Commission and City Council) I live at 1639 East Kensington Avenue,adjacent to the proposed property development. In addition to my strong commitment to Open Space,I also have several concerns regarding how this development would impact the area neighborhood. Traffic is a significant issue,as the proposed development looks to create several large homes,tucked into the gulley, which may only be accessed by one street(the Kensington Avenue "dead-end"). Simple calculations predict an increase in local traffic and noise,creating safety concerns and converting a quiet street into a busy one. I am concerned about light pollution,potential sewer and' storm-drain problems,and garbage and snow removal from this proposed 1 Board cases as of 09.07.O1 subdivision. I also question the wisdom of building structures on a recognized floodplain. I purchased my home in this area because I value the quiet neighborhood and the near-by Wasatch Hollow Park along the Open Space Emigration Creek Corridor,Many persons have commented on what a"gem"the Kensington Avenue Dead-End location represents,and I know many people in the greater Sugarhouse community who regularly use and value the open space along the Emigration Creek Corridor at the Wasatch Hollow Park. I believe rezoning this designated Open Space for development would be almost criminal,and certainly hypocritical,given the published goals of the above-mentioned city groups. I encourage you to oppose the rezoning and development of this Open Space at 1665 Kensington Avenue. Thank you for your consideration and advocacy. Sincerely, Sonja Van Hala,MD 1639 East Kensington Avenue Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 (801)474-3825 Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only$29.95/month! Sign Up Today!www.netzerolongdistance.com Board cases as of 09.07-01 Mikolash, Gregory From: Maggie-Robin-LuAnn [mrl@aros.net] Sent; Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:42 PM To: gregory.mikolash©ci.slc,ut.us Subject; 1665 E Kensington I am writing this email to express my opinion on a proposed zoning change to property located at 1665 E. Kensington Ave in SLC. I own the home at 1643 E Kensington and therefore have some significant conflicts with changing what is currently(and was when I purchased my home) zoned as open space to a residential zoning so that this property can be developed into a subdivision of 3 to 5 new houses. Thank you in advance for entertaining my thoughts on this important matter. Briefly,I am absolutely opposed to rezoning this open space designation along Emigration Creek for a number of reasons. 1, The property was zoned as open space when I purchased my home. I purchased this property in large part because of its location and knowing the intent of the city to limit development in sensitive areas along the Emigration Creek corridor. 2. The addition of a sub-division in this location will greatly and negatively impact the flow of traffic, nosie and light pollution on my street. 3. I am concerned, especially after seeing other new homes int he area (Hubbard, Emerson Streets), about the compatibility of the proposed houses, I have been told directly by the developer that the homes will be in the 6,000-7,000 square foot range, with three car garages and 5-6 bedrooms, on multiple above groud levels and will likely sell for $800,000 to 1,000,000, Obviously, our current neighborhood does not have this type of home, 4, I have been told that the developer is applying for a "gated community". This will drastically change the visual appearance of the street and likely invite further traffic congestion on our small street. 5. The current access into the property is on Kensington, on a narrow driveway. I am concerned how emergency vehicles (fire and ambulance), 1 Board cases as of 09.07.01 and maintainence vehicles (garbage and snow removal) will access the property, Poor access for these vehicles can put my family and my home in danger. 6, I also recognize that the property is a recognized floodplain and am concerned for the environmental impact and cost involved in clean up efforts after significant flood damage. It seems to me that these should be significant concerns to at least all city residents, 7. We live in an old neighborhood with an old sewer. It is not uncommon for us to experience (both each individual house, and the block) sewer problems in the way of tree roots and other blockages. I am concerned with the added stress of these large homes on the existing sewer line. There are several issues relating to this; noisy pumps to elevate the waste from the floodplain level to street level, cost of repair when our street system fails, emergency solutions to pumps failing... 8. I have similar concerns for other public utilities like electric service. Will our current infrastructure tolerate these additional houses? And, if not, who will pay for the repairs when needed? Although these are all important issues, I also want to stress to you my belief in the importance of open space within the city. And in agreement with the city master plan,this seems especially important in the sensitive corridors along Emigration Creek and adjacent to Wasatch Hollow Park. I do believe that individuals have the right to sell their property for a fair price, however; I do not believe that the owners of this particular property have made a significant effort to find a buyer who might also consider the importance of the open space issue. Again thank you for reading this email. I very much appreciate the opportunity to express my opinions. Robin Marcus Homeowner 1643 E Kensington 485.9882 2 Board cases as of 09-07-01 Mikolash, Gregory From: Beth Bowman [bbowman@hsc.utah.edu) Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:26 AM To: Gregory Mikolash Subject: Knowlton property Greg, I have received several more letters from concerned neighbors on and near Kensington about the proposed changes on Emigration Creek. I think it would be best if these letters got to the members of the Planning Commission; however,I was not sure how the city deals with this information if there has not been an officially submitted proposal. What is the status of the proposed development on the Knowlton property? To whom would you suggest I forward these letters? Our next meeting is October 23rd and I know a fair number of people want to have a vote about this property Before this happens I would like to know if Mike Bradley and the property owners have submitted their proposal to the city' Is there a chance that you will attend our next meeting? Thanks for you help. Beth Bowman Chair, Wasatch Hollow Community Council 1 Page l of 1 Mikolash,Gregory From: Amy G.(dandaQaros.netJ • Sent: Wednesday,October 16,2002 2:51 PM To; gregory.mikolash@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: Wheelwright,Doug Subject:floodplain,neutral reports,etc Hi,Greg,just wanted to keep tabs on progress....)sent you a copy of the letter sent to various and sundry,likely too long and you know everything I would say anyway....but there were a couple of things I wanted to get back to you about...,Flrst,what progress on determining whether individual notifications were ever sent to the Involved landowners folks such as Dave Buhler state that this is the point that bothers them most and any chance of support from him and any like-minded individuals may rest on whether it can be shown that the property owners were"adequately"notified....just a piece of the puzzle but might have some importance....second,what determination has been made regarding the floodplain issue...I raise this point inc vidually because it has been pointed out that when Wasatch Hollow Park was created there was a high berm of land placed over the culvert and the true elevation may not be shown on old surveys the allegation that it"would run over 17th south first"is complete bunk....standing on the berm one can look down about 12 to 15 feet at '7th south and looking upstream ifs pretty intuitively obvious that any backup from that point would inundate any proposed dwellings just want to be sure that the folks doing the physical surveys are actually looking at this and not taking measurements off old paper figures.... And finally you had indicated that your office would likely file a neutral report to;he Planning Commission absent any big glaring negative statements from the surveyors or engineers most of us who live here don't quite understand that....the folks I rave talked with feel like this is a little bit of betrayal:...what I mean by that is that even with the well enumerated problems(sewer,floodplain,traffic,access for emergency',chides,etc,etc....)and even if you felt that there was nothing that was a dealbreaker there is still the issue of Open Space zoning itself....your office and the Planning Commission were integral in the creation of the Open Space Master Plan and I feel like you have an obligation to defend this.,.,all the reasons it was done in the first place are even more important today....so stand up for'what you fought for from 1992 to 1995 and recommend that it be kept as Open Space I'll try to call you in the next few days Dan • • • t?iannm. Wasatch Hollow Community Council Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 06:50:14 -0600 From: "A.B. Johnson" <AlanJ@questar.com> To: bbowman@hsc.utah.edu Ms. Bowman, - - _. We are residence on Kensington Ave - I559 E. to be exact. We are concerned about the proposed development at 1665 E. Kensington. We obtained some information from Mr.Dugleby and are concerned about the impact to our neighborhood. We will not be able to attend your meeting tonight, but would like to express our objection to a major development on the 1665 E. property. We understand that it has sold, understand the new owners have the rights to do what is allowed under the law with their property, but also understand there are questions about exactly what they can do with the property. We are not sure what you will be voting on tonight,but would like to become involved. Our concerns would be the same as the other neighbors at the end of the street, impact to sewer and storm drain, street and emergency vehicle access,garbage and snow removal, traffic and noise disturbances,etc., etc. Again,sorry we will not be able to attend tonight,but will make our selves available for future meetings with the neighbors. We appreciate your taking the time to hear our concerns. AB &JoAnn Johnson 1559 E. Kensington Ave. 801-486-3004 Subject: Please do not rezone open space Date: Fri,01 Nov 2002 23:30:50-0700 From: The Di Bellas<dedibella@attbi.com> To: bbowman@hsc.utah.edu, doug.wheelwright@ci.slc.ut.us,barry.esham@ci.slc.ut.us To whom it may concern, I am writing to share my thoughts in regard to a proposal to rezone Open Space designated areas at 1665 Kensington,SLC 84108. I Jive at 1741 E. Logan Ave.,three houses East of the Wasatch Hollow gully which abuts the space at issue. My daughters(ages I and 4)and I frequently walk down to Emigration creek in the gully and delight in exploring the wooded area along the creek. It is amazing that in such a developed area near downtown there remains these woods and open space. We highly value this area and its lack of development. I would like to think that in a highly urban environment,progress means more open space,not less.That once an area is zoned as open space, great pains are taken to keep it that way. I do not know the impact that development of the property at issue would have. 1 do not believe it would reduce the amount of space we currently have access to along the creek. I do imagine though that houses would be built that would overlook the area and that our explorations would no longer seem so isolated or novel. Sincerely, Edward and Deanna Di Bella 1741 Logan Ave. Salt Lake City,UT 84108 1655 E. Kensington Proposed development Page 1 of 1 Mikoiash, Gregory From: Jennifer Kleinman [jklein@parkcity.