Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09/02/2003 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Deputy Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; D. J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Chris Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney; Janet Wolf, Mayor' s Director of Youth Programs; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Brent Wilde, Planning Deputy Director; Nelson Knight, Capitol Hill/Historic Preservation Planner; Elizabeth Giraud, Historic Preservation Planner; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Marilyn Lewis, West Salt Lake/ Environmental Planner; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Linda Hamilton, Civilian Review Board Investigator; Greg Johnson, Community Development Planner; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Russell Pack, Airport Property and Contracts Manager; Steve Domino, Airport Planning and Environment Programs Director; Tim Campbell, Director of Airports; Gordon Hoskins, Accounting Controller; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Richard Scott, Chapman and Cutler; Kelly Murdock, Chapman and Cutler; Dave Jones, Leonardo Consultant; Tom Rough, Utah Museum of Art and History Executive Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said Item A-5, legal conforming status for single, two-family and twin homes, was scheduled for a briefing and a public hearing. She said design language requested from the Planning Department had not been completed. She said the Council could postpone the briefing and continue the public hearing to September 9, 2003 which would allow time to get the information. Council Members were in favor of the suggestion. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item A-6, general obligation bonds, would be discussed immediately after the formal meeting. She said the Mountair Annexation discussion would be postponed to September 4, 2003. No discussion was held on announcements. #2. INTERVIEW MELISSA BARBANELL PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Ms. Barbanell said she had served for one year and enjoyed working with City staff. She said the biggest challenge was determining who should receive funding. She said she felt the board functioned well and looked forward to continued service. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 #3. INTERVIEW SUSAN CAIN WEBSTER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Ms. Webster said she moved from New York and owned a small business. She said she looked forward to working on the board and felt her experience in verbal and written communications would be helpful. She said she had served on educational boards and worked with non-profit organizations. She said she wanted to help maintain the integrity of the police department and citizen safety. Councilmember Buhler asked if the applicant had any positive or negative experiences with the Police Department which might influence decisions. Ms. Webster said no. She said she felt she could be neutral and wanted to understand issues from both sides. #4. INTERVIEW SCOTT R. CHRISTENSEN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION. Mr. Christensen said he enjoyed serving on the Commission and working with City staff. Discussion was held on the Council's legislative action requesting the Commission review historic preservation ordinances. Mr. Christensen said several appeal cases were overturned due to the way ordinances were written. He said the legislative action provided an opportunity to review and implement new technologies which could provide flexibility in decision making. Councilmember Jergensen said residents were being lost due to the Commission's inability to approve remodeling programs on historic homes. Mr. Christensen said the review process would provide an opportunity to evaluate the requirements and ensure neighborhood values were preserved. Councilmember Lambert asked how preservation properties were identified. Mr. Christensen said potential structures went through a complex review process. He said surveys were conducted in cooperation with the Utah State Historical Society when historic districts were created. He said each structure was analyzed to determine a level of status. He said they were rated as significant, contributing, non-contributing, or detracting. #5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON PROVIDING LEGAL CONFORMING STATUS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TWIN HOMES. (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-3) View Attachment Ms. Gust-Jenson said design language requested from the Planning Department was not complete. She said the Council could postpone the briefing and continue the public hearing to September 9, 2003 which would allow the Administration time to provide the information. Council Members were in favor of the suggestion. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROJECTS. View Attachment Dan Mule, Michael Sears, Rocky Fluhart, Dave Jones, Tom Rough, Richard Scott and Nancy Tessman briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Turner presented a written disclosure regarding a potential conflict of interest. He said his family owned property in the Glendale area which might be considered for library expansion. Mr. Sears said the proposed General Obligation Bond (G.O. ) rate of .000593 would bring the City' s tax rate to .005458. Councilmember Buhler asked what bond amount the rate was based on. Mr. Sears said the amount was calculated by the Administration. Councilmember Christensen asked the Administration for the figure. Mr. Sears said $66 million was needed to fund all eight projects at requested amounts. He said the total 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 included issuance costs and a $3 million surplus. Councilmember Lambert asked what residential value the tax increase was based on. Mr. Sears said $153, 400 was used for notification regarding the truth-in-taxation hearing. Councilmember Lambert said he understood the average home in Salt Lake City was valued at approximately $200, 000. He asked about the $153,000 figure. Mr. Fluhart said the County Assessor verified the average home value in Salt Lake City was $175,000. He said $153,000 was the amount taxed on a home valued at $278,000. Councilmember Lambert asked what the increase was on a $175,000 home based on a $66 million bond. Mr. Sears said $29.17. He said he would confirm that figure with bond counsel and check advertising requirements. Mr. Scott said if residential property taxes increased by $15 the City was required to notify every homeowner by mail. Councilmember Buhler asked when the notice had to be sent. Mr. Scott said not less than seven but no more than 30 days prior to the election. He said a public notice was required regarding the bond proposition. He said the notice could be published in the newspaper and did not have to be mailed to each home. Councilmember Saxton asked if taxes would be levied against businesses. Mr. Scott said yes. Councilmember Saxton asked what the tax was for a business valued at $1 million. Mr. Sears said $302.99. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about taxes being disproportionate between businesses and residential properties. Councilmember Lambert said a decision was needed regarding the ballot format and asked if there were any legal prerequisites which affected the decision. Mr. Scott said yes. He said the proposition needed to specify a single purpose for the bond issue. He said Plan A satisfied that requirement because each proposition related to a specific project. He said Plans B and C placed the proposition in educational and recreational categories. Mr. Scott said the categories were consistent with Municipal Bond Act (MBA) requirements but created less certainty. Councilmember Lambert asked how Hogle Zoo was categorized. Mr. Scott said it was considered recreational. Councilmember Buhler said there had been discussion regarding putting language on the ballot making voters aware of ongoing operation and maintenance costs and asking for their approval. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted voters to acknowledge their property taxes could increase to pay for ongoing costs. Mr. Scott said he had not seen that language included in other bond elections. He said that type of information was normally presented to voters through an information pamphlet. He said he had not done any research but supposed language could be put in the proposition. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Library bond contained language involving an ongoing tax increase for operations. Mr. Scott said no. He said that was handled through a voter information pamphlet. Ms. Gust-Jenson said public discussions were held so the information was clear to voters. Councilmember Buhler said he did not want to surprise the public and felt there might be other ways to inform voters beside the ballot. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about the level at which taxpayers saw projects as burdens rather than assets. She asked if studies had been done to determine the public' s tolerance for tax increases. Mr. Fluhart said communities were different and had different tolerances and dreams for their neighborhoods. Mr. Mule said the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) debt policy identified debt ratio benchmarks which were established by national rating agencies with low, moderate, and 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 high categories. He said Salt Lake City' s debt per capita was less than $911 which was in the low category. He said the moderate category was $1,000 to $2,500, and the high category was over $2,500. He said the data was approximately one year old. Councilmember Saxton asked if the data included information about income levels. Mr. Mule said debt-to-income ratios were identified. He said the low range was less than 3%, moderate was 3%-6%, and high was over 6%. He said Salt Lake City was at 1.9% which was in the low category. Councilmember Lambert asked if funding match requirements needed to be included in the ballot. Mr. Fluhart said that issue would be addressed through policies and the City could delay issuing the bonds for up to 10 years. Ms. Gust-Jenson said commitments implemented through policy were not binding on present or future Councils. Councilmember Jergensen asked if bonds were not issued for 10 years and interest rates changed, would another truth-in-taxation process be needed. Mr. Scott said he was not aware of any legal obligation to advise the voters of interest changes. He said once the City had the authorization to issue the bonds they could proceed. Mr. Fluhart said the Utah Museum of Arts and History project was included in the paperwork but had not been discussed. He said the proposed $6.1 million project would be located on Main Street and representatives were available to brief the Council. Councilmember Christensen asked if Council was forgoing items on the CIP list. Mr. Sears said the proposed projects were included in CIP except the Utah Museum of Arts and History. He said a separate list of CIP projects included in the 20-year plan was not recommended for bond financing. He said projects were detailed in the staff report. Discussion was held on how the Council wanted to package the projects. Councilmember Christensen said Plans A, B, and C were proposed by bond counsel. Mr. Fluhart said the Administration recommended Plan C. Council Members Christensen, Saxton, Turner, and Buhler were in favor of Plan A. Council Members Love and Lambert were in favor of Plan A or C. Councilmember Jergensen was in favor of Plan C. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council staff would work with the Administration on the cafeteria approach and asked Council Members to notify staff of any changes. Discussion was held on the Leonardo proposal. The majority of the Council was in favor of funding the project at $10 million. Discussion was held on the need to make improvements to the building and potential tenants. Council Members said the bond was being sold to the public as the Leonardo project and felt a new bond needed to be presented to the public if the Leonardo project did not materialize. Councilmember Buhler said he felt basic improvements were needed and supported $4.5 million. Council Members were in favor of requiring matching funds on all projects before bonds were issued. Councilmember Saxton asked how much money was available in fund balance. Mr. Sears said staff would get the information. Discussion was held on the branch libraries proposal. The majority of the Council was in favor of funding the project at $5.4 million. Councilmember Lambert said he did not want the project on the bond and felt other funding methods should be used. Councilmember Lambert asked how branch libraries were traditionally financed. Ms. Tessman said the majority of the funding came from capital revenues received over a number of years. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted a provision on the ballot allowing voters to express their opinion about current shortfalls and operating costs of new branches. 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 Discussion was held on the open space proposal. The majority of the Council was in favor of funding open space at $3 million. Council Members expressed concerns about the use of bonds to fund open space and the need to enhance the open space trust with additional funding sources. Discussion was held on open space acquisitions. Council Members were in favor of including neighborhood parks as open space and developing a formal policy. Discussion was held on the regional sports complex and nature center. Councilmember Christensen asked about the $2.5 million for the nature center. Mr. Fluhart said the original concept was for $5 million. He said the City and the community would each contribute $2.5 million. After discussing the issue, Council Members were in favor of removing $2.5 million from the proposal. Council Members asked what amount was needed to build the sports complex. Mr. Graham said $15 million. He said that figure did not include money for the nature center. Councilmember Lambert asked if the facility could be built in stages. Mr. Graham said he felt the project needed to be completed at one time. Council Members expressed concerns about potential flooding and asked if the issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Graham said the issue would be addressed during the design phase. He said improvements were made following the 1983 flood but felt it would not be cost effective or practical to design for total protection. He said it was not uncommon to build these types of facilities in flood plain areas. Councilmember Lambert asked who would raise the additional $7.5 million. Mr. Graham said additional options needed to be explored but some partnerships included the Youth State Soccer Association, Salt Lake County, and local school districts. Mr. Sears said there was a question concerning the ballot language regarding tournament use. Mr. Scott said the amount of private use needed to be limited under federal tax law. He said there were certain rules which needed to be followed to lease facilities for private use. Councilmember Buhler asked if there was a commitment for County participation including contributions to capital costs and maintenance. Mr. Fluhart said no. He said those topics were discussed with County representatives who stated they wanted to be involved in the project. Mr. Graham said he felt the facility needed to be managed by the City with support from the County and community volunteers. Councilmember Buhler said he understood ongoing costs would be approximately $1 million per year. Mr. Graham said that was correct. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted to see those costs included as part of the proposal. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about mitigating environmental damage which would occur with 30 soccer fields and baseball diamonds. He suggested cutting back the proposal to fund activity on the Jordan River. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the State had committed to donating the property to the City. Mr. Graham said the City had not received a written commitment. He said discussions with the State were encouraging but there were conditions which needed to be met. He said the State wanted some level of compensation and options were being explored. Councilmember Saxton said she requested a market research about the impact to surrounding areas. Mr. Graham said when he started working on the request he realized 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 outside resources would be needed. He said the City did not have sufficient facilities to satisfy the demand and residents were going outside the City to use other fields. He said other jurisdictions had similar problems. Councilmember Lambert expressed concerns about the proposal being premature because project design, property, and partnerships were not in place. Mr. Fluhart said this was fairly common with a complicated project. He said this had been on the City's masterplan since the mid 1980s and someone needed to take the first step. Councilmember Buhler asked if design funding would be allocated from the bond. Mr. Fluhart said yes. Councilmember Buhler asked if the bond could be issued in portions. Mr. Fluhart said that had not been discussed but it would be more expensive in terms of issuance costs. Council Members expressed concerns about unknown environmental problems and wetland issues. Mr. Fluhart said there was a small designated wetlands area located on the proposed site which could be incorporated into the design. Councilmember Love said before the Council approved the proposal she wanted more information on the environmental aspects and potential impacts. Discussion was held on using other locations. Mr. Scott said a specific location was not required in the bond which would give the City the option to go to other locations. Discussion was held on the $15 million proposed for the sports complex portion. Councilmember Saxton said an educational program was needed to inform voters about the pros and cons of ballot propositions. Councilmember Christensen asked if the $15 million included some type of environmental remediation or education. Mr. Fluhart said yes. Councilmember Buhler said he preferred $10 million subject to a commitment about securing the property from the State, obtaining additional funding from the County, and performing studies on the property. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned the City was not prepared for this project and making the project meaningful to voters. Councilmember Lambert asked about costs and design work. Mr. Graham said design costs would be approximately $1.5 million. He said additional costs were needed if the Council wanted land studies relative to hydrology, lake levels, and soil samples. He said he thought the studies would take several months at a minimum cost of $100, 000. Mr. Graham said the $15 million included improvements to the Jordan River corridor similar to those already done along the river. The majority of the Council was in favor of funding the proposal at $15 million contingent on a preliminary evaluation/feasibility study on the site and securing partnerships before bonds were issued. Council Members also wanted to include some type of ballot disclosure identifying ongoing costs which could require an additional tax increase. The Council wanted the discloser to apply to all proposals. Discussion was held on the Pioneer Park proposal for $6.9 million. The majority of the Council did not want the project on the ballot. Council Members felt the park was in good condition. Mr. Fluhart said a draft of the proposal was available for review. Councilmember Christensen said the plan could be discussed as part of the CIP budget. Discussion was held on the Hansen Planetarium proposal for $6.1 million. The majority of the Council did not want the project on the ballot. Council Members felt 03 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 the proposal needed further development. Discussion was held on the Hogle Zoo proposal. The majority of the Council was in favor of funding the project at $10 million. Councilmember Buhler said construction drawings were available but he wanted to request a change in the language. He said the proposal contained language for renovation and expansion. He said he wanted to focus on the renovation portion. Council Members expressed concerns about how the term "expansion" could be interpreted. Mr. Scott said there was a technical question about the term. He said the intent was to expand existing exhibits or build new exhibits within that space. Councilmember Buhler said he felt a different word might be less confusing to voters. Discussion was held on the Utah Museum of Art and History proposal. The majority of the Council did not want the project on the ballot. Councilmember Christensen said he understood this was a loan to the existing owner. Mr. Fluhart said that was correct. Council Members expressed concerns about the requested amount and location. Discussion was held on funding options and potential locations. Councilmember Christensen asked if that was the only location which worked. Mr. Rough said the location met many of the criteria they were looking for. Councilmember Turner asked how much money had been secured. Mr. Rough said approximately $350,000 with a $50,000 commitment from the LDS Foundation. He said they were working with other major contributors. Councilmember Lambert asked about the $6 million figure. Mr. Fluhart said the figure was the estimated cost to acquire the buildings. Councilmember Christensen asked if the City would retain ownership and lease the buildings. Mr. Fluhart said the City would retain ownership. Councilmember Jergensen asked about purchase costs. Mr. Rough said the cost to purchase the building was $1.7 million. He said $.7 million was needed to upgrade the fagade and $3.7 million to complete interior galleries and exhibits. Councilmember Lambert asked about the $12 million figure. Mr. Rough said a portion of the money would be used for ongoing maintenance and operation costs and would be raised through private donations. Councilmember Love said she felt there might be other organizations which needed money and felt a Request for Proposal (RFP) process should be used. Mr. Rough said he felt an RFP was not needed because their proposal dealt with Utah history and education which made it different from retail art. Councilmember Christensen asked if there was a contract to purchase the buildings. Mr. Rough said yes. Councilmember Buhler said he felt there were other ways to assist the petitioner. He said he was concerned about putting too many issues on the ballot. Councilmember Jergensen said he agreed with Councilmember Buhler. He said he wanted more information about the numbers and what the City intended to do. He said if there was not enough Council support he recommended sending the issue back to the RDA. Councilmember Christensen said he agreed with Councilmember Buhler. Councilmember Christensen said additional discussion could be held on September 4, 2003. Councilmember Love said she wanted to lobby the Council regarding the Tracy Aviary. Discussion was held on putting the proposal on the ballot at $1 million. The majority of the Council was in favor. Councilmember Love said the Aviary' s 10 year plan was estimated at $10 million. She said she did not know if they were eligible for CIP funding. Councilmember Lambert said he felt the issue should be addressed through CIP. 03 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 Councilmember Saxton said more funding could be approved to address ongoing improvements and would support $2 million. Councilmember Turner said he felt a better plan was needed and the CIP process should be investigated. Councilmember Buhler asked if all the approved proposals would be issued in one bond or separately. Mr. Scott said they could all be issued under one bond but an accounting was needed on how monies were spent. Discussion was held on contingency. The majority of the Council did not want to include a contingency amount in the bond. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned if organizations went over budget they would come back to the Council. Councilmember Jergensen said he felt the Council needed to make a policy decision whether organizations could request additional funding. He said if the answer was yes, contingency needed to be considered. Mr. Mule said between the time bonds were sold and the proceeds were actually spent interest was earned. He said that money could be used on the projects. Mr. Sears said all proposals included costs to issue the bonds. The Council was in favor of including the issuance costs. Discussion was held on a proposed date when the Council needed to meet with the Mayor as the Board of Canvassers. The majority of the Council was in favor of November 10th at 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Saxton said projects which needed more development could be removed or delayed to future elections. Councilmember Christensen said Council Members would be able to vote for or against specific projects during the formal meeting. Councilmember Lambert asked if there was a public hearing. Ms. Gust-Jenson said not unless the Council chose to hold one. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON CREATING AN AIRPORT LANDSCAPING OVERLAY DISTRICT. View Attachment Tim Campbell, Steve Domino, Brent Wilde, Marilyn Lewis, and Sylvia Jones briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked about the overlay district. Mr. Domino said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided 3000 foot protection zones located off the center line and end of runways. Councilmember Turner asked about improvements to the executive terminal. Mr. Campbell said under the redevelopment plan all turf areas around the airport would be converted to drought tolerant landscaping. Councilmember Turner asked about geese migrations. Mr. Campbell said geese were actively relocated from the golf course to other areas in the state. He said an airport consultant designed remediation measures for specific wildlife. Councilmember Saxton asked about other cities with successful wetland mitigation programs. Mr. Domino said Portland was considering a similar ordinance. He said most airports had problems with bird populations. He said based on the number of bird strikes the FAA required a wildlife hazard management program. Councilmember Saxton said she wanted the department to continue gathering information from other airports. Mr. Campbell said they would get the information. Councilmember Love asked if the plan was a variation of the one given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde said after extensive discussions the decision was made to allow the Planning and Airport directors to negotiate a plan. Council Members were in favor of advancing the item to a public hearing. 03 - 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 #8. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIR ANNEXATION. (CONSENT ITEM G-2) View Attachment Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. He said during the previous week the City received 132 signatures protesting the annexation. He said 130 were deemed valid and removed from the calculations. He said the final percentage was approximately 29% but numbers needed to be verified. He said a percentage greater than 50% was needed for a valid petition. He said advice was pending from the Attorney' s Office on what Council action was needed following the September 9, 2003 public hearing. Ms. Gust-Jenson said individuals could comment as long as the Council kept the comment period open. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE LANDFILL BUDGET AMENDMENT. View Attachment Rick Graham and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Graham said the County's budget cycle differed from the City and this was a mid-year budget adjustment. He said items were housekeeping in nature and did not have strategy or policy implications. #10. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT. View Attachment Russell Weeks, Mayor Anderson, and Alison Weyher briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked for a progress report based on items the department felt should already be complete. Ms. Weyher said she intended to provide an updated list but it was not ready. She said she would get the information to the Council in a few weeks. She said accomplishments had been made in almost every area. Councilmember Turner asked if plans existed to extend the downtown boundaries further west. Ms. Weyher said Central Business District (CBD) boundaries would be extended to 500 West. Councilmember Turner asked about re-use plans for ZCMI and Crossroads Mall. Ms. Weyher said Property Reserve Inc. needed to be forthcoming with their re-use plans for the malls. Councilmember Saxton asked if the play and stay campaign had started. Ms. Weyher said no. She said the City planned to contact vendors who attended the outdoor retail convention. Councilmember Saxton asked what programs had been implemented. Ms. Weyher said the department was focusing on business retention and re-location efforts and marketing the token program. She said the KUTV advertising campaign would kick off in the fall. Councilmember Saxton asked what the City had gleaned from the Olympics relating to economic development goals. Ms. Weyher said name recognition and a number of infrastructure improvements. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Administration disagreed with any of the 35 first-step statements outlined in the policy. Ms. Weyher said no. She said the policy would require modifications as the downtown area changed. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted the Administration to let the Council know if there were specific areas that would not be worked on. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about empty parking meters on Broadway. Ms. Weyher said she would ask the Transportation Department to study the issue and prepare a report for the Council. Councilmember Buhler said he felt the City needed to encourage people to use light rail to access downtown and encourage South Davis County residents to frequent downtown businesses. 03 - 9 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about downtown employers moving from the City. Ms. Weyher said additional discussion on that subject was scheduled for the audit briefing. She said Administration had met with business owners and would continue to work with them. Councilmember Buhler asked how reverse angle parking was working. Mayor Anderson said reverse angle parking created additional spaces and made bicycle lanes safer. He said he felt residents were getting accustomed to that style of parking. Council Members wanted a report from Transportation on utilization of the reverse angle parking and bicycle lanes. Councilmember Jergensen asked for a status report following changes made to the revolving loan fund. Ms. Weyher said she did have exact figures but several business loans had been made. She said several loans being considered were outlined in briefing materials. She said a loan program was being analyzed with Zion' s Bank. Councilmember Jergensen felt the Council needed to receive more regular updates regarding downtown policies. Mayor Anderson said the Administration could provide written updates and quarterly briefings. Councilmember Jergensen felt the Council wanted to work jointly with the Administration on this issue. Mayor Anderson said the Council and Administration could discuss the format and review questions Council Members might want answered. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted the proposed format to be reviewed and approved by the Council before too much time went into the process. Councilmember Lambert said the City needed a systematic way to identify existing tenants for periodic follow-up. Councilmember Love said a systematic way was needed to identify when tenant leases expired and insure landlords were working with tenants. Ms. Weyher said she needed to do a better job communicating when new businesses moved to the downtown area. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Administration believed the City was part of the team. Ms. Weyher said her staff met with business owners on a regular basis, served on downtown committees, and attended local meetings. Mayor Anderson asked about a subcommittee. Councilmember Christensen said it had not been formed but the Council could pursue that. #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A LOAN FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO THE WESTGATE II APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 1520 WEST 300 SOUTH. View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Sears said the proposal was being reviewed by the Attorney's Office. Councilmember Christensen asked if the interest rate was the issue. Mr. Sears said expenditures had to be paid back within one year. He said there was a question whether loans were considered expenditures. He said there were other questions about the proposal. Ms. Gust-Jenson said this was a precautionary issue which the Attorney' s Office raised and wanted to evaluate further. Councilmember Saxton asked why four of the 36 units were priced at market value. Ms. Fawcett said the developer wanted to build an affordable housing project but there was a shortage of money. She said rather than raise the percentage of median income, market rate units were included. She said she felt the mix was a good idea. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned how well the four units would fit in the project. The majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the item pending any legal issues 03 - 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 , 2003 which might arise. #12. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment Item moved to September 4, 2003. #13. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Item moved to September 4, 2003. The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. sc 03 - 11 CORKY Sys ='. `FAKE�ITY CORPQ° } t . • OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City& County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday,September 2,2003 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in Room 125 at the City & County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.,Room 326,City&County Building,451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m.will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. Report of the Executive Director, including review of Council information items and announcements. 2. The Council will interview Melissa Barbanell prior to consideration of her reappointment to the • Community Development Advisory Committee. 3. The Council will interview Susan Cain Webster prior to consideration of her appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board. 4. The Council will interview Scott R.Christensen prior to consideration of his reappointment to the Historic Landmark Commission. 5. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on providing legal conforming status for the single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes.(Public Hearing Item C-3) 6. The Council will receive a briefmg on the proposed General Obligation Bond projects. 7. The Council will receive a briefing on creating an airport landscaping overlay district. 8. The Council will receive a follow-up briefmg on the proposed Mountair Annexation.(Consent Item G-2) 9. The Council will receive a briefing on the Landfill Budget Amendment. 10. The Council will have a discussion regarding the Downtown Development Plan and the Council Policy Statement. 11. The Council will receive a briefmg on a loan from the Housing Trust Fund to the Westgate II Apartment project located at 1520 West 300 South. 12. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding the budget for the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2003-2004. 13. The Council will receive a briefing on Budget Amendment No. 1 and related resolutions. B. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council will approve the minutes of August 7 and August 12,2003. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 2,2003 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance:Petition No. 400-02-17, amend the Salt Lake City Code relating to the temporary use • ordinance,to allow for seasonal item sales Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code relating to the temporary use ordinance,to allow for seasonal item sales. (O 03-18) Staff Recommendation: Close hearing and consider options. 2. Ordinance:Petition No.400-03-09, amend the Salt Lake City Code to allow for the installation of outdoor television monitors in certain downtown zoning districts Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code to allow for the installation of outdoor television monitors in certain downtown zoning districts. (0 03-19) Staff Recommendation: Close hearing and consider options. 3. Ordinance:Petition No.400-02-23,amend the Salt Lake City Code providing legal conforming status for the single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code providing legal conforming status for the single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes. (0 03-20) Staff Recommendation: Continue to September 9,2003. • D. COMMENTS 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council • (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None.) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None.) • 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 2,2003 G. CONSENT: • 1. Motion: Confirm date—Traffic Calming Confirm the date of September 9,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding the Salt Lake City Traffic Calming program. (G 03-19) Staff Recommendation: Adopt motion to confirm date. 2. Ordinance: Confirm date—extend the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Mountair area, consisting of approximately 155 acres of property located generally between 3000 South and 3300 South and between 1100 East and 1700 East,pursuant to Petition No.400-01-07;amending the Sugar House Master Plan; and amending the Salt Lake City zoning map to zone and designate the properties within that area upon annexation to the City Confirm the date of September 9,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Mountair area, consisting of approximately 155 acres of property located generally between 3000 South and 3300 South and between 1100 East and 1700 East,pursuant to Petition No.400-01-07;amending the Sugar House Master Plan; and amending the Salt Lake City zoning map to zone and designate the properties within that area upon annexation to the City. (O 03-18) Staff Recommendation: Adopt motion to confirm date. 3. Board Reappointment:Marilyn Pearson,Capital Improvement Program • Consider approving the reappointment of Marilyn Pearson to the Capital Improvement Program for a term extending through June 5,2006. (I 03-27) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 4. Board Appointment:Peggy Lander,Business Advisory Board Consider approving the appointment of Peggy Lander to the Business Advisory Board for a term extending through December 25,2006. (I 03-19) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 5. Board Reappointment:Paul Dalrymple,Library Board Consider approving the reappointment of Paul Dalrymple to the Library Board for a term extending through June 30,2006. (I 03-7) Staff Recommendation: Approve. H. ADJOURNMENT: • Dated: August 29,2003 By: 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday, September 2,2003 Deputy City Recorder III STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 29th day of August 2003,I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view,at the following times and locations within the City&County Building,451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office,Room 415;and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom,Room 315. Glittr4t141/1/41—€11411".* **.T. Deputy City Recorder Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of isi st 2003. i qk NOTARY PUBLIC G �`- • • n`�� — STATE OF UTAH . = otary Public residing in e S t of Utah k My commission Expires 4" PAMELA M.JOHNSON 451 South State St.Room 415 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Approval: A-a Deputy ector Access agendas at http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/agendas/default.htm.A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphones can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign language interpreters;please allow 72 hours advance notice. TDD Number 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. *Final Action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute,City Ordinance and Council Policy,one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. • 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-02-23—Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance Sec. 21A.38 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Structures to provide legal conforming status for single-family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Research and Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine,Planning and Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning AND CONTACT PERSON: Division,Marilyn Lewis,Principal Planner In response to the Council's request from the work session briefing held August 7,2003,the Administration is working on ordinance language which addresses Council Members' questions and concerns relating to reconstruction of non-conforming structures and compatibility with other existing neighborhood structures. • Because of some issues and ideas that came to light this week,the Administration has requested that the Council continue the follow-up work session discussion and the public hearing on September 2nd to September 9`s. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council") Continue the public hearing until Tuesday,September 9, 2003. (This option would allow the Council to receive additional public comment regarding new ordinance language proposed by the Administration.) 2. ["I move that the Council") Close the public hearing and refer this item to Tuesday, September 9,2003. (This option would allow the Council to discuss this item further; however,no additional public comment would be allowed.) cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,D.J.Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze,Craig Spangenberg,Brent Wilde,Enzo Calla,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Marilyn Lewis and Janice Jardine • File location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,Non-conforming Uses/Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings SAL' ,, r e $'Cal ILO Van Turner � �� ..� ��:�A •oundil Member-District Two OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL September 2, 2003 Mayor Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson Members of the Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Greetings: Prior to the City Council's discussion of the bond package this evening,I would like to make a public disclosure for the record. The City Library Director mentioned in the Council's last briefing that the Library Board is looking at property in the Glendale Area for a new branch library. My family owns a parcel that lies within the boundaries of the vicinity that she mentioned. There are no negotiations pending,and I do not have control over whether my family member elects to enter negotiations if invited to do so at some point in the future and • therefore I don't believe this would have"an individualized material effect on my financial,professional,or personal interests,distinguishable from its effect on the public generally". Therefore,I don't believe disclosure and disqualification are necessary under City Code 2.44.030. However, in the interest of openness I did want to disclose this to the Council,Mayor and general public. I will follow-up with the City Attorney's Office and request a formal legal opinion if I become aware of any contact between my family member and the City Library,or any other circumstances that may create an actual conflict of interest. Sincerely, a7),2 42/1i)-) /2Z1' Van Blair Turner City Council Member District Two VBT/cgj cc: Ed Rutan,City Attorney Kendrick Cowley,Salt Lake City Recorder 11111 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 C.