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:24 PM To: 'Gregory.mikolash©ci.slc.ut.us' Subject: 1655 E, Kensington Proposed development As a concerned neighbor I wanted to voice my concern that this new development NOT be allowed to proceed on 1655 Kensington. I live on 1607 So. 2200 E. and do not want to lose any more of the green open space that is in our neighborhood. Thank you. Jennifer Kleinman 12/18/2002 Board cases as of 09.07.01 Mikolash, Gregory From: Diane Elkins [codelkin@ihc.com] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:45 AM To; brent.wilde@ci.slc.ut.us; gregory.mikolash@ci,slc,ut.us Subject: PETITION #400.02.35 rezoning from OS to Single Family Residential I reside at 1445 E. Harvard, but also own a home at 1626 E. Emerson. • The subject of this e-mail is a proposed rezoning of property at 1665 East Kensington (street adjacent to Emerson) from Open Space to Single-Family Residential. I am adamantly opposed to this proposal. The property is located near Emigration Creek. Please deny this request. This is a highly sensitive environmental area and home to wildlife, MAINTAINING GREEN SPACE for the benefit of the entire community is essential.. Once we give it up, we can't get it back. Green space is what makes cities great. Diane Elkins 442-3502 (work) 582-8826 (home) • Wilde, Brent From: Denimbird@aol.com Sent: Sunday,January 12,2003 9:57 AM To: Brent.wikie@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: gregory_mikolash aeci.stc.ut_us Subject: Rezoning of property on Emigration Creek near Kensington Avenue Dear Mr.Wilde, Hello-My name is David Thompson-I live at 1638 East Kensington Avenue and have been a resident and homeowner here for 13 years. I am writing concerning the issue of re-zoning the Knowlton property at the top of our street. I am deeply concerned about this area being rezoned and do not believe that the original zoning was a "mistake"... my understanding is that the original zoning went through a lengthy process as part of the Master Plan for the city. The Knowlton and the rest of the residents in this area have enjoyed the open space/green space area for several years. - . There are very few areas left in our rapidly growing city such as this part of Emigration Creek and I believe that such highly sensitive areas should continue to be preserved for the benefit of all city residents now and for the future. This"wild"open space in the heart of Sugarhouse provides habitat for many birds and other wildlife that otherwise would not be available. Riparian areas are extremely rare in Utah and even more so in our city. Once this open space is lost to development it is gone forever. I know that every winter a small herd of deer utilize the area and otherwise would be roaming busy streets and residential areas. As a bird watcher,I have seen far more species of birds in this neighborhood than many of my friends(also birdwatchers)who live only a few blocks away. If anything can be done to preserve the zoning as is, I would encourage your support in that direction. Once the Master Plan starts being violated in one area, I believe the City will have started a precedent that could eventually lead to losing all such open space. I appreciate your consideration and concern with this matter. Sincerely, Dave Thompson 1638 East Kensington Avenue Salt Lake City,UT 84105 (801)486-8017 denimbird@aol.com 1/12/2003 Mikolash,Gregory From: Tim and Lori Komlos lllkomlos@uofu.netj Sent: Tuesday,January 14,2003 9:49 AM To: Gregory.Mikolash@ci.slc.utus Cc: Mayor@cislc.ut.us;Dave.Buhler@ci.slc.utus;Jill.love@cislc.ut.us Subject:Wasatch Hollow Rezoning Opposition Dear Sirs: We are opposed to rezoning land adjacent to Wasatch Hollow Park from open space to residential for several reasons. Primarily,it would spell destruction of an important part of the Emigration riparian corridor. From our house,we look out over the land in question,and our life at home would be forever impaired by the noise,light, and au pollution that would rise from additional homes in the narrow hollow. Any development in the hollow would be in the floodplain. Since their sewage would be pumped out from equipment in an underground vault,it would expose everyone downstream to their wastes if any part of the machinery should fail. hi years of drought,this may not be a problem,but we need to plan ahead for high-water years. The City planners showed vision and foresight in designating this area as open space. Salt Lake City can continue to reap the benefit of having open lands that reach into the city. Instead of paving over these natural areas,we should expand and enhance them for the enjoyment of our citizens and visitors,whether human or wildlife. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Tim&Lori Komlos 1664 Emerson Salt I ake City.Ptah • 1/14/2003 Received October 16,2002 Dear Beth, My name is Jill Alger-James, I live on 1769 Logan Ave_ I met you at the City County Bldg. a few weeks ago, when meeting with the Planners, the utlilities gentleman,the contractor and concerned neighbors. I understand you are having a meeting on Oct. 23 and you are going to take a vote about the proposed housing development in the gully. I was wondering ill could tell you right now how much against it I am and if you could count my vote today. I can't make it next week, but I sure do want my voice and vote to count if needed. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to get rid of this proposal. Thanks for all your time and effort. Jill Alger-James P.S.Dan,from Kensington brought over some information about all of this and a list of e-mails of who we should be contacting. It is very good and very helpful.I will be passing it around to all those I think could be helpful. Wilde, Brent From: Amy G. [danda@aros.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 27,2002 11:22 AM To: brent.wilde@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Knowlton property, etc.... Mr. Wilde, my name is Dan Duggleby and I met you at the Yalecrest Community meeting last evening. In discussion you made a statement that I would like to provide some information about. You said that you were looking into the process of rezoning that took place in the early 1990's but that so far it seemed that there was no intent to rezone private parcels such as the Knowlions as"open space". And that it may indeed have been a" mistake". I have spent some time and research talking to people involved with the conceptualization of the Open Space Master Plan and one person who sat on the planning commission when the rezone occurred. They are all unanimous and pretty clear. The Knowlton property was not rezoned as open space by mistake. There is very clear mention of the so-called"sensitive areas"or"sensitive corridors"in the Master Plan and very specifically mentioned is the Emigration Creek corridor. And very specifically mentioned in that context is the area along Emigration Creek and adjacent to the (then) future Wasatch Hollow Park. There is even a figure with an arrow pointing to the area and noting"the developability of these properties is, at best,questionable", or words to that effect....I may not remember the quote exactly. The Master Plan rezone included a number of private properties and comment was received from some of the owners....witness the Beck Street mining properties that were vigorously protested. Any one with a water meter received notifications of the rezone and the Knowlton received two,as near as can be ascertained presently. If the issue of knowledge is to be the defining principle 7 years later, I would suggest to you that the can of worms you are opening would be potentially immense. I can just picture a mailing to everyone rezoned in 1995 stating "Want your property rezoned to residential? Just ask...the Planning Office and the Planning Commission are currently setting a precedent.." Anyway,the salient points are that this property was included quite specifically and with intent....no"mistake". And the reasons why it was considered as open space are even more important today. And the floodplain issue. And the resultant sewer issue. And that is not to mention the community concerns of traffic,noise, light, emergency vehicle access, runoff and incompatibility with surrounding homes. In short,the developability is marginal, at best....just as noted 10 years ago in the Master Plan proposal. You indicated that I should call you first of next week,which I wilt do. I,and the other residents in the area,very much appreciate your time and attention. Thank you.....Dan Duggleby 1/17/2003 Wilde, Brent From: Amy G. [danda@aros.net) Sent: Monday,January 06,2003 5:42 PM To: brent.witde@ci.stc.ut.us Cc: Buhler,Dave;jill.iove@ci.stc.ut.us;gregory.mikolash@ci.stc.ut.us Subject: Zoning, Kensington development Mr.Wilde, As you get ready to prepare your staff report to the Planning Commission,we(residents of Kensington, Emerson,and Logan Ave.'s and 1700 East)wanted to comment on what you have expressed to date and offer points to consider in your report. We feel that what you have stated so far has left an important and key element out of your considerations. Your office is charged with representing the city and this(with your fear of a lawsuit)you are doing. You are also charged with protecting individual property rights, and this you-certainly are doing. But Brent, perhaps the most important aspect of your mission is to ask the question"what is the long-term community benefit and interest"and to represent this. Nothing that has been heard from you to date seems to address this. We all understand that individual property rights are,quite rightly, one of the bedrocks of our society. But the entire reason your job,the Planning Office and the Planning Commission exist is the understanding that "communal benefit"is the single thing that may impact and supercede individual rights. It's why we have zoning at all. And it's why there was a struggle literally for years to create a Master Plan. What we have not heard you voice to date, is that there is potential here for a neighborhood oriented outcome that is positive. Imagine what use you will That the Open Space Master Plan has meaning and is worth supporting. And that all of the reasons why this was designated as a part of one of the"sensitive corridors"where development should be restricted, and then subsequently zoned as Open Space, are even more important today. As we infill every available nook and cranny of our city (and please note that this is not some empty corner lot next to an Arby's)the"open space"debate has become, rightfully,one of the"hot button"topics. But if all we are going to do is pay lip service to the principle and to then except every individual objection,the principle itself and the Open Space Master Plan will mean nothing. This implies the difficult task of looking property owners in the eye and saying"yes,we think that bike trails on your land are in the neighborhood interest"and"yes,we think that restricting development in a riparian environment on a city stream next to a city park is a good thing". This should be part of your job. There is concern that what we are headed for is a losing situation for everyone. That the City,the Planning Office and the Planning Commission are going to look for a compromise.This might look something like rezoning only part of the property back to residential and severely restricting what may be built on it. This would make the Knowlton unhappy and might still result in houses being built,which would make the local residents unhappy as well. A classic compromise resulting in a"lose-lose"for everyone. And please, note here,that once houses are built It's over. Done. The community interest is severely diminished or washed away and can never be regained. There is, however,a much more optimistic"win-win"outcome. This would be that a way is found to provide the Knowlton a better than fair market value for their land(it may not be the 995,000$offered by the developer...) and still keep it as open space. This might involve a combination of purchase by a private party, purchase of an easement by the city,interest from the City Parks Department(we have spoken to Rick Graham(?sp)who is sounding out the depth of interest on their part and who has stated"obviously,all other things being equal,we would prefer this to remain as It is") and involvement of Utah Open Lands about structuring tax benefits (Wendy Fisher has expressed a willingness to work with this). What we mostly feet is that the above stated neighborhood and community interests must be represented as 1/17/2003 being equally, or more,important than the Knowttons"right to whatever development potential exists. And that a fundamental and overarching aspect of your job is to vigorously represent the community in this. We are alarmed that we have heard nothing to date addressing these concerns_ And we feel that it is one of,if not the, most basic aspects of your responsibilities. Please consider this,talk to your staff and the city and community representatives. And let us know what you intend. And as an aside here, Brent, let's address the"mistake"thing once and for all. This property was included in one of the"sensitive areas"or"highly sensitive corridors"with good reason. And it's not enough to simply talk to Everett Joyce who says he doesn't know and doesn't remember. Please look a little further. We have spoken to Cindy Cromer,"Of course we knew that private property was being rezoned as open space....it was inherent in the process", Ralph Becker, "It is very difficult for me to believe that this was some kind of zoning mistake" and Judi Short"Seems quite unlikely to be a mistake". And Lisa Romney has stated that the mayors office does not believe that this was a mistake. In writing. We are waiting for replies from Jim McRea and others involved with the Planning Commission at the time, but this is as far as we have gotten....but we will continue to pursue other memories and evidence. But please, at least,talk to Cindy Cromer and others and satisfy yourself that there was knowledge and intent. Look at the successive plat maps drawn from 1992 to 1995 where this property is designated as OS on every one. And maybe look at your own OS map of the Emigration Creek Corridor where there is a line drawn directly to this property with a comment about the development potential. It was looked at and they knew. And it's time to put the "mistake"thing to beds For good. Apologize for running on a bit but this is important stuff. And there's lots more to say and consider. Enough for now,though. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dan Duggleby 486-8842 1/17/2003 CITY RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS E-MAIL Wilde, Brent From: Wilde, Brent Sent: Thursday,January 09,2003 3:29 PM To: 'Amy G.'; Wikie, Brent Cc: Buhler, Dave; Love,Jill;Mikolash,Gregory; Pace, Lynn;Wheelwright, Doug Subject: RE: Zoning, Kensington development Categories: Program/Policy Mr. Duggleby I respect your concerns regarding the protection of open space in your neighborhood and I understand your desire to pursue solutions to maintain the Knowlton property as open space_ In response to your comments, it would be inappropriate for Planning staff to participate in any discussions or activities directed toward the acquisition or preservation of the Knowlton property for open space when we also have a petition for rezoning before us to change the Open Space zoning on the same property_ in your a-mail below,you identify others that you have contacted as the means of pursuing an open space option, and it is certainly your right to pursue all possible options, but we in Planning cannot participate in that process. The legal standard for zoning during the zoning rewrite process in 1995 was as it is now. The City does not zone privately owned property Open Space unless there is credible information that the property is not developable. There are a variety of opinions as to whether this Open Space zoning was a mistake. We have not seen any documentation or information from the 1995 Zoning Rewrite process confirming that this property is not developable and staff members involved in preparing the maps in 1995 were generally not doing any developability analysis to the extent necessary to make a conclusive determination. The real issue, however, is not whether the zoning in 1995 was appropriate but rather, an analysis of whether or not the property is developable (including a consideration of all the relevant site specific factors and whether or not there is justification to keep the property zoned as Open Space). The Planning and Public Utilities staffs are currently going through the process of assessing the developability of these properties. Ultimately,the answer to the question of whether or not the Open Space zoning was a mistake, is whether or not the property is developable. If you are aware of any technical data regarding the developability of this property, beyond information that the City staff members are reviewing, we would like to receive it so that it can be evaluated as part of the staff report. Again, I understand your concerns, and I assure you that the Planning Division is not advocating the development of this property on behalf of the Knowltons. We are simply following the applicable regulations and processes in response to the petition before us. Respectfully, Brent Wilde 535-6180 [Wilde, Brent) Original Message---- From: Amy G. [mailto:danda@aros.netj Sent: Monday,January 06, 2003 5:42 PM To: brent.wilde@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: Buhler, Dave;jill.love@cisic.ut.us; gregory.mikolash@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Zoning, Kensington development 1/17/2003 APPLICATION AND FILING FEE RECEIPT n : a,,� FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - 14 l rl h I. 9 ma's 1 C' i^ Petition No == ., ZoningAmendment .� t i` Receipt No. Amount$ - tji :Li:+I , -_ h7= ki Date Received = 4 '••C ,` Reviewed by 144.-' Date 0 710-3 fc; a �# �:';,1 Phone �/�Sy� 1 �/ U Name of Applicant0.�_ ..) r, . Address of Applicant )to&5 !\ OS; Oa-i- ?-, A u .J 1-ci. O# 1/O\1 :' ,,", E-mail address of Applicant k'C K' t _tom c -Ts�0 J3tttr�oyne,Lett/Fax Applicant's Inc i , / ,. Appt hest n Subject Property . }}2 `t bc"ty i` t� F e t,'i c a- c -Si ri 16 Z Name of Property Owner-J 6S S,K"rl i)r_t cv\ Phone <)8'3-- /.14 Addre s of Subject Property16 to C � L'i�s iv; 1�;,N Aoe si- Q- �,rt- ��`t I cam_ .-- .Z County Tax Parcel#(Sidvretl#) 16-i(;-3 "p o i1 Zoning of Property t p-Q r\S Q"e fie, Existing Use of.Property it- t•r L 5-1 C°S.,, k ` e t'\ t C>� z ❑Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: ; _ a Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: ,f,-/ - ...5-D -coy /L-!to--=:2\5 1 -6 C i___ From a 4 i r`Spct�n dassiflcation to a / 70 classification. Please include with the application: t<. y: 1.A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the _. exact language, boundaries and zoning district. .- - 2.A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. : 3. Reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. `X.1 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred(300)feet of the subject parcel- _ exclusive of lstreets and alleys. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or dearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council that First class postage for each address is due at time of application. - ` 5.Legal description of the property. --) 6.Six(6)c of site plans drawn to scale(where applicable). 7. A signed that that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community '..` .- Council. `•` 7.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator - 8.Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre,due at time of application. �,. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of :: - the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. --, Sidwell mapslnd names of property owners are available at: Salt Late County Recorder NI 2001 SOcrth State Street, Room N1600 --_, Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 G i; Telephone:(801)468-3391 l' File the complete application at: "t - Salt Lake City Planning 451 Soidi State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7- f _1 _: _ Signature of Applicant T/ &c,-,- -"- 1t c Cc 110 r--. - or authorized agent Tale of agent OPEN Salt Lake CityCorporation n l� invoice#: 062004448 L� CED Planning Division Date: 12/5/2002 =Q _ ► 451 South State Rm 406 :t r r' tri Salt Lake City UT 84111 rn yi nt ,�"I'" ,,�'� 801-535-7757 ,h N\N\\ Received From: Prepared by: Joseph Knowlton Lucille Taylor 1665 Kensington Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84105 485-1514 Description No C. Center Object ProjectActivity Amount Zoning Amendment for the property located at 1665 Kensington Avenue from 1 0600100 125111 - - $500.00 Open Space to R-1 5,000 TOTAL AMOUNT $500.00 PAYMENT TYPE CHECK • http://slcnet/web apps/apps/cashonline%olcarp receipt view.asp?rec key=10402&user id__. 