�«ErEo PAPEa 2003 Proposed Tax Rates Cities in Utah Property Tax Rate G.O. Bond Tax Total West Valley 0.002703 0 0.002703 West Jordan 0.002466 0 0.002466 Sandy 0.001725 0 0.001725 South Jordan 0.001933 0 0.001933 Provo 0.002776 0 0.002776 South Salt Lake (YR 2002) 0.001386 0 0.001386 Bountiful (YR 2002) 0.001216 0 0.001216 Murray 0.001570 0 0.001570 Salt Lake City 0.004865 0.000593 0.005458 • • all • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 29,2003 SUBJECT: General Obligation Special Bond Election Resolution AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Management Services Department, Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council reviewed the General Obligation Special Bond Election procedures as a written briefing agenda item during the August 7,2003 work session and on Atigust 12,2003 during a briefing with the Administration. During the briefing on the 12th,the Council requested that the Administration work with the City's bond counsel and prepare a resolution that meets the necessary State statutes governing the issuance of a general obligation bond and • holding a special bond election. The attached transmittal from the Administration addresses the Council's request and provides three recommendations relating to the bond election. The recommendations include listing the proposed projects on the ballet,setting a date for election and establishing the amount of bonding authorized to be issued. Each of these three issues will need to be discussed and decided upon by the Council.Also,the Administration is proposing that the actual authorization amount on the bonds be larger than the actual anticipated needs of each project. This would allow the City to issue bonds in the amounts needed after final engineering designs and specifications are completed.The City most recently chose to authorize an amount higher than the initial issuance when the General Obligation bond was issued for the City Library. The Authorization was for$84 million but the initial issuance was for$81 million. The remaining authorization amount was issued after the complete cost of the project was known and all anticipated bond interest income was accounted for. The transmittal from the Administration contains a memo that details the reasons for increasing the general obligation bond authorization amount. ➢ NEW ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN TRANSMITTAL The Administration has provided additional information for inclusion in the special bond election briefing. The Administration is recommending that the Utah Museum of Art&History (MUAH)project be included in the special bond election. The MUAH would be an educational facility that would cost approximately$6.1 million. The funds generated by the issuance of a general obligation bond would be used to purchase buildings at 125 and 127 South Main, Page 1 renovate the exteriors of the buildings and complete the first phase of the galleries and displays. This is not a facility that is owned by the City. It should be noted that individual Council Members have also been contacted by other entities 11111 interested in being included in the bond. Council Members have asked that staff review the Capital Improvement Program short and long term plans and determine which of the proposed bond projects have been anticipated and included in the plans.After review of the plans, all of the proposed projects with the exception of the purchase of buildings at 125 and 127 South Main to house the Utah Museum of Art& History are included in the Capital Improvement Program planning documents. Some projects such as open space acquisition, Pioneer Park and upgrades to City owned buildings and facilities are planned for the immediate future, others such as the sports field complex are planned for design and construction in years 2006 and beyond. Anticipated available funding and the age and condition of the existing infrastructure seemed to be the two dominant criteria determining the timing of the proposed projects. When reviewing the capital plans of the City,staff noted the following potentially costly projects that will likely require general obligation or municipal building authority funding for completion: • Fleet and Street Facility reconstruction and updates • Parks Building Updates • Public Safety Building construction - • Fire Training Facility construction • East Area Police Precinct construction The Council may wish to include a third category in the special bond election to address the • necessary public safety buildings. The Administration will need to review the proposed projects and determine the necessary bonding amounts before an accurate figure can be transmitted to the Council. The Council might also wish to consider the new information and recommendation from the Wasatch Regional Front Council(WFRC). The WFRC formed a committee to look at transit needs and recommend a course of action for the region. The committee made a recommendation on August 28,2003 that includes a 1/2 cent increase in mass transits sales tax share and an increase of 5-cent-per-gallon in fuel taxes. Both increases are proposed for year 2006. A referendum to the electorate voters in 2006 on transit issues may affect City special bond elections in the near future. ➢ RESOLUTION ISSUES The City's bond counsel has prepared a resolution for consideration by the Council that does not include the ballot proposition format or polling places. The resolution makes reference in Section 3 that this special bond election will be held in the consolidated voting precincts of the county where city electors may vote. Specific language concerning polling places is on page 2 of the resolution. Bond counsel has also prepared three plans or scenarios relating to the ballot proposition format. Plan A lists each of the proposed projects separately. Plan B contains two options; one is a short form that lists recreational facilities and educational facilities and a long form that includes supplemental language. Plan C contains two ballots. The first ballot is for recreational facilities with a list of the proposed projects and the second ballot is for education facilities and Page 2 a listing of those proposed projects that are educational in nature. As noted on the transmittal, the Hansen Planetarium may be designated for either or both of these categories. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the Plan C format.The Council may • wish to review the specific language of each Plan and determine which ballot style the Council prefers. ➢ ELECTION CANVAS DATE As noted in the transmittal the Council and Mayor will need to meet as the board of municipal canvassers to canvass the returns of the special bond election. It is not necessary to canvass the returns of the special bond election and the municipal election at the same time,but as a matter of convenience the Council may wish to schedule the meeting of the board of canvassers at the same time. The special bond election canvass meeting can be held within ten days of the election or until November 14,2003. The municipal election canvass meeting can be held no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the election. In year 2003 this means that the board of canvassers should meet aft Friday the 7th and no later that Tuesday the 11th. Because November 11 is a holiday, Utah State Code allows for a meeting of the canvassing board to be held on Wednesday November 12.The Council may wish to consider holding a special meeting on either Monday,November 10 or Wednesday,November 12,2003 to canvass the results of the general election and special bond election. The Council Chair and Vice Chair have suggested that the Council consider a noon meeting at the City and County Building. • ➢ BOND PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AUTHORIZATION The recommended total amount of General Obligation bond funding is$63,000,000.With a • slight increase to account for additional authorization if needed,the total amount would be $66,000,000.This amount reflects the final amounts for eight projects and$10,000,000 in contributions from partners in the Regional Sports Complex. Each project and the requested authorization amounts are listed in the transmittal. The Council may wish to confirm the anticipated operating and maintenance costs for those projects that the City will maintain and determine if a property tax increase or other revenue source should be identified to address the increase in expenditures. INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL: The Administration is proposing that the City Council call and hold an election for the approval of general obligation bonds. The bonds would be used for City projects such as renovation of existing City buildings and construction of new recreation facilities. The Administration recently commissioned a survey of City residents to gauge the potential support of the proposed general obligation bond election. The survey and responses are attached. The Council will discuss the specifics of each of the proposed projects during the August 12 or September 2, 2003 Council work session. The Council has the authority to call a special bond election. This report details the major steps involved in holding a general obligation bond election and the necessary resolutions to make the election valid and the bonds tax-exempt. • Page 3 > ELECTION PROCEDURES The following are the procedures necessary to call and hold a general obligation bond election • and the federal requirements the City would have to follow with regard to the issuance of the bonds. Step 1 -Choose an Election Date. Under Section 20A-1-204 of the Utah Code, local special elections to authorize issuance of bonds (indebtedness) are limited to five dates. They are: 1. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in February; 2. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in May; 3. The forth Tuesday in June in even-numbered years; 4. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in August; or 5. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The only available date in calendar year 2003 is November 4,2003. Step 2-Adopt a resolution regarding the election. The City Council must adopt a resolution that provides for holding the bond issuance election. The Council should adopt the resolution at least 30 days (preferably 45 to 90 days)before the date of election. There are a number of items such as purpose,maximum principal,maximum bond maturity,identification of voting precincts, etc that should be included in the resolution. Step 3-The City Recorder becomes involved in the process and furnishes copies of the resolution to the County Clerk for preparation that takes place in the County Clerk's office. The Recorder then coordinates the printing of ballots and other special bond election forms and advertises the election and provides sample ballots etc. as required by law. Because the only available date this year is same as a regular general election the City does not have to send 41, special notifications by mail. Step 4-The City then holds the special bond election on November 4, 2003. Step 5-The City Council and Mayor must then convene as the Board of Canvassers within ten days after the election to canvass the election and declare the results. The election may be challenged or contested within 40 days of the meeting of the Board of Canvassers. No other contests on the validity of the election are allowed after the 40 day period. > REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION The City Council must adopt a reimbursement resolution in order for the bonds to be tax- exempt.This resolution should be adopted as soon as possible and if necessary the resolutions for the holding the special bond election and reimbursement of the bonds may be combined. The reimbursement resolution must contain the maximum principal amount of the bonds, descriptions of the projects, and language saying that the City intends to issue bonds for the project expenditures. The timing of the reimbursement resolution is important because bond issue costs or other project related expenditures made more than 60 days before adoption cannot be financed with proceeds from the bonds. Page 4 ➢ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROPOSED PROJECTS - The Leonardo-The Administration is recommending that the old main library be renovated • and leased to The Leonardo at Library Square.The facility would house a science,cultural and educational facility. Several different groups are anticipated to have a presence at the facility. The requested bond amount is$10.2 million dollars. Approximately$4.5 million will be used for remodeling and interior improvements,$4.5 million for seismic,electrical, plumbing,heating and air conditioning, and$.05 million for joint space functions such as shops,ticketing and security. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be$25 million with the remaining$15 million from fund raising. Salt Lake City branch libraries-The Administration is recommending that the Salt Lake City Library system be enlarged to include two new branch libraries, one in the Glendale and one in the Capitol Hill area. The requested bond amount is$5.4 million dollars. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be$5.4 million. Open Space-The Administration is recommending that the City create an Open Space Trust Fund to help purchase,receive and manage open space lands in Salt Lake City. The requested bond amount is not noted in the transmittal from the Administration but the survey that was conducted on behalf of the City listed$3 million dollars as a potential amount. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be$3.1 million. . Regional Sports Field Complex-The Administration is recommending that the City construct a multi-purpose regional sports complex on 212 acres at 2000 North and 2000 West. The facility could be used by several different entities and be constructed and managed in partnership with several municipalities and local government entities. The requested bond amount is$15 million dollars.The total cost of the project is$25 million with$10 million coming from project partners. Pioneer Park-The Administration is recommending that the City renovate Pioneer Park by introducing new design elements and making the park a destination for City residents. The requested bond amount is$6.9 million dollars. Hansen Planetarium-The Administration is recommending that the City renovate and preserve the historic Hansen Planetarium building. The requested bond amount is$6.1 million dollars. Bond proceeds will be used to renovate the building to pre-tenant condition. Hogle Zoo-The Administration is recommending that the City contribute$10,2million towards the renovation of animal exhibits at the Hogle Zoo. Utah Museum of Art &History-The Administration is recommending that the City contribute $6.lmillion towards the purchase and renovation of buildings to house the Museum of Art& History. The total project is anticipated to be about$18 million dollars. • Page 5 > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS The City Council has several policy questions related to the issuance of bonds. Because the proposed projects relate to several of the policy questions the Council may have,the survey that • was conducted for the City is attached. Questions relating to policy concerns could include: Will the issuance of general obligation bonds for the proposed projects affect the bond rating of the City? Are recreation related projects suitable for bond financing? What is the acceptable debt per capita of the residents and businesses of the City and what is the current debt per capita ratio? Will this bond issuance inhibit new construction or population growth in the City? Will companies choose to locate outside of the City because of this additional tax obligation? Will the proposed projects fulfill Master Plan objectives and recommendations? Would the City Council be fulfilling it fiduciary responsibilities by supporting or not supporting a special bond election and general obligation bond issuance? How will the City finance the operations and maintenance of any new facilities or expanded programs? Are the programs and facilities being suggested by the bond the Council's top policy priorities for which the Council wishes to exercise taxing authority? Are there other projects that the City Council considers funding priorities, for example projects that have been identified on the City's CIP list? How do the proposed projects compare to the other projects? • Would bonding for the proposed projects be consistent with the City's current focus and policy direction, or would bonding move the City into programs beyond the City's traditional scope? > BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed projects will be funded by the general obligation bonds. The bonds will cover only the construction and installation costs associated with the project. Project operating and maintenance costs will not be funded with general obligation bond revenue and will need to be appropriated in future year budgets.Some of the operating costs associated with the proposed project may be covered by contributions from Salt Lake County,the Hogle Zoo and other municipalities or private groups. When the City Council authorized the City Library general obligation bonds they also decided to identify the potential operating and maintenance costs of the new facility and implement a property tax increase to cover the costs. The goal was to give the public a complete understanding of the financial impact of the project and to ensure that operating funds were available once the project was built. The Council may wish to carefully identify any of the proposed projects that may have on-going expenses and identify the funding mechanisms for those costs prior to the bond election. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Dan Mule, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Rick Graham, Alison Weyher, Kevin Bergstrom, David Dobbins, David Nimkin and DJ Baxter File location: Michael\Staff Reports\ Page 6 AUG 2 6 2033 faROCKY .I. FLU HART SALTS —_- $ --i i CORPOR\TIO- RDS5 C. ANDER5DN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER - _ —_ -- MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair DATE: August 26, 2003 Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Special Bond Election Resolution STAFF CONTACT: Rocky Fluhart, 535-6426 Daniel Mule, 535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt the Special Bond Election Resolution in the forru labeled Plan C by bond counsel. Plan C puts two propositions before the voters; one for recreation facilities, and one for educational facilities, with the Hansen Planetarium building included in the educational facilities category. • Set a date for the canvas of the Special Bond Election. • Establish the principal amount of bonds authorized to be issued under each proposition. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is an updated estimate of project costs. The total amount of the special bond to accomplish the seven listed projects is $56,900,000. In addition, we anticipate $10 million in contributions from partners in the Regional Sports Complex and Nature Center. These projects will benefit neighborhoods throughout our city by providing premier educational and recreational facilities for the enjoyment of our citizens. These projects will also promote economic development by drawing people from other communities and states to our city, who will purchase goods and services in Salt Lake City. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-5426 FAX: 801-535-61 9❑ aE�.ceo PnPEa e SALT LAKE CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SERIES 2003 No. Proposition Project Costs 1 The Leonardo 10,200,000 2 Branch Libraries 5,400,000 3 Open Space 3,100,000 4 Regional Sports Complex 15,000,000* and Nature Center 5 Pioneer Park 6,900,000 6 Hansen Planetarium 6,100,000 7 Hogle Zoo 10,200,000 • Total 56,900,000 * Total cost $25,000,000 -- $7,500,000 from Sports Park partners $2,500,000 from Nature Center partners CHAPMAN AND CUTLER LLP • MEMORANDUM August 26, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY To: Robyn Stanczyk FROM: Richard J. Scott RE: Special Bond Election Resolution for Municipal Council Per my discussion with Rocky Fluhart, please find enclosed 21 copies of each the following documents, which are in form suitable for distribution to members of the Municipal Council: (1) Suggested forms of ballot propositions; and (2) Suggested form of special bond election resolution (which does not include ballot propositions or the polling places). As you will see, the document containing the ballot propositions consists of three different"plans" for the ballot propositions, as follows: (A) PLAN A, which lists all seven separate projects separately; (B) PLAN B, which consists of a"short form" and a"long form," as follows: (i) the short form simply provides separate ballots for "recreational facilities" and "educational facilities,"the categories used by the Utah Municipal Bond Act; (ii) the long form also provides separate ballots for recreational and educational facilities but with additional supplemental language based upon the statutory language contained in the Utah Municipal Bond Act; and (C) PLAN C, which contains two ballots, as follows: (i) one for "recreational facilities" with a specific list of those facilities similar to Plan A; and (ii) one for "educational facilities," also with a specific list of those facilities similar to Plan A. Please note that the Hansen Planetarium building may be designated for either or both of these categories. RJS/jd Enclosures cc (w/encls): Daniel A. Mule Boyd A. Ferguson Kelly A. Murdock 1558017.01.02 868117/RJS/jd CHAPMAN AND CUTLER LLP MEMORANDUM August 22, 2003 VIA E-MAIL To: Daniel A. Mule FROM: Richard J. Scott RE: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 Please find enclosed a draft of the suggested form of election resolution. As you will see, this document does not include the ballot propositions or the polling places. One of the issues that needs to be resolved is the date for the canvass of the election. Section 11-14-11 of the Utah Municipal Bond Act requires that the election be held "not later than ten days after the election." Pursuant to this provision, the last day for holding the canvass is Friday, November 14. However, Section 20A-4-301(2)(b) of the Utah Election Code provides that the "board of municipal canvassers shall meet to canvass the returns at the usual place of meeting of the municipal legislative body no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the election." Normally, this would mean that the canvass should be held on or after Friday, November 7, but not later than Tuesday, November 11. However, we understand that November 11 is a holiday. If that is the case, the meeting could be held as late as Wednesday, November 12,pursuant to Section 68-3-8 of the Utah Code. The foregoing provision does not apply to the bond election since Section 20A-4- 301(3)(a) states that "[t]his part does not apply to bond elections." This means that the canvass for the bond election could be later than the canvass for the municipal election. However, we assume that, as a practical matter, the City may wish to hold the canvasses for both elections on the same date. Please advise of any comments or questions that you may have. RJS/jd Enclosure cc (w/encl): Kelly A. Murdock Dale M. Okerlund 1111 1556942.01.01 868117/'RJS/jd Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 08/29/03 PLAN A • OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 • (Facsimile Signature) City Recorder, Salt Lake City CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 1 Renovating, Improving and Preserving the Old Main Library Building Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed • Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving for proper municipal purposes the old main library building located at approximately 5th South and 2nd East? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." . 1555765.02.01 868117/RJS/jd A - 1 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 Acquiring, Constructing and Improving • Two New Branch Library Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing and improving two new branch library facilities, parking facilities and related improvements and facilities, one to be located in the Glendale area and one to be located in the Capitol Hill area? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond,issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A - 2 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 3 • Acquiring and Preserving Park and Recreational Land Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring and preserving undeveloped park and recreational land and amenities? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS ) AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS ) To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A - 3 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 4 Acquiring, Constructing, Furnishing and Equipping • Recreational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping recreational facilities to be located between Redwood Road and I-215 at approximately 1800 North and to include a multi-purpose regional sports complex and associated nature park and improvements, together with related roads, parking and other improvements? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words"AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A - 4 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 5 • Renovating and Improving Pioneer Park Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating and improving Pioneer Park (being City Block 48, Plat "A," which is bordered by 3rd South Street, 3rd West Street, 4th South Street and 4th West Street)? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, • punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words"AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A- 5 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 6 Renovating, Improving and Preserving the • Hansen Planetarium Building Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving for proper municipal purposes the Hansen Planetarium Building located at approximately 15 South State Street? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS ) To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A - 6 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 7 • Renovating,Improving and Expanding Hogle Zoo Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and expanding Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue'? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS ) To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to ilkthe right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A - 7 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 8 • Acquiring, Renovating and Improving Museum of Utah Art and History Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ( ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, renovating and improving museum of Utah art and history facilities, and related improvements and facilities, to be located on Main Street? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, 4110 punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • A- 8 PLAN B SHORT • OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 (Facsimile Signature) City Recorder, Salt Lake City CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 1 Recreational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed • Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending recreational facilities of the City? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words"AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • BShort- 1 CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 Educational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending educational facilities of the City? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words"AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • BShort- 2 PLAN B LONG • OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 (Facsimile Signature) City Recorder, Salt Lake City CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 1 Recreational Facilities. Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed _ Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending recreational facilities of the City, including without limitation, athletic and play facilities, playgrounds, athletic fields, gymnasiums, parks, picnic grounds, zoos, auditoriums, and theaters*? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, The statutory terms "public baths, swimming pools, camps,fairgrounds, golf courses, boating facilities, tennis courts,stadiums and arenas" are omitted. • BLong- 1 punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 Educational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving or extending educational facilities of the City, including without limitation, schools, gymnasiums, auditoriums, theaters, museums, art galleries and libraries*? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > • To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FoR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words"AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." * The statutory terms "stadiums,arenas and fairgrounds" are omitted. • BLong - 2 • PLAN C • OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 (Facsimile Signature) City Recorder, Salt Lake City CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 1 Recreational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed • Dollars ($ ) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of recreational facilities of the City, including (1) acquiring and preserving undeveloped park and recreational land and amenities, (2) acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping recreational facilities to be located between Redwood Road and I-215 at approximately 1800 North and to include a multi-purpose regional sports complex and associated nature park and improvements, together with related roads, parking and other improvements, (3) renovating and improving Pioneer Park (being City Block 48, Plat "A," which is bordered by 3rd South Street, 3rd West Street, 4th South Street and 4th West Street) and (4) renovating, improving and expanding Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue? C- FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > • AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 Educational Facilities Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ )and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of educational facilities of the City, including (1) renovating, •improving and preserving for proper municipal purposes the old main library building located at approximately 5th South and 2nd East, (2) acquiring, constructing and improving two new branch library facilities, parking facilities and related improvements and facilities, one to be located in the Glendale area and one to be located in the Capitol Hill area, (3) renovating, improving and preserving for proper municipal purposes the Hansen Planetarium Building located at approximately 15 South State Street and (4) acquiring, renovating and improving museum of Utah art and history facilities, and related improvements and facilities, to be located on Main Street? FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > • C - 2 To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot • card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." • • C - 3 Chapman and Cutler Draft of 08/26/03 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 • A RESOLUTION providing for the holding of a special bond election in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, at the same time as the municipal general election, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors thereof the questions of [(1) whether general obligation bonds of the City, in an amount not to exceed $ , shall be issued and sold for the purpose of , and (2) whether general obligation bonds of the City, in an amount not to exceed $_ _, shall be issued and sold for the purpose of ]; and providing for related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") desires to raise money for the purpose of paying the costs of [acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping (1) and (2) ]; and [WHEREAS, _ _ [insert additional language as needed] ;] and WHEREAS, the City does not have on hand sufficient funds for said purposes set forth above; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized pursuant to the Utah Municipal Bond Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"), to call an election to submit to the qualified electors of the City the question as to whether the City should issue its general obligation bonds for the purposes set forth above; and WHEREAS, the City desires to hold a special bond election at the same time as the municipal general election to submit to the qualified electors of the City the question of the issuance of such bonds for said purposes; • 1555875.03.00 868117/RJS/jd Special Bond Election Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt-Lake • County, Utah, as follows: Section 1. In the judgment of the Municipal Council of the City, it is advisable that a special bond election be called and held in the City to submit to the quafied=electors--of the City the questions of [(1) whether general obligation bonds of the City, in an amount not to exceed $ , shall be issued and sold for the purpose of , and (2) whether general obligation bonds of the City,If/art=ai count not to exceed $ , shall be issued and sold for the purpose of ]. Section 2. The questions shall be submitted at a special bond election of qualified electors of the City, and such special bond election (the "Special Bond Election")-is hereby called to be held in the City at the same time as the municipal general election-on Tuesday, November 4, 2003. The questions shall be submitted in substantially the form setout:in=the form of ballot label appearing in Section 6 hereof. - Section 3. The Special Bond Election shall be held in the consolidated voting precincts of Salt Lake County, Utah (the "County") in which qualified electors of the City reside, at the polling places within the precincts specified in the form of notice of election attached hereto as Exhibit 1, subject to such changes in polling places as shall be established by the County. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-4 of the Utalr Code,-the-election officials who have been otherwise appointed under the provisions of general law to conduct the S -2- Special Bond Election Resolution • municipal general election to be held within the City on the same day shall conduct the Special Bond Election. Section 4. The judges of election in the respective voting precincts, in accordance with Section 20A-5-605 of the Utah Code, are hereby directed to arrive at their respective polling places not later than 6:30 a.m. on the day of the Special Bond Election and then to open the voting devices and examine them to see that they are in proper working order for the conduct of the Special Bond Election and otherwise to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with Section 20A-5-605 of the Utah Code. • Section 5. At the Special Bond Election the polls shall be opened at the hour of 7:00 a.m. on the day of the Special Bond Election and shall be closed at the hour of 8:00 p.m. on that same day. • Section 6. Voting at the Special Bond Election shall be by electronic voting system, and the City Recorder of the City (the "City Recorder") is hereby authorized and directed to perform and do, and to cause to be performed and done, all things necessary to conduct the Special Bond Election in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, Title 20A of the Utah Code and Chapter 14 of Title 11 of the Utah Code. The County Clerk of the County (the "County Clerk") is hereby requested for and on behalf of the City to assist the City Recorder to enable him to perform and do all such things necessary to conduct the Special Bond Election. The necessary ballot boxes, ballots, paraphernalia, equipment and supplies to be used in voting upon the proposition submitted shall be prepared and furnished by the City and the City Recorder to the boards of election, to be furnished by them to the voters. The ballot cards to be -3- Special Bond Election Resolution used at the Special Bond Election (a) shall be suitable for use in the voting and counting devices • in which they are intended to be placed, (b) shall comply in all respects with the requirements of Sections 20A-6-102 and 20A-6-402 of the Utah Code, including, but not limited to, the requirements (i) that each ballot card shall have an attached perforated stub on which shall be printed the words "Official Ballot, (initial) Judge", and (ii) the ballot stubs shall be numbered consecutively, and (c) shall be organized to record the votes relating to the Special Bond Election as well as votes relating to other propositions and offices being voted upon at the municipal general election. The ballot label to be used at the Special Bond Election shall comply in all respects with the requirements of Sections 11-14-10, 20A-6-102 and 20A-6-402 of the Utah Code. The ballot label to be used at the Special Bond Election shall be separate from ballot labels to be used for other propositions and offices being voted upon at the municipal general • election, and shall be in substantially the following form: • -4- Special Bond Election Resolution • OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 (Facsimile Signature) City Recorder, Salt Lake City [CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER ] • [Insert Proposition] FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." -5- Special Bond Election Resolution Section 7. The Special Bond Election shall be called by publishing once a week • during at least three (3) consecutive weeks a notice of election, signed by the City Recorder, the first publication to be not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty-five (35) days before the date set for the Special Bond Election, in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News, newspapers of general circulation, printed and published in the City. The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News are hereby designated pursuant to Section 11-14-21 of the Utah Code as the "official newspapers" of the City for purposes of publication of the "Notice of Special Bond Election" hereinafter set forth and for purposes of any other notices to be published in accordance with the Utah Municipal Bond Act, as amended. The notice shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The City Recorder shall post and publish the sample ballot label in compliance with • Section 20A-5-405 of the Utah Code. The sample ballot label shall be in substantially the form set forth in Section 6 hereto. Section 8. Only qualified, registered voters of the City who are eighteen (18) years of age or older shall be permitted to cast a vote at the Special Bond Election. Section 9. Any person applying for a ballot at any polling place designated for the conduct of the Special Bond Election, whose qualifications to vote are challenged for cause by any one or more of the election officials or by any other person at the time the ballot is applied for, shall receive a ballot and be permitted to vote if(a) such person is shown on the registration lists as a registered voter of the City and (b) such person takes an oath in the form in which such • -6- Special Bond Election Resolution • oath is set forth in Section 10 hereof, sworn to before one of the election officials, that he or she is a qualified elector of the City. In the case of any such challenge or challenges, the election officials at each polling place shall keep a list showing the name of each person challenged, the grounds for such challenge and whether or not such person was permitted to vote. Such lists shall be made in duplicate by the election officials at each polling place, and after the polls shall have been closed a duplicate list shall be returned to the Municipal Council by the election officials, so that such duplicate list will be available to the Municipal Council when it canvasses the election results. Section 10. The oath referred to in Section 9 hereof shall be in substantially the following form: • • -7- Special Bond Election Resolution ELECTOR'S OATH STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The undersigned, having been first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says under the pains and penalties of perjury, as follows: That I am a citizen of the United States; that I am 18 years of age or older; that I am now and have been a resident of the State of Utah for not less than 30 days; that I am a resident of Salt Lake County and of the consolidated voting precinct of Salt Lake City, Utah in which I am offering to vote; that I am a duly registered voter of Salt Lake County and I am a qualified voter of and reside within the confines of Salt Lake City, Utah; and that I have not previously voted at the special bond election being held on November 4, 2003, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Signature of Elector • Address of Elector I, the undersigned, Judge of Election, hereby certify that the person whose signature appears above, signed the foregoing statement on November 4, 2003, immediately after I administered to him or her an oath in the following words: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you have read the oath to which you are about to subscribe your signature and that the facts recited therein are true and correct, so help you God (or under the pains and penalties of perjury)." Judge of Election • -8- Special Bond Election Resolution • Each of the election officials appointed to conduct the Special Bond Election is expressly authorized to administer such oath in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-6 of the Utah Code. Section 11. Pursuant to the provisions of Part 3, Chapter 3, Title 20A of the Utah Code, any qualified elector of the City who resides within the confines of the City, who has complied with the law in regard to registration and who is an absent elector may vote at the Special Bond Election by making application in the manner and time provided by law for an absentee ballot, either in person or by mail, or by proxy in the case of a hospitalized voter, at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Absentee ballots of hospitalized voters must be received at the office of the City Recorder before the closing of the polls on the day of the Special Bond Election in order to be counted. All other • absentee ballots must be received at the office of the City Recorder before the closing of the polls on the day of the Special Bond Election or clearly postmarked before November 4, 2003, the day on which the Special Bond Election will be held, and received in the office of the City Recorder before 12:00 Noon on , November , 2003, the day of the official canvass following the Special Bond Election, in order to be counted. The City Recorder shall deliver to the counting center on election day those valid absentee ballots that are received before the closing of the polls on the day of the Special Bond Election in order that they may be processed with the voting precinct returns on the day of the Special Bond Election. The City Recorder shall retain in a safe place all other valid absentee ballots that were, for any reason, not counted at the counting center on the day of the Special Bond Election or were clearly • -9- Special Bond Election Resolution postmarked before the day of the Special Bond Election and received in the office of the City • Recorder before 12:00 Noon on the day of the official canvass following the Special Bond Election and shall deliver the absentee ballots to the place of the official canvass of the Special Bond Election by 12:00 Noon on the day of the official canvass following the Special Bond Election. The City Recorder is hereby requested, authorized and directed to prepare the necessary absentee ballots, applications and envelopes as required by law for voting by absent electors and hospitalized voters and to take such actions with respect to the counting thereof as permitted by Part 3, Chapter 3, Title 20A of the Utah Code. Section 12. Immediately after the polls are closed and the last qualified voter has voted, the judges appointed to conduct the Special Bond Election shall place (a) all voted regular • ballots in a ballot container for delivery to the counting center designated by the County Clerk, (b) all provisional ballot envelopes in the envelope or container provided to them and sealed for return to the County Clerk, (c) all unused ballots in a container and sealed for return to the County Clerk and (d) the voting devices in their containers and sealed for return to the County Clerk. The judges of election shall also prepare in duplicate a report of the number of voters who have voted at the respective polling places, the original copy of which report shall be placed in the ballot container for delivery to the counting center and a duplicate copy of which shall be returned to the Municipal Council prior to the date set to canvass the returns of the Special Bond Election. In accordance with Section 11-14-11 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder is hereby requested and directed to make returns to the Municipal Council of the votes cast at the Special • -10- Special Bond Election Resolution • Bond Election in order to enable the Municipal Council to meet and canvass the returns of the Special Bond Election and to declare the results thereof. Section 13. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20A-4-104 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder shall direct under the observation of the public, the counting of the votes cast on the foregoing proposition by automatic tabulating equipment at the counting center. The return printed by the automatic tabulating equipment when absentee ballots cast at the Special Bond Election have been added thereto and when certified by the Municipal Council, shall constitute the official return of each voting precinct. Section 14. The Municipal Council shall meet as a Board of Canvassers within ten (10) days after the date of the Special Bond Election on , November , 2003, during the Municipal Council meeting that-begins at the hour of p.m., in the Council • Chambers, located in Room 315, at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, ty, Utah, and if the majority of the votes cast at the Special Bond Election are in favor of such proposition submitted, then the Municipal Council shall cause an entry of that fact to be made upon its minutes, and thereupon the City shall be authorized and directed to issue such bonds. Section 15. Immediately after the adoption of this Resolution and at least 30 days before the election, the City Recorder shall furnish a certified copy hereof to the County Clerk. The County Clerk shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-7 of the Utah Code, consider all persons registered to vote in the municipal general election to be held on the day of the Special Bond Election, as registered to vote in the Special Bond Election. The County Clerk shall make registration lists or copies of such lists available at each polling place herein • -11- Special Bond Election Resolution established for the conduct of the Special Bond Election for use by registered electors entitled to • use such voting place. Section 16. Prior to the start of the counting of the ballots, the automatic tabulating equipment shall be tested to ascertain that it will accurately count the votes cast at the Special Bond Election. Such test shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 20A-4-104 of the Utah Code. Public notice of the time and place of the test shall be given at least forty-eight (48) hours before the test by publication one time in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News of a notice in substantially the form set forth in the form of notice of election attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Section 17. This Resolution is a declaration of official intent under Treas. Reg. Section 1.150-2. In satisfaction of the requirements thereof: (a) The Municipal Council is planning to raise money for the purpose of paying the costs of [acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping (1) and (2) ]. (b) Expenditures relating to paying the costs of [acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping (1) and (2) ] have been paid within sixty days prior to the passage of this Resolution or will be paid on or after the passage of this Resolution (the "Expenditures"). (c) The Municipal Council reasonably expects to reimburse the Expenditures with proceeds of general obligation bonds to be issued by the City. • -12- Special Bond Election Resolution • (d) The maximum principal amount of such bonds expected to be issued for the Expenditures is an amount not to exceed$ Section 18. All acts and resolutions in conflict with this Resolution or any part thereof are hereby repealed. Section 19. Immediately after its adoption, this Resolution shall be signed by the Chair of the Municipal Council and the Deputy City Recorder, was approved as to form and signed by the Assistant City Attorney, submitted to the Mayor for approval, shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose and shall take immediate effect. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 9th day of September, 2003. SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH • By Chair, Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, [SEAL] Salt Lake County, Utah ATTEST: By Deputy City Recorder, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah APPROVED: Mayor, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah • -13- Special Bond Election Resolution EXHIBIT 1 • NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOND ELECTION SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special bond election will be held in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the "City"), at the same time as the municipal general election, on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at which special bond election there shall be submitted to the qualified,registered voters residing within the City the following questions: [CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER ] [Insert Proposition] The special bond election shall be held at the consolidated voting precincts of Salt Lake • County, at the following polling places within such voting precincts, and the election officials to serve at each polling place shall be those who have been otherwise appointed under the provisions of general law to conduct the municipal general election. Voters are advised to vote at the special bond election at the polling place for the consolidated voting precinct in which they reside. The polling places are as follows: CONSOLIDATED REGULAR VOTING POLLING PLACE VOTING PRECINCT NO. PRECINCT NO. LOCATION The voting at the special bond election shall be by ballots used in connection with an electronic voting system. The ballots will be furnished by the City Recorder to the judges of election, to be by them furnished to the qualified electors of the City. The polls at each polling place shall be opened at the hour of 7:00 a.m. and will be kept open until and will be closed at the hour of 8:00 p.m. • Exhibit 1 - 1 Special Bond Election Resolution There is to be no special registration of voters for the special bond election and the official register of voters last made or revised shall constitute the register for the special bond election, except that all persons who reside within the City and are registered to vote in the municipal general election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, shall be considered registered to vote in the special bond election. The County Clerk of Salt Lake County will make registration lists or copies of such lists available at each of the above-described polling places for use by registered electors entitled to use such voting place. Absentee ballots may be obtained by any person otherwise eligible to vote at the special bond election but who (a) is physically, emotionally, or mentally impaired; (b) will be serving as an election judge or who has election duties in another voting precinct; (c) is detained or incarcerated in a jail or prison as a penalty for committing a misdemeanor; (d) has a legal disability; (e) is prevented from voting in a particular location because of religious tenets or other strongly-held personal values; (f) is called for jury duty in state or federal court; or (g) otherwise expects to be absent from the voting precinct in which the eligible voter resides during the hours the polls are open in Salt Lake County on the day of the special bond election, by making application in the manner and within the time provided by law, either by mail or in person, at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Any eligible voter who is hospitalized or otherwise confined to a medical or long-term care institution after the deadline for filing an application for an absentee ballot in the manner and within the time provided by law may obtain an absentee ballot by sending another person to obtain the absentee ballot on his or her behalf at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on Friday, October 31, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in Room S-1007 of the County Government Center, 2001 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, there will be conducted a test of the automatic tabulating equipment to be used to tabulate the results of the November 4, 2003 special bond election to be held in the City on the issuance and sale of $ bonds of the City. This test is open to public observation in accordance with the provisions of Section 20A-4-104, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. PUBLIC NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on , November , 2003, that being a day not later than ten days after the special bond election, the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City will meet in the Council Chambers, Room 315, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at p.m. and will canvass the returns and declare the results of the special bond election during such meeting. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Utah Municipal Bond Act, the period allowed for any contest of the special bond election shall end forty (40) days after November , 2003 (the date on which the returns of the election are to be canvassed and the results thereof declared). No such contest shall be maintained unless a complaint is filed with the Clerk of the Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County within the prescribed forty (40) day period. • Exhibit 1 - 2 Special Bond Election Resolution The ballot label to be used at the special bond election shall be separate from ballot labels to be used for other propositions and offices being voted upon at the municipal general election, and shall be in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT LABEL FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL BOND ELECTION November 4, 2003 /s/Kendrick D. Cowley City Recorder, Salt Lake City [CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER_] • [Insert Proposition] • FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS > To vote in favor of the above bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." To vote against the bond issue, punch through the ballot card in the numbered space indicated to the right of the words "AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, has caused this notice to be given this 9th day of September, 2003. City Recorder Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah • Exhibit 1 - 3 Special Bond Election Resolution S-4 ' AA ,: ITY C• RP® ° �41I. I • DANIEL A. MULE" µ �� � * �.a ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: August 7, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Debt Structure for General Fund Supported Debt Attached to this memo is a list of outstanding bond issues in which the source for funding debt service payments comes from contributions transferred out of the General Fund through the CIP Fund and into the appropriate debt service fund. The Series 1999 and 2002 General Obligation Bonds imposed a General Fund property tax levy for this purpose. The Series 2001 General Obligation Bonds did not. Directly below is an excerpt that appears in a number of the City's official documents. It describes the debt incurring capacity of the City to issue general obligation bonds. The figures have been updated to reflect current conditions. Clearly, the City is well below its legal limit. • Legal Debt Limit of the City The general obligation indebtedness of the City for general purposes is limited by Utah law to 4% of the Adjusted Fair Market Value of taxable property. An additional 4% may be borrowed for water, sewer or lighting purposes, or up to the full 8% may be used for water, sewer or lighting purposes, provided that then no general obligation bonds may be issued in excess of 8% for any purpose. The legal general obligation debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the City are based on Adjusted Fair Market Value for 2002, and are calculated as follows: 2002 Adjusted Fair Market Value for Salt Lake City: $18.739,545,933 4% 4% Water General Sewer & 8% Purposes Lighting Total General Obligation Debt Limit $749,581,837 $749,581,837 $1,499,163,674 Less Amount of Debt Applicable to • General Obligation Debt Limits (91,455,000) - (91,455,000) Additional Debt Incurring Capacity $658,126,837 $749,581,837 $1,407,708,674 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535-7946 FAX: 801-S35-6082 aecvcco P..Pev • -2- As is evident by the following table which compares the City's current General Fund supported debt obligations against industry established debt ratio benchmarks, the City continues to remain within the preferred "low" target range. Debt Ratio Benchmarks General All General Fund Obligation Supported Debt Ratio Low Moderate High Debt Ratios* Debt Ratios** Debt Per Capita <than $1,000 $1,000-$2,500 >than $2,500 $499.60 $663.19 Debt as a Percent of Market <than 3% 3-6% >than 6% 0.5% 0.7% Value Debt as a Percent of Personal <than 3% 3-6% >than 6% 1.3% 1.7% Income Debt Service as a Percent of <than 5% 10% >than 15% 3.1% 4.8% General Fund Expenditures *Genera!Obligation Debt: $91,455,000 **All General Fund supported debt, including: General Obligation, Lease Revenue and Motor Fuel Excise Tax: $121,401,560 DAM/Ic Attachment • . • S General Fund Supported Debt • Outstanding Debt Issues (as of June 30, 2003) Amount of Final Principal Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Series 1999 Library(Authorized $84,000,000) $81,000,000 6/15/2019 24,075,000 Series 2001 Refunding Bonds City/County Building 22,650,000 6/15/2011 19,130,000 Series 2002 Building and Refunding Bonds Library(Remaining Authorized Portion) 3,000,000 6/15/2019 3,000,000 Library(Refund portion of Series 1999) 45,855,000 6/15/2019 45,250,000 48,250,000 Total General Oblibation Debt 91,455,000 MBA LEASE REVENUE BONDS .ries 1993A Revenue and Refunding Bonds $29,610,000 Baseball Stadium 10/15/2005 3,464,000 Fire Station No. 13 10/15/2011 950,000 Fire Station No. 6 10/15/2011 346,000 Other New Projects 10/15/2011 7,385,000 Refund Portion of Series 1988 10/15/2014 5,765,000 Less: Portion Funded By RDA SARR (13,408,440) 4,501,560 Series 1999A Revenue and Refunding Bonds Plaza 349 8,780,000 10/15/2019 8,780,000 Series 1999B** Fire Training Tower 1,115,000 10/15/2019 1,115,000 Series 2001 Justice Court 6,735,000 10/15/2020 6,735,000 Police Precinct 5,120,000 10/15/2020 5,120,000 11,855,000 Total MBA Lease Revenue Debt 26,251,560 ** RDA will use SARR money to pay debt service on the way and Ice Arena bonds through FY 2015. 1 General Fund Supported Debt Outstanding Debt Issues (as of June 30, 2003) • Amount of Final Principal Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS Series 1999 $5,155,000 2/1/2009 3,695,000 Grand Total Outstanding General Fund Supported Debt 121,401,560 o • 2 A,'..:3 0 G 2003 C."ROCKY"ANDERSON [��1 � � 1 /vj_ ,4�(��1)�TT �[j' .. �1 �"�)e' 1 MAYOR '-'p €�.�� �" -;�_`s `=. �RP® 10 SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR +*,i COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhai DATE: August 1, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: D.J. Baxter Mayor's Senior Advisor Steve Fawcett Deputy Director,Management Services Department SUBJECT: G.O. Bond projects fact sheets STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor, 535-7735 Kay Christensen, Administrative Analyst, 535-7677 Laurie Dillon, Senior Administrative Analyst, 535-7766 Susi Kontgis, Senior Administrative Analyst, 535-6414 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information fact sheets for each project identified to possibly be 11 included in a General Obligation Bond issue. These fact sheets are to be transmitted to the City Council for their information and consideration in setting a bond election date on November 4, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receives the fact sheets, holds a discussion, and sets the date of November 4, 2003 for a single,combined General Obligation Bond issue. The potential projects to be funded with such an issue are: The Leonardo at Library Square, two branch libraries, one in the Southwest/Glendale area and one in the West Capitol Hill area, Open Space land purchases in various City locations, a Sports field complex in the Northwest area, Pioneer Park, Hansen Planetarium, and Hogle Zoo. BUDGET IMPACT: If the voters approve a bond election property tax rates will be set to repay the loan value. Each budget year a separate GO Bond tax rate is set to pay the annual debt service payment as set forth in the bond documents repayment schedule. The City Council would include in the budget each year the amount necessary to service this debt issue. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Individuals involved in preliminary planning and engineering of the projects identified have supplied information to the Administrative Analysts of Management Services, who have prepared informational fact sheets to brief the City Council. The specific information requested to be presented includes a brief 411/ project description; a purpose and scope, including the benefit that the community can 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 expect to receive if the project is funded and constructed; the preliminary cost estimate to construct and equip each project; the preliminary operating and maintenance cost • estimates and the potential sources for those costs; and if any potential partners are available to assist in the project construction costs or operating and maintenance costs. If the City Council approves of the bond election an information brochure will be completed by September 1 and a public education process will begin. Bond Counsel has been selected and preliminary legal work, including a reimbursement resolution, is being completed and will go before the City Council for their approval as well. PUBLIC PROCESS: A telephone survey of Salt Lake City residents conducted in July 2003 revealed that 64% of those surveyed were favorable toward funding these projects with a property tax increase through a general obligation bond. • • • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET PROPOSED PROJECT: The Leonardo Project Description Salt Lake City wants to renovate the old main library building to house a science, cultural and educational facility called The Leonardo at Library Square. The project will feature Utah's first interactive science and technology center, an arts education program for youth, and a documentary arts center that honors Utah's heritage and diverse cultures. Purpose and Scope The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture and Science (The Leonardo Foundation) was established January 10, 2002. It is a not for profit 501(c)(3) organization whose board includes representatives of three par tiler organizations: The Center for Documentary Arts, the Utah Science Center, and the City's Global Artways program. These three partners believed that their goals could best be achieved by creation of the "umbrella" foundation to manage the building, coordinate programs and activities, and build on • their individual strengths to create "a whole greater than its parts." The Leonard Foundation will hold a long-term lease on the building and the Leonardo Board will be the governing body. The exact terms of the lease are not finalized, but it is anticipated that the fee will be a token amount, such as $1 a month. Global Artways will not be a signatory to the lease because the City cannot lease to itself. The Leonardo facility will offer nearly 30,000 square feet of exhibit space, a gift shop, a workshop, a café, a children's story zone, a mother's place, performance theatres, media studios, science labs, visual art studios, a darkroom, and reception and conference areas. Global Artways will share space with the Salt Lake Arts Academy, a charter school for 5th-8th grade students in the SLC School District. The Academy will rent space from Global Artways. Global Artways will offer art education to people of all ages, a high-tech media studio which will allow the study of video editing, animation, web page design, and multimedia presentations. A Youth Arts Corps will provide peer mentoring, and project design and implementation. Global Artways will utilize the black box theatre • and other performance facilities. The Center for Documentary Arts (CDA) will combine a museum, a center for the study of documentary work, and research facilities in one location. • One peu nanent and two rotating galleries will form the center's museum component. A library, an in-house screening area, classrooms, a darkroom, a digital imaging center, and a curatorial workroom will form the bulk of CDA's fabrication and educational spaces. These spaces will jointly serve CDA's daily needs and its year-round course offerings to the public on all facets of documentary work. CDA also plans activities that will utilize the black box theater, the dance studio, and the storytelling space. The Utah Science Center will focus on energy (from fusion reactions of the sun, to photosynthesis and fossil fuels to alternative energy technologies and bioenergetics), physiology, chemistry and pathology, as well as the environment, focusing on biodiversity, resources and climate. The Center will sponsor technology and science exhibits, events, issue forums, and classroom study. Architectural work and testing are now underway. Conceptual plans and preliminary estimates have been completed and engineering drawings will be available in the fall of 2003. Contractor work could begin in early 2004 with an opening of the Leonardo scheduled for early 2005. 41 Capital Cost Estimates A $25 million Capital Campaign is now under way with the following components: Approximately $10 million from the City bond proposal would be used for the Leonardo project. It is estimated that $4.5 million would be used for remodeling and interior improvements, $4.5 million for seismic, electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, and $0.5 million for creating joint use spaces such as shops, ticketing and security. This will include all improvements necessary for each pai tiler and will prepare the building for occupancy. Private donations of$10 million in matching funds will be obtained by the prospective tenants before issuance of the City bonds. These funds may be comprised of Federal, State and County funds, as well as private, corporate and foundation contributions. Operating Cost Estimates S • A preliminary business plan for the Leonardo has been prepared and is circulating for comment. Business plans for each of the three partners are in the final stages of development. The Leonardo umbrella organization expects an operating budget of approximately $1 million per year, of which about half is for the operation and maintenance of the building and the remainder is for services to the i partner organizations. of ��i The Utah Science Center's operating budget will be approximately $5 million per year. The Center for Documentary Arts will have operating costs of less than$1 million per year. Potential Sources of Funding for Operations & Maintenance Approximately half of the $ 1 million operating budget of the umbrella Leonardo operation will be generated through space assessment fees to the partners; the other half will come from event revenues, gift shop revenues, Sand philanthropic and grant support. The Leonardo will operate a gift shop, provide simple food service, and centralized ticketing and related services for the partners and for the general programs and activities. Global Artways is a component of the City's Youth City programs, which will expand into the Leonardo site. Operating and maintenance costs will be part of Global Artways' budget and will be at least partially offset by the rent received from the Salt Lake Arts Academy. Approximately half of the Utah Science Center's $ 5 million operating and maintenance budget will come from ticket and membership revenues. The operating budget of the Center for Documentary Arts will be generated from grants, corporate contributions, ticket sales, exhibit rentals, and student fees. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Branch Libraries Project Description: This project would fund the construction of two new branch libraries, one in the Glendale area and one in the Capital Hill area. The construction costs are estimated to be$5 million, and property acquisition costs are estimated at about $250,000, for a total bond amount of$5,250,000. Purpose and Scope: The Library's Strategic Plan for 2002-2005 includes planning for a future Glendale Branch. The Capitol Hill Branch is being considered at the request of the RDA. The two branch libraries would serve Salt Lake City's west side in Glendale and in the West Capitol Hill neighborhood near 300 West and 500 North. Construction costs for the two facilities would be at least$5,000,000. The Glendale Branch is planned at 12,000 square feet and the West Capitol Hill Branch at 8,000 square feet. The RDA has informed the Library Board that property may be available for the West Capitol Hill Branch at the desired location without cost to the Library. Property for the Glendale location would need to be acquired. Cost Estimates: Capital Improvements: With a total of 20,000 square feet and an assumption of • $185.00 per square foot in hard construction costs for the buildings and$30.00 per square foot for FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment), fees at approximately 10%, and an inflationary safety net of 5% annually, the total construction budget would approach $5,000,000. The cost for land acquisition for the Glendale branch is estimated at $250,000. It is expected that bond funds would cover the land purchase and construction. Start-up Costs An initial collection for each branch would be needed. Start-up costs for a collection of 40,000 items would be approximately$600,000 for each branch and may not be appropriate as a bond expenditure. These costs would have to be covered by the Library System's budget. Operations and Maintenance The projected annual costs to operate each of the new branch libraries would mirror the costs to operate the Day-Riverside Library at approximately: $300,000 for staff 100,000 for materials 30,000 for utilities and phone service 60,000 for maintenance/landscaping 50,000 for services and supplies $550,000 approximately per branch annually • • Potential Sources of Funds for Operations & Maintenance: Before proceeding with plans to consider a bond initiative for these projects, the Library Board requests that the City Council commit to a tax increase for the operating costs necessary to support these new branches. In light of the recent reductions already absorbed by the Library, restoration of necessary operating funds would also be a priority for the Library Board and Staff. That amount could be at least $600,000 or more annually depending upon revenues received in April of 2004. It should be remembered that this year's reduction of $400,000 came on the heels of a similar reduction in 2001-2002, and the Library's resources have been stretched very thin. Assuming that the previous budget losses for the Library were restored and that the costs for operating two new branches were added, it can be estimated that a tax increase would need to total in the vicinity of$1.7 million annually($550,000 for each branch and $600,000 to restore current year reduction).This amount represents an ongoing increase to the library's tax revenues/rate of about 16%,which would be an increase of$10 per year for a home valued at $150,000. One-time costs for start-up collections for both branches would require about $1.2 million. There are a couple of ways this amount could be funded. A one-time tax rate increase of 11% (about $7 for a$150,000 house)would cover this expense: The rate could be lowered the next year. Alternatively, if the tax increase for operating expenses (the 16%mentioned above) were to be implemented at least a year in advance of the completion of the two branch libraries, the increase could be used to fund the start-up 1111 collections. The tax rate increase would need to be in place prior to the time the bonds were issued, and the construction schedule would have to be such that the operating funds would not be needed for the first year of the rate increase. A similar process was used in funding the increase in the collection for the new Main Library, in which a tax increase was implemented while the construction was on-going. Because the actual construction of the Main Library took a couple of years, the increase was used to purchase additional materials during those construction years, and then applied to the increased operating and maintenance costs of a larger facility when it was completed. The primary concern with using this approach for the branch libraries is that the construction time would be much shorter. The tax increase would need to be in place for the year prior to opening the new branches in order to use those funds for the start-up collection costs. One additional source of funding is $700,000 in capital reserves that the library will likely have available to put toward any of the costs related to new branch libraries, e.g., land purchase, construction, or new collections. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 Library Contact Nancy Tessman Director, The City Library 210 East 400 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • (801) 524-8250 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Open Space Project Description The City is considering the creation of an Open Space Trust Fund to help purchase, receive and manage open space lands in Salt Lake City. This proposal is driven by the desire to protect the eastern foothills from any further encroachment. Creating a dedicated funding source, such as a trust fund, would allow the City to be proactive in preserving the City's open space. Purpose and Scope The Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1992 called for the establishment of an Open Space Trust to "receive ownership of publicly and privately owned open space lands and to consolidate the public ownership, promote acquisition, generate revenue, and monitor the plan." • The Plan suggests several funding options for land acquisition, including a general obligation bond. A general obligation bond issue offers the best opportunity to finance land conservation in Salt Lake City. A trust fund created by proceeds from a general obligation bond could potentially provide up-front funds for the immediate purchase of land while it is still available and would provide a reliable revenue source for any maintenance costs. Cost Estimates The cost of land acquisition varies greatly depending on the location and potential for development. For example, an acre of open space amenity land (land which cannot be developed because of degree of slope) costs approximately $1,500 an acre. On the other hand, land which has some potential for development might sell in the range of$150,000 per acre as was the case with a recently donated parcel west of Carrigan Canyon). Obviously, acquisitions would depend on available funds. In addition to acquisition, costs associated with open space fall into two categories: stabilization and routine maintenance. Stabilization includes those measures that must be undertaken to prepare the land for its intended use, including fences, gates, revegetation, signs, and other improvements or demolition. One foinuula some cities have used for estimating stabilization costs is six percent of the land's purchase price. Maintenance costs vary greatly depending on the land's use and how much access the public has to the land. For example, several years ago, Portland estimated the cost of trail maintenance at $8,000 per trail mile per year. Other cities listed open space maintenance costs ranging from $20 to $500 per acre. Potential Sources of O&M Operations and maintenance would be the responsibility of the City, but the burden could be offset by private donations of time and money. There are numerous groups such the KOPE Kids, Save our Canyons and other citizen groups who are concerned with conserving the natural environment, whose efforts could contribute to the City's maintenance program. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET PROPOSED PROJECT: Regional Sports Field Complex 111 Project Description Salt Lake City wants to construct a multi-purpose regional sports complex on 212 acres at 2000 North and 2000 West. Currently, that property houses a model-airplane airport, which would have to be relocated, and borders an off-road-vehicle playground. If this project is undertaken, the City would need to acquire 212 acres of State owned property in North Salt Lake,between Redwood Road and 1-215 at approximately 1800 North. The City would construct eight baseball/softball diamonds, an indoor soccer/baseball complex and 30 outdoor soccer fields that could also be used for lacrosse, rugby, and football. Purpose and Scope According to industry-developed national standards, Salt Lake City is deficient in its amount of park green space available for public use. Notably lacking are large regional and community park spaces that can be used for organized events. Specifically, there is a need to accommodate the growing youth and adult participation in organized sports such as soccer, lacrosse, rugby, and baseball. As a consequence, every available large green space found in the City's community and neighborhood parks is heavily programmed for use by the public who participate in these activities. • In many instances, fields are shared and used for multiple events. The continuous, high- intensity multi-use of park space has created impacts to park users and the community in which the park is located. The charm, peacefulness and basic use of the park by local residents is diminished due to over use by organized sports activities. Creating a regional multi-purpose sports complex away from the residential neighborhoods, but still in an easily accessible area of the City will relieve the pressure and impacts currently felt in neighborhood and community parks. The sports complex would look like and function as a public park, though its public use features would specifically target youth and adult athletic field activities. The Jordan River, which runs along the east border of the complex, will also be developed for public access and use, but only at a level that is sensitive to the unique natural beauty and value of this river corridor. Great lengths will be taken to preserve the natural habitat for both plants and wildlife. The sports field complex will have approximately 30 soccer fields (open spaces), eight baseball/softball diamonds, playgrounds, restrooms and concession areas. The complex will have sufficient on-site parking,pathways, landscaping and irrigation systems to support the use, and minimize the cost of on-going maintenance. Although the complex will have the shape and design of a soccer facility, the activity space will be designed to support youth football, lacrosse, rugby and other field activities by moving goals and • adjusting space. This design should easily accommodate organized leagues and clubs, as well as high school athletic events and/or tournament play. The complex could also include an indoor structure that would support the same types of outdoor activities provided by the complex. This would allow for the sports complex to operate 12 months a year. Cost Estimates The City anticipates needing approximately$17.5 million to design and construct the project. The estimated cost would break down into the following categories: — Indoor structure $5.0 million — Design fees and Administration $3.0 million — Road improvements and parking $2.3 million — Sports field improvements $7.5 million — Baseball/softball improvements $2.0 million — Building/support facilities $2.1 million — Jordan River Trail improvements $0.6 million TOTAL (with indoor structure) $22.5 million Not included in this cost estimate are funds for land acquisition from the State of Utah. It • is assumed the City would need to have the land donated by the State of Utah, or work out some type of land or service trade due to the high acquisition cost of the land. If the project were undertaken,we estimate the on-going operating and maintenance cost for the complex would be approximately$5,000 per acre, or$1.06 million annually. As stated previously, use of the complex will be fee—based, so a portion of the operation/maintenance cost will be offset by user fees. The remainder of the cost will be shared proportionately by the partners who share the complex. Potential Sources of Funds for Operations &Maintenance Potential funding sources for operating and maintenance costs include user fees, ZAP tax revenue,private donations and naming opportunities. Salt Lake City will own the facility, but on-going maintenance and programming support will be provided by partners, such as participating counties, government institutions, school districts, high school athletic associations and/or private businesses that use the complex. The complex will be used for a variety of purposes and will be fee-based. Due to its size and location, this facility could accommodate regional, state and national tournaments and events. We believe scheduled events will bring new economic opportunities to the City and generate revenues that will offset a significant portion of annual operating costs. Based on economic models standard to the industry, the Salt Lake City Sports Complex has the potential to offset operation/maintenance expense through league play and tournament play. Industry standard models indicate the following revenue may be generated: • Seasonal League Use: Baseball/Softball $25,000 Soccer(or other field sports) $180,000 Tournament Play: Baseball/Softball $120,000-$175,000 (based on 5 per year) Soccer(or other field sports) $150,000-$175,000 (based on 5 per year) Total Potential Use Fees $475,000-$555,000 The complex will also act as the engine for other economic benefits such as sales taxes, lodging, food and other travel-related economic activities. Preliminary research, using a US Soccer Foundation model, indicates that four tournaments will generate $5,790,000 of new economic activity annually. Staff Contact: Susi Kontgis 535-6414 • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET Proposed Project Pioneer Park Project Description This project would renovate Pioneer Park by introducing new design elements to activate the park and make it a destination place for all of Salt Lake City's residents. New design elements will set the park apart as an inviting, safe, and usable urban park space. It will include improvements to the landscape and physical facilities of the park, and will create activity areas that will open the door to new programming opportunities. Purpose and Scope Pioneer Park is an under-utilized urban open space that is located in an area of the downtown community that is currently in transition. In its early life, the park functioned adequately as a neighborhood park supporting the needs of the local residents. Over time, the character of the community changed. Residential properties changed to commercial and industrial uses. The park became an oasis with no formal activity base. Today's park users are typically homeless individuals and others who use and benefit from the social service agencies that support them and surround the park. Aside from the very successful Farmer's Market, the park space offers little in programming opportunity even though it is a mature green space. There exists a perception that the park is unsafe and unkempt. • Because of its size and location, and because the community around the park is in transition, there is reason to believe that the park space can become the central public area for the community, and that it can serve as a strong link between the Central Business District and the Gateway and Depot Districts. Grant funding and City matching funds have provided for consultants who are working with City staff to develop the final use plan for the park. The goal of the project will be to build features that activate and bring life to the park and the surrounding area. The improvements will be designed to stimulate economic growth opportunities near and around the park; stimulate use by the families who reside near the park; support and give balance between those who currently use the park and other city-wide visitors; create a safe environment; preserve open space; interpret the historical and archeological aspect of the park's history; create a space that welcomes diversity of people and cultures; and enhance the Farmer's Market. Key to the park's renovation will be the introduction of facilities or design elements that are unique and creative, and that stimulate broad-based public interest. The final design proposal is not yet complete, but it may very well include elements such as interactive playgrounds, staging for events, gardens, a café or food facility, gathering spaces and an activity space such as a water feature or ice rink. The process for determining what features should be included in the park is currently underway. Focus groups of the various stakeholders—residents, businesses, homeless advocates, historic preservation groups, and arts and culture organizations—have met to develop ideas for uses of the park. The discussions have also included what is needed for a successful park, and what barriers currently exist that must be addressed. This infoiiiiation provides the basis for the improvements that will be recommended. • Cost Estimates The City is anticipating needing $4.1 million to renovate Pioneer Park from its current condition to a more lively and active urban park. Based on their experience with similar projects and the proposed uses, the consultants currently working on the design have estimated the design and construction costs at$3.1 million, and the contingency and fees at $1 million. Additional activities and elements in the park will add to the on-going operating and maintenance costs. The new design elements and the desired increase in activities will result in an increased cost for operating the renovated park estimated at $5,000 per acre per year, or$50,000 annually. This cost would be in addition to the funds currently budgeted for the park (approximately$4000 per acre per year). The estimate for the increase is based on typical costs for comparable activities in City park environments. Potential Sources of Funding for Operations & Maintenance The General Fund is likely to be the source for the increased operating and maintenance costs. Costs for some of the activities may be offset by fees, but the City will need to subsidize the overall increased cost of having more features and facilities in the park. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Hansen Planetarium Project Description The City is considering a project to renovate and preserve the historic Hansen Planetarium building. The building is listedon the National Register of Historic Places and could be used as a gallery, a museum, or for other educational or business purposes (if tax-exempt bonds are used to fund the project there would be significant restrictions on any for-profit business use). Purpose and Scope Completed in 1905, the original Salt Lake City Public Library building, which more recently housed the Hansen Planetarium, is an historic structure and should be protected and preserved The dome constructed for the use of the planetarium is not part of the historic structure and can be removed. The project would remove all planetarium related equipment, fixtures, furnishings and walls and remove asbestos fibers. New floors will be installed where the dome was removed, restrooms and the elevator will be remodeled to comply with ADA requirements. The building will be brought to current code requirements for all seismic and building systems The work will be done to the standards necessary to achieve the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification in compliance with the City's green building initiative. All construction will be appropriate to the historic nature of the structure. The building will be prepared for tenant build out. The cost to build out to meet a future tenant's specific needs is not known and is not part of this proposal. Cost Estimates If the building is restored to apre-tenant build out condition, it is estimated to cost approximately $6,100,000. This estimate includes the cost of demolition, new construction, LEED certification, asbestos removal, dome removal, design and construction administration fees. Leaving the building empty in its present condition could result in overall deterioration requiring the City to appropriate funds to repair the damage. The building could act as a revenue source for the City if an appropriate tenant were found. However, if a non-profit or government agency moved in, the rent charged might not cover all operating and maintenance costs. Tenants would be required to cover utility and related costs. The annual operating and maintenance costs for the physical plant, if occupied, are estimated to be: (assuming 28,073 square feet) Labor $16,689 Utilities Electric $26,000 Gas $ 7,000 Water $ 1,000 Materials/Supplies $11,000 Janitorial .$32,400 Charges/Services....$l 2,000 Total $106,089 411, Operations and maintenance would be approximately $10,000 a year if the building were remodeled, but remained vacant. Potential Sources of O&M The City will bear the burden of operating and maintenance costs for the building until a tenant is found, and may continue to bear some of the burden if the occupant is a non-profit. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET 41, Proposed Project Utah's Hogle Zoo Capital Improvement Projects Project Description Utah's Hogle Zoo recommends that capital improvement projects for the Zoo be included in the proposed bond issue for Salt Lake City. Potential projects include: "Elephant Encounters", an expansion of the exhibit for African elephants; renovation of the outdated feline building; and expansion of the Zoo on This is the Place Monument property. Each will address significant and urgent needs for improved animal care, safety, public education and recreation. These projects will solidify the Zoo's role as a dynamic and progressive cultural and recreational facility at its current site at the mouth of Emigration Canyon. Potential Improvement Projects "Elephant Encounters" Elephant Encounters expands the 30-year old"Animal Giants"exhibit area for African elephants by 400 percent, and will improve the care,management, safety, and exhibit value for the world's largest land animals. Project elements include an expansive new habitat area to represent an"African watering hole"; an extensive outdoor training area where zoo visitors can observe the unique abilities and intelligence of elephants as well as the training techniques used to ensure their health and care; and an interpretive center • to educate visitors about these unique animals and their plight in the wild. The"Elephant Encounters"project was conceived and designed in 2000, and introduced to the public and media as a priority project to follow the construction of the Zoo's new entry plaza. Construction documents are in place and would require only minor modification. Contracts could be awarded and construction started in Spring 2004. The project replaces an old and outdated waterfowl pond with a state-of-the-art exhibit that would become a"flagship"attraction for the Zoo. The interpretive center will also serve as a rental and catering facility for special events. Feline Building Improvements This 35-year-old facility is outdated. While incremental improvements have been made over the past three years, a more aggressive renovation is needed to bring the exhibits up to modern standards. The schematic concept would remove bars, some walls, and other rigid elements, replacing them with more natural spaces. Natural light would be introduced through skylights and concrete floors would be replaced with more natural substrate. In addition, two new outdoor habitat exhibits would be built on a nearby hillside to provide very natural and spacious surroundings for Siberian tigers and Snow leopards. The Feline Building at Utah's Hogle Zoo, while functional, does little to demonstrate and highlight the majesty, diversity, and unique behaviors of the cat family. Improvements • are needed to address the evolving standards of modern zoos, and the needs and interests of zoo visitors. The proposed improvements would change the character and impact of the building from that of concrete and steel "boxes"to a more open,natural, and aesthetic • home for these wonderful animals. Expansion onto This is the Place Monument Property Expansion onto This is the Place Monument property west of existing facilities may improve exhibits, accommodate new features, and enhance visitor experience. Combined Impact The proposed projects will dramatically improve the Zoo's ability to care for the animals and serve its guests. In order for guests to enjoy and appreciate animals in a zoo setting, it is essential to display them in a manner that is respectful of the animals' physical and behavioral needs. It is also important to provide opportunities to both educate and entertain people. These improvements will address those needs. Utah's Hogle Zoo serves nearly 700,000 visitors annually, and most of our guests are local. These improvements,particularly"Elephant Encounters,"have the potential to improve attendance by 15-20%, and will elevate the Zoo's status in the community and in the zoo profession. The Zoo's Master Plan, adopted in 1999, provides a roadmap for sustained improvements to transform Utah's Hogle Zoo into a more modern and attractive facility that will serve the citizens of Salt Lake City, surrounding counties, and the entire state for generations, as it has for the past 72 years. The two proposed projects, funded through a successful bond issue, will contribute greatly to the realization of that vision, and will ensure that • Utah's Hogle Zoo remains at its current location in Salt Lake City. Project l: "Elephant Encounters" The Elephant Encounters project has a 2000 cost estimate of$7 million. It is not anticipated that this amount would increase substantially. Project 2: Feline Building Improvements Design and construction documents for this project would be developed in 2004 for project implementation in 2005. Estimated costs are $4-6 million, depending on final scope. Funding Sources and Partners Operations and Maintenance Operating and maintenance costs for both the"Elephant Encounters" and Feline Building Improvements will be managed through the Zoo's earned revenues and established public operating support. Funds provided through the state legislature's annual appropriations and the Zoo, Arts, and Parks (ZAP) sales tax fund in Salt Lake County provide operating support to many of the Zoo's ongoing programs. Since the improvements are for existing facilities and programs, operational increases could be offset by increased efficiencies of the improved facilities. Both facilities will have increased revenue earning potential through increased attendance and rental and catering opportunities for special events. • Capital Improvements Eighty per cent(80%) of the funding needed for the proposed improvements would come from the bond issue. Additional funds could come from a combination of the Zoo's earned revenues, private contributions, and ZAP funds. If the bond issue passes, Utah's Hogle Zoo will develop and implement a sustained capital campaign to help fund these and additional improvements through a public-private partnership approach that has proven successful for other zoos and non-profits. In addition, it is hoped that renewal of the Salt Lake County ZAP tax in 2004 will aid in sustaining both capital improvements and program growth throughout the decade. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 Hogle Zoo Contact Craig Dinsmore, Executive Director 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (801) 582-1636 dinsmore(ikmission.com • S DANIEL A. MULE" :AL I'A\ k' v� T. Y CORPO°#� .,I,D . ` '� '�- :d��� s� ROSS C. "ROCKY' ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER MEMO To: Rocky J. Fluhart Date: August 27, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer From: Daniel A. Mule -014/1 City Treasurer Subject: Consider Increasing General Obligation Bond Authorization Amount In reviewing your Council Transmittal letter dated August 26, 2003, I would recommend that consideration be given to request authorization from the voters to issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed some figure in excess of the $56.9 million identified as project costs. For instance, the election proposition could be worded to request authorization for an amount not to exceed $60 million. (We would need to adjust individual project costs to total $60 million.) If the election passes, the initial bond offering could be for$56.9 million. However, if interest earnings are insufficient to cover project overruns or enhancements that weren't originally contemplated, then the additional $3.1 million of authorization could be issued anytime within 10 years from receiving authorization. This approach was used when the Library general obligation bonds were issued. The 1998 election proposition authorized an amount not to exceed $84 million. Initially, $81 million of bonds were issued in 1999. The remaining $3 million in bonds were issued in 2002. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 Recveeo Pnrew MUSEUM _� UTAH OF rL. History • PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL TO MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON August 28, 2003 BONNIE STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD TOM RUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHY MUAH? • To provide a great museum in the heart of a great city • To create an exciting high-tech venue for citizens and tourists of all ages to learn about the history and art of Utah in a fun, interactive environment MUAH IS SUPPORTED BY: - - -- --- ----- • Salt Lake Chamber • Downtown Alliance • Utah Arts Council • State Dept. of Community Economic Development • A dynamic Board of Directors and prestigious National Advisory Council (Please see additional handout) • THE VALUE OF MUAH TO SALT LAKE CITY: • CULTURAL • Provision of a central location in downtown Salt Lake to foster youth development in the arts • Participation in the beautification and revitalization of Salt Lake City • Collaboration with the Smithsonian, Getty, and Chicago's Gallery 37 Project EDUCATIONAL • MUAH will be an educational center for 4th and 7th graders studying Utah history and heritage • MUAH will make Utah stories alive and accessible for visitors of all ages ECONOMIC • MUAH will be a significant force in the redevelopment of Main Street • MUAH will provide a place where visitors learn more about Utah and extend • their visits here, along with spending more money PROPOSAL ADD THE MUSEUM OF UTAH ART AND HISTORY TO THE LIST OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROJECTS $6 MILLION \ 'Z • Purchase of 1 and 127 M ( mi ion) . (el 2 • Renovation o uilding exteriors South ($ain.7 million) J"� 01/ • First phase work out of galleries and displays ($3.7 million) TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS ESTIMATED TO BE $18 MILLION A -cry Please contact Prescott Muir at 801-521-9 i 11 for details on the above figures. For further information about MUAH, please contact Tom Rugh at 801-358-4358. RICHARD GRAHAM s \i l r a s#}� ��. ='0-Rp: �© �'����`''-"' ROSS C. • "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR August 29, 2003 TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department RE: Response to City Council Questions Relating to the Regional Sports Field Complex In response to the City Council's request that I provide user demand and economic data supporting the proposal to build a Regional Sports Complex,I herein provide the following: 1. Salt Lake City Parks Facility Scheduling Report which shows athletic field, • baseball and softball facility use for 2003. 2. Salt Lake City Sports Field Inventory List that shows which City park facilities are used for soccer,baseball, softball, football and lacrosse. 3. Salt Lake City/Salt Lake City School District Sports Field Availability and User Demand Report which shows how efficient the City is in meeting the public demand for both soccer and baseball related facilities. This report shows that the City does not have enough dedicated sports field facilities to meet the current demand. With respect to youth and adult soccer, current City and school district fields can only support 61%of the current public need. With respect to youth baseball, current ball fields meet 74%of the public demand. Building the Regional Sports Field Complex will bridge the gap between current supply and demand; will add needed public green space to the community; will greatly ease the pressure currently being applied to residential community parks and the public impacts associated with over use; and will demonstrate the City's willingness to support the thousands of parents and volunteers who freely sponsor and mange the City's community athletic programs. Please note that the information provided in this report is Salt Lake City specific and does not factor in the availability or use of other field facilities owned and managed by the 1111 County or other municipalities outside of Salt Lake City,. The complexity of developing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789 �� RECvcLEc P4pER that level of information, and the time that it would take to complete the analysis makes it impossible for me and my staff to focus at that level of detail at this time. It can easily be argued that other municipalities have the same challenges as Salt Lake City and I believe the City data will speak for itself. 4. Regional Sports Field Economic Model, which is an educated estimate of the expense and revenue potential of the complex. In light of the fact that the City has no prior experience in operating a facility like this, and absent a reliable benchmark, this model was developed in-house with the support of experienced professional volunteers who are administrators in local and state-wide soccer and baseball associations. If the Council needs additional information, I will gladly do my best to provide it. cc: Rocky Fluhart Kevin Bergstrom • • • • Salt Lake City Parks Facility Scheduling Report 2003 Fee Park Fields League Contact/Address Phone Schedule Scheduled Time H-963-6790 March 31st to July 15th Sunn side Little League Field Emigration Little Bob Jones Sweat y #4#5 League 4413 West 3900 South W 5852216 Equity M-F 4:OOPM TO 9:OOPM P 339-8097 Sat 8:00am to 9:00pm North Football Steve Shipp W261-3032 Sweat Aug 1st to Oct 25th 61 Soccer#2 East Ute Football 14St S. 900 East H4763905 Equity M-F 5:00PM TO 9:00PM Practice Field C 698-5351 Sat 7:00am to 4:00pm Practice Field Kathy Sheafer March 31st to June 8th Soccer#2 Lepord Lair 1282 Gilmer Drive H583-7741 10.00 $ Aug 1st to Nov 15th West Soccer Soccer 84105 W594-8088 A Week M-F 4:00PM TO 8:00PM Sat 7:00am to 7:00pm April 14th to July 30th Softball# 1 #2# SLCounty Sports Amy Miles 483-5473 Sweat August 1st to OCT 31ST 3 Softball 3383 South 300 East Equity M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 11:00 PM Rowland Hall Kindera Tomisic 355-7494 Sweat Feb 24th to May 7th West Soccer#1 Soccer 843 Lincoln Street SLC August 12TH to OCT 31ST 84102 ext. 330 Equity M-F 3:00PM TO 8:00PM North Football/ Judge Memorial David Allen 908-5009 10.00 $ Feb 16th to May 19th Mon thru Sun Lacrosse Field Boys Lacrosse 650 South 1100 East a week North Football/ Mike Duvarney (303)736- M-F SOCCER#2 Sky Hawks Camp 16710 W. 10th Golden 0689 300.00 6/23 TO 6/27 7/21TO 7/25 8/11TO 8/15 Co 80401 7:00AM TO 4:00PM Lindsey Little League Field Avenues Little Bill Harnet 364-4280 Sweat April 1st thru July 31st Mon thru Sat Gardens # 1 #2#3 League 513 8th Ave SLC 84103 541-3892 Equity M F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM Lindsey Gardens SAT 7:00AM TO 4:00 PM i 0 • Park Fields League Contact/Address Phone Fee Scheduled Time - Schedule Soccer Field# 1 # Fighting Panthers 531-2046 10.00$ March 1st thru Nov 30th Mon thru Sat 11th Ave 2 Soccer Boss Cover M-F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM 891-3110 a week SAT 7:00AM TO 11:00 PM Cricket Field Cricket Vinca Subramanyan 417 Wakara Way Slc 588-6223 10.00 $ April 27th to Oct 5th Sundays Only (Soccer 1&2) Association 84108 a week SUN 10:00AM TO 4:00 PM Soccer Field# 1 # 531-2046 10.00 $ March 1st thru Nov 30th Mon thru Sat Popperton 2 Fighting Panthers Boss Cover M-F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM 891-3110 a week SAT 7:00AM TO 11:00 PM 531-2046 10.00 $ March 1st thru Nov 30th Mon thru Sat 14th &H Soccer Field Fighting Panthers Boss Cover M-F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM 891-3110 a week SAT 7:00AM TO 11:00 PM Salt Lake Stake John Richards 451-8031 NO June, July,Aug Wed &Thurs ONLY Ensign Softball Softball 142 Braewick Rd SLC 84103 521-7566 CHARGE 5:00PM TO 10:00PM Salt Lake County Allison Ambrose Riverside Softball#21300 West 300 North 596-0072 No March 31st to Aug 15th Mon thru Fri Girls Softball 84104 Charge 1:00pm to 9:00pm Lacrosse/Football Utah Lacrosse Sharon Kern Ass. 2901 East Millicent Dr 599-5759 10.00$ March 25, April 3rd, 22nd, 24th, 29th # 1 East High Girls S a week 4:00pm to 8:00pm (Games Only) Lacrosse/Football Judge Memorial Janis Weis H278-3847 10.00 $ March 3rd to May30th # 1 Girls Lacrosse 4498 South Gilead Wy SIc 84124 W581-8386 a week (3:00 pm to 6:00 pm) Mon thru Frid Lacrosse/Football West High Boys Delores Merrell 10.00 $ Feb 19th to May 9th Mon thru Fri #2 Lacrosse 1002 North Boneville Dr W363-4100 a week 2:00 pm to 5:00pm Soccer/ Lacrosse East High Boys Debbie Peterson 10.00 $ March 18th, 25th, 28th, April 7th, 28th, #2 Lacrosse 1420 Harrison Ave W487-1779 a Game May 1st, 2nd 3:00 pm to 8:00pm David Durr H514-1365 Sweat Aug 6th thru Nov 15th Mon Thru Sat Football# 1 #2 West Ute Football 1981 West 900 North M-F 4:00PM TO 10:00PM SLC 84116 W539-1860 Equity SAT 6:00AM TO 4:00 PM _ Bill Bosgraaf 10.00$ March 22nd thru November 15th Soccer Field# 1 Utah Soccer Ass. 4476 S Centruy Dr 263-8166 M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM Murra a week SAT 8:00AM TO 1:00 PM • • • Fee Park Fields League Contact/Address Phone Schedule Scheduled Time • Jose Tafolla March 30th thru Oct 19th Sundays Latinoamericana 10.00$ July Thru August Sat Riverside Soccer Field#1 Soccer 642 South Cheyne 949-0939 a week SAT 2:00PM TO 10:00 PM Street SUN 8:00AM TO 8:00 PM _ Little League#1# Rose Park Little Juile Overby Sweat March thru July Mon-Sat 5 League 1919 Sir Jmaes Dr 945-7572 Equity M-F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 4:00 PM Soccer Field#1# Bill Bosgraaf 10.00$ March 22nd thru November 15th Rosewood Utah Soccer Ass. 4476 S Centruy Dr 263-8166 M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM 2 a week Murray SAT 8:00AM TO 1:00 PM _ Jose Tafolla March 30th thru Oct 19th Sundays Soccer Field#1# Latinoamericana 10.00$ July Thru August Sat 2 Soccer 642 South Cheyne 949-0939 a week SAT 2:00PM TO 10:00 PM Street SUN 8:00AM TO 8:00 PM SL Sluggers Jim Shipman 536-6648 April 2nd to July 2nd Tues Wed Baseball#3 Baseball Club 354 Capitol Park Ave 230-9418 130.00 5:00pm to 8:00pm SLC 84103 Paco Ramirez May 18th to 24th Sundays BSBL#3 WEST DBA TACOS 1017 N.900 West 671-7303 280.00 10:00amhtoAugA to pm Su SLC 84116 Pete Fabala West Pointe Little Sweat April 14th Thru June 28th Mon-Fri West Pointe Little League Field League 1730 Independence 596-3190 Equity M-F 4:00PM TO 9:00PM Blvd 84116 Soccer Field Bill Bosgraaf 10.00$ March 22nd thru November 15th Utah Soccer Ass. 4476 S Century Dr 263-8166 M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM #1 Murra a week SAT 8:00AM TO 1:00 PM Jose Tafolla March 30th thru Oct 19th Sundays Soccer Field Latinoamericana 10.00$ July Thru August Sat #1 Soccer 642 South Cheyne 949-0939 a week SAT 2:00PM TO 10:00 PM Street SUN 8:00AM TO 8:00 PM West Side Richard Kisselburg 483-6702 Sweat March 1st to Aug 30th Mon thru Sat Sherwood Baseball#1 Babe Ruth Graig Graves W973-8380 Equity M-F 3:00PM TO 10:00PM SAT 8:00AM TO 6:00 PM • • • Fee Park Fields League Contact/Address Phone Schedule Scheduled Time Lepord Lair Kathy Sheafer H583-7741 10.00$ March 30th to June 8th Laird Park Soccer Field Soccer 1282 Gilmer Drive W594-8088 A Week AUG 1ST TO NOV 15TH 84105 M-F 4:OOPM TO 8:00PM SAT 9:00PM TO 7:00 PM Rotary Lepord Lair Kathy Sheafer H583-7741 10.00$ March 30th to June 8th Lower Open Field 1282 Gilmer Drive AUG 1ST TO NOV 15TH Glenn Soccer 84105 W594-8088 A Week M-F 4:OOPM TO 8:OOPM SAT 9:00PM TO 7:00 PM Oak Hill Little Ken Hepworth W484-6950 Sweat March 31st to Aug 2nd Mon thru Sat Oak Hills Baseball#1 M-F 4:00PM TO 10:00PM League 2645 Parleys Wy M484-6353 Equity SAT 7:00AM TO 7:00 PM Lepord Lair Kathy Sheafer H583-7741 10.00$ March 30th to June 8th Donner Lower Open Field Soccer 1282 Gilmer Drive W594-8088 A Week AUG 1ST TO NOV 15TH 84105 M-F 4:00PM TO 8:00PM SAT 9:00PM TO 7:00 PM Fairmont Soccer Field#3 Sugarhouse Boys Kevin Mackin 484-0841 Marchlst thruJune 15th &Girls Club 968 E Sugarmont Dr. M-F10:00AM TO 5:00PM Lepord Lair Kathy Sheafer H5837741 10.00$ AUG 1ST TO NOV 15TH Soccer Field#3 Soccer 1282 Gilmer Drive W594-8088 A Week M-F 4:00PM TO 8:00PM 84105 SAT 7:00PM TO 7:00 PM Soccer Field Scott Davis Marchlst thru October 31st #1#2 Highland Soccer 2163 S.Bel Air Dr. 324-2457 M-F5:OOPM TO 10:OOPM SAT 7:00PM TO 10:00 PM Soccer Field Kathy Lien March thru October 17th South #1#2#3 Firebird Soccer 1156 E.Herbert 583-4199 M-F 4:OOPM TO 8:OOPM SAT 7:00PM TO 7:00 PM Herman Baberuth Baseball Central City Little March 31st to Aug 2nd Mon thru Sat Franks #1 League Bob Watson 484-4419 M-F 4:OOPM TO 10:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 7:00 PM • ! 0 Park Fields League Contact/Address Phone Fee Scheduled Time Schedule • Herman Central City Little Doug Zumwalt March 31st to Aug 2nd Franks Little League#2#3 League 1413 McCelland St. 661-1956 M-F 4:00PM TO 10:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 7:00 PM Ken Hepworth W484-6950 March 31st to Aug 2nd Mon thru Sat Dillworth Little Leage#1#2 M-F 4:00PM TO 10:00PM 2155 Oneida St. M484-6353 SAT 7:00AM TO 7:00 PM Football Highland Youth Ken Hepworth W484-6950 Aug 1st to Oct 25 #1 practice Football 2155 Oneida St. M484-6353 M-F 5:00PM TO 9:00PM Sat 7:00AM TO 4:00PM Central City Little March 31st to Aug 2nd Jordan Park Baseball#2 League Bob Watson 484-4419 M-F 4:00PM TO 10:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 7:00 PM _ SLCounty Sports Amy Miles April 14th to July 30th 1 Field Softball 3383 South 300 East 483-5473 August 1st to OCT 31ST M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM Scott Davis April 1st to September 30th Stratford Soccer Field#1 Highland Soccer 324-2457 M-F5:00PM TO 10:00PM 2163 S. Bel Air Dr. SAT 7:00PM TO 10:00 PM April 14th to July 30th Constitution SLCounty Sports Amy Miles August 1st to October 31st Park Softball 3383 South 300 East 483-5473 M-F 5:00PM TO 11:00PM SAT 7:00AM TO 11:00 PM • 0 • Salt Lake City Sports Field Inventory List Recreation Soccer Park Baseball Softball Soccer Football/Lacrosse Notes * Sunnyside 2 3 1 2* not official size Donner 1* not official soccer size Lindsey Garden 2 1 Herm Franks 3 11th Ave. 1* 1* not official soccer size Dilworth 2 1* not official size-football only Popperton 2* not official soccer size 14th Ave. 1* not official soccer size Fairmont 1* 2* not official soccer size Ensign 1* recreation only 17th South 2* 1* not official soccer size Riverside 2 1 1 1* not official soccer size Jordan 1 1 Rosewood 1 2* Strateford 1* not official soccer size Westpointe 1 1 Constitution 1 Sherwood 2 Laird 1* small youth only Rotary Glen 1* practice space Oak Hills 2 TOTAL 18 8 7 17 Salt Lake City/Salt Lake School District Sports Field Availability and User Demand Report Soccer e Football and Other Field Sports Youth &Adult Competition Recreation Total Number of City Fields in Use 7 17 24 Number of SLC School Fields in Use 3 20 23 Total Fields in Use in SLC 10 37 47 Number of Registered Soccer Teams in SLC-Youth 150 275 425 Number of Registered Soccer Teams in SLC-Adult 150 150 Number of Hispanic League Teams in SLC-Adult 60 60 Number of Football, Lacrosse, Cricket Teams 37 37 l otal Number of Organized Teams in SLC 397 275 672 • Number of Games Played Annually-Youth 3,750 3,300 7,050 Number of Games Played Annually-Adult 3,900 3,900 Number of Games Played Annually- Hispanic 1,500 1,500 Number of Football, Lacrosse, Cricket Games Played Annually 360 360 Total Number of Games Played Annually 9,510 3,300 12,810 Number of Team Practices Annually-Youth 7,500 6,875 14,375 Number of Team Practices Annually-Adult 7,800 7,800 Number of Team Practices Annually- Hispanic 3,000 3,000 Number of Team Practices Annually- Football, Laccrosse 757 757 Total Number of Team Practices Annually 19,057 6,875 25,932 • Number of Available Field • Uses-City 3,500 8,500 12,000 Number of Available Field Uses-SLC School 1,500 10,000 11,500 Total Number of Available Fields 5,000 18,500 23,500 Percent of Field Use Needs Met 61% Number of Available Complex Fields 15,000 Percent of Field Use Needs Met with Complex 100% • II Salt Lake City/Salt Lake School District Sports Field Availability and User Demand Report Baseball Youth &Teen ages 6 to 18 Number of City Fields in Use 18 Number of Players in SLC 2,000 Number of Registered Baseball Teams in SLC -Youth 96 Number of Registered Baseball Teams in SLC -Teens 24 Total Number of Teams in SLC 120 Number of Games Played Annually 2,400 Number of Practices Annually 4,000 Total Number of Games/Practice Annually 6,400 Number of Available Field Uses 4,750 Percent of Field Use Met 74% • Number of Available Complex Fields 2,688 Percent of Field Use Needs Met with Complex 116% * This report does not calculate the demand or availability of field space for adult softball even though the proposed complex will allow for softball play. All softball programs currently in place in Salt Lake City are sponsored and managed by Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation. The City currently has 8 softball diamonds that are programmed by the County. When calculating future demands for softball, the County reports that a waiting list exists, so any new field added to the system will be easily placed into service. The Sports Complex will add four(4) softball diamonds to the City inventory. Regional Sports Field Economic Model The Regional Sports Field Complex will offer a variety of direct and indirect benefits to the Salt Lake City community. Direct benefits include adding developed green space to the city's park system; relieve pressure on many of the City's over used parks;provide more recreational opportunities for youth and adults; create jobs and generate an operational revenue stream that will offset the cost incurred by the general fund to maintain the facility. Indirect benefits include improved physical and social health; preservation of open space; enhanced quality of life opportunities; improved educational resources; and increased economic benefit derived from out of city visitors such as food sales, lodging, transportation,rental sales and taxes. The following model represents a conservative estimate of costs associated with maintaining the complex and revenues that may be generated through public use. Annual Maintenance and Operations Costs 1111 Based on data taken from a multi-field facility similar to the City's proposed complex, the annual cost to maintain the complex will be approximately$5,000 per acre. The City is considering a complex the size of 212 acres which will result in annual costs of approximately$1,060,000. This cost does not include service,programming and operational costs associated with rentals, tournaments, concessions, indoor training facility and nature center. These facilities would most likely be out sourced,resulting in a transfer of expense to the concessionaire. Revenue Revenue may be generated several ways and will be used to offset the annual costs of maintenance and Capitol Improvements. It should be noted that the City does not believe that revenues will consistently offset annual operation costs. Revenue will come from a variety of sources; user fees,program fees, admissions, tournament fees, league fees, concessions,parking,naming rights and grants. The strongest and most consistent revenue stream will come from seasonal league play and tournaments. A multi-field complex for soccer(or other field activities) and baseball will allow the City to heavily program the facility with weekly league play and occasional tournaments,both on a regional and national level. There will be no other facility in the State that has the versatility of the Salt Lake City complex. Concession and parking revenues would build off the tournaments held at the facility. • In addition to the programming fees,there are other ways to generate revenue at this IIIII facility. Being regional in nature, this site will experience thousands of visits annually. Service and product suppliers will have interest in advertising at and promoting the facility. Advertising could appropriately be done in many areas of the park. It is a natural for this type of facility. Also, it is very likely that a donor may wish to purchase the naming rights for this one-of-a-kind public facility. The following models are reasonable expectations for this type of facility: Public League Play Baseball Age group league play held Monday through Friday in the evening and on Saturday, the entire day. The schedule would be seasonal. Estimate Fees: $27,000 Concessions: $15,000 ill Soccer Youth and adult league play held Monday through Friday in the evening and all day on Saturday. Two seasons per year, Spring and Fall. Estimate Fees: $165,000 Concessions: $ 20,000 Regional and National Tournaments Baseball Three to four day tournaments that draws teams from the region. Tournaments may consist of 100 to 125 teams that pay an entry fee. Tournament costs are subtracted from the fees. It is reasonable to believe that seven(7)tournaments could be held annually. Estimated Fees: $160,000 Concessions: $ 21,000 Parking: $ 42,000 • Soccer 11111 Three to four day tournaments that draw teams from the region and nationally. Tournaments may consist of 150 to 200 teams. Tournament costs are subtracted from the entry fee. It is reasonable to believe that six (6)tournaments could be held annually. Estimated Fees: $290,000 Concessions: $ 21,000 Parking: $ 42,000 Revenue to Expense Comparison Estimated annual maintenance/operation cost: $1,060,000 Estimated annual revenue: $ 803,000 Baseball League Play $ 42,000 Soccer League Play $185,000 Baseball Tournament Play $223,000 Soccer Tournament Play $353,000 Profit/(Loss) ($257,000) • Percentage of Revenue to Expense 76% Economic Growth Model A regional sports facility that can support large tournaments and many visitors is an economic engine for local growth. A tournament may bring hundreds of teams and thousands of visitors to Salt Lake City who spend their money on food, lodging,retail merchandise, fuel and other local services. By way of example, attached is an Economic Impact Report of a soccer tournament held in Salt Lake City in 2002. This was a regional tournament that brought teams and visitors from the western states, including Hawaii. Total economic impact of this one event was calculated to be$5,200,000. Economic i Regional 2002 Tournament held in It Lake City Number of Attendees 14,700 Estimated Number of Nonresident Attendees 13,442 Number Surveyed 339 Index of Geographical Representation 16.8 Ecomonic Impact on Salt Lake County Estimated Total Attendee Purchases($) 5,203,583 Household Earnings Impact 2,456,780 Employment Impact (job years) 155.8 Findings for Nonresident Attendees Average Salt Lake Spending (excluding airfare) 387.23 Average Spending per Night of Stay 68.41 Average Lodging Expense per Night of Stay 25.68 Avg, Food and Beverage Spending per Night of Stay 20.97 Average Shopping Expenditure per Night of Stay 7.72 Number of Commercial Room Nights per Attendee 1.43 Nonresident Attendee Spending per Commercial Room Night 247.11 Attendees Using Commercial Air Transportation (%) 42.7 Attendees Using Commerical Lodging (%) 74 Average Commercial Airfare-RT(if traveling by air) ($) 314.31 Findings for Attendees Staying in Commercial Lodging Average Salt Lake Spending (excluding airfare) ($) 420.61 Average Spending per Night of Stay ($) 72.3 Commercial Room Nights Utilized by Attendees 21,058 Comsumer Price Index-All Urban Customers 179.9 Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending • Sales and Use Tax Paid ($) 482,818 State Income Tax on Earnings ($) 76,160 • RICHARD GRAHAM ` xI F , ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council /2y- FROM: Rick Graham,Director Public Services Department DATE: August 29, 2003 RE: Pioneer Park Project Description As per your request through Rocky Fluhart, attached is a description of the Pioneer Park Restoration Plan that is currently being developed. Please excuse that the description is from the City's consultant,Designworkshop. I asked for it earlier today so that I could get it to you before Tuesday's meeting. • Please still regard this project as a work in progress. The p gr City staff and the stakeholders group that has been assisting this effort have yet to review the concept and make a final decision. It must also be reviewed by Mayor Anderson. More work is needed and there will be one more public meeting held next weekend. I anticipate that the work will be completed by mid-September. I will be happy to discuss this project with you on Tuesday if the Council has questions. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: B01-535.7789 C: aE.cEo PAPEa Design Workshop,Inc. Memorandum Landscape Architecture To: Rick Graham • Land Planning Urban Design From: Design Workshop Tourism Planning JH,NM Date: August 29, 2003 Project Name: Pioneer Park Project#: 3171 Subject: Pioneer Park Description Copy To: Design Workshop has been working with the Salt Lake City Engineering Department for two months to develop the Pioneer Park Final Use plan. Working with a diverse stakeholder group,the team has been through a process of identifying the assets and liabilities in the park and its surrounding neighborhood.The process has lead to identifying key elements to maintain and include in the park design.The key elements of the preferred alternative include:strong links between the park and the rest of downtown,preservation of the existing character of the park,enhanced facilities for the farmers market and other events,enhancing the interpretation of its historical significance,and a program of diverse active uses. The park is organized around a central green,"the gathering spot"that is encircled by a large promenade and active recreation uses.The central green functions as an open playing field or audience event space oriented towards a stage to the north.The promenade,which is a wide decomposed granite pathway,surrounds the park that also serves as the market path for the farmers market.Active recreation uses in the park include relocated basketball court(s),volleyball court(s),bocce ball courts and ice skating. The park is designed to be flexible as an event space with a main stage and several small spaces conducive to informal performances.This allows for the park to have different characters at different times of day,during the week,and during the four seasons. The park's historical significance,dating back to pre-pioneer settlement until the present day, is emphasized by several elements including an historical walkway through the park and ground plane monuments that tell the many stories of community in this neighborhood.The parks east entry will be the historical gateway to the park making reference to the forts entry point.Heritage gardens will contain the many plants brought to this valley by the pioneers and immigrants communities that have all shaped this region.Monuments on the corners of the park will represent the dimensions of the plat of Zion and represent the scale of the original fort.Historical interpretations will be located throughout the park offering opportunities for learning and discovery with each visit. Several elements have been proposed that engender the sociability of the park on an everyday basis."Outdoor rooms" on the four corners of the park are proposed that will act as front porches to the park and make the park more inviting to the community. A food kiosk and outdoor eating area will attract everyday visitors. Restrooms will serve both everyday users and event patrons.A tot lot,playground,and water play feature will invite families into the park. Benches, drinking fountains,and enhanced lighting are fundamental elements of all parks.A dog park is proposed to provide greater opportunity for current and future residents of downtown and increase everyday presence and community connections. The parks unique element is a water feature that projects water to form a screen on which moving images can be projected further creating multiple opportunities for cultural and historical interpretation.The water feature is also a sculptural element that adds to the ambience and character of the park ameliorating the microclimate and framing the stage and outdoor seating area. DESIGNWORKSHOP • Aspen •Denver•Jackson Hole•Park City•Phoenix• Santa Fe•Tahoe•Vail•Santa Cruz•Santiago•Sao Paulo 1796 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200,Park City,Utah 84060•(tel)435-655-0915 •(fax)435-655-9372 www.designworkshop.com C:\Documents and Settings\gr0956\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK48A\ME 030829 Park Description.doc 1 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 29,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-00-21 —Department of Airports—Request for zoning text amendment for landscape requirements,the creation of an Airport Landscape Overlay District and amending the City zoning map to include the new overlay district,as they relate to the Salt Lake City International Airport (Sec.21A34.040.31 and 32,Sec.21A.48.070,and Sec.21A.48.070H) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted,the rezoning will affect Council District 1 STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Lewis,Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: 1. The Department of Airports has requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of • their parking lots without the landscaping that is typically required. The concern is that trees included in the landscaping would attract birds and could pose a safety hazard for aircraft. 2. The proposed zoning text amendment will create an Airport Landscaping Overlay District that would allow the Department of Airports to better manage hazardous situations associated with the creation of wildlife habitat. The text amendment will create opportunities to be more sensitive of environmental constraints and allow more advanced consideration of safety issues required by the FAA USDA/APHIS Regulations,Sec. 337:Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. The regulations are used by the FAA to require wildlife management control measures in and around airports. A letter addressed to the Airport from the FAA states that the FAA strongly objects to the planting of a significant number of trees. The letter also notes that the City would be exposed to significant liability should the trees be planted. (Please see the Planning Staff Report,Exhibit 7,Federal Aviation Administration Letter for details.) 3. The Overlay District would be applied to all properties located generally between Interstate-215 and the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake International Center,and between 2700 North and the Western Pacific Railroad corridor south of Interstate-80. This area includes Airport property and other privately-owned properties. (Please see the attached map for details.) 4. The text amendment is intended to ensure adequate visual buffering of parking lots, water conservation and minimization of urban heat islands while still maintaining a landscaped area that reduces potential safety hazards. The Planning Director and the Director of Airports would have joint site plan approval authority for any airport parking lot. 5. Please note that the Administration's transmittal contains three ordinances: a legislative version,a final • version approved by the Attorney's Office January 30,2002,and a draft version approved by the Attorney's Office September 20,2002. Please disregard the draft version. Page 1 6. The proposed regulations apply to permanent and temporary parking lots and lots(not available to the public)used to store vehicles, operational materials or maintenance equipment. Temporary parking lots (used for 3 years or less) and storage/maintenance lots will be exempt from the landscaping requirements. 410 7. The Administration's transmittal notes that the proposed overlay district would accomplish the following: A. Implement the purpose of the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone by preventing potential hazards to airborne aircraft. B. Allow flexibility in choosing plant species that provide an aesthetic buffer and natural surveillance for security purposes. C. Require Site Plan Review for development in the Airport Landscape Overlay District. 8. According to the Airport Administration,the Planning Commission's recommendation to use light-colored paving materials would be too costly to maintain. (Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes dated March 12, 2003 and the letter dated March 21,2003 from Tim Campbell,Director of Airports.) The Administration's transmittal indicates that alternative design criteria will be proposed to satisfy the Planning Commission's recommendation. Planning staff indicated that the design guidelines are included in items 32.a—32.h of the proposed ordinance, and that the guidelines were written in a way to allow flexibility for more control over the specifics of each project. 9. Public process: A. The Administration's transmittal notes that Mr.Allen McCandless,Department of Airports, made a presentation regarding the proposed request to modify the landscape requirements before the Jordan Meadows and Westpointe Community Councils in 2001. B. On October 3,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the creation of the overlay district and the proposed changes to the zoning text. The following issues were discussed at the Planning Commission's public hearing: i. Landscape requirements and airport safety-related issues. ii. Issues relating to water conservation and use of drought tolerant standards. • iii. Discussion of costs of using materials requested by the Planning Commission versus more traditional materials in parking lots. iv. The need for further discussion about breaking up parking pads and heat islands with trees and/or other creative landscaping. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration other potential areas citywide or zone classifications that may be considered for similar water conservation,urban heat island reduction and visual buffering regulations,for example,areas zoned for large-scaled commercial,industrial,business park or research park land uses. Council Members may wish to consider whether the application of this approach in other areas would be considered a positive step for the City. 2. If the City exempts the Airport,then should the City also exempt all businesses from having to comply with the existing parking lot landscape requirements in the Zoning Ordinance,or does the need to avoid attracting birds to the airport area create a unique situation? 3. Does all landscaping attract birds, or are there alternative landscaping approaches the Airport could take and still meet the intent of the City's and the FAA's existing requirements? 4. Is it correct to state that a key policy objective of the City's current parking lot landscaping requirements is to help reduce urban heat islands? If so,does this ordinance provide adequate standards so that the goal is still met(standards are outlined on page 2,item 32.b. of the proposed ordinance)? How does the shifting of landscaping from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the development help to address the policy Page 2 goal of reducing urban heat islands? Might existing landscaping be counted in the evaluation, or would new landscaping need to be added with any parking lot expansions? MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Administration notes that the Airport Master Plan identifies the importance of protecting the functional utility of the Airport. The Plan further discusses the need to develop a detailed land use plan that will explore the potential for development and preserve critically-sensitive areas. In addition,the Plan recommends: A. Designating land adjacent to the Airport for aerospace industries,airport service uses and other related or appropriate industrial uses. B. Creating Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions(CC&R's)or other development guidelines to control aesthetic elements of development. Such guidelines may include: i. Setback and landscape requirements ii. Signage control iii.Screening and buffering of parking,loading docks and trash storage,etc. 2. Airport staff has indicated to Council staff that the Airport Master Plan focuses mainly on facilities planning and related land uses on Airport properties. (The Airport Master Plan is an administrative document that has not been adopted by the City Council.) The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan,required by the Federal Aviation Administration,addresses more specifically measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to airport operations based on an ecological study of property in and around the airport. (Please refer to the Planning staff report,Exhibit 6, Airport Regulations,Section 337:Wildlife Hazard Management for details.) 3. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses,but not at the • expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality.The documents 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. 4. 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: • Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. • Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and building restoration and new construction enhance district character. • Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. • Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. • Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • 2001 Jordan Meadows and Westpointe Community Council meetings • October 3,2002 Planning Commission hearing Page 3 cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,D.J. Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Tim Campbell,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Steve Domino,Brent Wilde,Craig Spangenberg,Enzo Calfa,Allen McCandless,Janice Jardine,Cheri Coffey, Marilyn Lewis,Barry Esham File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment, Airport landscape requirements and Airport Landscape Overlay District • • Page 4 Airport Landscape Overlay District — _ - . •, ., - - = .,.� " - yam —_w- ---,.. --- �- +--`,r- '- r.<.A- , _ - p _ z* .i'• -.!1. - ` 1 v .sue--�---- ,. ---- T""sf'�s • -• i-f ?.. . t om - -' - 7 am _ -a - 5-s?. _ -�-----_S� - .max _ .. '-s - i ll'A IA t��'' ,6 z y 6- _ 3`c5 ill - ' Fi, " - ;`_- a .x rt�K � am a`"' $ ;" --,-K A `-- "• t"' ' .. — y ' -emki `' -4 ,! >e t, ! , „-b yc- :,-.• z':- w { ice„ ' - - vc;. {ifi" 1 i 7 t i i. i" ;; 7 t- --:— _J` • ,- s s ..