12/5/2002 00 HOLLAND & HART LLP 11S9 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Cp& 3 DENVER•ASPEN SUITE 2000 TELEPHONE(801) 595-7800 BOULDER•COLORADO SPRINGS 60 E.SOUTH TEMPLE FACSIMILE(801)364-9124 DENVER TECH CENTER SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111-1031 BILLINGS•BOISE David K. Broadbent CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE (801) 595-7806 SALT LAKE CITY•SANTA FE (801) 364-9124 Fax WASHINGTON,D.C. dbroadbent@hollandhart.com 47037.0001 October 15, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Jan Aramaki Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Joseph and Kathy Knowlton - 1665 Kensington Avenue Zoning Application No. 400-02-35 Dear Ms. Aramaki: Enclosed please find eight copies of the Memorandum in Support of Zoning Application No. 400-02-35. Each copy is labeled for distribution. I would appreciate your help in getting the memorandums distributed properly. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, David K. Broadbent of Holland & Hart LLP DKB:ls Enclosures cc: Lynn Pace, Esq. (w/enclosure) Joseph S. Knowlton (w/enclosure) 3144305_I.DOC David K. Broadbent Holland & Hart LLP 60 East South Temple, Suite 2000 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 595-7800 Attorneys for Joseph S. and Kathy Knowlton MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ZONING APPLICATION No. 400-02-35 INTRODUCTION As a part of its 1995 general rezoning efforts, Salt Lake City erroneously rezoned a portion of the property owned by Joseph and Kathy Knowlton at 1665 Kensington Avenue as open space. The change was made without notice to the Knowltons and without any study by the City to support the down zoning of the Knowlton's property. When the Knowltons first discovered the error and brought it to the City's attention, they were told that the error could be corrected by administrative action. The City later informed them that a request for zoning change was required. They have, accordingly, requested the City to return the zoning classification of their property to the R-2 zoning that was in effect before the property was rezoned OS. BACKGROUND In 1995, Salt Lake City undertook a massive rezoning effort. As a result of that activity, a significant portion of the Knowlton's property was rezoned from its then R-5000 classification to an open space, or "OS" classification. 1. The City did not notify the Knowltons that the zoning for a substantial portion of their property was being changed to a classification that would prevent its residential use. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 17. 2. The Knowltons only learned of the rezoning in 2002, when a potential purchaser of the property obtained zoning information from the City and informed the Knowltons that their property had been rezoned in 1995. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 2. 3. Upon learning of the new OS classification, Joseph Knowlton contacted his City Council representative, David Buhler, and was contacted in turn by Scott Barraclough of the Mayor's office. Mr. Barraclough told Mr. Knowlton that the OS zoning was a mistake which the City would correct. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 4. 4. Joseph Knowlton also spoke with Mr. Douglas Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, regarding the OS classification. Mr. Wheelwright at first acknowledged that the zoning was a mistake and that the zoning line would be adjusted to exclude the Knowltons' property. However, when discussions turned to whether or not the land could be developed, Mr. Wheelwright informed Mr. Knowlton that in his opinion the property was not developable, and that the OS zoning should remain. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 4, and Wheelwright letter dated May 15, 2001, attached to the Knowlton Affidavit as Exhibit A. 5. Mr. Wheelwright informed the Knowltons that the change in zoning to an OS classification was the result of a mistaken belief regarding the ownership and use of the Knowlton property. Wasatch Hollow Park is located 2 immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Knowlton property. A neighbor's property located adjacent to the Knowlton property and adjacent to the Wasatch Hollow Park was also rezoned OS, even though the property was and is improved with a residence. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 5. See also the City's 1995 Draft Rezone Map, included in the Planning Commission's Council Transmittal. 6. The City made the zoning change to OS without making any study of the Knowlton property and without considering factors that would affect the possible development of the Knowlton property in the future. See Letters from Brent Wilde dated December 23, 2002 and January 9, 2003, attached to Knowlton Affidavit as Exhibits B and C. 7. The OS zoning classification precludes use of the Knowlton property for residential purposes, which is the overwhelmingly predominant use of the surrounding neighborhood. Salt Lake City Ordinances § 21A.21.140. DISCUSSION Salt Lake City has not historically rezoned private property as open space, which effectively prevents any economic use, in the absence of specific findings that the property is undevelopable. Such a rezoning would not only be patently unfair to property owners in Salt Lake City, but would also constitute a "taking" under the Utah and U.S. Constitutions, for which compensation would be required. As stated in paragraph 7, above, however, no such study was performed in connection with the rezoning of the Knowltons' property. Had a study been performed, the City would have learned that the property was 3 privately owned and that it was not "undevelopable." In his letter to Ms. Lisa Monson dated December 23, 2002, Deputy Planning Director Brent B. Wilde, explained that "The only justification for zoning private property 'Open Space,' thus eliminating most private development rights, would have been to have technical documentation that this property is not developable." He further stated, "I have discussed this issue with staff and we are not aware of any technical documentation that was considered in the 1995 process showing that this property was not developable."1 See Wilde letter, attached to Knowlton Affidavit as Exhibit B. The reason for the lack of study is obvious: At the time the rezoning was accomplished, no one at the City appears to have been aware that they were rezoning private property. Notably, two residential lots adjacent to the Knowlton property, one with a house located on it, were also rezoned as open space at the time the Knowlton's property was rezoned. This property is located directly south of lots 1 through 5, Block 1, University Heights, Second Addition, and is still zoned OS. The Knowlton property and the other residential property that was rezoned OS is shown on the City's Draft Rezone Map, attached hereto behind Tab 2. When the Knowltons first contacted the City following discovery that their property had been rezoned as open space, they were informed that the 1 Mr. Wilde's January 23, 2003 letter to a Mr. Duggleby further acknowledges, "We have not seen any documentation or information from the 1995 Zoning Rewrite process confirming that this property is not developable and staff members involved in preparing the maps in 1995 were generally not doing any developability analysis to the extent necessary to make a conclusive determination." Mr. Wilde's letter is attached as Exhibit C to the Knowlton Affidavit. 4 rezoning of their private property to open space was a mistake or "probably a mistake." Only recently, when justification for maintaining the property as open space has been sought, has anyone suggested that it was not a mistake. THE KNOWLTONS ARE ENTITLED TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF THEIR PROPERTY The City's own staff report acknowledges that the Knowltons are entitled to residential zoning of their property unless their property is determined to be undevelopable. See January 22, 2003 Staff Report, page 5. We address the issue of development because it has been raised by the City in the context of the Knowltons' request that the City correct the previous zoning error. The Knowltons do not seek approval of any development of their property at this time. Development of their property, if it occurs at all, will be by subsequent owners and not the Knowltons. Some members of the City planning staff have raised the specter of the FEMA 100-year floodplain in an effort to justify the current OS zoning. The Knowlton property borders Emigration Creek. However, as discussed below, the Knowlton property may not be located within the 100- year floodplain. The entire floodplain issue appears to be merely a red herring, and ignores the City's own ordinances with regard to floodplain issues. The City's floodplain ordinances, found in Chapter 18.68 of the Salt Lake City Code, state, "It is not the intent to use [the floodplain hazard regulation ordinance] to prohibit development or construction ... but to ensure, as far as practicable, that development and structures are designed to be free from exposure to flooding or be floodproofed to mitigate danger and/or damage from flooding." Id at §18.68.010. Specifically, the regulations then deal with development and 5 construction standards. For example, section 18-68-100 of the Salt Lake City Code provides that "all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within the flood plain hazard area shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood elevation." This is certainly not an outright prohibition that makes development impossible. The City's own Emigration Creek Corridor Open Space Plan, included with the Planning Commission's Council Transmittal, addresses development along Emigration Creek, and states that development "may be difficult but is possible." Mr. Brad Stewart, the City's own engineer, acknowledges that construction can occur on the Knowlton property. In addition, two architects and developers testified at the public hearing that the property can be developed even if a substantial portion thereof is located within the flood plain. See Knowlton Affidavit, paragraph 13, and Exhibit F thereto (Minutes of Public Hearing). The entire floodplain issue may prove to be totally irrelevant, inasmuch as the Knowlton property is not properly located within a 100-year floodplain area. The current maps place a portion of the Knowlton property within the 100-year floodplain, as shown on the maps attached to the City's staff report. However, engineers who have studied the actual creek flow indicate that the actual floodplain is actually located in the channel for Emigration Creek, and not on the Knowlton property. See Great Basin Engineering letter dated January 21, 2003, attached to Knowlton Affidavit as Exhibit E, and the Great Basin Engineering letter dated June 23, 2003, a copy of which is attached behind Tab 3. The 6 Knowltons and others familiar with the property support this conclusion. See Knowlton Affidavit, Para. 10, and Wootton letter attached thereto as Exhibit D. Floodplain, access and other issues raised by the planning staff will have to be taken into account in connection with any future development of the property. They are, however, not relevant to the application at hand. The appropriate determination of the actual flood plain elevation may have to be resolved by a detailed flood plain study made in connection with any proposed development. It would be unfair to require the Knowltons to expend their funds to amend the floodplain map at this time. Such an amendment, if appropriate at all, should be obtained in connection with a future development application, and not this zoning issue. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE WAS DEFECTIVE The Knowltons received no notice that their property was being considered for a zoning change. The only notice even arguably given to the Knowltons in 1995 was the general mailer used by the City as a part of its overall rezoning efforts.2 The Knowltons were given no opportunity to defend their then current zoning, or even point out to the City that the land the City was considering rezoning as open space was privately owned. Notably, the City's current notice requirements provide that notice must be given by mail to the property owner and all owners with 300 feet of the affected property. See Salt Lake City Ordinances 2 Mr. Greg Mikolash, of the City Planner's office, stated at the public hearing on this matter, "In 1995, the only notification required was through the newspaper." See Minutes of Public Hearing, page 1, a copy of which is included with the Council Transmittal. 7 § 21A.10.020(D)(2). Arguably, this was adopted to overcome the due process defects of the City's prior approach. The failure to notify the Knowltons and give them an effective means to protect their property rights constitutes a violation of their due process rights guaranteed under the United States and Utah Constitutions. The Utah Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Tolman v. Salt Lake County, 437 P.2d 442 (Utah 1968). It found that a posting of a proposed zoning change regarding specific property was constitutionally defective and violated the due process rights of adjacent landowners who should have been given actual notice of a proposed change and an opportunity to be heard. The Utah court cited the United States Supreme Court's seminal holding in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, 339 U.S. 306 (1950): The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. ... An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. ... A notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information and it must afford reasonable time to those interested to make their appearance. Id. at 314. Upon reviewing the County's notice attempts, the Utah Court stated: "We do not believe this simple, understandable and fundamentally sound expression of constitutional perquisites was followed in the instant case." Tolman was favorably cited by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Carter v. City of Salina, 773 F.2d 251 (10th Cir. 1985). As happened with the Knowltons, the property owners in Carter discovered a 1973 zoning change only when they tried to sell their property in 1981. The city of Salina had adopted a zoning ordinance which 8 rezoned the entire city. The 10th Circuit held that the city's failure to provide adequate notice to the plaintiffs of the proposed zoning change rendered the change void, even though the ordinance had been "`on the books' and in effect for a long period of time." Id at 254. In this instance, the City's general mailer, which provided no notice that the Knowlton's property would be rezoned as open space, failed to meet the standards outlined in Tolman, Central Hanover Bank and Carter. CONCLUSION The City should approve the Zoning change requested by Mr. and Mrs. Knowlton. The zoning to open space was done in error and without necessary notice to the Knowltons and is without justification. Concerns about floodplain issues have been raised simply to justify the error. To the extent the concerns have any actual bearing on the property, the owners will deal with them in connection with any further development of the property, should that ever occur. The Knowltons acknowledge that any future development will have to be done in accordance with the City's development requirements then in effect. Dated this 15th day of October, 2003 ear— David K. Broadbent Holland & Hart LLP 3142734_1.DOC 9 Affidavit of Joseph S. Knowlton Comes now Joseph S. Knowlton, having been first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 1. On April 24, 2002, my wife and I entered into a real estate purchase agreement to sell our property located at 1665 Kennsington Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. The buyer of the property notified us in the later part of April, 2002 that the southern part of our property was zoned open space. 3. I had received about that same time a postcard notice that David Buhler was our City Council member and that if I had any problem with the City, I should call him. I called him to discuss the zoning matter. 4. On or about the 2nd of May, 2002, my wife received a phone call from the Mayor's office, a Mr. Scott Barraclough, informing us that the zoning was done in error and that the City would correct the zoning error. He informed us that we should call Mr. Douglas Wheelwright at the City Planning Office and if there was any problem from Mr. Wheelwright I should call Mr. Barraclough back and he would straighten it out. 5. When I called Mr. Wheelwright, he told me that the zoning was a mistake. He said that the City Planning Staff had assumed that our property and the neighboring property west of us was part of the City's Wasatch Hollow Park, and not private property. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that the City would correct the zoning by way of a line designation change. I asked him how they could move the line. He told me that they had to make several corrections after the 1995 re-write and they had moved the lines to make these corrections. Mr. Wheelwright then informed me that even if the City corrected the zoning, the property would still be undevelopable. When I disagreed with his assessment regarding my development of the property, he stated if that was my attitude, they wouldn't make the zoning correction. I then called Mr. Barraclough's office to tell him of Mr. Wheelwright's position. He was not in and never returned my call. 6. Later, in the middle of May, I received Mr. Wheelwright's letter, attached as Exhibit A. We then prepared and presented our petition to change the zoning to restore the residential classification. I have since talked to several attorneys who have informed me that downzoning residential property from residential zoning to open space zoning, with or without notice, amounts to a taking under the United States and the Utah Constitutions. 7. Later in a meeting with acting Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Mr. Wilde informed me that the downzoning of the property was probably a mistake and the planning department would probably support the restoring of the residential zoning. He confirmed this to me several times in later phone conversations. 8. Mr. Wilde has, in several communications with our neighbors, stated that the City does not downzone property to open space without substantial technical documentation to support the open space classification and that in the case of our property, there was no documentation to support the downzoning prior to or during the 1995 re-zoning process. See attached Exhibits B and C. 9. The planning staff now attempts to justify the rezoning to an open space classification by claiming that the property is in the 100 year flood plain. 10. I have personal knowledge that the 100 year flood plain does not come anywhere near the lowest part of our property, having observed the 100 year flood in 1982 and having intimate knowledge of the stream as it flows through and around our property for the past approximately 50 years, 40 of which I have lived there. Other residents owning the property prior to us further confirm this. See attached Exhibit D. 11. The buyer of our property, referred to in paragraph 2, was to undertake a hydraulic study of the flood plain by the firm of Great Basin Engineering — South. When the buyer was informed that this process would cost about $14,000, she backed out of this commitment and wanted me to fund it. This I refused to do to correct the City's mistake. 12. In discussing the issues with Mr. Kirk Randall of the Great Basin Engineering Firm, I asked him if he would calculate what the 100 year flood plain would be through the narrowest choke point of Emigration Creek along our property. His calculations are stated in his letter dated January 21, 2003, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E. It is abundantly clear that the 100 year flood plain calculation that is used for the current FEMA Flood Plain map is faulty and needs correcting. However, I should not have to correct it in order to correct the zoning mistakes the City made in 1995 when it assumed my property was part of Wasatch Hollow Park. 13. Whether or not the FEMA map remains as currently established, our property can be developed. Two experts in development and site planning, both of whom are . architects, explained to the Planning Commission that the property could be developed. See page 5 of Planning Commission minutes, attached as Exhibit F. 14. The City planning staff has made no effort to refute these statements. In fact their own engineer, Mr. Brad Stewart, states in his reply to Mr. Jonas' question in the Planning Council meeting, (he wanted to know if someone could build a new residential structure above the 100 year flood plain), Mr. Stewart replied that they could if the habitable floor is at or above that elevation. See page 2 of Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit G. 15. My wife and I are not the developers of this property and have never intended to develop it. We are selling it without any intention of developing it. The City held our application to restore zoning in limbo, waiting for us to submit development plans. When we informed them we were not the developers, they then agreed to process our application with the understanding that any future developers would have to meet whatever development requirements the City has. 16. The City Planning Staff admits that if this property can be developed residentially, the open space zoning is a taking. They submit no evidence that the property it cannot be developed. Their premise to begin with is, "We made a mistake, but it appears to be a good mistake, so let's keep it that way". In our opinion, that amounts to a taking. 17. At no time were my wife and I aware of the zoning change to open space until it was brought to our attention in 2002. The claim that the general notice to the City is notice to us of the down-zoning is incorrect. In fact, the notice itself, says "3. How does the zoning re-write project effect me? Property owners will be able to continue to use their property the same way as they do now." See attached Exhibit H. I have no recollection of receiving this notice. If we did get the notice, I would not have believed it would effect my property. 18. The Planning Staff asserts that these two parcels are landlocked. This is not true. Access is available through common owned property. Also, their statement that there is no budget effect by their decision in regards to this application is faulty. If the open space zoning is allowed to stand, a law suit will be commenced for the unlawful taking of our land, and just compensation under the Constitution will have to be paid to us. Dated this 15th day of October, 2003. Joseph S. wlton STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October, 2003. LYNETTE H SHARP :� N PUB dTARY MUG-STATE OF UTAH GO EaSt South Iamb *MOO / Salt lake Oty, UT" C' Myanm.Exp.1o/17/2005 Nota Public 3141549_1.DOC • STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT' l .� �'CITY'GOR{PORATIOI I ANDERSON -.wry �..�wr r+waw.a. �.d aAievre.P vcr.wccaea.•w T t Ross C. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr.Joseph Knowlton May 15,2002 1665 East Kensington Ave- Salt Lake City,Utah,84105 Re: Zoning issues on your property located at 1665 E.Kensington Ave. Dear Mr.Knowlton: I am responding to you as to your inquires to the City Council office and a phone conversation to me, directly, which were made upon your discovery of the zoning classification of your properties. As you are now aware, your home at 1665 E. Kensington Ave.(parcel#16-16-251-008) is currently zoned Residential R-1-5000. The other two parcels to the south(#16-16-252-002 and—004)are zoned Open Space"OS", which will not permit residential structures or uses of those properties. The current zoning has been in place since April 5, 1995,as part of the City wide Zoning Ordinance Re-write Project. The zoning for all three parcels,prior to 1995 was Residential R-2. I understand that you became aware of the current zoning classifications as a result of your properties being listed for sale. Upon first looking at the current zoning mapping issues, I reasoned that the two parcels being rezoned as Open Space"OS", in 1995 was a result of a"mapping error"based upon an assumption that the parcels were owned by the City, as part of the Wasatch Hollow Nature Park, which is adjacent. After speaking to you and discussing the matter with the City Attorney's office, another possible explanation for the"OS" zoning,is that the City reasoned that the other two parcels were and are"un-developable"due to lack of street access and utility availability,as well as possible steep slope and flood plain issues. Since seven years have passed since the City wide rezoning took effect, and with the questions about the developability of the OS zoned properties, the City staff can not"administratively"change the zoning map to rezone the two southern parcels. State law and City ordinance prescribe the process for a property owner to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance or map. I have included the application for zoning amendment with the explanation and process narrative attached, for your use in seeking the rezoning. Please be aware that the Planning Commission would need to determine the potential suitability for residential development of the two OS zoned properties, prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on the zoning amendment request. If you would like to discuss any information that you may have about your properties, or if you need more information on the rezoning process,please call me at 535-6178. Sincerely, Douglas L. Wheelwright,AICP Deputy Planning Director cc. Stephen A.Goldsmith, Planning Director; David Buhler,City Councilperson • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: BO1-535-6174 ®necveLco.A.co STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALE1r (`° q, G�ITYr ORPORA 'I01 t —� `.ss�.� .✓ts-�� as-.9.��-e-� ROSS C. ANDERSON PLAM,owG r,D. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "+w1ow BRENT B. WtLDE PLANNING DIv,SION DEPUTY Pt.,+,"ING Dt.EC1O. DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPOT,PL>,aw„+G D,.(CIO. December 23, 2002 Lisa Monson 1527 South 1600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Re: Knowlton Property Dear Ms. Monson, Thank you for submitting your concerns regarding the re-zone request for the Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton property located at approximately 1650 East Kensington_ The Planning Division received a re-zoning petition for the subject project(s) in September 2002, subsequent to Kathleen Knowlton attending the August 28, 2002 Wasatch Community Council meeting, where the re-zoning proposal for her two parcels was discussed. Typically. when an applicant has several processes to go through (in this case, a zoning map change, planned development and subdivision approvals are required), the applicant prefers to file all applications together and the Planning Commission considers all applications at the same time. The Planning Commission is the final decision maker on the planned development and subdivision application and they make a recommendation to City Council on the zoning change. Therefore, processing all of the applications together streamlines the process for the applicant. The Planning Commission will take action on the planned development and subdivision petitions subject to City Council action on the request for zoning change. However, the Knowltons have insisted that their zoning application go forward and that their request for a zoning change be heard prior to processing the petitions that will address the development of that property. Alter discussing this issue with the City Attorney's office,we have decided that even though we would prefer to process these applications together,the Know)tons are entitled to have this petition processed_ However, we have informed the Knowltons that even though the staff report addressing the zoning change is not intended to address developability of the property,our report will clearly itemize the technical issues that must be addressed prior to advancing any future petition for planned development or subdivision approval_ We have also informed them that we will not process any future petition for planned development or subdivision until City Council acts on the zoning change petition. We also have clearly conveyed that any potential re-zoning from Open 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B411 1 TELEPHONE:001-535-7757 FAX:001-535-61 74 Space to a Residential zoning classification will not vest any planned development rights upon the subject properties. In response to the question of public notice regarding adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and maps in 1995, the City's position is that notice for that process was adequate. In response to the question of 1995 "Open Space"zoning, the only justification for zoning privately owned properly "Open Space" thus eliminating most private development rights, would have been to have technical documentation that this property is not developable_ I have discussed this issue with staff and we are not aware of any technical documentation that was considered in the 1995 process showing that this property was not developable. We are continuing to pursue this issue. The technical analysis required as part of the planned development and subdivision application and processes will specifically address these issues. An engineer from the Public Utilities Department has been included in meetings with the Knowltons and the Utilities Department will continue to participate in the review and analysis of petitions pertaining to this property_ I also understand your desire as a neighbor to.see this property remain as open space and perhaps added to the Wasatch Hollow Park. It is certainly your right to pursue the "better solutions" that your reference in your letter. I assure you that the Planning Division is not advocating the development of this property on behalf of the Knowltons_ The purpose of the City's zoning and development regulation and standards outlined therein is to provide for proper balance between private property owner rights and the public interest. We will do our best to properly balance those nghts as this case goes forward. Please call me at 535-6180 if you have additional questions. Brent Wilde Acting Planning Director Cc: Lynn Pace Dave Buhler Janice Jardine • Doug Wheelwright Greg Mikolash Wilde, Brent From: Wilde, Brent Sent: Thursday,January 09,2003 3:29 PM To: 'Amy G.'; Wilde, Brent Cc: Buhler, Dave; Love,Jill;Mikolash,Gregory; Pace, Lynn;Wheelwright, Doug Subject: RE: Zoning, Kensington development Categories: Program/Policy Mr. Duggleby • I respect your concerns regarding the protection of open space in your neighborhood and I understand your desire to pursue solutions to maintain the Knowlton property as open space. In response to your comments, it would be inappropriate for Planning staff to participate in any discussions or activities directed toward the acquisition or preservation of the Knowlton property for open space when we also have a petition forrezoning before us to change the Open Space zoning on the same property. In your e-mail below, you identify others that you have contacted as the means of pursuing an open space option, and it is certainly your right to pursue all possible options, but we in Planning cannot participate in that process. The legal standard for zoning during the zoning rewrite process in 1995 was as it is now. The City does not zone privately owned property Open Space unless there is credible information that the property is not developable. There are a variety of opinions as to whether this Open Space zoning was a mistake. We have not seen any documentation or information from the 1995 Zoning Rewrite process confirming that this property is not • developable and staff members involved in preparing the maps in 1995 were generally not doing any developability analysis to the extent necessary to make a conclusive determination. The real issue, however, is not whether the zoning in 1995 was appropriate but rather, an analysis of whether or not the property is developable (including a consideration of all the relevant site specific factors and whether or not there is justification to keep the property zoned as Open Space). The Planning and Public Utilities staffs are currently going through the process of assessing the developability of these proper-ties. Ultimately, the answer to the question of whether or not the Open Space zoning was a mistake, is whether or not the property is developable. If you are aware of any technical data regarding the developability of this property, beyond information that the City staff members are reviewing,we would like to receive it so that it can be evaluated as part of the staff report. Again, I understand your concerns, and I assure you that the Planning Division is not advocating the development of this property on behalf of the Knowltons. We are simply following the applicable regulations and processes in response to the petition before us. Respectfully, Brent Wilde - 535-6180 [Wilde, Brent] Original Message----- From: Amy G. [mailto:danda@aros.net] Sent: Monday,January 06, 2003 5:42 PM To: brent.wilde@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: Buhler, Dave;jill.love@ci.slc.ut.us; gregory.mikolash@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Zoning, Kensington development 1/17/2003 July 25, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding property at 1665 E. Kensington Ave. SLC,Utah I have been associated with the property at 1665 E.. Kensington Ave. for seventy years. I grew up within four blocks of this area. When I was five years old my father purchased the property. As I was growing up I regularly worked on the property watering trees and gardening. My parents built a home on the edge of the property in 1952. I lived there from 1952 to 1955. Following that my mother lived there until 1984. I visited the area regularly during that period. Since then I have visited the area a few times a year. During the seventy years I have known the property the stream has never risen out of its established banks except once when the culvert at 17th street was blocked and even then the water did not reach the level of the flat area where we had built a fireplace and a swimming pool. There has never been any flood damage to the landscaping or any improvements. I hope that this history may prove of some value. James C. Wootton 6202 N. 22". St. Phoenix, AZ. 85016 GREAT BASIN ENGINEERING - South 2010 North Redwood Road P.O. Box 16747 •Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 CONSULTING ENGINEERS - (801)521-8529 •481)1 f 394-7288• Fax(801)521-9551 AND LAND SURVEYORS January 21, 2003 Salt Lake City Planning & Development 451 So. State, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Knowlton Property Re-zone To Whom It May Concern: Great Basin Engineering — South is currently working to determine Flood Plain Elevations for the Joseph Knowlton property at 1665 East Kensington Ave. in Salt Lake City. We have performed field work to determine the elevations of the Flow line of Emigration Creek and its banks as well as the County Flood Control Structure a few hundred feet down stream of this property. The flood control structure has a system of grated inlets at elevations of 4517.6 and 4525.1 in the slope of the dam that act as emergency overflow. The top of the dam is at elevation 4528.3 and there is no overflow structure over the top. The lower portion of the Knowlton property is at an average elevation of 4528.0, which indicates that in an emergency situation, the Knowlton property is approximately.3 feet above the level of the overflow structure- In the event of a complete failure of the control structure the Knowlton property could be flooded with approximately 3" to 6" of water over the lower portion of their parcel, however this dam is made of earth and if it did overtop it would erode away very quickly. Based on our preliminary review, we feel there may be grounds to change the current flood plain through a LOMA or LOMR process. We also feel that other options exist for the property to be developed within FEMA regulations. We do not feel that the flood plain should have any impact on the zoning of this property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 521-8529. Sincerely, Kirk Randall Project Manager a property owner's valuable and important rights. At some point the issue of developability should be addressed, but not in the context of showing a particular project at the same time. The discussion about flood plain evidences that the property can be developed even if it is within the flood line. Mr. Broadbent referred to a letter from Great Basin Engineering addressing the flood plain issue. At the time development would be proposed, the Knowltons acknowledge that identification of the flood plain corridor should be accomplished. Great Basin, which has been working on the property, has performed field work to determine the elevations of the flow line of Emigration Creek and the flood control structure located down stream. Mr. Broadbent turned the remainder of his time over to Ed James and Randy Green. Mr. James, a principle architect in the firm of EPJ Associates, stated that he was asked to look at several factors as to the property's viability. In his experience in Sandy and Draper in sensitive hill overlay areas that include flood plain, slope, and seismic issues, he believes this property had realistic solutions that could be developed through engineering techniques to fit within the City's ordinances. Randy Green, a resident at 1459 Emerson Avenue, stated that he is a registered architect and real estate developer. He stated that he came voluntarily this evening because he felt the work done in 1995 was inappropriate and unfair to the Knowltons. Their land is developable in his opinion, and they had lost half the value of their land with the down-zone. Mr. Green believed it was inappropriate to allow the OS zone to remain. He stated that a competent developer and responsible designers could develop the land in a way that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. Beth Bowman, Chair of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council, stated that the Community Council heard from the potential developer over a period of several meetings, and the first time it was presented as a development. She was unsure about the process of only addressing the issue of the rezone. Since most of these cases depend on the development, the developer's plan makes a difference. She stated that a lot of work goes into drafting the master plans, and they should have some power or purpose. The East Bench area master plan identifies the Emigration Corridor, and she understood that it was general and did not specifically address private property. However, she believed it would behoove the City to look at these issues when it comes to zoning. In addition, there was some question as to whether the open space zone was legal, but if it is, the City should stand behind that decision. Planning Commission Meeting 5 January 22,2003 Lynne Olson, representing the Sugar House Community Council, and chair of the trails and parks committee, stated that the committee studied this issue for several months before it was discussed at a Community Council meeting earlier this month. The Community Council decided to oppose the zoning change based on policies that have been articulated in the Sugar House community master plan, which include the need to protect sensitive areas, particularly those that have special habitat qualities and that would affect water quality. The trails and parks committee and the entire Council voted to oppose this petition for rezoning. Ms. Olson stated that the Knowltons invited the committee to visit their property, and they had an opportunity to walk the site and see the preliminary development plans. This provided a better picture of what was happening but confirmed their opinion that this is a special place. Standing on the edge of Emigration Creek enjoying the wildlife and understanding the connection to the open space also confirmed that this special place deserves special protection. Ms. Olson noted that with the population growing in Salt Lake, open space is scarce. Riparian open space is even more scarce, and it is sad to offer any of it for development. Kent Alderman, a resident at 1681 Emerson, stated that the zoning on this property should remain intact and the zoning map amendment request should be denied. He noted that he grew up in this neighborhood and has lived there much of his life. He believed the staff report supported the existing zoning. He noted that the enabling statute for zoning comes from the State of Utah and requires municipalities to develop plans. This plan was developed for the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council and identifies this area as open space. The main master plan was implemented further by the 1995 rezoning, and this property was properly zoned at that time with proper notice. Mr. Alderman commented on the presumption of validity of the actions taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Robin Marcus, a resident at 1643 Kensington, echoed Ms. Olson's sentiments. She understood that the value of this property depended on the developability of the property. She stated that she and others have made purchasing and remodeling decisions for their homes based on this being zoned open space. She felt there were two issues, one that the subject property is currently zoned open space, and the other was based on a previous statement by Mr. Wilde that public property zoned open space is zoned as such because it has been deemed undevelopable. She stated that was what they had all been led to believe. She stated that she felt so strongly about living adjacent to this open space that she has invested substantial resources in her property. The land is a riparian area, and she encouraged the Planning Commission to explore every opportunity to find alternatives to rezoning this property. • Planning Commission Meeting 6 January 22,2003 insurance rates for flood insurance in those zones. The FEMA report and City ordinance contain language regarding exceptions and design criteria for building in the flood zones to address existing properties and commercial construction. Residential construction is precluded below the base flood elevation or the 100-year flood plain. He attempted to transfer the FEMA flood information onto a map showing the topography of the Knowitons' property but had to make several assumptions, which makes it only an estimate. It would take an engineer with flood data and survey instruments on the property to arrive at a precise line that describes the non-buildable area on that property. Such numbers are available and accurate and were validated in the early 1990's with the FEMA Flood Data. Mr. Chambless asked Mr. Stewart if the City Council adopted the city ordinance (Floodplain Hazard Ordinance) before or after the 1983 floods. Mr. Stewart was unsure of the exact month of adoption, but the language was suggested by FEMA, and modifications were made to fit Salt Lake City's conditions. The changes were submitted to FEMA for approval and taken to the City Council for adoption. Changes have been made once since 1983, and any changes must be reviewed by FEMA. Mr. Chambless asked if the flood conditions of June 1983 were a factor in this decision. Mr. Stewart explained that the study was a 15-year study that started well before the flooding of 1983. The flood in June 1983 was a coincidence but was a motivator to obtain flood insurance. Chair Jonas asked if facilities that have gone into the park have affected the existing flood plain. Mr. Stewart replied that nothing habitable and nothing mechanical is allowed at or below the flood hazard elevations. Chair Jonas confirmed with Mr. Stewart that the construction standards do not apply to new residential construction. 'Chair Jonas asked if someone could build a new residential structure in the flood plain if the lowest floor, including the basement, were elevated above the base flood elevation, which is the 100-year line./Mr. Stewart replied that they could if the habitable floor is at or above that elevation. In the case of the Knowlton property, there is not a gravity sewer available to the property because it sits so much lower in elevation than the sewer on Kensington. A sewer lift station will be needed, and the bottom of the lift station must be above the flood elevation, which will cause the houses to sit a few feet higher than they _ otherwise would.` Ms. Funk asked if the fill previously placed on the property affects the flood plain and if it was considered stable. Mr. Stewart stated that he could not speak to the stability of the fill, and a geo-technical study would be required. The fill does reduce the volume of the flood plain but probably does not affect it greatly. Under today's rules, no additional fill is allowed in floodplain Planning Commission Meeting 2 January 22,2003 PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-35, by Joseph S. Knowlton requesting that the zoning map for two parcels of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue be amended from Open Space "OS" to a Single Family Residential "R-1/5000" Classification. Mr. Wilde disclosed that David Broadbent had done legal work for him and his family in the past, and their last association with him was several years ago. After learning last week that Mr. Broadbent represents Joseph Knowlton, he conferred with the City Attorney's office, and it was determined that his association with Mr. Broadbent did not conflict with the Staffs decision or Mr. Wilde's ability to participate in this matter. Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the petition as contained in the staff report. He referred to a map in the staff report drafted in 1994 which allocated the area of the two properties to be zoned OS from R-2 during the Citywide rewrite in 1995. The property owner contends that this zoning was a mistake because the properties are privately owned. The applicant is also concerned that he was not properly notified of the rezone. The owner, Joseph Knowlton, is requesting that the City administratively handle the mapping error without going through the public hearing process. Mr. Mikolash stated that the City cannot determine whether the parcels were rezoned as a mapping error. Staff could not speak to the intent of the City Council in 1995 and whether they knew the properties were being zoned as open space. Mr. Mikolash noted that in 1995, the only notification required was through the newspaper. In addition, a courtesy notification was sent regarding a public hearing for this blanket re-write. Mr. Mikolash provided a brief background on the diversion dam and flood plain and used a contour survey map to review engineering data on the flood plain. He explained that the Staff does not know exactly where the survey line is or where the 100-year flood plain exists on the properties. Brad Stewart from Salt Lake City Public Utilities provided background on the FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) and flood rules. In 1968 FEMA started to address development in flood prone areas with the purpose of trying to identify where those areas exist and what to do with construction and development in those areas. Another component of their study was how to provide flood insurance to these properties. In 1983, Salt Lake City completed a study of all potential flood areas within the Salt Lake City boundary, and a map was drawn showing all the floods expected once every hundred years. In 1983, the City Council adopted ordinance language approved by FEMA on how to deal with new construction and existing properties. In exchange for adopting that ordinance, the City bought into the flood insurance program, and properties existing within the identified flood plains received subsidized Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 22,2003 3) How does the Zoning Rewrite Project Affect Me? Property owners will be able to continue to use their property the same way they do now. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will make sure that future developments arise in an orderly way consistent with the master plan for the City. j�f e' • ri 411 4) If I have Questions or Comments, What Can I Do? As the Zoning Rewrite process ends, ♦ Open Houses: The City Planning Salt Lake City wants your final input. Division will hold two open If you have questions or comments, houses, where property owners there are several options: can review City maps and discuss the zoning changes face-to-face • Zoning Rewrite Project Telephone with City Planners (see back); Hotline: You can ask questions by and, calling 535-6262 on weekdays from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM until ♦ City Council Meetings: Residents March 15. We will try to answer can voice their opinions at City your questions over the phone. If Council hearings on March 15 and we cannot help you immediately, April 4. The City Council will vote someone will call back with the on the proposed Zoning information you need; Ordinance at the April 4 meeting (see back). - Salt Lake City Planning Division Open Houses: o6 yg , Monday, March 13, 1995 ;- 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM r Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street ; .> r Tuesday, p. March 14, 1995 t -�• 4:00PMto9:00PM Kam , 2 � *t ). ,... " i Sn:er. masa s Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street ..,a 'z•. r I -,.1 �, -i City Council Hearings: Wednesday, March 15, 1995 j '' 6:00 PM g' ; ._.;� Salt Lake City Council Chambers '=`iA: Salt Lake City and County Building u`X N-i Room 315. ,,-,,ti,;ff,'..t.•-q.fI-'.-'-/--3I4—,1;.,'..',,-i.0,-,--_',., ?= _ _pA.iii1,4 .: Tuesday, April 4, 1995 t .,i _: ::-... . ,?'4 't: 6:00 _,.er Fs.. ,,:a _ 4,;•, , .fit.:_ Salt"a` : - `°` Lake City Council Chambers w 'j' - Salt Lake City and County Building A - �,. � ,- „ : - - Room 315. r � � bier " ,�'��� '�� g �- �`� �`:' z tv- ` 14 ;, , , ;j; ; r' ;� Salt Lake City Zoning Rewrite • I . 73;�'-,t- - _ i ', r,. x. iai t .' - -. ` `!_ Project Telephone Hotline: --: — : 535-6262 (TDD Number 535-6021) w , 1 I I I I i i •J L, I u� L iij I J I I►I I I I I I I I I I III I f I I I ffl7 [ ('1 •I 'l1 L I 1 I I I / L UNA ea I'`1-1 t 1"'1°�' Ff 1300 S _c w_ 1300 S 1300 S 1300 S 1300 S w am .� _~^�N_memo um umN _• Mpr= an ghlk `— a �Y �"�R, %y�� Lr`"` ,'9 a�—zoom .��_ _ CLA EM N —� /IIIIIi �—z .!I~1 �� CO.�o friiii,-....lit, 0~��1♦ 7'J -e40 S) � 11- 114 z__.__ �� .:111♦ ��V gums F ti_��_a ��1�^ �' w�_m-IIIIIIV �. ��i�: ���... mg s n' •N AVE (135 -U 1 �1i�re�n�m_ N' W• „� �I �,1 jai: ('t t�-gig =EOM -= �- _= m■ ..$�� ao■..,w_ ! i 1IA AIMS iiii !III��g��e E ,,' 1 wt2,414 MARRISON AVE (1370 S) SON AVE r( - MP FilAirrV - AWNING •• - wo $RCjW NItN,G AVE (; • F^ BROWNING AVE (1430 S) BROW (1411-7)cv.) -Y lit J ' Id . -MARYS DR (1450 S) -.:;YS DR (1425 11111?.p.11llllil,_ . �,.,.._�-f • C �!1�y o��� �IIL�hh1111 _IIIIi.i iiMIIIII — s w ♦11111111 ROOSEVELT AV •.0 S) - ooil M�a IBM of t RppSEVEL AI EHERSON AVE (1500 0) KENSINGTON AVE (1530 Sp III ••�'©�6 .,, N„i ON AVE(j41,'e 1 �. IIIIIIcI1IHIIIII1IL_ } 42-1, ' o �.Qm.„ /' ,1®111111,=s • 1• 1111 k5c�•i I �� ES0111111�1.. ','4 I���� ,. EMIGRATION DR -■,al♦1■1 II `H KENSINGTON AV l-, KENSINGT AVE (1530 9 —. _ _ , ' ' ,c V .�, _' ,1��®��®I,I" k- IIIIIIIIII 111111IIP°1 = -ICI I Fill -` �' ^� C Sl £� un _� �R �1► 1 ;,, 1- �J%�� .------- L- BRYAN •• (15yb S :RYAN AVPTI E <1 60:•' A •V 61 SM.. gRYAN A ( .�l BRY`�IIIIAVE 1II�1111I/j� 71 _ate __ ._„_ LOGAN AVE (1600 S> ..-■1EME ' ?J"0 -- LOGAN AVE (1620 S) . — _ ■■y■■■... LOGAN AVE (1 LOGAN AVE <1.0 /} r ( T a I--�..c 7- 1 1700 s 1700 S. [.. El FM n „'��`,`"11"'"5 II _.iii"I,"= BLAIN A (1750 ) Ls M n BLAINE AVE (1760 w 1 , 3�5 �IIIIIIIIIILII11IIIIIIi=: A?NE AVE (1 oIIIIII//E i,= (w • wPJ`�- �� ON AVE (1 WIL o ������III ..��IIIIIIIIIIII�I�IIi==C19YiiiiiIIIII .WILSON AVE (1 -< 'Minn �- I a II111— WILSON A (1,' S) 1IIIHIi �� o I 1111111111 .::Ililllllllllllll 111111111 DOWNINGTON AV a ■111„"1� OWNIN 20�T— N - - I I I —I11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NIIJTIM FI(i6i0i�) I I I I ( I I 1.. i DOWN N 1 GREAT BASIN ENGINEERING - South 2010 North Redwood Road • P.O. Box 16747•Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 CONSULTING ENGINEERS (801)521-8529• (801)394-7288 • Fax (801) 521-9551 AND LAND SURVEYORS June 23, 2003 Salt Lake City Planning & Development 451 So. State, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Knowlton Property Re-zone / Flood Plain To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the Flood Plain Elevations on the Joseph Knowlton property at 1665 East Kensington Ave. Great Basin Engineering — South has retained the set vices of Bowen Collins & Assoc. to research and gather the FIS Backup Data for Salt Lake City, Utah — Community Panel No. 490105. The Backup Data indicates that there is an anticipated flow of 360 cfs between the 19th East culvert and the 17th South Culvert in a 100 year/ 500 year event. Based on measurements taken at the narrowest portion of the creek along the Knowlton Property, this volume easily passes through using only one third of the capacity of the creek channel. Based on the review of this information and our discussions with Bowen Collins we are recommending to Mr. Knowlton and Ms. Leishman that they file a request for a FEMA Letter of Map Revision. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 521-8529. Sincerely, L-� s Kirk Randall Project Manager