„. ___.,_7„..„.....,,, .„-_,,,,,_,,,,, aili 1 itip a?",— A :,-- '' .-k* Raj- �4 w4 _ ; x.6 �-t � .s' ,' -r -3 • .'. �4j.€. , '�`� f - '=d` r j. f --',`'.L b• ',�,z^'g sue"'« - fir,. .r tf? s `-t• a - 1---;:ik-11L'c 1 Cti3I-73:7_, --4-1,,,.-1,0 in--4----?--,,,. ::: ...-s eg v<c '��"•, - .� fit �r}Lr �s x .. is 2��F_. 4ffr ., , g: :il.:- Astiw- ,:__;f__.l -:- -;- r--..4,,1 t-':,, ,,,:__ F'-._:__: ...: i4' 'w'.-L = .t..._,r,,:,,1, ` 1.OFF /per - "` 6 .2''-•C. .%,„-_-,:„-„2_...:q _,_. 71:Pc",!.-741.-I".,- 1. '44y- tom` ya 0 . .� ?` �.-,--" `-'x,. _ • ems ' - fi1� -gam"'-+-- s - _Y.i+ _Are -, �c. -•c� �� 'u 4— ..yam. -'} t. F..Fy i y 3 I l. €3 (((�� ]�j} 0 2 2Q33 _ISON WEYH ER SAID ��.��,y.�'-,i���WvY ".LRAT.: •"II{ Rp55 C."ROCKY"AN DERSON oiw EcTow COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT nnvow 1111 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart,C ief Administrative Officer DATE: April 18,2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition No.400-00-21: Zoning text amendment for landscape requirements as they relate to the Salt Lake City International Airport. STAFF CONTACT: Marilynn Lewis 535-6409 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports initiated this request to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,as it relates to landscaping at the Salt Lake City • International Airport.The purpose of the request is to alleviate safety concerns with the type of landscaping materials and methods that attract birds,which pose real and potential hazards to aircraft. The proposal also includes creating a new overlay zone,the"Airport Landscape District Overlay." Analysis: The zoning amendment and proposed overlay zone generate issues concerning: safety,urban heat islands,visual buffering,and water conservation. Safety-The applicant,bound by FAA regulations,asserts that certain types and amounts of vegetation attract birds,which pose safety hazards with departing and arriving aircraft.A balance must be struck between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property,and an aesthetic and environmentally sound landscape at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Landscaping regulations in the existing City codes could encourage a hazardous situation,which could result in potential loss of life and/or property. Urban Heat Islands-Trees and other vegetation block solar radiation and cool the air,through evapotranspiration. In urban areas this process does not occur properly. Most cities are 2 to 8 degrees hotter than surrounding rural areas. Roofing and paving materials with low reflectivity hold more heat. heat islands are a great draw on energy resources during warmer periods of the year,as the demand for cooling increases. Decreasing the amount of landscaping in large expanses of asphalt,as typically found at an airport or large parking facilities,increases the urban heat island effect. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 64111 TELEPHONE:S01'535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005 nacvcao r..c.r The Planning Commission, in its recommendation, encouraged the Airport Planning staff to utilize light colored pavement as a method to reduce the urban heat island effect. The use of • these materials was originally listed as one of various methods that could be chosen. Enforced use of light colored paving materials at the Salt Lake City International Airport grounds, is of great concern to Airport administrators. The Director of Airports, Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., had submitted a letter of response, addressed to Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, (attached to this transmittal letter) on the urban heat island issue and use of light colored pavement. Mr. Campbell's letter explained the operational procedures and concerns over cost efficiency in various methods of trying to address the Planning Commission's direction for study of the issue. The Planning Commission did not have the benefit of Mr. Campbell's letter, at the time of the hearing. Mr. Campbell further explained that to impose light colored pavement in parking lots at the airport is at best difficult, and carries a $6.5 million cost, the majority of which would have to be carried by the City's budget. Mr. Zunguze, Planning Director went back before the Planning Commission on February 12, 2003 with the new information provided in the Airport Director's letter, to inquire exactly how specific the Commission wanted to be with regards to light colored pavement. The Planning Commissioners stated that Mr. Zunguze should meet with the Airport Director and have a more extensive discussion. The Planning Commission further directed Mr. Zunguze to use discretionary authority and work to determine the most practical design methods and materials for addressing urban heat island reduction at the airport compound. 40 Following the aforementioned meeting,Mr. Zunguze prepared a response to Mr. Campbell's letter. Based on their meeting(March 13, 2003), Mr. Zunguze has concluded that the Planning Commission's recommendation should be implemented in the context of the following: 1. That the Salt Lake City International Airport is a unique facility with respect to location, design, function, safety and maintenance needs. 2. That unlike most commercial facilities, the airport already has substantial surfaces- runways and taxiways- in concrete, a typical light colored paving material. 3. That during the meeting, between the Planning Director and the Airport Director, the Airport Director committed to exploring ways of incorporating appropriate landscaping elements,particularly on the edges of the proposed parking lot to promote drainage,visual buffering, and aesthetic features. It is therefore his judgment that, given this context, there should not be a mandate to use light colored material in the construction of the proposed parking facility. Visual Buffering-The goal of this zoning amendment is to depart from the typical materials and methodologies used to buffer,not to depart from the benefit that existing requirements provide. The proposal allows for flexibility in determining the standard types/species and numbers of plant material required for purposes of buffering without encouraging habitat in IDprecarious locations. Water Conservation-Future landscape plans will be required to: a.)promote the usage of drought tolerant, drought resistant and native plant species,b.)use water efficient irrigation systems, and c.)minimize areas of lawn in favor of alternative materials and practices, in order to efficiently reduce water consumption. Plan Review-The amendment proposes a committee, comprised of the Director of the Depai tiiient of Airports, or the Director's designee and the City Planning Division Director or designee (and other City staff as appropriate),who will jointly review all landscape plans for development within the new overlay zone. This review is to determine sufficiency in meeting safety requirements (with regards to the reduction of potential habitat),urban heat island impacts, visual buffering, and water conservation goals. The goal of this amendment is to meet requirements regarding all of the aforementioned issues. The proposed amendment affords the Planning Director and the Airport Director the flexibility to efficiently address design issues associated with existing conditions and future proposals for the airport facility. However, the current regulations do not allow the flexibility required for meeting the goals of visual buffering and water conservation without sacrificing safety. The ground and air space around the airport are governed by the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District, which was established based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (Exhibit 7). The AFPP addresses issues concerning the "imaginary surfaces"within IIIthe navigable airspace. The navigable airspace is not restricted to airport property alone. There are private parcels located within the AFPP, and because of their proximity these properties hold the same potential for hazards. Intrusions and protrusions into and beyond some of these surfaces create the potential for hazards. Wildlife encouraged to live and nest within close range of these "imaginary surfaces"become potential hazards. Master Plan: The Northwest—Jordan River/Airport Master Plan notes that it is important to protect the functional utility of the airport. The plan further discusses the need to develop a detailed land use plan that will explore the potential for development and preserve critical sensitive areas. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the USDA/APHIS Regulations, Section337: Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. This is the mechanism used by the FAA to require that wildlife management is addressed and monitored at all certified facilities. _ The Depai t,ifent of Airports is required to formulate and implement a plan that must provide measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to the operations of the facility,based on an ecological study of the airport vicinity. The plan has to include the modification or change in land use as identified in the ecological study. The plan has to identify measures to control wildlife and periodically conduct physical inspections of the movement area. • Public Process: The study area is within both the Westpointe and Jordan Meadows Community Council boundaries. Mr. Allen McCandless, Department of Airports, made a presentation before the Jordan Meadows Community Council. The Jordan Meadows Community Council was in favor of airport safety, but did not submit written comment. Mr. McCandless also presented the information to the Westpointe Community Council. During this meeting the community supported the Department of Airports' request to modify the landscape requirements, as they relate to safety. However, the community only wanted those modifications to apply to the airport property. The Westpointe Community Council did not submit written comment. Letters were sent to adjacent property owners a week before the general noticing of the Planning Commission hearing. This was done to give adjacent owners additional time to ask questions that may pertain specifically to their situation. Staff received many calls by property owners. In most cases a brief conversation addressing their individual concerns, of how the amendment would affect their property, was sufficient. All property owners were encouraged to attend the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on October 3, 2002, and passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council,based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. Part of the Planning Commission's motion included a condition to encourage light colored paving materials. As noted in the attached letter by the Director of Airports, the applicant is opposed to this requirement and the Planning Director, following consultation with the Planning Commission and the Director of Airports, has determined that it is not necessary to mandate this requirement. Alternative design criteria will be proposed to satisfy the Planning • Commission's recommendation. Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to the Zoning Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Based on these five factors, staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity, impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones, the adequacy of existing services and facilities. Based on this analysis, the Planning Commission recommended the property be rezoned and the text be amended. m • y A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE :.SAR��� 'J v ���1 V/���� 0�I � ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION 0 DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR April 3, 2003 Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., Executive Director Salt Lake City Department of Airports AMF Box 22084 Salt Lake City, UT 84122 Dear Timothy: RE: PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION Thank you for your letter which amplified many of the issues we discussed during our recent meeting, regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation to encourage the use of"light colored pavement"in the airport parking lots. IIIAs I indicated to you during our meeting, I had the opportunity to discuss the implementation aspects of that recommendation with the Planning Commission, and the Commission has given me discretionary authority to work with you and determine the most practical design and material options. In reviewing all the issues at hand, I have concluded that the Planning Commission's recommendation should be implemented in the context of the following observations: 1. That the airport facility is very unique with respect to location, design, functional, safety and maintenance needs. 2_ That unlike most commercial facilities, the airport facility already has substantial surfaces—runways and taxiways—in concrete, a light colored material. 3. That during our meeting, you committed to exploring ways of incorporating appropriate landscaping elements, particularly on the edges of the proposed parking lot to promote drainage, visual buffering and aesthetic features. In light of the above, it is my determination, pursuant to the authority granted to me by the Planning Commission,that the design and construction of the proposed parking lot will be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation_ To that end, I shall be forwarding • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84171 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX:8D 1-535-6 7 74 1•40 ..m+am n..En a recommendation to the City Council that it is not necessary to mandate the use of light colored materials in the proposed parking facility. The airport facility, of which the proposed parking lot is as a component ,through its uniqueness, design and use of materials is and will continue to contribute to the Planning Commission's recommendation of reducing the effects of urban heat islands in the City_ Thank you for your cooperation_ Should you have any questions, please let me know. Since •1 IF • . v unguze Pla i . Director C: Ross C. Anderson, Mayor Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Alison Weyher, CED Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Planning Commission File • a• Page 29, sixth paragraph, second sentence shall be corrected to read, "The Commission has sent a message that zoning does not matter, that master plans are the • only thing that do, and that our Community Councils have an inordinate", etc. Ms. Seelig asked that page 23, first paragraph and sentence be corrected to read, "Ms. Seelig asked who controlled the area of 2100 South Street and 900 East. Motion Mr. Muir moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Noda, Ms. Arnold, Ms. Seelig and Mr. Daniels voted "Aye". Ms. McDonough and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Mr. Louis Zunguze reported that the Land Use Appeals Board met March 10, 2003 to review two cases. First, Spectra Site Communications appealed the Planning Commission's conditional approval of their cell tower. The Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Commission's decision. The second case involved Sarah Cowson and her neighbors appealing the Planning Commission's approval of two conditional use permits, 410-621 and 410-622. These permits were permits for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to construct two utility buildings for water fluoridation equipment. The Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Commission's decision. • Mr. Zunguze commended Deputy Director Doug Wheelwright and Planners Jackie Gasparik and Janice Lew with the help of the Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace, for doing a fantastic job of articulating the pertinent issues regarding the Commission's approval in the above-mentioned cases to the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Zunguze asked for some direction from the Commission regarding a previously made motion to approve a zoning text amendment petition for landscaping requirements at the Salt Lake International Airport. The motion called for light colored paving materials to be used in the parking lots to reduce heat effects. The airport director has concerns about that requirement, specifically the costs related to acquiring and installing that material, and long term maintenance costs. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission if there was any flexibility in that requirement that he could bring to his next meeting with the airport director. A transmittal was ready to go to the City Council for final approval. Mr. Diamond added that the Commission had also asked that given the scale and size of the parking pads at the airport there be some further discussion about breaking up the pads with trees and/or other creative landscaping. Regarding the light colored materials, the Commission had suggested putting a light colored gravel on as a topcoat to the asphalt to help reduce heat. There was also some discussion about the square footage area per cars as it related to landscape. Mr. Diamond reiterated that these issues were important and he stood behind the Commission's decisions. Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 March 12,2003 Ms. Funk said the City and the airport authority could be leaders in reducing the heat islands, and felt strongly that the Commission should stand by their original decision. Mr. Daniels said the Commission was not asking for light material, but a light covering ID on the parking lots, which should not cost a lot of money. He wanted the airport to pay attention to protecting the parking lot from looking like every other parking lot and keep the heat down. Mr. Muir said he was seeing this policy for light colored material showing up in many of their cases. He wanted to see a more comprehensive analysis, including cost implications for light colored materials, because he believed the Commission may be imposing a considerable cost burden on development. Decisions need to be made by weighing all of the facts for creating "cool" communities and the barriers that may be created for economic development. He also said what was imposed on the private sector should be imposed on the City as well. He felt it would be a good idea to step back and re-examine the airport parking lot issue. Mr. Jonas said light colored parking lots were one of several issues that have come up recently. At one point the Commission was asking that permeable surfacing be imposed on people, only to discover that material was not available. He felt it would be fair for the City to try and lead on the issue of light colored material, but that they needed to understand the costs. If costs made a project prohibitive, it may not be something the Commission would want to impose. Ms. Funk said she wasn't opposed to looking at costs, but that more than one option or • method for producing a light colored parking surface needed to be included in the cost study. Mr. Diamond maintained that the Commission should stand by their decision to improve the surroundings for everyone. Mr. Jonas suggested that if the airport was not willing to do a cost analysis, perhaps the Planning Department needed to do it so that the Commission would know the impact of what they were imposing. Mr. Diamond asked if Mr. Zunguze would be discussing with airport director the issue of how the roadways and the airport's master plan would affect their parking, or if he would be focusing on parking only. Mr. Zunguze said it was the first meeting and that he wanted to discuss the entire master plan for the complex. The meeting, however, was specifically called to discuss the landscaping issue, because of the transmittal that needs to go before the City Council. V d) Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 March 12,2003 Mr. Zunguze reiterated that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the airport needed to explore different options. He planned to convey that message to the airport director. The City Council will make the call as far as the financing of the project. sr He suggested two options for the City Council to consider—the normal asphalt, and an attempt by the airport to meet the Commission's condition for light colored material. Mr. Diamond recommended that Mr. Zunguze discuss thoroughly the master plan aspects, because as the new roads come in, it will change the whole concept of parking at the airport. Petition initiated by the Planning Commission Mr. Brent Wilde requested Planning Commission to initiate a petition for evaluation of permitting A-frame signs in the central business district of the downtown area. The Commission initiated the petition. CONSENT AGENDA— Salt City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Timar Holdings L.L.C. and Salt Lake City Corp. (Public Utilities)— Requesting to vacate a public utility easement necessary to record the Montgomery Villa Subdivision located at approximately 1660 W. 300 S. in Salt Lake City in a Residential R-1/5000 zoning district. II b. Herman and Virginia Aragon and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake City Property Management Division, in behalf of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, is attempting to purchase a water line easement across a small corner of the residential property identified as sidwell property parcel # 15-14- 129-002, owned by the Aragons, located at 1095 West California Ave., containing 20 square feet, for an existing water line. The owners of the property have agreed to sell the easement to the City. c. Mountain Enterprises LLC and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department will receive a new easement for an open channel drainage ditch to be constructed across Mountain's property, located at approximately 750 North and 5400 West, in the area north of the Salt Lake International Center Industrial Park, to facilitate new industrial development in the Industrial M-1 zoning district. The new drainage channel will connect to the existing Little Goggin Drain. d. Touch America, Inc. and Salt Lake City Public Utilities--Salt Lake Public Utilities is requesting approval of a change to an existing Utility Permit issued to Broadwing, Inc. in 2000, which allowed 6 telecommunications buried conduits installed under a drainage ditch owned by SLC Public Utilities and located at 3670 West 500 South in the Industrial M-1 zoning district. Broadwing has sold four of the six existing conduits to Touch America. III _ Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 March 12,2003 SALT LAKE r Ross C "Rocky"Anderson DEPARTMENT R2r �a1� CITY,OF AIRPORTS Timothy L Campbell, A A E. EXrtutire Dire U0r L tE: i t:: ); Salt Lake City S Department of Airports AMF Box 22084 Salt Lake City,UT 84122 Tel 801 575 2400 March 21, 2003 Fax 801 575 2679 Louis Zunguze Planning Director 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Louis: Thank you for meeting with the Department of Airports last week to discuss our concerns about the proposed landscape ordinance. Following the Planning Commission meeting on October 3, 2002, airport staff began to evaluate the Commission's recommendation to encourage the use of "light colored pavement" in airport parking lots. The Department of Airports is concerned with the Planning Commission's recommendation for a number of reasons. Although the idea of using light colored pavement may be beneficial in a warm climate, there are a number of • issues specific to colder climates that may not have been thoroughly considered. Consequently, we do not agree that using light colored pavement is an appropriate recommendation at Salt Lake City International Airport. Light Colored Pavement Issues We believe that the reference to "light colored pavement" allows for only two alternatives, concrete or asphalt chip-seal, since they are the only paving materials that have a reflectivity significantly different than traditional asphalt_ While a chip-seal is considered to be a light colored pavement, it is not an acceptable material for use in airport parking lots. This is primarily because a chip-seal is not a sufficiently durable product for use in areas where there are high volumes of vehicle and foot traffic. High traffic volumes and snow removal procedures in the lots will cause the surface to deteriorate rapidly and will result in the constant presence of loose rocks. Loose rocks should be avoided in areas of high foot traffic to avoid potential claims of injury, while a smooth pavement surface is most desirable for customers that need to roll luggage to and from their cars. in addition, loose rocks will tend to clog drainage channels more frequently. In order to keep the lot in a clean condition, frequent maintenance will be required. Airport parking lots however, are uniquely different from lots in typical • RECYCLED PAPER business developments because they never empty. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to overlay and maintain the lots when vehicles are always present_ A chip-seal pavement will create a constant problem for maintenance and is not considered to be an acceptable alternative. Consequently, the recommendation II to use light colored pavement leaves only one other alternative - concrete. Cold Weather issues Although the use of concrete may benefit the heat island effect in warm climates, there are disadvantages in colder climates that must be considered. In colder climates the presence of snow and ice during winter months present significant safety concerns for pedestrians. Parking lots must be maintained in a safe condition for customers as they walk through the lots to avoid potential slip-and- fall injuries caused by snow and ice. Following snow storms, airport runways, taxiways, roads and pedestrian walkways are the highest priority for removing snow. Parking lots are cleared only after other critical areas are completed. Unlike commercial malls, where snow is removed at night when parking lots are empty, the airport parking lots never empty. Consequently, our ability to efficiently maintain the lots is severely restricted_ Snow can never be effectively cleared from between parked cars. Consequently, the airport relies on the warming effect of asphalt to assist in snow removal in its parking lots. In contrast, concrete pavement will cause snow and ice to remain for longer • periods of time and require intensified snow and ice removal efforts. As snow melts during the day and re-freezes in evening hours, ice sheets will likely occur throughout the lots creating numerous pedestrian hazards_ Large amounts of salt will be required in vehicle travel lanes and wherever ice forms_ The intensified use of road salt will undoubtedly accelerate surface spalling and deteriorate the concrete surface. Surface spading will result in a rough surface for walking and increase maintenance efforts to avoid potential trip hazards. Maintenance Issues Slab movement and differential settlement is common with concrete slabs. As a result, concrete joints and cracks will require more intensive maintenance. To avoid potential trip hazards caused by differential slabs, entire slabs may require replacement more often. Unfortunately, since most vehicles park for extended periods, access for maintenance is severely hindered. Routine maintenance that could otherwise be performed at night when lots are empty cannot be scheduled because airport lots are always full. Therefore, m4 routine maintenance must be performed in a fully operational lot. Asphalt maintenance is generally easier to perform in a constrained area. Asphalt can be repaired in smaller sections whereas concrete slabs must be maintained in entire • units. in addition, asphalt repairs do not require the curing time that concrete requires and can be made using smaller equipment. Higher Costs Another significant concern with using concrete pavement regards its higher cost — this is true for both initial construction as well as higher maintenance costs. At a cost of $14.76 per square yard for concrete compared to $6.12 per square yard for asphalt, concrete is more than twice as expensive as asphalt. Applying this cost differential to the amount of pavement at the airport that will be installed in the future, concrete pavement would increase the cost of our parking areas by approximately $6,577,000. These higher costs must ultimately be passed on to the airport users. While concrete pavements may have a lower life cycle maintenance cost in warmer climates, this is not necessarily true in colder climates. As noted above, higher maintenance costs are likely to occur because of more frequent slab replacement,joint and crack sealing, surface spalling repairs, and the increased use of salt for deicing. The higher costs attributed to concrete are unwarranted given that the benefits are expected to be marginal. Marginal Heat island Benefits We understand that the Planning Commission's intent for requiring light colored q g 9 pavement in parking lots is to mitigate heat island effects that can occur in highly urbanized areas. We believe however, that several factors specific to the airport lessen the heat island effect at the airport and will therefore not produce the benefits that might otherwise be hoped for_ The airport is approximately 6 miles west of downtown Salt Lake City. It is unlikely that the temperatures at the airport contribute to the heat island effect in the city. In fact, US Weather Service data from 1971 to 2000 indicates that the highest mean temperature at the airport is generally two to three degrees lower than the temperature in downtown Salt Lake City. There are numerous complex reasons for the temperature differences, however there are distinct conditions at the airport that contribute to our lower temperatures. A major factor for lower temperatures at the airport is that it is located in a relatively rural environment near the Great Salt Lake. Large portions of airport property remain undeveloped; this includes open space and landscape features. Of the 7,590 acres of airport property, nearly 87 percent is undeveloped. This is because areas between and around runways and taxiways must be kept clear of obstacles to protect aircraft movement areas and airspace surfaces. These • areas are undeveloped, permeable surfaces that do not absorb heat in the same manner as the buildings and roads in the downtown environment. Of the 13 percent of impermeable surfaces at the airport, nearly 50% of that area is already in concrete pavement. Whereas concrete is not a suitable material in • parking lots, concrete is appropriate for thick pavement sections used by aircraft. One reason is because Federal regulations prohibit the use of salt on airfield pavement because of its corrosive effect on aircraft. Another reason that the heat island effect is less of a concern at the airport is because the building density at the airport is much lower than in downtown Salt Lake City. Buildings at the airport are generally lower profile and lower mass. As a result, there are less stone and steel surfaces that attract and retain heat. Consequently, temperatures at the airport dissipate faster than in the downtown area during evening hours_ This is aided further by breezes from the Great Salt Lake. Practically speaking, since airport parking lots are usually full, the parked vehicles themselves shield the pavement surface to a great degree. Consequently, there is little benefit to having concrete pavement underneath a parked car. The vehicle itself will retain heat regardless of the color of pavement beneath it. Finally, over time asphalt oxidizes and increases in reflectivity. After about four years there is little difference between the reflectivity of concrete and asphalt. Summary • For the reasons noted above, the requirement of light colored pavement will not improve the heat island effect in downtown Salt Lake City, nor will there be a significant benefit at the airport. Considering the additional cost and maintenance problems associated with concrete versus the marginal benefits that might be achieved, the Department of Airports believes that requiring concrete is unwarranted. I would appreciate any support you could offer to remove any reference to using light colored pavement at the airport. Sincerely, Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E. Executive Director Cc: Mayor Rocky Anderson e• TABLE OF CONTENTS • I. CHRONOLOGY 2.ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Original Notice and Postmark September 16, 2002 - Notice to property owners within 300 feet b. Staff Report October 3, 2002 c.Agenda/Minutes October 3 2002 6. ORIGINAL PETITION IIPetition 400-00-21 • 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • • May 1, 2000. Department of Airports initiated petition. • April of 2001. Allen McCandless attends the Jordan Meadows and Westpointe Community Councils to obtain input on the proposed amendment. Neither community council sent written comment, but are supportive of safety issues. • April 2002—May 2002. Planning staff and Airport staff working to develop language for the amendment. • May 3, 2002. Sent memo requesting department comments. • September 10, 2002. Sent notice to affected property owners to inform them that the petition was going to be considered by the Planning Commission, and that it could have a future effect on the approval of all landscape plans on their property. • September 18, 2002. Sent notice to property owners within 300 feet of affected properties, the Planning Commission public hearing. • October 3, 2002. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the zoning amendment and creation of the "Airport Landscape District Overlay". • • January 30, 2003. Received ordinance from Attorney's Office. • 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 • (Creating an Airport Landscaping Overlay District and Adopting Related Changes to the City Code) AN ORDINANCE CREATING AN AIRPORT LANDSCAPING OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ADOPTING RELATED CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-21. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City zoning code contains provisions concerning the landscaping required in parking lots located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City International Airport and other private entities construct and maintain a variety of parking lots for Airport related operations; and WHEREAS, the Airport has unique needs concerning parking lot landscaping due to both the temporary nature of some of its parking lots, and due to the need to avoid creating additional IIIhabitat for wildlife which might create a risk to continued Airport operations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings held before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following amendment to the City's parking lot landscaping requirements are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council, Salt Lake City, Utah; Section 1. Subsections 21A.34.040.31 and 32 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are renumbered as subsections 33 and 34. The text of those subsections shall remain unchanged. Section 2. Sections 21A.34.040.31 and 32 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows: 31. Airport Landscape Overlay District: The Airport Landscape Overlay District shall consist of all properties located , generally between Interstate 215 and the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake International Center, and between 2700 North and the Western Pacific Railroad corridor south of Interstate 80. This Airport Landscape Overlay District is more particularly depicted on the following map: [A copy of the map is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.] 32. Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the Airport Landscaping Overlay District shall comply with the following guidelines: a. General Landscaping Performance Standards. Landscaping plans for parking lots shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address City goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which may include trees, turf, groundcover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and rock features. Drought tolerant • or resistant vegetation, which reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, should be used to create an aesthetically appealing landscape. b. Reduction of Urban Heat Islands. The following standards are intended to help mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following methods to reduce urban heat. i. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. ii. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. 10 2 Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, groundcover and perennials shall be dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while • ensuring trees are not planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an aviation hazard. iv. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. v. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat,provide a visual buffer and reduce run off. vi. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. c. Visual Buffering. Landscaped buffers, not less than 10 feet in width shall be provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of earth berms, shrubs, trees or other methods. d. Water Conservation. To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, groundcover, and perennials that are drought tolerant or resistant species that can withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the City, titled "Water Conserving Plants for Salt Lake City" shall be used as the primary reference in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed for efficient use of potable water. Traditional turf areas should be minimized in favor of alternative landscape practices to reduce the use of water. e. Temporary Parking Lots. Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three years or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development standards for parking lots as outlined in Section 21A.44.020 of the zoning ordinance. Parking lots that remain in use by the public beyond three years shall be brought into compliance with these standards within twelve months. f. Operational and Maintenance Lots. Parking lots that are not available to the public for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. 41111 g. Plan Approval. All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the City's Development Review Team (DRT) and Planning Division, for review and comment on compliance with City ordinance and these performance standards. The Planning Director and Director of Airports shall jointly approve final • landscaping plans for any Airport parking lot. Section 3. The table entitled "Required Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping Improvements," which is currently numbered as section 21A.48.070 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended so as to be numbered as section 21A.48.070.G. The text of the table located at that section shall remain unchanged. Section 4. Section 21A.48.070.H of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: H. Landscaping performance standards for Airport ("A") Districts: Parking lot landscaping in Airport districts shall comply with the specifications set forth in Sections 34.040.31 and 32 of the City code. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of its first publication. 10 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 /- 30-7 MAYOR 110 • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 031Creating an Airport Landscaping Overlay Dist-Clean-Jan 30,2003.doe 5 Exhibit A . Airport Landscape Overlay District 1 • i 2100 NORTH 7_ - , ! C Ia LI o Om i . \ =.(--- Nt Ul fr— w 7, iv, y„,''' • i 1 w 0 a __, H__4.‘,j() i at ) - wa- 0 �o IW- Z .,- CaRIVA _, .,_ A, lo 'z, , \,9 ,, , , F AROL , ,____,0\ -- ,' \, � � �� 11 1 Y GATTY DR = 1J111 R r cocc EA dialt ,0 \ (1 �_ o t,�- 5 �� I N pit;' T ST TgTo 4t ,44 'wilily owit‘i. - ____ { c lb SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Creating an Airport Landscaping Overlay District and Adopting Related Changes to the City Code) AN ORDINANCE CREATING AN AIRPORT LANDSCAPING OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ADOPTING RELATED CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-21. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City zoning code contains provisions concerning the landscaping required in parking lots located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City International Airport and other private entities construct and maintain a variety of parking lots for Airport related operations; and WHEREAS, the Airport has unique needs concerning parking lot landscaping due to both the temporary nature of some of its parking lots, and due to the need to avoid creating additional IIhabitat for wildlife which might create a risk to continued Airport operations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings held before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following amendment to the City's parking lot landscaping requirements are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council, Salt Lake City,Utah; Section 1. Subsections 21A.34.040.31 and 32 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are renumbered as subsections 33 and 34. The text of those subsections shall remain unchanged. Section 2. Sections 21A.34.040.31 and 32 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are enacted to read as follows: 31. Airport Landscape Overlay District: The Airport Landscape Overlay District shall consist of all properties located • generally between Interstate 215 and the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake International Center, and between 2700 North and the Western Pacific Railroad corridor south of Interstate 80. This Airport Landscape Overlay District is more particularly depicted on the following map: [A copy of the map is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.] 32. Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: All parking lots located within the Airport Landscaping Overlay District shall comply with the following guidelines: a. General Landscaping Performance Standards. Landscaping plans for parking lots shall be developed to reflect a balance between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Landscaping should address City goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, runoff and sedimentation. Landscaping shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which may include trees, turf, groundcover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and rock features. Drought tolerantill or resistant vegetation, which reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, should be used to create an aesthetically appealing landscape. b. Reduction of Urban Heat Islands. The following standards are intended to help mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas. Parking lot owners or operators may use a combination of any of the following methods to reduce urban heat. i. The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat. ii. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of a comprehensive planned development program to consider the total Iandscaping within the entire development area. Landscaping may be shifted from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the developed area. _II 2 iii. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, groundcover and perennials shall be dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while • ensuring trees are not planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an aviation hazard. iv. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. v. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide a visual buffer and reduce run off. vi. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required. c. Visual Buffering. Landscaped buffers, not less than 10 feet in width shall be provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads. Visual screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of earth berms, shrubs, trees or other methods. d. Water Conservation. To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall incorporate features that use trees, shrubs, groundcover, and perennials that are drought tolerant or resistant species that can withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the City, titled "Water Conserving Plants for Salt Lake City" shall be used as the primary reference in determining drought • tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed for efficient use of potable water. Traditional turf areas should be minimized in favor of alternative landscape practices to reduce the use of water. e. Temporary Parking Lots. Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three years or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may exist to phase the construction of other facilities and shall be removed once the facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. However, temporary parking lots shall still comply with applicable development standards for parking lots as outlined in Section 21A.44.020 of the zoning ordinance. Parking lots that remain in use by the public beyond three years shall be brought into compliance with these standards within twelve months. f. Operational and Maintenance Lots. Parking lots that are not available to the public for parking and are used to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. • 3 g. Plan Approval. All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the City's Development Review Team (DRT) and Planning Division, for review and comment on compliance with City ordinance and these performance standards. • The Planning Director and Director of Airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any Airport parking lot. Section 3. The table entitled "Required Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping Improvements," which is currently numbered as section 21A.48.070 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended so as to be numbered as section 2l A.48.070.G. The text of the table located at that section shall remain unchanged. Section 4. Section 21A.48.070.H of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: H. Landscaping performance standards for Airport ("A") Districts: Parking lot landscaping in Airport districts shall comply with the specifications set forth in Sections 34.040.31 and 32 of the City code. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of its first publication. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR -II 4 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Creating an Airport Landscaping Overlay Dist-Jan 30,2003.doc • _.=. Exhibit A Airport Landscape Overlay District // . ___ __ -_ _-- _ r - -__ _ -- -_ _ 2100 NORTH:_ -- ---- ---- - -- ---'cam<`� -_ -_5 = ml �n - r- 0� ��aI I- OA) .� ii' i I ill .-1' ---''3- -''--=.-:'Z-,-: \-i.- C--=-,- ---. _-ii--•- it :.,. , _,.. , ,.i,:.._ .: ,,„,:. ,,,:_:.::: ,, t.,:, IF I. , ,, I-AROLp - - G TTY DR = --_- ;0 • - - - - - s. m off— -. .. - � YTi� 1 ff e 1 Petition 400-00-21 Airport Landscape Overlay • Affected Parcels Sidwell Numbers 0713400001 0816300001 0816300008 0816300009 0816300011 0816300013 0816400008 0816400009 0816400011 0816400013 0816400014 0816400015 0816400016 0817100001 0817100002 0817200001 0817300001 • 0817300002 0817300003 0817300004 0817300005 0817300006 0817300007 0817300008 0817403001 0818100002 0819100002 0819200001 0819200002 0819300002 0819300003 0819476001 0820100014 0820100015 0820200010 0820200011 0820351001 0820376001 • 0820377001 0820378001 0820400001 0820400002 0820400003 0821100001 0821100002 0821100003 0821100004 0821100005 0821201004 0821201005 0821201009 0821201010 0821201011 0821201012 0821201013 0821201014 0821201015 0821201016 0821201017 0821201018 0821251001 0821276007 0821276008 0821300002 0821300003 0821300004 0821300005 0821400001 0821400010 0821400011 0821400012 0821400013 0821400016 0821400018 0828100001 0828200001 0828200002 0828200007 0828200008 0828276001 0828276002 0828277001 0828277002 0828300001 e0 0828400001 • 0828400003 0828400004 0828400005 0828400008 0828400010 , 0828400011 0828426001 0828426002 0829101002 0829102001 0829103001 0829104001 0829104002 0829105001 0829106001 0829106002 0829107001 0829108001 0829108002 0829126001 0829127001 0829128001 • 0829129001 0829130001 0829131001 0829132001 0829133001 0829134001 0829135001 0829151002 0829176001 0829176002 0829177001 0829177002 0829178001 0829179001 0829180001 0829181001 0829182001 0829183001 082920100I 0829226001 0829227001 • 0829228001 0829229001 0829230001 0829231001 • 0829232001 0829233001 0829234001 0829235001 0829251002 0829276001 0829300002 0829301001 0829301002 0829302001 0829303001 0829304001 0829305001 0829305002 0829306001 0829307001 0829307024 0829308001 0829326001 0829327001 0829327029 0829327030 • 0829327032 0829328001 0829329001 0829330001 0829331001 0829332001 0829333001 0829333041 0829351001 0829376001 0829400002 0829400003 0829400006 0829400007 0829400008 0830100001 0830100003 0830100004 0830201001 0830251001 00 0830276001 • 0830400001 0830400002 0830400003 0830400004 0830400005 0830400006 0831126001 0831200001 0831376001 0831376002 0831376003 0831400001 0831400002 0831400003 0831502001 0831502002 0832100001 0832100002 0832100003 0832100004 0832100005 • 0832100006 0832100007 0832200001 0832300001 0832300002 0832300003 0832300006 0832300007 0832300008 0832300010 0832300012 0832300013 0832300014 0833100001 0833201001 0833226005 0833251001 0833276004 0833276005 0833300001 0833300002 0833300003 • 0833300004 0833300005 0833300006 0833300011 0833300012 0833300013 0833300014 0833401001 0833426001 0833426007 0833426008 0833426009 0833426011 0833426021 0833426022 0833426023 0833451001 0833452001 0833452002 0833452003 0833452004 0833452005 0833452006 0833452009 0833452010 • 0833452011 0833476007 0833476009 0833476011 0833476012 0833476013 0833476021 0833477004 0833477005 0833478011 0833478012 0833502001 0833502003 0834353013 0834353021 1504101001 1504102001 1504102002 1504103001 1504104001 1504104002 :. 1504105001 1504105002 • 1504105003 1504126001 1504126003 1504126004 1504151001 1504151002 1504152002 1504153001 1504153002 1504153003 1504154004 1504157001 1504176001 1504178001 1504178002 1504178003 1504178004 1504178005 1504178006 1504178007 1504178008 • 1504178009 1504178010 1504178011 1504178012 1504178015 1504179002 1504182002 1504200004 1504200006 1504301001 1504327001 1504327004 1504504031 1504504032 1504504033 1504504074 1504504075 1504504076 1505100001 1505100002 1505100010 • 1505100012 • 1505100013 1505100014 1505201001 • 1505201002 1505201003 1505226001 1505226002 1505227001 1505227002 1505227003 1505228001 1505228002 1505228003 1505228004 1505228005 1505228006 1505276001 1505276002 1505276003 1505276005 1505276006 1505301002 1505301004 1505301005 1505326001 1505326002 1505326003 1505326006 1505426001 1505426002 1505426005 1505426006 1505427001 1505427002 1505427004 1505427006 1505428001 1505429003 1505502001 1505502002 1505504004 1505504032 1506100001 1506100003 1506200002 �� 1506200003 • 1506200004 1506200005 1506200006 1506200007 1506400007 1506400008 1506400009 1506400014 15041770012000 0817300007 0829100002 • S 0 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Original Notice and Postmark September 16, 2002 . t STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT' 1 ' `i pia r. GORP I KATI A INS ; '�. ."� -.` '��- - � ��. , i J; ROSS C. ANDERSON i PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,g\ MAYOR PLANNING DIVISION - x BRENT B. WILDE L� < • DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP ' DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE,OF PUBLIC HEARING` - -. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL,.: , ' .. .._-. _ . .` _,. ' The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-00-21, initiated by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to parking lot landscape buffers and the Salt Lake City International Airport. The proposal also includes proposing the creation of a new Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District that will extend from 1-15 to the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake International Center and between approximately 2700 North and the Western Pacific Railroad Corridor south of 1-80. The purpose of the zoning amendments is to ensure appropriate landscaping types are located on and near Airport Properties to minimize safety issues with wildlife habitat. As part of their review regarding the petition, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission concerning this petition will be given the opportunity. You are invited to the public hearing to be held: • THURSDAY OCTOBER 3, 2002 6:20 P.M. ROOM 126 SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested.partiesA utthjs request,we zld ,' appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you are an owner of rental property in the vicinity of this proposal,please notify your tenants of this meeting. Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon with 24 hours advance request. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis rz,ci.slc.ut.us. The petition file is available for review in the Salt Lake City Planning Division Office located at 451 South State Street, Room 406. Copies of the staff report are available the Friday at 5:00 pm before the public hearing. i 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84171 TELEPHONE:B01-535-7757 FAX: B01-535-6174 i..) wcova'Ro..e. ssoioPod tuaiaiunsut n saqu:mf ;off; - otnat:euv pxeM Oj01a; ss�,�fry oN Nal fk7,-ovki 0 03)1331-i3 tIOSb3d kore • , • r i i t t'S P[] ]a'4S a]tigS linoS ISti uotstAJQ 3otutreJd Al!:)axn]IES 1_ Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2_ After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearings will be opened for public comment Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3_ Speakers will be called by the Chair_ 4_ Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments_ 5_ Speakers should address thew comments to the Chair_ Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker_ Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 6_ A time limit may be placed on speakers to ensure everyone has a chance to comment The Chair will make that determination upon reviewing the number of people wishing to speak 7_ Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8_ After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments_ Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9_ After the hearing is dosed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff_ tinder unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information_ . 10.Meeting notices are made available 14 days in advance_ If persons wish to submit written comments,they should be directed to the Planning Division at least 7 days in advance to enable Planning Commissioners to consider those written comments_ Comments should be sent to: Salt take City Planning Director Ni >es provided upon 24 hour advance i ry.,rsa_ .jtr=f�rrrrfr�rf;trrrrr�ttfrrs:�frr�t;rrttrr;Jtrrtfrrrrrfrt t :-i ' a�iE7►jLtoisl - i 1• 0 5. PLANNING COMMISSION b. Staff Report October 3, 2002 • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • Request to amend Zoning Text for Landscaping Requirements, as they relate to Salt Lake International Airport Petition #400-00-21 October 03, 2002 • REQUEST The Salt Lake City Department of Airports, represented by Steve Domino and Allen McCandless, is requesting amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as is relates to parking lot landscaping at the Salt Lake City International Airport The proposal also includes creating a new Overlay Zone, the "Airport Landscape District Overlay" (Exhibit 5)_ All properties within the boundaries of the new overlay will be affected by the proposed text amendments. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL (S) REVIEW: • The study area is within both the Westpointe and Jordan Meadows Community Council boundaries. Because this petition only affects a specific geographic area, the applicant presented the information to these two groups_ Allen McCandless, Department of Airports, made a presentation before the Jordan Meadows Community Council. The Jordan Meadows Community Council was in favor of airport safety,but did not submit written comment On April 18, 2001, Mr. McCandless presented the information to the Westpointe C.C. During the meeting this community supported the Department of Airport's request to modify the landscape requirements, for the safety sake. However,the community only wanted those modifications to apply to the airport property, and not everywhere else. The Westpointe Community Council did not submit written comment. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Salt Lake City,Department of Airports Purpose of proposal and Proposed amendment: The purpose of the zoning amendment and overlay are to • modify the Airport Landscape Standards,in order to Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 1 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division eliminate potential safety hazards at the Salt Lake City International Airport, due to the potential expansion of bird habitat. (Exhibit 2) • Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: The Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone. (Exhibit 4) Existing Master Plan Policies: l. Salt Lake City International Airport—Airport Master Plan 2. FAA] USDA APHIS Regulations, Section 337: Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. (Exhibit 6) Affected areas and Parcel numbers: The affected areas are all properties located within the boundaries of the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District. (Exhibit 5) IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. • The zoning amendment and proposed overlay zone generate issues concerning: safety, urban heat islands, visual buffering, and water conservation. Safety- The applicant, bound by FAA regulations, asserts that certain types and amounts of vegetation attract birds, which pose safety hazards with departing and arriving aircraft A balance must be struck between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property, and an aesthetic and environmentally sound landscape at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Landscaping that complies with existing City codes could encourage a hazardous situation, which could result in potential loss of life and/or property. Urban Heat Islands- Trees and other vegetation block solar radiation and cool the air, through evapotranspiration. This process does not occur efficiently or effectively, if at all in most urban areas, and cities can be 2 to 8 degrees hotter than surrounding rural areas. Roofing and paving materials with low reflectivity hold more heat. Heat islands are a great draw on energy resources during warmer periods of the year, as the demand for cooling increases. Decreasing the amount of landscaping in large expanses of asphalt, as typically found at an airport or large parking facilities, increases the Urban Heat Island effect. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 2 October 03,2002 • By Salt Lake City Planning Division • Visual Buffering- The goal of this zoning amendment is to depart from the typical materials and methodologies used to buffer, not to depart from the benefit that existing requirements provide. Some of the standard types/species of plant material (as well as the • numbers required) utilized for purposes of buffering without encouraging habitat in precarious locations. Water Conservation- The people in the western regions of the Country know how a drought can affect the landscape. Future landscape plans will be required to: a.)promote the usage of drought tolerant and native plant species, b.) use water efficient irrigation systems, and c.) minimize areas of turf in favor of alternative materials and practices, in order to efficiently reduce water consumption. Plan Review- A committee, comprised of the Director of the Department of Airports, or the Director's designee and the City Planning Division Director or designee (and other City staff to be determined), will jointly review all landscape plans for development within the new overlay zone. This review is to determine sufficiency in meeting safety (with regards to the reduction of potential habitat), urban heat island impacts, visual buffering, and water conservation. The goal of this amendment is to meet requirements regarding all of the aforementioned issues. The proposed amendment allows the Planning Director and the Airport Director the opportunity to efficiently address design issues associated with existing conditions and future proposals for the airport facility. However, the way current regulations are set up, we cannot meet the requirements for • visual buffering and water conservation without sacrificing safety. The ground and air space around the airport are governed by the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District, which was established based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (Exhibit 7). The AFPP addresses issues concerning the "imaginary surfaces" within the navigable airspace. The navigable airspace is not restricted to airport property alone. There are private parcels located within the AFPP, and because of their proximity these properties hold the same potential for hazards. Intrusions and protrusions into and beyond some of these surfaces create the potential for hazards. Wildlife encouraged to live and nest within close range of these "imaginary surfaces"become potential hazards. CODE CRITERIA I DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 3 October 03, By Salt Lake City Planning Division • Discussion: The Northwest — Jordan River/Airport Master Plan notes that it is important to protect the functional utility of the airport. The plan further discusses the need to develop a detailed land use plan that will explore the potential for development and preserve critical sensitive areas_ 410 The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the USDA/APHIS Regulations, Section337: Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. This is the mechanism used by the FAA to require that wildlife management is addressed and monitored at all certified facilities_ The Department of Airports is required to formulate and implement a plan that must provide measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to the operations of the facility, based on an ecological study of the airport vicinity. The plan has to include the modification or change in land use as identified in the ecological study. The plan has to identify measures to control wildlife and periodically conduct physical inspections of the movement area_ Findings: The proposed amendment will allow the Department of Airports to effectively modify any hazardous situations associated with wildlife habitat. The amendment allows the restraint and control of potential habitat creation, thereby avoiding the need to eliminate or alleviate habitat, thus displacing wildlife. The amendment will create opportunities to be more sensitive of environmental constraints and allow more advanced consideration of safety as required by the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. There are various urban design and conservation policies included in the "Futures Commission Report". The flexibility of the proposed amendments allow the . Planning Director to ensure adequate visual buffering of parking lots, low use of water and minimization of urban heat islands, while still ensuring a landscaped area that reduces potential safety hazards. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed zoning amendment and proposed overlay zone will only apply to those properties within the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District. The overall character in the immediate vicinity of the Airport is primarily industrial on its southern, western and eastern borders, with some residential to the east of I-2l 5 and northeast of the airport. Findings: The existing zoning primarily shows open space and commercial properties directly adjacent to the airport facility, especially within the Airport Influence Zone "A". The master plan calls for"No net increase in dwelling units within the Airport Influence Zone "B", phasing out residential dwellings toward the long range development plan_ Since the proposed amendment is concerned with the airport facility and those properties directly adjacent it does not encourage the expansion of any particular zoning. The proposed amendment will c Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 4 October 03,2002 � By Salt Lake City Planning Division increase the potential for safety, and decrease negative impacts to surrounding land use areas_ • C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendment will have an affect on properties adjacent to the airport and located within the landscape overlay. These properties are auxiliary uses associated with the airport, and private properties along 2200 West Street and North Temple. None of the properties within the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District will be providing the typical visual buffers for parking lots, or participating in a standard manner to reduce the urban heat islands. This will reinforce the objectives of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Findings: The airport and other properties within the Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District, while not participating in the standard manner to reduce the affects of urban heat islands or contribute to typical visual buffers, will still have to address these issues with a new and more innovate approach with this text amendment. Heat islands can be broken up with a variety of plant materials and/or shade producing structures. Visual parking lot buffers can be obtained through manipulation of topography and the use of a variety of plant materials. The most important goal is to achieve the highest level of safety, while maintaining an acceptable level of landscaping. This amendment allows both the • Planning Division and the Department of Airports opportunities investigate various ways of ensuring the highest levels of safety possible, while complying with basic requirements and standards of the City code. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the "Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Overlay District". Within this zoning district there is land affected by the airport influence zones: approach zones, transitional zones, horizontal zones, conical zones and airport height restrictions_ Most of the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay is also within the existing AFPP, Airport Influence Zone"A". The purpose of the AFPP Overlay is to prevent hazards to the operations of the airport that can endanger lives,property to users of the facility, as well as the health safety and welfare of property and occupants within the vicinity. The two overlay zones do not conflict in purpose, one addresses activity within the airspace, the other addresses activity on the ground Findings: The AFPP Overlay District was created to identify and prevent all • potential hazards to aircraft in the air, as they maneuver on the ground, during Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 5 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division take-offs and landings. The Airport Landscape Overlay District relates to areas on the ground where conformance with current vegetative practices could have a direct affect on safety within the AFPP. Therefore the proposed amendments help implement the purpose of the AFPP Overlay Zone. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested input from the pertinent City Departments and/or Divisions. Comments were received from Transportation, Environmental Advisory, Police, and the Chairperson of the Development Review Team. The Senior Environmental Advisor is opposed to the use of the term "xeriscape", as it is routinely associated with copy write issues and is inaccurate with respect of the low water!drought tolerant usage and selection of plant material. The Police are in favor of alternate plant material that would help to reduce visual obstructions, and allow what they term as "natural surveillance " of areas around the airport. Transportation has determined that this zoning amendment proposal will not increase impacts on the existing abutting arterial transportation corridors or local roadway facilities. The Chair of the Design Review Team (DRT) responded that currently they have very little involvement with development at the airport. Any review of construction drawings is presently done as "a consultant type advisory courtesy". • Findings: Although it is a colloquial term, there are many private finns all over the Country that use the word "xeriscape" as part of their name. The goals for the proposed amendment are to reduce water consumption for landscaped areas and encourage the usage of drought tolerant plant materials. Safety, in the air and on the ground, is the number one concern for airports. It is important to provide opportunities to increase surveillance of the grounds. Certain types of plant material being used for screening easily shield nefarious activities. This amendment proposal will allow a great deal of flexibility in choosing plant species that would perform the functions of an aesthetic buffer, while providing for visual observation. The DRT would like to make sure that the intent of Title 21A landscaping requirements are adhered to_ This can be done by requiring Site Plan Review for development in the Airport Landscape Overlay District", with a listing of all appropriate exceptions made in the body of the text as follows: 21A.48.030 Landscape Plan: A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required e• Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 6 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division when landscaping or alteration of landscaping is required by the Title. Such landscape plans shall be drawn in conformance with the • requirements specified in this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit must approve landscape plans. Landscape plans for planned developments, conditional uses, or other uses requiring site plan review approval shall be reviewed and approved by the development review team. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance text for landscape buffers, adopt the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District and amend the existing overlay zoning map to include the new overlay district, as they relate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and surrounding properties. Marilynn Lewis, Planning Division • Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Aerial of Salt Lake City International Airport. Exhibit 2—Draft Ordinance. Exhibit 3—Responses from Other Departments. Exhibit 4—Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District Map. Exhibit 5—Proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District Map. Exhibit 6—Airport Regulations,Section 337 Wildlife Hazard Management. Exhibit 7—Federal Aviation Administration Letter. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 7 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 Aerial of Salt Lake City International Airport. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 8 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division s ', .iry s _• �` t.t" er' "'tS. *. r -. • ,t44 � } " `tw I. + • .► 3 - ' 3 T,e'L,sF ik ,:'-,s }"a. s s •• ,t S , . 4j 'F . -S' , ',ts, ic 5. - - N - s r .v y 'iac33 : -•a-es ^- r ' r sFw j, - .Fr.,iI *„- !4.- . :. C, F 4�y � , ,r a `.• ' . ` ?w .lAit 's 41ml t,r ei'•;�-s t ,�3 t,� . f� �w"t'�`s ; sYba . - c ,a'i- Y� .Q f £ ;.. fJ at -0 ,K[ Y < ' ; T1N `yiw • li fy -� o >t ..,, �. j . a.. 4. Y .o-c,• ak. .zyzt,..x !.. 2 c B•�•s::%i:..V ' •?r u+�.. ;' 3�li.a F{tf +¢,i, ,i T ,� •• I T 'S °.`. EI Yy•..' R ..e�',,,,.•Y�a.t yi • , F* �._ E.. mod,. . • y -i ',. . :ter-'. 3 S`wr� ,.-c- 4 ti- a s{42,3.1 e`se' z`.'- R i- 0.. ~ f.i ^'r4 .'pis" s , .'.• t - Y� «.w- :',P4s'. y, -. -e- .J� 3a 4. l - - s''r�v3' ' _ yy xfi 3 s 3 it vs.✓'1 ac y'u.•F .� x7' 7 1 �r.. a * w.' .> a>1? vim# �' f- �z 1 `„ t`e iA < ra: M , ;_ x ;•s-i ,Kf - T-rsi� n� •5.r. 1 -a r`+r v�r �. '.t' ♦ 's- t zt :.i •*x� .sue . _ i t �2�.I-` y'� �, � �..7 s � -'-'; ,s. vx"- .+ tr s-V. , - .' �".-flv. 'a s. ma's may : T .- i mot. ' rti, .>`S - 3 yt a - $ 4 .40 r v. tia . i 'X'►WrS A 3 � z +. r {n"-xr• s, S `' ,cr*".".2'-z '''ii r s ti '' -,y s f • t7 • • ., ^t i'e ,,-.:3,. i. ". 4 _ii = --. ^ „c-� e. ,._,A•�-..'014 + t-, f Z .;Tit : � '. "'a. c' ��. 7' °,� •s +'fix C L r+II: . t t 1 ,Ii. 3'* �. ..:3i..s 7. ,.-.y.s1'a'`'.J"'; z -� 2 # •ac -.3. ' ;`" �_.ysy `� „`w '6 ..-. ,:W .<3. `.2 < .'ham .#� fi ��."' t � 13�:ta*s s�} „ y ,- # a^v 5- .,f ..y K'a'i` Jg+ S e rt• .i - t r - . +� * y r ,-7 ;Uzi `- 4 ; vti €-7y f € 3 x �SY:.xrjt�.?�,� -a' • 'i' _ {1.f • .•1,4t •�� XY L { �1�• T 3`' x.`- •..;1 G '6 ..3. s -• =`'.sue r h . . ?-• '+.( =1 - _•5. 1 `<w.i�� .. + ..,,, , ?-^yK '1y's �, �. 'vF .sn ,���yiy.� s: Zr s�•,..i-,. ��qy{ y� '�•�Ss ,� a�s� 5� ��I�i�i�`# +'a '� at r,.L t x -A xjq.'ass,..!- $a> rs 3-A,.,.= ': • �' '� -c �,- = '7:4 -,''• .z -it.,'•7.;;:fgt.•- .. -4'- .•?:,,':4- --;::::!:...5",!,,csr, -.it. . -.•11..---. e > ;. - -1-..,,J-Att,.3.4*V.f.r,,4V.Sp.%. -," ;":;: - - - 16-.0A„- ."-• , - , *. < {.'I- zi 4F, ' 6.. Y s,T ' �r+to J' ; :^- '-•' v -t�( . - '-'.!..-, ';-, i ',"..w.r..',--.-, -,-. ..: -:;.k.-!,...-,' ' "-: 4 .,:-- '1.0., 'occ--. -..-..,:"*.-* ..'' .,,,. A„ A'--:' -'-''--•',..-- . ' i '---- —i--- II t �'s.a o f -` _< � - _: gL'� Mph' zi- _ -- h'sp# i. ,i.ffr'a' t : * -. �,„s tra. a S}t¢ 1 K -} +.fit ''ub;' IyiJR _o-, iw � ”•jfl 3 �� `4 �S /- , P 0 '� �:i+� ?� i � s._- 'fir} i �.: � �.�i s � k l �;� '.'gI 'i ' .=r' s. vdst ,�� ���y "T' .:� �'. � �+...d i r "� iT .r s ,`- .'T sue'.,. -w ss :-, i. t«. 'i.+ ara � to _ kij -;" V/i:,:!,_.- stk a s f,,--- .�R"3 's��.r�}, '7ax x?3;�*c J ~�' 'xi: ,ta �y,G - '. .+r x��'FiS' s`s„f��.�aF,ps_r _• - '�f f - -j t- - }�.: z.: • +- t ..?.`?.,:- .'tee .►`.•+�V';:.---. s 'r. �„ ,� t. � ,✓rk .s@` - 4 �' .'t ss .: +r•ar ,' ;e�y- ' 'at t. �. t� ri "'ems a` i , .s Qy y .J'tii. 2'. s� 'C ''�i'LR.,ti',TYyE T'�'' 4 :1y,r=,- Y +� 3-. i ,ram s-x s t ;7'xTt ..-�' -u q. � .� -.'_..W _ .47141 f.:-�-{ `•d 3 vqi , 3. th,> ii.v - w,' 'i 'a -y 7- " � •.. - ,fig, -•y'` �:y�Y, .4 '• s s' <` 'La6 ;.J, `r,y.X i .Y' .i3';�,^ s' R t Y %tip� £ v 11 a t� t t sew,S -.-it--,.—_-,,,. .,.,, -� :. ' - x� r -„0-4 _ f' h `s, "'' t• .� - 4a^� . k �- • - i'p��_ - _ ,c,,-!F' Ia tom: er. -. .rxY -` r -.r t -S- 4 b b'lik .E +4� . '�T- •,cam. ''�:..r • " -i` r. r„ ,y 4; a +.^' �" ' _ ,fix •w. +5 a' n..rs4�w.._,."st 5 c � . •-'li7 e if'`,i . 'y- s a `' iy, T., .;�•.3r'_ .,y Z'" :? 5a :"iz;.,mot.,.•'t7'- • '•sC r' • Salt Lake City International Airport µ—• I • • Exhibit 2 Draft Ordinance. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 9 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 • (Amending the City's Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements for Airport Districts) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, CONCERNING THE CITY'S PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR MODIFIED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING IN AIRPORT DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City zoning code contains provisions concerning the landscaping required in parking lots located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City International Airport constructs and maintains a variety of parking lots for its Airport operations; and WHEREAS, the Airport has unique needs concerning parking lot landscaping due to both the temporary nature of some of its parking lots, and due to the need to avoid creating additional II/ habitat for wildlife which might create a risk to continued Airport operations; and WHEREAS, after public hearings held before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following amendment to the City's parking lot landscaping requirements are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council, Salt Lake City, Utah; Section I_ Subsections 21 A.34.040.3 I and 32 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby are renumbered as subsections 32 and 33. The text of those subsections shall remain unchanged. Section 2_ Section 21A.34.040.31 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: • 31_ Airport Parking Lot Landscaping: a. General Landscaping Performance Standards. Landscaping plans for the Salt Lake City International Airport shall be developed to reflect a balance • between the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of persons and property with the objective of creating aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive landscapes. Airport landscaping should address City goals related to reduction of urban heat islands, visual buffering of parking lots, impacts of noise, water conservation, as well as minimization of dust, run off and sedimentation. Landscaping at the airport shall consist of a variety of landscape materials, which may include trees, turf, groundcover, shrubs, perennials, managed water features, and rock features. Drought tolerant vegetation and "xeriscaping," which reflects the natural vegetation and geography of the region, should be used to create an aesthetically appealing landscape. b. Reduction of Urban Heat Islands. The following standards are intended to help mitigate the contribution to the urban heat island effect from large parking areas at the Airport. The Airport may use a combination of any of the following methods to reduce urban heat. i_ The total airport parking supply shall consist of a combination of surface and structured parking lots. Structured parking shall offset the area of surface parking that is otherwise required, thereby reducing the area that contributes to urban heat ii. Landscaping within large land use areas may be evaluated in terms of • a comprehensive planned development program to consider the total landscaping within the entire development area_ Landscaping may be shifted from the interior of parking lots to other areas within the developed area_ iii. Landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs, groundcover, and "xeriscaping" shall be dispersed throughout parking lots to provide shade while ensuring trees are not planted at a spacing or density that will encourage wildlife use or create an aviation hazard. iv. Shade for pedestrians shall be provided in parking lots through the use of pedestrian shelters integrated with landscaping. v. Interior landscaped areas shall be provided in parking lots to reduce heat, provide a visual buffer and reduce run off vi. No specific ratio of trees and shrubs to landscaped area is required_ 2 c. Visual Buffering. Landscaped buffers, not less than 10 feet in width shall be provided, where feasible, between parking lots and primary entrance and exit roads that provide public access to and from the Airport terminals. Visual • screening shall be provided within landscape buffers to enhance aesthetics and reduce visibility of parked vehicles. Visual screening may consist of a combination of earth berms, shrubs, trees, "xeriscaping"or other methods. d. Water Conservation. To promote water conservation, landscape concepts shall incorporate "xeriscape" features that use trees, shrubs, groundcover, and perennials that are drought-tolerant species that can withstand dry conditions once established. The plant list developed by the City, titled "Water Conserving Plants for Salt Lake City" shall be used as the primary reference in determining drought tolerance of plants. All irrigation systems shall be designed for efficient use of potable water. Turf areas should be minimized in favor of alternative landscape practices to reduce the use of water. e. Temporary Parking Lots_ Parking lots that are intended to be in use for three years or less are exempt from parking lot landscaping requirements. Such parking lots may exist to phase the construction of other airport facilities and shall be removed once the facilities are completed. Temporary lots that are within the area of an approved comprehensive plan may remain in use for the duration approved in the plan. However, temporary parking Jots shall still comply with applicable development standards for parking lots as outlined in Section 21 A-44.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking lots that remain in use by the public beyond three years shall be brought into compliance with these standards • within twelve months. f. Operational and Maintenance Lots. Parking lots that are not available to the public for parking and are used by the airport or its tenants to store vehicles, operational materials, or maintenance equipment are exempt from landscaping requirements. The portions of permanent storage lots that are adjacent to public areas shall be landscaped using acceptable landscaping principles contained herein to screen the storage area from public view. g. Plan Approval. All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the City's Development Review Team (DRT) and Planning Division, for review and comment on compliance with City ordinance and these performance standards. The Planning Director and Director of Airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans. Section 3. The table entitled "Required Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping Improvements," which is currently numbered as section 21A.48.070 of the Salt Lake City Code 0 3 shall be and hereby is amended so as to be numbered as section 2IA.48.070.G_ The text of the table located at that section shall remain unchanged. Section 4. Section 21 A_48.070_H of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is • enacted to read as follows: H. Landscaping performance standards for Airport ("A") Districts: Parking lot landscaping in Airport districts shall comply with the specifications set forth in Section 34.040.31 of the City code. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002_ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. ,ri Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amend Parking Lot Landscaping Reg-Clean-Sept 20,2002 doc 111 4 • • Exhibit 3 Responses from Other Departments. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 10 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Lewis, Marilynn From: Bennett, Vicki Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:32 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn 4111 Subject: Airport Performance Standards I reviewed the memo that you sent, and only have one comment. Stephanie Duer at Public Utilities(our Water Conservation Coordinator)has told me that we shouldn't use the term "xernscape" routinely, as it is a copywrited term and not really accurate as to our needs. Her preferred terminology is "low water use plantings". You might want to pass the ordinance by her to be sure that I'm accurately representing this! Other than that, I think the amendment looks good - it discusses all of the issues,yet allows for the flexibility that I'm sure they'll need. Vicki Bennett Senior Environmental Advisor Salt Lake City Corporation 451 S. State St.,Room 145 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801)535-6540 • • Lewis, Marilynn From: Johnson, Linda Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:41 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn Subject: Petition 400-0021. Airport Performance Standards Marilynn: I looked over the airport area on the map provided and reviewed the Landscaping Performance Standards for 'A' Airport District. My comments, from a police department and CPTED perspective, would be that the materials used in the landscaping of these areas would not reduce or obstruct visibility. This would allow police, as well others, "natural surveillance" of these areas, which has been shown to reduce crime. This, in turn, might reduce the police calls for service to the area_ With the limited amount of information provided, it's difficult for me to make any specific recommendations, but I do believe that if the basic "natural surveillance" guidelines are followed these amendments would be a positive step towards minimizing the police service call load. Please let me know if I "missed" the point of what you were asking of me, since I didn't provide much in the way of information! Thanks, Linda Johnson Police Department i I . • SAKE'LAKE'� GJ iI' CORPORA' IO!�f TIMOTHY P.HARPS!,P.E. -'o '� — �'a - ROSS C- HOCKY^ANDERSON +a.wsana+.+io�o.ar c+na COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF TRANSOCJI,In-rioN • May 07,2002 Marilynn Lewis Planning Division 451 South Slate SI,Rm.406 Sall Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: Petition N400-00-21 to amend the"A Airport District"zoning ordinance Airport Performance Standards. Dear Marilynn, The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed zoning amendment as follows- The zoning proposal for Landscaping Performance Standards does not increase impacts on the existing abutting arterial transportation corridors and the local roadway facilities for the proposed change in zoning use implied_The map enclosed is not representative of current city master plan roadway proposals_ We do require that all property changes must comply with current parking&maneuvering functions_ Currently the transportation division does not review Airport construction plans that the DR!'permit process.Reviews are per invitation as a consultant type advisory curtsey to the Airports FAA guidelines. Please coordinate with the permits process as to how this will he incorporated into the current plan review process_ Pleasefeel free to call ice if you have any questions or concerns about these comments. • Sincerely, ) 1.�� l4l3X - c Barry D.Walsh 'Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,P.P.. Kurt G.Larson,P.F. Ken Brown,Pencils DRT. Craig Smith,Engineering Brad Stewart,Public Utilities file Q [S lh 15 Q • MAY 13 349-.UOrn eon EA SUITE aSu,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Un I I I TELEPHONE.nDI s3s 663DHOI s3,,D,y PLANNING DIVISION Lewis, Marilynn From: Brown, Ken Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:50 AM To: Lewis, Marilynn Cc: Walsh, Barry Subject: Petition #400-00-21 Airport District ordinance amendment Marilyn, Barry Walsh of the Transportation Dept. presented your Memorandum dated May 3, 2002 to me regarding this proposed ordinance amendment. As the Chairperson of the Development Review Team (DRT), he wanted to know what my feelings would be on this proposal It probably needs to be understood that the DRT has very little involvement in development at the Airport and as Barry has stated in his correspondence to you dated May 7, 2002, the DRT does not review Airport construction plans except "as a consultant type advisory curtesy". It appears that Airport development reviews are being conducted at some higher level of Federal, State or City government and it has been my experience that when there has been a conflict between SLC requirements and development plans, the decision of the Airport overrides the City requirement. If it is the intent of this amendment to make it clear that Title 21A landscaping requirements are to be adhered to, perhaps the last paragraph, with the heading Plan Approval could be addressed by requiring Site Plan Review for the Airport District and the body of the text could show ail appropriate exceptions to Chapter 48 of the Zoning Ordinance, then the following section of the ordinance would apply; 21A_48.030 Landscape Plan: A. Landscape Plan Required: A landscape plan shall be required whenever landscaping or alteration of landscaping is required by this Title. Such landscape plan shall be drawn in conformance with the requirements specified in this Chapter Landscape plans must be approved • by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans for planned developments or conditional uses, or other uses requiring site plan review approval shall be reviewed and approved by the development review team. o• • • Exhibit 4 Airport FIight Path Protection Overlay District Map. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 11 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division DAVIS SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNTY WOODS B NORTH CROSS H SALT LAKE --A i -/ iJ , z --, t __B 1 APPROX 2100 Si/4// ,; ' I --__ .. .. .. .. .... _i 1 I 1..... .... .. 1 -��� ;/_/' --_— i___APPROJ(I-ODM__—_ t l 1 ( t/3 1 ],00Nl 1 -- - I� \. I__ 1 i 1_ C� I; i ,e I- I :f a o i� : I I 1 ,t • \ - — Salt Lake City 1 \,l.PRox-,..R - 1 International 1 H - 1/' \ - �. i ✓ �t Airport t - �l\=p 1 a _ 1 is 1 y MM { i :1' - :ALT: ' r t a -- 'LII �R am. ;t )-_ ► - 1 IL 1 .. .... r�., —1I k t i �'I/`I— �da I--- - 1 Ai nil _ _ __�. s. ! IIll! I —_,— ___. , ) f . 1 1 , .• k'-----neat - '-' - ncmvAr m/ _ (i EIIiI ::,<I> ii--- - 'ill W B. VALLEY C SOUTH SALT CITY LAKE E— _ I Salt Lake City Boundary I._ I B- High Noise Impact 0 L _ _I Airport Boundary I _ .J C - Moderate Noise Impact 1%/4 A-Very High Noise Impact I 1 H- Height Restrictions • • Exhibit 5 Proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District Map. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 12 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Airport Landscape Overlay District 7 x -s ue' ' - - - z r •i' :sue-y`` e . =----- � -x- "�` ems-'-� '-}3-G'a-<_ -- 'i-.� _',. 3`� �� ems`> Ate " �.� ,.., o 7 > __ - - ' . s ue._ ; 4. = �-y-c .r53 yg ': _ ��- �• :? �_- 'ram _K -'--_ y�st-� s -�- � � ..i ' ' - '` - � am�� � r te . ��, .�: 3x ...� .=t �, "ter}., 1 2 � ` _xp� + • t ' -- �-- � �� �"�b _. a�-. sue ,,. "-r'� -_ ,{�i li i� - .y, . �' aua- t. �� Vic i P � � . ' # t£ t. i x ! - In y- _ ' mom= _ • ` _,-- •1 €; • i' •c r am' x' - „_ ,,rz -.1 £ $ I i . ,` s F i .,* 5 ' . 10 '----- :-Ii_-5-i:6---4T-,t-A- --tv ---4z,vz—_, -„7-1"*IP--:=-,--sa If-.-------------. -- --mr--44-1-7. &.-------4-„t .,------, ��� �y� � < .tad, - r WZj: ' f1 • _ ► -".ee' mfc, �• •• "� ? ' . -40' ,� �irrr.rz.. a .t :„.„...,, ___.,,,__ , ... _ .2 ei- -a-X• -, ,- "..1,-.-.-,..--- .'� 4 ' j* I Mfg x � ( _ '*WO:- � . .�f �a� ; .. t., m s _ -r�- 4_,._,..1:::ti „ , .fib-V.,-2-nF---_-,z*-,,,ff-- '--__------- .. 1.,.. 141 WI i.e.-Wm.-I - agr—,6----- .--,-,,--A---.,,,t-r4 -,•-•I-R--.t...--Z--- '--r--- 1 _,:t.,..„ _, _ __ ., ii ,2 ww,„_______ _::_ -0,_ ____, .„..k___,-.„...„-_—,„ -- A .-4 1-_-_,4 _x_ _., , -----iiiiii... Er M_- k Yam^ _ SrG K-_M,.......„._.`-` ''-. - e..„l...-- ...,...,„fin„ I), -- --,,,,--;_',_-_--i - -- — '''''--.----- 111\ 110 • Exhibit 6 Airport Regulations, Section337: Wildlife Hazard Management. . Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 13 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division SECTION 337-WIlDUFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-1 SECTION 337 (a) Each certificate holder shall provide for the conduct of an • ecological study,acceptable to the Administrator,when any of the following events occurs on or near the airport (1) An air carrier aircraft experiences a multiple bird strike or engine ingestion. (2) An air carrier abuaft experiences a damaging collision with wildlife other than birds. (3) Wildlife of a size or in numbers capable of causing an event described in paragraph(aX1)or(2)of this section is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or movement area. (b) The study required in paragraph(a)of this section shall contain at least the following: (1) Analysis of the event which prompted the study. (2) Identification of the species,numbers.,locations,local movements, and daily and seasonal occurrences of .:+ildlife observed. (3) Identification and location of features on and near the airport that attract wildlife. • (4) Description of the wildlife hazard to air carrier operations. (c) The study required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Administrator,who determines whether or not there is a need for a wildlife hazard management plan. In reaching this determination,the Administrator considers— (1) The ecological study; (2) The aeronautical activity at the airport; (3) The views of the certificate holder, (4) The views of the airport users;and (5) Any other factors bearing on the matter of which the Administrator is aware. (d) When the Administrator determines that a wildlife hazard management plan is needed, the certificate holder shall formulate and implement a plan using the ecological study as a basis. The plan shall— (I) Be submitted to, and approved by, the Administrator prior to implementation;and 111 Feb. 24,1999 SECTION 337-WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Pane 337-3 (9) FAA Advisory Circulars in the 150 Series contain standards and procedures for wildlife hazard management at airports which are acceptable to the Administrator. A. The Federal Aviation Administration shall be contacted to arrange for an ecological study whenever 1. Any aircraft experiences a multiple bird strike or engine Ingestion on the Airport or on final approach or departure; 2. Any aircraft experiences a damaging collision with wildlife other than birds;and 3. Wildlife of a size and in numbers capable of causing an event such as (1) and (2) above is observed to have access to any Airport flight pattern or movement area. B. Should an independent ecological study be needed,it shall contain at least • those items listed in 139.337(b)and shall be submitted to the Administrator for review. If it is determined by the Administrator that a wildlife hazard management plan is needed,it shall be prepared in accordance with Section 139.337(d), using the ecological study as a basis and submitted to the Administrator prior to implementation. C. Due to the diversity of the problem of bird hazards,it is important to assess bird strike hazards at a particular location and the species present should be identified and their general behavior patterns be understood. When the hazard is assessed,bird control requirements may be implemented bearing in mind the frequency of occurrence,abundance,and behavior patterns of Feb_ 24,1999 SECTION 337-WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-5 WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • This Plan addresses the requirements of FAR Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management, and was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration on July 10, 1997. This Plan shall be reviewed annually. Administrative changes to maintain current personnel, phone numbers, etc. shall be made as necessary to keep the Plan current 1. RESPONSIBLE OFFICE The Salt Lake City Department of Airports, under the direction of the Executive Director of Airports, shall be responsible for implementing wildlife hazard management Actual control of wildlife is delegated to employees. The following is a listing of key personnel: Title Duty Phone Director of Operations 575-2411 Airfield Operations Superintendent 575-2463 Airfield Managers 575-2460 Additional employees conducting wildlife management duties are Airfield Officers and Airfield Maintenance personnel. The Director, and key personnel of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports responsible for controlling wildlife, are authorized to do the following in the conduct of wildlife management and bird control duties: a Close the Airport to aircraft operations; b. Close or change runways consistent with winds; c. Issue NOTAM's; • Feb_ 24, 1999 SECTION 337-WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-7' d. Clear the vegetation which is found to provide food, shelter or resting facilities. e. Make buildings uninhabitable as nesting or roosting sites with wire II netting or other suitable material. f. Eliminate or render inaccessible rubbish containers containing edible matter and control kitchen waste refuse. 3. PERMITS The Wildlife -Hazard Management Plan shall be submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for review prior to application for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service depredation permit Wildlife control shall be implemented and conducted under the authority of permits issued by: Organization(s) Address Permit # U.S. Fish & Wildlife P.O. Box 25486 DFC PRT-708334 i Service Denver, CO 80225 Utah Division of 1636 W. North Temple 1 DEPR822 Wildlife Resources Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Copies of each permit shall be carried in the wildlife control vehicles. The originals are on file In the Airport Operations office. Copies of each permit are listed at Attachments 337-1 and 337-2 4. RESOURCES ASSIGNED In addition to personnel assigned responsibility for bird control, the following equipment and supplies are available: Feb_ 24, 1999 SECTION 337-WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-9 _ m. Time Involved n. Bird Strike - Number, Kind of Aircraft • o. Aircraft Damage p. Reported By When performing wildlife management and bird control activities, the persons'responding will maintain two-way radio contact with the Control Tower at all times. Attachment 337-3 is a copy of the Wildlife Uazard/Bird Control Log and Plotting Map used by Airfield Operations. The primary means of controlling birds will be through acoustical means of dispersal. This means of dispersal may use a combination of vehicle sirens and horns, shotguns, and gas cannon. It is a weakness that birds may only move a short distance and may even return to the original site. in this situation, a sustained attack with two or more guns may be used in a coordinated drive away from active runways. if the preceding procedures are not effective, it may become necessary to kill birds, with the exception of endangered migratory birds, eagles and game birds. When the taking of birds becomes necessary, it will normally be done with the use of live shotgun shells. If it is determined that mammals are a problem, the Airport will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D..A_ Animal Damage Control, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources as to the most practical solution to the problem. • Feb_ 24, 1999 SECTION 337 -WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-11 DF..PANTuLNI OF THE INFERIOR U.S F ESN AND wc.OLEESERVECE gr‘A FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT wnu tY stbtutc� US FISH&Wfl Df.IP•'SERVICE 16 U5C 70.1712 • MIGRATORY BIRO PERMIT OFFICE 2 �)54 DENVER,CO 8480 REGULATORS rAarr.Q2 P,,RANrrTE= 50 CFR Part 13 50 CFR 2127 SALT LAKE-CITY INTERNATL AIRPORT AMF BOX 22084 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84122 i rAwafA MBT08334-O a irtOle llAgt.E .3 UUAY t t36Y yEs op ono dFirli1rF IT 01)01/1998 12131/2000 Mt NAME AND Ton E of PRNrCaAL OFF ICER r r a r n,o�aarT .S.TYPE Of PETIMR VICTOR D.WHIT= SPECIAL PURPOSE DEPUTY DIR.AIRP OPP ill.WE-rehab v.1f1}tE Ac1h+6161111 rrvrry ufY 11ED ON AND NEAR ACTIVE RUNWAYS INCLUDING APPROACHES.SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (CONTINGENT UPON ACQUISITION OF APPROPRIATE STATE EE AUTHORIZATION) I L.CONDITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS: GEH RAL corms aNa SET our in su8PART o or so OcR Al AND SPECF Mc tor-:snows coNTADttO IN F Fnrnw Rrlrn AT Srs CITED n►eLooc PZ AsovE ARE NBNEB. MADE A PART OF nes P634IT.ALL ACTMTtE3 AUTHORIZED HEREIN AIDS BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORD wmN AND FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIR N M THE APPUUATCor scream-ma CONTDrun vAtrorrY.OR RENEWAL_Or Ties J'[FOOT 6 SUBTEC:TO C AIPL.ETE AND TPMElY C0.1REANC:E IT/HALT APPUUretE conorTKWi I+CL.uOINQ THE TILING OF Art REOURED INFORMATION AHD REPORTS. A THE VAIID/TY OF DOS P4RMn IS ALSO COnt nI[ONgD IWONF,r T ORSENvANCE OF ALt APPLICABLE F-ORDCH.STATE LOCAL OR O"H H FEDERAL LAW. C VALID FOR USE BY PEEfTOTTTE NAMED ABOVE • and any other person(s)wider the direct control of or employed by the permittee only to the extent necessary In accomplishing the purpose authorized below_ D_ Pemvttee.and sutaerr uttees.are authorized to take.as specified in 50 CFR 21.41(c)(2)&(3).transport&tenmoranly possess nonendangesed migratory hinds_EXCEPT EAGLES.GAME BIRDS.FEDERAL&STATE CANDIDATE SPECIES.not to exceed 200 when nonlethal methods have failed order to prevent damage to aircraft and possible toss of hurnan Fife. E Permittee.and subpermittees.are authorized to leave dead carcasses tying around to discourage birds from retuning Shottd this fad each bird kIDet shall insofar as practical.be retrieved for donation to an eligible public scientific or educational institution or be destroyed by burning or burying. F. These activities may be performed only on runways end areas immediately adjacent to Salt Lake City International Airport G. Peon itlee.and subpemuttem shall carry and display.upon revues.a copy of this permit whenever exercising hit authority. H_ Failure to comply with ANY of these condltiont listed may result in the immediate susnenswn of this permit. I. Authorization granted herein shaft not be exercised contrary to the laws of the appropriate State.County.Municipal,Tribal.or Foreign government or ar other applicable laws. J_ Permutes shall maintain records as required in 50 CFR 13.46_ K. Ail required records relating to permitted activities shall be keat at the location as indicated in writing by pemuttee tD the issuing office. ElADDITIONAL COMOmONS AND AUnrORIZATIONFS ALSO APPLY t2.REPORfind at CAARLuE.NtS ANNUAL REPORT DUE 1/31/°9 ANNUALLY BY JANUARY 31 ON FORMS SUPPLIED BY THE U.S_FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AS REQUIRED IN 50 CFR 13.45_ r U DBr FFLE wT� It /%/`; , f W PERMIT SPECIALIST 08T111428 Feb_24,1999 Attachment 337-1 SECTION 337 -W}LDUFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Page 337-13 • WILDLIFE HAZARD/BIRD CONTROL LOG 1. Observation Date 2. Observation Time 3. Species 4. Approximate Number 5. Location 6. Activity: "Feeding", Etc. 7. Action Taken 8. Results 9. Environmental, Grasshoppers, High Water, Etc. • 10. Weather 11. Persons Responding/Logged By 12_ Number of Kills 13. Time Involved \ 14. Bird Strike - Number, Kind of 4 Aircraft 15. Aircraft Damage 16. Reported By Officer, Tower, Etc. Attachment 337-3 III _ Feb_ 24,1999 Attachment 337-3 0 0 Exhibit 7 Federal Aviation Administration Letter. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-00-21 14 October 03,2002 By Salt Lake Citv'Planning Division U.S. Department Northwest Mountain Region 1601 Lind Avenue,S.W. of Transportation Colorado,Idaho,Montana Renton,Washington 98055-4056 Oregon,Utah,Washington, Federal Aviation Wyoming Administration July 20, 2001 READJNr Mr. Timothy L. Campbell A.A.E. READING Executive Director FILESalt Lake City Department of Airports AMF Box 22084 Sail Lake City, UT 84122 Dear Mr. Campbell: This is in response to my July 20, 2001 telephone conversation with Mr. Al Stuart concerning the Salt Lake City Ordinance requiring the planting of trees in parking lots_ As I understand it, the ordinance requires trees to be planted in parking lots constructed within Salt Lake City limits. This includes the airport_ It is also my understanding that, because of the size of the - lot being constructed at SLC, thousands of trees will be required_ The FAA does not normally comment on airport landscaping, or local requirements for such landscaping_ However, in the • current case at SLC, we must express our serious concerns and reservations. Every year wildlife strikes cost the civil aviation industry in the United States over$300 million in direct damage and associated cost and over 500,000 hours of aircraft down time. Locally, Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC)has expended considerable resources to control wildlife and wildlife habitat on the airport,most of that for bird control. Despite that effort, I have personally seen damaged aircraft return to SLC for repair after bird strikes and have observed significant flocks of small birds on and in the vicinity of the airport_The proposed tree planting on the airport flies in the face of logic when applied to the situation at SLC. The direction that must be taken at SLC, in terms of wildlife habitat, must be to continue to reduce that habitat, not expand it. It is easy to question whether or not a starling could bring down an aircraft_ The answer is that it is not only possible for birds to bring down an aircraft with the associated loss of life, but that it has happened. This is not a "What if' situation_ Starlings, numbering in the hundreds congregate in the area of the airport_ A flock ingested into a jet engine will cause the engine to fail_ Depending on the phase of flight, the failure that results can be expensive to catastrophic with the resulting loss of life. FAA documents and requirements do not give clear bright line guidance in the case of wildlife control_ We do not and cannot provide, specific regulatory requirements because the • situation is clearly dependent on the circumstances at each airport and vary with climates, geography and the specie of wildlife involved. There can be no question that bird strikes at SLC have required and continue to require considerable attention. We must object strenuously to the planting of a significant number of trees,which can and do provide roosting habitat for birds. We must also point out the significant liability to which the City is exposed - should the trees be planted_ Pleasedo not hesitate to call me at (425)227-2626 if you have questions- - _ • Sincerely: iihn A T-!u'ch'son Airport Certification Safety Inspector _ cc: Steve Domino Al Stuart • STEP HEN A.GOLDSMITH SALT' 133-K �.` < 011Yr fORPORAT I©Nf RD55 C.ANDERSDN P"""'r'nvc .w COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLnry NINI:Divl�iov • pc BRErN F3.W'Ac'E�w DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP September 10,2002 RE: Zoning Amendment Petition#400-00-21 Salt Lake International Airport Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-00-21, winch was initiated by the Salt Lakc City Department of Airports. • The Salt Lake City Department of Airports is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to policing lot landscape buffers at the Salt Lake City International Airport and properties near the Airport.The proposal also includes proposing the creation of a new Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District (Exhibit is attached). Property you own near the Airport is also proposed to be subject to the Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District regulations. 'the intent of this zoning amendment request is to eliminate the potential for safety hazards near the Airport,by amending text to the Airport District Standards(Section 21 A.48.070)of the Zoning Ordinance. All properties within the boundaries of the new overlay zone will be affected.The purpose of the zoning amendment and overlay zone are to modify the Parking Lot Landscaping Standards,in order to eliminate potential safety hazards at the Salt Lake International Airport,due to the potential expansion of bird habitat. As part of their review regarding the petition, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission concerning these petitions will be given the opportunity. Notice for the Public hearing will be sent out 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing. • 4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406.SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE,BO1-535-7757 FAX:B01-535-6174 0 Please feel free to contact me at 535-6409, or by e-mail at marilynn.Iewis(a,slc.ci.ut.us.com if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, i Z f �_ilynn r Lewiss cc: Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey, Planning Supervisor 0 IS • , � LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS - i� ��� � �/ �� °°4" I APPLY TO AREAS IN THE AIRPORT __ fil%",' ,/♦A..♦. e+5,f4� 4 . > . 60Ate4 .JJr0//.dis.+/%J. /•�r%O/, - v LANDSCAPE BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT �4... j'�////� 7�/ ''%i;%:�///////i�/is%'��/.'%,�vre-.- %,•.1���rerr../—lie.: - � /+ .,/ +.� / . �. / �i/� ��//. ,P:741.���110 %�e-;� /�I�/,-4.�s�,'► � �ztr- a/''a/ -K�l/',��`' / ,,I S,ii.-i..f�:`1/I-/�'%.��:a/.i.�._��- ��0�/Jti•I/:.•-J��:-._. .��1.1.fir%.�.a """T�I////I /'� r r J L a���:s a�mcc+�sr_c^r_vri osr �s-c�-rrrc c^sset_-rr._rr ti ri S`7,a � ' /s g- =ii t' i i4/E! �'f.ri lr,10-At .,•' 7y'r ✓✓ 04 I iph � %//.�Ii .PJI��I/`ii.� •rlr�.�Ji: /��1;•.�%�r/rfOo..���Irr%i`:� s.� / ,� --.,$)4 a I ��-- i b4erti •� �, ��'% ! /t / \ I APPLY TO EXISTING A-AIRPORT DISTRICT ,\I ,wry. >'+Y.%/,,, ,,,!/'^-We i Nt„�//��'✓` ',rir��a�"r/c�� `�j�/// ��_. ' I APPLY TO FUTURE RUNWAY EXTENSION i-- _ sr to / t/ firs./// �rI'0/rri♦ . //,/ 4/ :�+/�. 4_my AKA ac-. /�t�4.�4 �r.�ii+r�:/o//. /L!r.. •I//f (.. �/♦ 1 /i:_.�r. �i• ♦. . IAKA," ��.%Iw'sI. �//i�/r~dia.,�l� r/ yle.i�ri�11/�►.!/.Ilv-'�%if/ILyr��I�i:.hia7ir�r rr���A��I+�//Iii♦� � ��' ,r,i� v/ ice/, ,,,,', e,. ,,ed if y.4 r,�';�J« .ft/„. 47w,02,- riiii •-egri%i+ -i0 r v7^-"--1-7.----VS�'// �i�.Par �V% 1L .,' • � ��I%� /r1 �•�� w ./�`r/e !'/ y/� .���! Ir �f.r♦ � Ai.. J.,/ ///��,r/L! 4rsl/�/// ✓/i �i/% rif.s I♦i . ` ,s r/cA I//I�►•'/I'-�Ir f'f er.r'414, i/ /•,, ,, ) /, !///;i I !l�i<+���11�� ��a�/✓r-:y� i 7.�/'�11��•�/�a `l i ;�r�?f.✓�/,/i�. ���r �,►``�✓�'i�/ / / /�P l� /. 9/e./� I'I�.�7��♦ 1fl♦7e r* •s. _ _./ `I�I r✓ � rhsrlsi✓ r r r/N'iL��r�/ ��1� '✓ / /� /!'' • 'I/ r `/�►�/ /r i��� �r•,it-/ ,.,••//••••,, .�I'4frr :_, i /,r r � r�i . c� �I/ �����/ir�I�/ Ili .�////elr r//��� /v I�.D. ,�i-. •. -14'�` - _ rr. %//�I ,r- • e40 a ip,4 �I�il1 /., tI II- / �f i,/� ::•riiiif itv! .ifez- �AT.-.-:,'i +_/'�.o..lf/�4%/'/�/r� / ,/g��Ia1l4�ii i 4471)— I"��,l f4 r1�_ �'i� rII'�i- _ice �.4 .s INf kTAP.i:i•yir j/���♦A/ 1 �i/✓IJ,.>.✓� ♦s��/������%���/���i'::��%'�+♦`s=•/i'T��i��s_I.r%�S�/f•/(�rI li �/l. /rf�-�/ , . ��.!I f '`nf:':r ,,,;(;A�r�� ♦ so_:44- 1 , r r✓.Jis fed4� >�i�.°/s /c'•♦ ,,te" ez�IO2. iite •/�` 'li f ,( 0 ✓ 1'" i r„f�`� / �/ ii ri/a/O?ioc�.•IF�Fii► I A/c'a�i0Pf� Ir0'=r i`/'-�.!IiEJ.A-...r-/I P /i �� .'/,r/_ l .f r . as �.I,i, /��%TI/i��+�J:�/a f.,r.1. .+ ..•�li� �I r�i�/!/iI,ii��.rv�♦� �/� O� �if.s:I//��//!i ii d_I_ <Ss =t:s,s /re, / i- // ii.� I'✓ P jvi/ I��'Jle+i,,.•I//�:/�c r-: .i%I,. ii,r7-..r�iJ !' ,f i";r % / I f i i 4ok-AiA✓oiwo 4: -i:' "/ ;!, ai���ij�I'ji01�✓sir �iw, �♦/✓/lrrr%I�� d/i9. f//e% / �,i�!✓�// >��+/ 4.I. � 1 41° i._///�$ r i✓e �, ./j ill,/ .I%♦0 ,,,,, /err l' �IIOx/��+� ,///�i/�/�/ II%'+ ,;=•- y_ //'I,'.r......lAVt./A� r �te/it /-k/-� i /A'_/d► I . W. I..A.., . I/ /0 r�i��si• ,- sl�4i , ,J r� iI,,, ��'I'.If7 ro / i�r/�� +i.fi I�f + i- if.Yn�`s� / r►,• �`'/T,/i:f �/f' r/=s i /�;�+A� i� � �' %%%i c //I: .►4���/+1'✓ /f'1/,� � 4 ►,t/ i./i r� / • 7 rep If O-- J/r r + i..4 e e/ s 0 is/ / / •}/i'a /► /���. /.,+r!♦. ✓ e A tol I /,..-4/s e�•�.• •/`,r� .:•7i i ti :k•liZ 1 i rif of.r I-. s i --. 'i- //.4 I,p r ,c/ii I✓r of� r.%./I t • rt/.il.� :.-//, �.riiie`/� �'11� s'r , •Pi'.r / ._l."_ i/ I .: : ar ;c .;,.,.s ! . rpP'Ii'r// h;,r/ O �ilS,e% itQ//r,y + i -i .,ri �i1+Ot . .4,4'4r� r > i ,44.4 �/e .. i4 1%'14.t/.A - i ♦I,f .:I/>7�I�'t : f tZA—!; T`i'�r*p!+�sa,':,t4_ "_'yi,E /. / + I^rr /0 I/ ♦e. _ j/� , f vI� / r.. '' .ram �i r� `/'. iJ/>.///���! �♦J•'sd+ /i!//ifre /! PfI� Ji• t/� /t� Gr�✓ ,4�,rrr#i''�.,r /rf / ► �- r /!� , .%/.r '�/ is e.. .} r lt�� /ld /�% i�i✓ r'/A/ 3• , •./t I �i /P!i. r =� -J. it rr- �. li rii._ . t// /i'� s.,_ �_• , / ♦ u//,// s ✓�/ r / �1 / / �P 1 y -- APPLY 3000 FEET FROM NEAREST RUNWAY ,./i:�L/ �i. ;l iirl 7ii#4-- c : '"-,/e� / `jOJ/ 1f�a-r`+��/e i . b 'IN APPLY TO 3000 FEET FROM FUTURE RUNWAY RE-ALIGNMENT `Salt Lake Cie/Planning Division 451 South State Street act Sett Lake City.UT 84111 • it o Marilynn Levis SEP I R I Salt Lake City Corp. 451 South State Street,rm.406 I. J. iN.-iN._G Cali alep r;, TRah Ra111 III,,,Il,,,11,,,IL1,1,1 L 11„ail,M.111I,0,Wi i,I.IWLd • • 0 0 5. PLANNING COMMISSION c. Agendas/Minutes October 3, 2002 • NO I L: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,October 3, 2002, at 5:45 p.m. IIIThe Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p_m., in Room 118. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public_ 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, September 19,2002 2. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-604, by Ken Garff Honda, for a conditional use to legalize a 90- foot tall flag pole located at 64 East 900 South, in a Downtown D-2 zoning district. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Petition No. 400-00-21, by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to landscaping requirements that affect the Salt Lake City International Airport. The proposal includes the creation of a new Airport Landscape Overlay District regulating landscaping on the properties generally located between 1-215 and the eastern boundary of the International Center and approximately between 2700 North and the Western Pacific railroad corridor south of 1-80. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) c_ PUBLIC HEARING at 6:50 p.m.—Petition No. 400-02-14, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080, 21A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of Land Use Appeals Board review (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:20 p.m.—Petition No.410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach • Center. The site will be leased to the University of Utah and programming will be run by their University/ Neighborhood Partners group, and; Petition No.400-02-31,by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 south 900 west. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000(single-family residential district)to OS (open space district).The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park, as open space. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m.—Foss Subdivision amendment, by Mr. Jim Shaw of Shaw homes requesting approval of an amendment of a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision Plat. The proposal is to amend five lots and a portion of the previously vacated Foss Street into three new single-family building lots, and a re f. mnant parcel impacted by an adjacent railroad track(located at approximately 1551 West 200 South in a Residential "R-1-5,000"zoning district). (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a_ Planning Commission elections. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. • PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE.801-535-7757•FAX.801-535-6174 Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. • Noda voted "Aye." Ms. Arnold, Mr. Muir, and Mr. Chambless voted "Nay." Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-00-21, by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to landscaping requirements that affect the Salt Lake City International Airport. The proposal includes the creation of a new Airport Landscape Overlay District regulating landscaping on the properties generally located between 1-215 and the eastern boundary of the International Center and approximately between 2700 North and the Western Pacific railroad corridor south of I- 80. Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She noted that the purpose of this proposal relates to modifying parking lot and other landscaping standards at the Salt Lake International Airport and includes creating a new landscape overlay district and modifying airport landscape standards to eliminate potential safety hazards at the airport due to potential expansion of bird habitat. The goal of the amendment is to meet the requirements of issues related to safety, urban heat islands, visual buffering, water conservation, and plan • review. However under the current regulations we cannot meet the requirements without sacrificing some safety. Ms. Lewis explained that Airport Flight Path Protection relates to issues concerning imaginary surfaces within navigable air space, and she noted that navigable air space is not limited to just the airport property. Private parcels are located within the AFPP, and due to their proximity, these properties hold the same potential for hazards. She commented that the airport is bound to create a master plan for managing wildlife. She reviewed the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. Based on those findings, the Staff recommended that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance text for landscape, adopt the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District, and amend the existing overlay zoning map to include the new overlay district as it relates to Salt Lake International Airport and surrounding properties. It was noted that no drawings were submitted with this proposal. Ms. Funk referred to Page 1, b.vi. and asked why a ratio of landscape to hardscape is not required if they are trying to reduce urban heat islands. Ms. Lewis replied that no ratios were Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 3,2002 • selected at this time because the Planning Director and Airport Staff Director want flexibility in IIreviewing each plan as it comes through. Ms. Funk referred to Page 3, f. Operational and Maintenance Lots and asked if the operational and maintenance lots would have to meet landscaping requirements if they are changed into public lots. Ms. Lewis replied that they would have to meet some requirements and would have to go through the plan review process. Steve Domino, Director of Planning for Salt Lake City International Airport and Randy Berg, Director of Operations for the airport, were available to answer questions. Mr. Domino stated that they have worked with the Planning Department for nearly a year to try to develop an ordinance that would address some of the concerns at the airport and concerns they will face in the future as they continue to develop and expand. He stated that the primary concern has always been safety. The ordinance was changed a few years ago, and they recently realized that, as they continue to expand the airport, there will be a problem with the number of trees required in the existing ordinance. There are currently 580 trees in the terminal area, and the existing ordinance would require that they increase the number of trees to approximately 5,000. There is already a problem with attracting wildlife, which causes significant problems with ingestion into aircraft engines. They have been notified by the FAA that the number of bird strikes at the airport has increased over the years, which prompted them to update and intensify IIItheir wildlife management practices. In working through the Planning Department, they felt this could best be dealt with by allowing some flexibility in developing a landscape program that provides good aesthetics. However, they are also concerned about safety and a number of other issues. Heat islands are a concern to the City, but because the airport is not in the heart of the City, heat is less of a problem. Airport operation is different from parking lots downtown because their lots are never empty. Mr. Domino noted that one concern expressed by the Police Department related to safety and having 5,000 trees that would shield potential criminals. They hoped to develop a program that would work in coordination with the Planning Department, address the issues of aesthetics and safety, and still showcase the airport. Mr. Domino stated that the current landscaping at the airport is very nice, but the goal is to improve it. One goal is to replace turf, which consumes a lot of water, with more shrubs. A number of pilot programs have been developed that remove turf to develop the Utah look, which is a high mountain desert appearance. Mr. Jonas felt the golf course at the airport was inconsistent with the issues of safety and water consumption. Mr. Domino replied that they also have concerns, but years ago when the golf course was developed, there was a need and desire to beautify that area. The City had a plan • to increase the number of golf courses to generate some revenue, and they were told that one Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 3,2002 would be placed in that location. Open water was a concern because it attracts large geese, and that is one issue the Operations Division is specifically responsible for in terms of wildlife management. They also work closely with the Department of Agriculture in their wildlife area. 10 Mr. Jonas asked if comment about impacts had been received from private property owners to the north and east of the airport. Ms. Lewis reported that the Planning Department has received numerous calls from property owners around the perimeter of the airport, and she has explained to them the contents of the staff report and the purpose of the amendment. Those who called in advance were given copies of the staff report. She stated that the majority of property owners were satisfied with what the airport was trying to do, and she has heard no additional comments. Mr. Muir felt one solution would be to move the parking off site so the City could impose environmental restrictions without imposing risk on the flight corridors. Mr. Domino replied that there is already a significant amount of airport parking off site, and that was not something the airport looked into. He noted that parking generates a lot of revenue that helps offset the costs of the airport. On-site parking is a need at the airport and a convenience for passengers and the public who use the airport. Mr. Muir agreed that it might be inconvenient, but he did not think revenue was an issue because many other airports do have more remote long-term parking. Randy Berg explained that any remote operation is more expensive to operate and • would likely impact revenue. Mr. Chambless asked about bird strikes. Mr. Berg replied that the FAA requires flight crews to notify the airport and the FAA of any strikes. Airplanes and birds are not compatible, so they do report the strikes. Bird strikes over the past year have increased, and they met last week with the wildlife people to talk about what can be done to manage strikes. Mr. Domino stated that the location of the Great Salt Lake is a big problem, and there are a lot of wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the airport. There are also many duck clubs in the area, and the airport is not in a position to control property it does not own. In 1995 they were prohibited from replacing the wetlands within 10,000 feet of their runways and had to create a resting pond two miles west of the airport which has helped keep birds out of the airport approach area. Mr. Chambless asked at what point they would use drought tolerant plants and other landscaping that is unattractive to birds rather than trees. Mr. Domino replied that the purpose of the ordinance is to leave that decision open and flexible to work with the Planning Department. Ms. Funk reiterated her earlier question about why there is a problem with requiring a ratio of landscape area to asphalt. She did not want to require the planting of trees, but she believed a lot of grasses and shrubs could be planted. She believed the urban heat island was a problem, III Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 3,2002 even at the airport. She suggested using water permeable asphalt to keep from heating up all • the ground. Mr. Domino replied that the ordinance specifically says no ratio for trees because they are trying to focus on shrubs, rockscape, and other aesthetic features that address the issue of heat islands. Ms. Funk stated that she was troubled that the airport has little or no planting in the parking lots. Mr. Domino explained that their concept is to have landscaped areas around the bus shelters so people can see those areas and know that is where they can catch a shuttle. They would like to use landscaping as a buffer or shield so people will not see the parking lot until they turn into it. Mr. Goldsmith noted that this issue has been discussed at length, and one issue dealt with heat islands. The Staff tried to require light-colored paving surfaces, but the airport people felt it was too costly. Unlike the Planning Department, the Planning Commission has the purview to insist on certain things. With regard to permeable asphalt, Mr. Goldsmith explained that there is no batch plant in the Intermountain area that can supply it, and they cannot require a product that is not available. Cheri Coffey felt that one issue related to the ratio is that the airport constantly moves the parking lots, and putting in a lot of interior landscaping would mean that landscaping would have • to be removed and replaced. This would not likely happen if the landscaping was placed around the perimeter. Mr. Domino explained that interior landscaping also gets into maintenance issues. The lots are never empty, which makes it harder to rake up leaves or remove fallen branches. If they settle on a ratio of landscape to asphalt, his preference would be to put it around the perimeter so the area where vehicles park can be intensified. Mr. Diamond asked if parking could be structured in 1,000-car pads so they could create landscape buffers between pads. Mr. Goldsmith felt that was an interesting concept and one they did not explore. Mr. Jonas clarified that the ordinance requires that the Planning Director approve modifications to the landscaping or general plans for the airport that would include landscaping. He commented that this is a strange animal, and he did not understand how they could come up with an appropriate ratio that would be meaningful. He noted that this ordinance addresses the concept of drought tolerant vegetation, xeriscaping, and heat islands and gives the Planning Director flexibility to work with the airport to demand some things that are not available to the Planning Director in the current ordinance. Mr. Goldsmith felt the Planning Commission could negotiate the idea of light colored paving materials with Mr. Domino and his supervisors. When • dealing with municipal projects, the Planning Commission needs to exercise leadership, and the Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 3,2002 issue of having a program that requires lighter colored paving materials is reasonable. Mr. Diamond asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to limit the number of parking • stalls and how the parking areas are laid out. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the Planning Commission can establish a ratio, but it would take a lot of work. It may be easier to keep this within the purview of the Planning Director to negotiate each change on a case-by-case basis. Chair Daniels opened the public hearing. Stephanie Duer stated that she is the water conservation coordinator for Salt Lake City Public Utilities. She thanked the airport for being diligent in trying to address issues of trying to minimize and reduce water use at the airport. She offered suggestions for technical wording in the document regarding landscaping. In terms of increasing their flexibility, she suggested adding "or resistant"when using the word drought tolerant. Depending on times and periods, those are two different functions of a plant and two different kinds of plants. Using "drought tolerant or resistant plants"would further deflect any concerns. Native plants might be argued as being one or the other, and this wording would eliminate that type of argument or discussion. When talking about minimizing turf, she recommended that they add "minimizing traditional turf." They might want to use native grasses that are turf-type grasses, but the current wording may • limit those opportunities. She noted that the terms "xeriscape" is a trademarked term that is controlled. She believed the word could be eliminated from the document without changing the body of the text. She stated that"xeriscape" is a term that is misunderstood and misused and cited a number of examples in the document to support her statement. Mr. Goldsmith asked Ms. Duer for her opinion on requiring light-colored paving. Ms. Duer replied that there has been interest in the high performance task force meetings and other meetings that involve dialogue about heat islands. She stated that she is not a proponent of trees in large islands of asphalt in this climate. Depending on the ratio, the result could be a lot of dead trees in the middle of a parking lot. The idea of creating larger islands of planted material would increase the goal of decreasing heat islands and increasing aesthetics. She felt it would be best to look at these on a site-by-site basis and not as a general rule. Chair Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Muir asked what percentage of landscaping would be required if this were a commercial parking lot. Ms. Lewis replied that it would be based on the square footage. Mr. Muir asked if they had looked at the airport in total. He noted that this is a complete fee simple piece of Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 3,2002 -111 property, including the golf course, and looking at that in balance, he asked about the • percentage of landscape to hardscape. Mr. Goldsmith stated that they had not done those calculations. Ms. Lewis explained that the master plan would be reviewed before it is approved and moves forward in order to make substitutions if necessary. She clarified that the airport does not have a specific plan at this time. Mr. Muir suggested taking the overall perspective and giving the airport some credit for the golf course. Instead of looking at parking lots in isolation, he felt they should look at the entire package as one PUD. Ms. Lewis was unsure what credit or exchanges were made when the golf course was created and agreed that this option could be investigated, and possibly made a condition. Mr. Muir felt something should be done to pose some resistance to tearing out the golf course. Motion for Petition 400-00-21 In the matter of Petition 400-00-21 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports requesting amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as related to parking lot landscaping at the Salt Lake International Airport, and based upon the findings of fact and the discussion, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance text for landscape buffers, adopt the proposed Airport Landscape Overlay District, . and amend the existing overlay zoning map to include the new overlay district as it relates to the Salt Lake City International Airport and surrounding properties with the following modifications to the ordinance as proposed: Adding language on page 31, item a. General Landscape Performance Standards, to ,, encourage use of light-colored paving and encourage parking lots to be broken up so they can be more aesthetically pleasing,iand Incorporating the changes recommended by Stephanie Duer. Mr. Muir asked Mr. Jonas if he would accept language in his motion to direct the Planning Director to create language that gives credit to the existing landscaping in exchange for the reduction of required landscaping on the parking lot. Mr. Diamond questioned whether this would create a greater use for hard surfacing. Mr. Jonas stated that he understood Mr. Muir's intent, but he was unsure if it would entitle anything. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Director to explore this and understand how it fits with the long- term plan for the airport. • Ms. Funk suggested putting "and/or"wherever trees are mentioned in the ordinance to make it Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 3,2002 less demanding. She was uncomfortable with requiring that trees be planted if there is a safety issue. Mr. Goldsmith preferred that the wording state, "may include trees, shrubs, and perennials." Ms. Funk was comfortable with that language. • John Diamond seconded the motion. Findings of Fact A. The proposed amendment will allow the Department of Airports to effectively modify any hazardous situations associated with wildlife habitat. The amendment allows the restraint and control of potential habitat creation, thereby avoiding the need to eliminate or alleviate habitat, thus displacing wildlife. The amendment will create opportunities to be more sensitive of environmental constraints and allow more advanced consideration of safety as required by the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. B. There are various urban design and conservation policies included in the "Futures Commission Report." The flexibility of the proposed amendments allows the Planning Director to ensure adequate visual buffering of parking lots, low use of water, and minimization of urban heat islands while still ensuring a landscaped area that reduces potential safety hazards. C. The existing zoning primarily shows open space and commercial properties directly adjacent to the airport facility, especially within the Airport Influence Zone "A". The • master plan calls for"No net increase in dwelling units within the Airport Influence Zone"B", phasing out residential dwellings toward the long range development plan. Since the proposed amendment is concerned with the airport facility and those properties directly adjacent, it does not encourage the expansion of any particular zoning. The proposed amendment will increase the potential for safety and decrease negative impacts to surrounding land use areas. D. The airport and other properties within the Airport Landscape Buffer Overlay District, while not participating in the standard manner to reduce the effects of urban heat islands or contribute to typical visual buffers, will still have to address these issues with a new and more innovate approach with this text amendment. Heat islands can be broken up with a variety of plant materials and/or shade producing structures. Visual parking lot buffers can be obtained through manipulation of topography and the use of a variety of plant materials. E. The most important goal is to achieve the highest level of safety while maintaining an acceptable level of landscaping. This amendment allows both the Planning Division and the Department of Airports opportunities to investigate various ways of ensuring the ®. Planning Commission Meeting 7 October 3, 2002 highest levels of safety possible while complying with basic requirements and standards • of the City code. F. The AFPP Overlay District was created to identify and prevent all potential hazards to aircraft in the air, as they maneuver on the ground, during take-off and landings. The Airport Landscape Overlay District relates to areas on the ground where conformance with current vegetative practices could have a direct affect on safety within the AFPP. Therefore, the proposed amendments help implement the purpose of the AFPP Overlay Zone. G. Although it is a colloquial term, there are many private firms all over the country that use the word "Xeriscape" as part of their name. The goals for the proposed amendment are to reduce water consumption for landscaped areas and encourage the usage of drought tolerant plan materials. Safety in the air and on the ground is the number one concern for airports. It is important to provide opportunities to increase surveillance of the grounds. Certain types of plant material being used for screening easily shield nefarious activities. This amendment proposal will allow a great deal of flexibility in choosing plant species that would perform the functions of an aesthetic buffer while providing for visual observation. H. The DRT would like to make sure that the intent of Title 21A landscaping requirements • are adhered to. This can be done by requiring Site Plan Review for development in the Airport Landscape Overlay District, with a listing of all appropriate exceptions made in the body of the text as follows: A landscape plan shall be required when landscaping or alteration of landscaping is required by the Title. Such landscape plans shall be drawn in conformance with the requirements specified in this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator, prior to the issuance of a building permit, must approve landscape plans. Landscape plans for planned developments, conditional uses, or other uses requiring site plan review approval shall also be reviewed and approved by the development review team. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Robert"Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. • Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 3,2002 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Follow-up on zoning issues relating to the Mountair Annexation - Petition No. 400-01-07 CC: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan, LeRoy Hooton,Rick Graham,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Lynn Pace,Jeff Niermeyer, Kevin Bergstrom, Max Peterson,Tim Harpst,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Everett Joyce, Michael Sears,Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley On August 27, 2003 the City received signatures from residents in the Mountair annexation area seeking withdrawal from the annexation petition. The City is calculating the effect of the • removal of these signatures from the petition and determining if the annexation petition meets the . requirements of State Annexation Law. Additional information will be provided during the September 2, 2003 briefing. Interested parties have until the Council's vote on the annexation to express their positions in writing. It is possible for parties to change their written positions until the hearing is closed. The following are items or questions identified for Council consideration relating to the proposed zoning in the Mountair annexation area. At the Council Work Session on August 12, Council Members indicated their preference to eliminate the need to non-conform existing land uses within the annexation area. Planning staff indicated this would require the use of the Community Business and Commercial Corridor zoning classification for a majority of the existing businesses in the annexation area. Please see the attached proposed zoning map for details. A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration if it may be appropriate to create a new commercial zoning classification that would better address the current land uses and site design(setbacks, scale of buildings and parking locations). Examples of zones that have been developed for specific areas of the city and recommended by master plans include: 1. Mixed Use MU zone applied to the West Capitol Hill area 2. Residential Mixed-Use RMU zone applied to the East Central City area 3. Sugar House Business District CSHBD zone 4. Gateway Mixed-Use GMU zone 5. Urban Institutional UI zone • B. Several businesses located on local streets and in the middle of certain blocks would be zoned Commercial Corridor under the proposal (this would alleviate creating non-conforming uses as 1 requested by the Council). The zoning classification currently is intended for automobile oriented commercial development along arterial and major collector streets, and it is somewhat unusual for this zone to be applied in the middle of blocks or on local streets. C. Businesses located along 1300 East, Highland Drive and 3300 South(the streets are classified as arterials or major collectors)would be zoned Community Business. This zoning classification is currently intended for close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. It is somewhat unusual for this zone to be applied on an arterial or major collector. D. Properties located on 3300 South on either side of the Libbie Elementary school are proposed to be zoned Residential Business. This zoning classification is currently intended for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets to preserve the area for single-family residential use. E. Movie theatres are not permitted in either the Community Business or Commercial Corridor zones. The Villa Theatre(3092 S. Highland Drive) is located in the annexation area. (The theatre is currently closed. Planning staff indicated that they are not aware of any proposed reuse plans. Information from news stories noted: 1. The property(3.4 acres)was recently sold to Harmon's grocery store chain. 2. Harmon's intends to resell the property and is willing to consider reuse options that may address historic preservation. 3. The most recent news report indicated interest in establishing a night club on this site, but that would not be permitted under the proposed rezoning. • F. The Community Business zoning classification requires a conditional use process for buildings with 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area on the first floor or 20,000 sq. ft.total including additions to existing buildings. Lots 4 acres or larger require a conditional use process. The Residential Business zone restricts the maximum lot size to 10,000 sq. ft. New non-residential construction, parking lots or additions to existing buildings that include demolition of a residential structure requires a conditional use process. G. Planning staff has indicated to Council staff that many properties and structures within the annexation area will become non-complying in relation to yard area, height, lot size and parking requirements in the City's proposed zoning classifications. An exact number of non-complying structures and lots has not been determined at this time. Non-complying is different than non- conforming in that non-complying relates to the physical characteristics of the business such as building size and setbacks rather than use. If the buildings were to be demolished or destroyed with less than 25 percent remaining, the replacement structure would need to comply with the ordinance in place at the time of the demolition or destruction. For example: 1. The proposed zoning districts require landscaped front yard setbacks and landscaped buffer yard areas between commercial and residentially zoned properties. 2. Examples of properties that would become non-complying with the proposed zoning requirements include: Patagonia Outlet at 3267 S. Highland Drive, Hyland Pharmacy at 3291 S. Highland Drive, and the Flower Patch florist shop at 3295 S. Highland Drive. 411 2 H. As previously noted in the Council staff report,this zoning recommendation carries with it S many of the principles from the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Since the adoption of the plan, some Council Members have expressed a desire to discuss principles further, prior to adopting the zoning that implements the recommendations in the Sugarhouse Business District. During the Council discussion regarding the Sugar House Business District rezoning, issues noted by Council Members that could relate to the proposed zoning in the annexation area include: 1. Is it appropriate to rezone existing areas to phase out regional commercial development that provides potential customer base for smaller commercial uses? 2. To what extent should zoning emphasize locally owned small business to the exclusion of larger business? 3. Does the future zoning preclude existing businesses(Smith's grocery store and Shopko)from remaining or rebuilding in the area? (This could relate to the redevelopment of the Villa Theatre site.) 4. Identify what percentage, number and location of the properties would become non- complying if the proposed zoning were implemented. 5. Identify options for streamlining procedural implementation, and closely examine the extent to which the conditional use approach is used. a. The conditional use/planned development process may be too onerous for small businesses wishing to make structural changes to their buildings. b. It may be more effective to provide an expedited process for proposed developments that meet the intent/purposes of the master plan and zoning. Providing clearly stated requirements, guidelines and criteria would c. Simplify processes and reduce subjectivity. 410 I. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the criteria or rationale used to establish a new community planning area. The Planning staff report notes the Sugar House Master Plan reiterates the City's annexation policy in relation to areas contiguous to Sugar House. In addition, the Planning staff report notes that the location and size of the annexation area would provide a logical boundary for the Sugar House planning community without creating a new planning community. The following policy statements regarding annexation are included in the Sugar House Master Plan: 1. Encourage the annexation of designated areas as a whole rather than in small pieces to provide coordinated land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services. 2. Establish new community planning districts for areas annexed into the City south of the existing Sugar House community planning boundary. J. In a related matter, in January 1997 the City Council initiated a Legislative Action requesting a city-wide analysis of areas zoned Community Business and Commercial Neighborhood to determine consistency with existing master plans and provide an evaluation of how well the zoning has functioned in implementing master plans and other City policies. Council Members may wish to request from the Administration an update on the status of this project. By way of background, in March of 2000,the Administration indicated that this issue was scheduled for a May public hearing with the Planning Commission and transmittal to the Council was anticipated in June. Since that time, the Planning Division has indicated that the project has been delayed due in part to a turnover in Planning staff and selection of a consultant to examine the use of performance zoning in relation to this project. Issues raised regarding the Community Business zone at the time the Legislative Action was initiated included: 3 1. Impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods relating to scale, size and intensity of development, potentially inadequate off-street parking, commercial and commuter • traffic filtering through neighborhoods on residential streets. 2. The amount of Community Business zoning applied to exiting properties and vacant structures may be too large. 3. The potential for an increase in the intensity of uses allowed through the conditional use process such as an increase in building square footage, increase in building height and reduction in required setback or buffer requirements. (For example, the Planning Commission had recently approved as a conditional use approximately 88,000 sq. ft. for two office buildings, service commercial uses and a restaurant at Parley's Way and Foothill Boulevard.) POTENTIAL OPTIONS: Council Members are scheduled to hold a public hearing on September 9t. As noted above, property owners have until the annexation vote by the City Council to decide if they support the petition to annex into Salt Lake City. If over 50 percent of the private property owners support annexation, in accordance with state law, the Council could vote to annex the area. The Council could also opt to take action at a later date or to vote against annexation. If the Council votes against the annexation this area cannot be annexed by Salt Lake City and would instead be included in the Millcreek Township. The proposed annexation area is inside the boundaries of the Millcreek Township but because the annexation petition was filed prior to the creation of the township, the ordinance that established the township did not include the pending annexation. If annexation does • not occur,the area becomes part of the Millcreek Township. Council Members may wish to consider the following options: 1. Close the public hearing and continue Council action to a future date. 2. Continue the public hearing and Council action to a future date. 3. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 4. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. 5. Request that the Administration provide additional analysis of issues identified by Council Members and identify options for Council consideration. 6. Adopt the proposed ordinance to annex the area and zone the properties on an interim basis and request that the Administration provide additional analysis of issues identified by Council Members and identify options for Council consideration. 7. Create a Council subcommittee to review the issues and make a recommendation to the full Council. 8. Any combination of the above. 9. Other options as identified by Council Members. File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Mountair Annexation—3000 South to 3300 South and 1100 East to 1700 East(Imperial Street) • 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SOLID WASTE FACILITY BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 -CALENDAR YEAR 2003 DATE: August 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Calendar Year 2003 Mid-Year Budget Amendment STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Rick Graham, Greg Davis, Dan Mule, Gordon Hoskins, Elwin Heilmann, Shannon Ashby The briefmg and discussion of the Landfill Mid-Year budget amendment for year 2003 is scheduled for September 2, 2003 and a public hearing may be scheduled at a future date. MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Landfill Midyear Budget Amendment - 2003 ($732,396 - Landfill • Budget) The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council (SLSWMC) has proposed a mid-year adjustment to the Landfill budget. The Salt Lake County Council has reviewed and approved this adjustment. According to the interlocal agreement, the City must now review and consider the adjustment. The adjustments include increases to employee service/retirement fund charges, capital project carry-overs and equipment purchases. The overhead charges and interest income are expected to decrease. Actual amounts in each of these categories are included in the transmittal from the Administration. The SLSWMC recommends that the Council approve the adjustments. • Page 1 A 2 6 2033 ROCKY J. FLU HART0 SALT.'_ LAKE- - MTV _ - `_ `' ' ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair -7 Salt Lake City Council ip f FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 26, 2003 SUBJECT: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility Budget Amendment Recommendation: We recommend that on September 9, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on September 16, 2003, to discuss the Solid Waste Management Facility budget amendment. II Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on September 2, 2003. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: 801-538.61 90 acc.ceo PaPeR SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 0 (Amending the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget which was prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2003 subject to specific policy directives.) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 75 OF 2002 WHICH ADOPTED THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY BUDGET, AS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC POLICY DIRECTIVES. PREAMBLE The City and Salt Lake County (the "County") entered into an interlocal cooperation agreement regarding the joint management and operation of the 4110 landfill. The agreement established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council and provided it with authority and responsibility relating to the operation and management of the landfill. Pursuant to the agreement, all actions by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council constitute recommendations to the City and the County and that the City and the County have the power to review, ratify, modify or veto any action of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council. On December 10, 2002, the City Council adopted the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget, as prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2003, subject to specific II • policy directive. The County also approved the budget as prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council. Proposed amendments to said duly adopted Solid Waste Management Facility Budget prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, copies of which are attached hereto, have been prepared and filed with the City Recorder for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed the time and place for a public hearing to be held to consider adoption of the attached amendments and ordered notice thereof be published at least seven days prior to the hearing. Notice of said public hearing, to consider adoption of said amendment, was duly published as required herein. A public hearing to consider adoption of the attached 4111, amendments was held in accordance with said notice, at which hearing all interested persons were heard for and against the attached amendments. The amendments to said budget have been duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent the City must satisfy to amend said Solid Waste Management Facility Budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget, which was prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2003, subject to the specific policy directives, as approved and ratified by Salt Lake City • Ordinance No. 75 of 2002. 2 SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS. Subject to similar 0 approval by the County, the budget amendments, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance be, and the same hereby, are adopted and incorporated into the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget for calendar year 2003. SECTION 3. PUBLIC INSPECTION. Copies of the attached amendments to the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 4. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND. The City reserves the right to amend the Solid Waste Management Facility Budget, including the attached budget amendments, at any time. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on its •first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 3 • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. o _- ?s_03 Published: • G.\Ordina03\Amending landfill budget doc • 4 FY 2004 Initiatives in Landfill Budget Amendment #1 —September FY 2004 FY 2005 • Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Initiative Name Amount Impact FTE Fund FTE Impact New Items 1. Landfill mid-year $732,396 -0- -0- adjustments • 4111 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Department FY2003(Fiscal year is calendar year) Department For Fiscal Year Landfill Budget mid year adjustment Landfil Amendment#1, Initiative#1 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number New N/A Type of Initiative CFDA Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 - $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Landfill(SL Valley Solid Waste) 32,291 Landfill(SL Valley Solid Waste)Fund Balance 700,105 Total $732,39 $0 $0 • B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Landfill(SL Valley Solid Waste) 732,396 Total $732,396 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 25,056 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (32,363) 5. Capital Outlay 739,703 6. Other(Specify) Total $732,396 $0 $0 • FY04 landfill amendment Initiative#1.x1s8/25/200312:25 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount • No Impact Detail Revenues Revenue budget before amendments 15,751,417 Amendments: Decrease Interest income (195,000) Fixed asset auction sales proceeds 227,291 Total of revenue amendments 32,291 Revenue budget after amendments 15,783,708 Expenses Expense budget before amendments (see below) 15,751,417 Amendments: Decrease amount billed to Landfill for indirect overhead (32,363) Increase pmts to Employee Service/Retirement(ESR) Fund 25,056 Capital outlay(delayed project payments) 512,412 Capital outlay(higher equipment purchase prices) 227,291 Total of expense amendments 732,396 Expense budget after amendments 16,483,813 • Fund Balance Original Amount dropped to (used from)fund balance 873,583 Impact from amendments: Revenue amendments 32,291 Expense amendments (732,396) Net impact from revenue and expense amendments (700,105) Amended amount dropping to (used from) Fund Balance 173,478 Impact on cash Decrease Interest income (195,000) Decrease amount billed to Landfill for indirect overhead 32,363 Increase pmts to Employee Service/Retirement(ESR) Fund (25,056) Capital outlay(delayed project payments) (512,412) Fixed asset auction sales proceeds 227,291 Capital outlay(higher equipment purchase prices) (227,291) Net impact on cash (700,105) Reconciliation of county and city expense numbers (original budget) Original expense budget per County 15,319,517 remove depreciation (non-cash) (2,025,000) remove loss on sale of assets (non-cash) (10,000) add in capital outlay(cash purchases) 2,466,900 Original Expense budget per City 15,751,417 • FY04 landfill amendment Initiative#1.x1s8/25/200312:25 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet f for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 411. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization, or plans. o impact to FY04 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. cause is sometimes a armcuit element to identity but is essential to a nnaing. it is simply identifying wny the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into mananamant Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: il GENERAL BACKGROUND - It is the standard practice of the Landfill and the County to make certain adjustments at mid year. The common adjustments are as follows: - Decrease in overhead charges from County administrative departments - Increase in payments to Employee Service/Retirement(ESR) Fund - Carry forward the budget for commitments on capital outlay projects and equipment - Establish budgets to reflect fixed asset auction sales proceeds and capital outlay price adjustments addition to these common adjustments regularly made through the mid-year adjustment, a change is also required to the interest income line item. DETAILED EXPLANATIONS Overhead charges, expense decrease of $32,363 - At budgeting time the Landfill is directed to place in their original budget an estimated amount for overhead allocated from Government Center programs (Mayor, Council, Auditor, District Attorney, Purchasing, Personnel, Information Systems, and Insurance). After the fiscal year has begun, the Landfill and other programs are informed as to what amount will actually be billed. The Landfill consequently adjusts their budget to match the actual charges. For this fiscal year the actual charges will be $32,363 less than originally budgeted. Employee Service/Retirement (ESR) fund charges, expense increase of $25,056 - Calculations and adjustments are made twice each year. The increase of$25,056 reflects the new rates. Carry-over for capital projects and purchases, expense increase of $512,412 - Similar to the practice at the City, the Landfill requires a rollover of budget to accommodate delayed payments on prior-made commitments (encumbrances) for certain capital projects and purchases. (The term used by the Landfill and the County for a rollover is "technical adjustments") The specific items are: $188,801 for relocation of power lines; $120,000 for real property purchase; $89,535 for landscape/weed control project; $114,076 for equipment purchases (leachate pumps, etc.). Budget for planned current year equipment purchases increased by $227,291 and corresponding revenue increase of $227,291 from the asset sale proceeds - As is the standard practice at the County and Landfill, the original capital budget was set at a net purchase amount for a couple of large dollar pieces of equipment, estimated purchase prices net of trade-in value. After the fiscal year began the amounts that these units could likely receive at auction were determined and the budgets could then be "grossed up" according to updated information. Rather than having a capital budget that is net of proceeds, the full purchase price of new units will be established for the capital budget and the full amount of the old equipment's auction proceeds will be reflected in the revenue budget. Mterest income, revenue decrease of $195,000 - This budget needs to be adjusted to reflect the impact of lower-than- expected interest rates. Low interest rates lasted longer than had been anticipated at the time of budget preparation. MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29, 2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Comparison: City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown and Downtown Plan Prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,Alison McFarlane, Gary Mumford This memorandum is intended to help facilitate the City Council's briefing and discussion of the City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown and Downtown Plan Prepared by Community and Economic Development Department. The City Council adopted the Policy Statement in January 2003. Contrnunity and Economic Development Director Alison Weyher presented the Council with the Downtown Plan in July 2003. Council staff has attached copies of both documents. • A few things should be noted. First,the Policy Statement appears to address a wider geographical area than the Downtown Plan. Nevertheless,the northern and western borders of the geographical areas in both plans appear to the same. Second,the Policy Statement and Downtown Plan are divided differently. The Policy Statement contains seven categories generally used as comparison points with the Downtown Plan. The latter plan contains six categories. The Policy Statement contains a category titled Local Government and Related Public Facilities that is not contained in the Downtown Plan. Conversely,the Downtown Plan contains a category titled Infrastructure that is not contained in the Policy Statement. As a result, City Council staff has noted parenthetically in the comparison table where items appear in the Downtown Plan if they do not correspond with a category in the Policy Statement. It also should be noted that Council staff used items from the Policy Statement's Statement of Principles in addition to the section titled First Steps in the Policy Statement to make comparisons with the Downtown Plan. Issues/Questions for Consideration • Council Members may wish to explore how the Downtown Plan was formulated and what documents, such as master plans and studies,formed the basis for the plan. • Does the Community and Economic Development Department view the Downtown Plan as a long-range guide,or is there a fixed number of years in which the plan will be used? • Some of the Downtown Plan's listings contain timelines and results for the first quarter of the current year.Have those timelines been met, and are there updated results for the second or third quarters? • 1 The comparison table below indicates 17 areas that City Council staff views as areas of at least rough correspondences between the Policy Statement and the Downtown Plan. Many of the areas appear to correspond closely. Council staff has included possible areas of difference and items contained in the Policy Statement but not contained in the Downtown Plan after the comparison table. COMPARISON TABLE: CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT AND DOWNTOWN PLAN Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement Community and Economic Devlopment on The Future Economic Development of Downtown Plan Downtown Definition:Downtown,defined generally is the Definition:For purposes of this discussion, area from Temple Square on the north,to The Downtown will be considered to be the area Gateway on the West,to Trolley Square on the between North Temple and 400 South,and east,to the hotel district along the 600 South Second East and 500 West. Street entrance to the city from Interstate 15. Divisions: Business Center;Retail;Institutional Divisions: Office Market,Retail,Arts and Center; Local Government and Related Public Entertainment,Downtown Tourism,Housing, Facilities;Arts, Culture,Entertainment and Infrastructure Nightlife;Tourism Including Convention • Visitors;Housing Business Center:The City Council encourages Office Market:Salt Lake City,in conjunction greater efforts to market downtown to people with the Downtown Alliance/Chamber of where downtown is geographically the closest Commerce and KUTV,is finalizing an retail shopping area. Marketing campaigns advertising campaign which will include spots should target Salt Lake City residents,the on housing,business,and entertainment daytime population,particularly office Downtown. The business campaign features workers, University of Utah employees and businesses which have located to the CBD students,visitors,and the suburban population, stating why they have moved here. Examples particularly residents of South Davis County. include A1phaGraphics,Wasatch Properties, (Statement of Purpose—Page 7.) KUTV, etc. This campaign is geared to other businesses along the Wasatch Front. This effort will continue through June 2004.Time Line—Campaign kick-off August 2003,spots will run intermittently through June 2004. Administration should identify major corporate Because most business growth in the United presences in downtown, ascertain their States comes from expanding businesses, satisfaction, and make appropriate efforts to equally as important to the vitality of re- ensure that they will remain downtown and not tenanting the CBD is maintaining the tenant relocate to the suburbs. base we have. We will continue to visit existing businesses on a regular basis,and publicize our availability to meet to solve problems. Recent examples of these efforts • 2 include discussion and implementation of • parking in the center of 300 South,recruitment of new businesses to Main Street storefronts,and assisting in relocating the businesses along 300 South between Main and West Temple.Timeline: March 2003. Retail:The City should encourage and support Retail:Work with Property Reserve Inc.to the owners of the ZCMI Center and Crossroads expedite re-use plans for ZCMI and Crossroads Plaza in undertaking significant renovations Mall. and upgrading of both mall properties including making the retail spaces more accessible to the streets. The City and RDA,in conjunction with local Leasing agents' support is vital to refilling businesses and landowners, should actively vacant spaces Downtown. We will continue to promote and market our downtown's educate the agents that Downtown has opportunities to national,regional and local changed,that it is safe,easy to get around with retailers,using existing plans and studies to lots of parking. A series of'open house tours' identify and recruit potential retailers for the for commercial agents,once a month with downtown area. stops at restaurants and clubs is a way to encourage them to bring new teujnnts to lease space in the CBD. This plan will run in conjunction with the marketing plan.Timeline: Begin August,2003 • RDA dollars should go toward supporting Develop funding sources to help retail additional retail in all the CBD with a primary establishments fill street level spaces,including: focus on filling vacant Main Street locations. RDA$20,000 grant program;revise revolving loan fund criteria;increase Micro-enterprise Loan Fund loans to$25,000 maximum.Timeline: Spring 2003 Given the proximity to downtown of Marketing campaign to encourage people to communities in South Davis County,those shop Downtown including: Utilize spots in communities should be targeted in a special advertising campaign(previously described marketing campaign. Emphasis should be on under Office Market action steps)to build helping Davis County residents feel welcomed awareness for Downtown as shopping to and appreciated by Salt Lake City. destination; Cross promotions between stores and malls;joint marketing between all Downtown shopping destinations Develop"stay and play"ad campaign—offer discounts to folks to do more than one thing downtown at a time... dinner and a movie, drinks after work,etc. Tie in with Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, KUTV campaign. Timeline: Fall: 2003 The City should continue to support the Token program—City funded the Alliance Parking Token initiative of the Downtown $196,000 over three years, $85,000 this year. • Alliance,but also look at more aggressive 3 marketing of existing downtown parking to Develop neon signage for parking structures Salt Lake residents. Such marketing efforts and token program.Neon parking sign • could include advertising the availability of developed,available to lot operators.(Listed parking but also the advantages of covered under Infrastructure.) parking at a mall versus parking in a flat parking lot in the elements of sun and snow. Marketing efforts also should dispel misperceptions that no parking is available downtown. The City should also consider additional free In 2001 Salt Lake City created 145 new parking downtown, such as that provided on a parking stalls on 300 South in center of street. pilot basis on 300 South. The cost-benefit of parking meters should be studied. Reverse angle parking on 200 South. Identify other locations in CBD where additional parking could be added.Timeline: Ongoing—emphasis on Spring 2003. Twenty-two night-time parking stalls added in freight loading zones,on Main Street. Twenty new stalls added by reconfiguring'no parking'zones on Main Street. One hundred twenty nine new center street parking stalls added on 300 East in June, 2003. (Listed under Infrastructure.) Institutional Center:The City should meet with Work with U of U to locate services • officials of the University of Utah to find areas downtown.Timeline: Ongoing. (Listed under where the City and University can work Arts and Entertainment.) together to locate functions that attract people and activities downtown,including classrooms, museums and galleries. Local Government and Related Public Facilities: Promote Olympic legacy projects in the Central The City Council is committed to support the Business District. Timeline:March through installation of Olympic legacy memorabilia in June 2003. (Listed under Downtown Tourism.) a prominent location downtown. The City Council supports the Work with Utah Cultural Commission to bring development of other anchors to Main Street, the Utah Museum of Art and History to Main in addition to retail,that will attract people to Street. (Listed under Arts and Entertainment.) the City's core. Anchors could include museums,a Broadway-style theater,Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws"to downtown. (Statement of Principles—Page 8.) The City Council supports a greater Develop re-use plan for Hansen Planetarium. emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as Timeline: 2003. an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage 4 • Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt • Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways,for office,cultural,retail, and institutional uses. (Statement ofPrinciples— Page 7.) Arts,Culture,Entertainment and Nightlife:In Arts and Entertainment:Explore ways to partnership with Salt Lake County—the owner revitalize the Utah Theater(on Main Street). of downtown arts facilities—consider the Identify performing groups,funding sources, feasibility and advisability of constructing a work with County and other entities to develop Broadway-style theater on or near Main Street, support.Timeline: 2003-2004 capable of presenting full-scale productions. The City Council supports encouraging the Develop "stay and play"ad campaign—offer Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants discounts to folks to do more than one thing associations to promote joint marketing downtown at a time... dinner and a movie, opportunities,such as seeing the Utah drinks after work,etc. Tie in with Chamber of Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the Commerce,Downtown Alliance,KUTV night in downtown hotels. The Council campaign. Timeline: Fall: 2003 supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants,entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. (Statements ofPrinciple—Page 8) The City Council will support marketing efforts to dispel misperceptions that"there's • nothing to do"downtown. Tourism:The City should support a feasibility Downtown Tourism:Work with County to study regarding further expansion of the Salt facilitate Salt Palace expansion. Timeline: Palace to keep Salt Lake City competitive in Ongoing. attracting conventions. The City should cooperate with the Salt Lake Work with the Convention and Visitors Bureau Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Utah to capitalize on Salt Lake City as a destination Travel Council in attracting convention resort,including:Market Salt Lake City as hub business and tourists to Salt Lake City. of Utah vacation destinations;promote downtown—shopping,nightlife, entertainment, LDS Church;in cooperation with the Convention and Visitor's Bureau provide supplemental information on Salt Lake City to convention attendees and potential convention attendees. Timeline: Ongoing Work with Convention and Visitors Bureau and County to insure full utilization of County owned facilities,such as Salt Palace,Abravanel Hall, Capitol Theatre.Timeline: Ongoing. • 5 • Housing:The City should continue to Housing: Salt Lake City will thoroughly encourage downtown housing for a full analyze the downtown and east downtown • spectrum of income levels throughout the housing market. Questions to be answered downtown area. include:total number of units;age of units; type of units(rental, condominium,single The City should conduct an inventory of land family);size of units;vacancy by type and within two blocks of the new main library that price;absorption schedules;identify locations could be used for housing sites and study the for new housing construction opportunities. feasibility of purchasing the sites for housing Timeline: Complete surveys in Fall, 2003. uses. Salt Lake City must identify partners to: The City should explore ways to protect further develop new housing;renovate existing multifamily housing units on 300 East Street housing stock;help fund construction. between South Temple and 400 South streets Timeline: Complete strategy and identify and encourage in-fill development of partners by June 2003. multifamily housing along 300 East Street. Potential Differences/Items in Policy Statement but not in Downtown Plan Perhaps the area where correspondence between statements in the two policies occurs in the Policy Statement's overarching policy,a policy goal in the Statement's Retail section and in the Downtown Plan's Retail section. The overarching policy reads: "The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our downtown commercial, tourist, and convention activity. To encourage the relocation of • retail or other commercial businesses or other key "anchors"away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown, including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality ofMain Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city." The item in the Policy Statement's Retail section reads: `The City should continue to support and encourage retail on Main Street,with complimentary retail at The Gateway,Trolley Square,and in East Downtown in an effort to generate economic growth in the broader downtown area." The item in the Downtown Plan's Retail section reads: "Insure Nordstrom remains in Downtown area." The City Council is scheduled in October to address a petition for a zoning ordinance text change related to the question of where Nordstrom should locate.However,the City Council may wish to consider whether the two items from the Policy Statement and the item in the Downtown Plan are mutually exclusive or whether there are points of intersection and overlap. The following items listed in the First Steps section of the Policy Statement are not contained in the Downtown Plan. • 6 • Business Center • The Administration should meet with major landowners of property fronting Main Street between 600 South and South Temple,to ascertain plans for development and to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. • The City should strongly consider encouraging legislation to extend the expiration date of the Central Business Redevelopment District to enable the City to continue to use RDA tools in the future to bolster the center of downtown. Retail • The UTA Free Fare zone should be advertised by the City and downtown merchants.The UTA,the City,and downtown merchants should evaluate and implement ways,including small buses and possible expansion of the Free Fare Zone,to link the Gateway,Main Street,the future Intermodal Hub,and Trolley Square in such a fashion as to make movement around the downtown simple and easy for any visitor. • Efforts to make Main Street more pedestrian friendly should continue by creating elements that generate interest along the length of Main Street. Elements could include public art,window decorations and benches where people can relax. • • 100,200,and 300 South streets,along with South Temple Street,are important links between Main Street and West Temple Street,where much of the convention and tourist traffic flows. Efforts should continue to be made to make these links as inviting as possible to pedestrians. It should be noted that the Administration has continued to work toward the goals in the first item, and the latter two items were addressed to at least some extent in the December 2000 plan Towards a Walkable Downtown which the Administration has employed to address pedestrian issues and issues involving 100,200 and 300 South streets. Institutional Center • The City should meet with the State Building Board and/or its executive director to find opportunities to work together to enhance state offices or locating state cultural centers downtown. • The City should meet with officials of Salt Lake Community College to ascertain the success of their downtown classroom building and to see if there is anything the City can do to aid its success. • The City should meet with officials of the LDS Church to ascertain any plans for expansion of office space,use of properties(such as State Street and First South) in the downtown area. It should be noted that City officials have met with LDS Church officials to discuss a variety of issues pertaining to the downtown. • Local Government and Related Public Facilities • The City Council will continue to support making downtown more friendly to pedestrians,the disabled,and bicyclists. • The City should pursue ways to move the future construction of a light-rail connection to Salt Lake City International Airport—including completion of the downtown light-rail loop—further up the list of projects on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long-range transportation plan. It should be noted that the Administration has made efforts to make the City more friendly to pedestrians,the disabled and bicyclists,and has pursued moving the light-rail connection to the Salt Lake City Airport further up the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long- range transportation plan's project list. Arts, Culture,Entertainment, and Nightlife • The City should focus on offering several successful events, such as"First Night,"rather than putting efforts into weekly activities that are less likely to be successful. • The City should consider current alcohol policies and monitor any changes in state laws that may be proposed in 2003. • Housing • The City should encourage retail services,especially grocery stores,necessary to support an increased residential population as well as services that cater to downtown workers. 8 A MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor Rocky Anderson July 7, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Downtown Plan There are six components to a successful revitalization effort. They include: the office market, housing, tourism, arts and entertainment, retail, and infrastructure. Following are action steps for each component. Overview 1. For purposes of this discussion, Downtown will be considered to be the area between North Temple and 400 South, and Second East and 500 West. 2. There are approximately seven million square feet of office space in the Central Business District. As of year-end 2002, the overall vacancy rate(including the Wells Fargo Building)was 16% overall, breaking out into 14.35%in Class A space and 18.5% in Class B and C space. This is in contrast with the suburban market where there are approximately 15 million square feet of space with an 410 average vacancy rate of 17.75%, of which 18.72%is class A space. More than 61,000 people work in the CBD. 3. Over four million visitors come to Temple Square annually. In 2001 the Convention and Visitors Bureau brought in 232,418 guests and in 2002 (excluding the Olympic time period)there will be 240,000 guests. The average guest spends $725 during each visit. 4. There are approximately 3300 housing units in the Central Business District, more than in Denver's downtown. 5. Salt Lake City's share of sales tax revenue generated in the Central Business District in 2002 was $27,791,602. Office Market 1. The CBD is a more attractive and affordable option for those looking for office space than it has been for many years. Class A space in both the CBD and suburban market is below$18.00 per foot. This is an advantage to the CBD because: a. Property owners are willing and able to make concessions to include parking. b. Large floor plates are available. 2. Road construction is complete and access is easy via freeway, TRAX or buses. Commute times into the CBD may be less than to outlying areas such as • Cottonwood Corporate Center, Lakeside, or the new office parks in Sandy and Draper. • 3. Downtown is centrally located with convenient access to the Airport, resorts and government offices. 4. Downtown amenities are a draw for employees. Within walking distance of the major office buildings in the CBD are ten banks, three shopping centers, the Delta Center, Capitol Theatre, Rose Wagner, Salt Palace and numerous restaurants, art galleries and private clubs. Action Steps 1. Salt Lake City, in conjunction with the Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce and KUTV, is finalizing an advertising campaign which will include spots on housing, business, and entertainment Downtown. The business campaign features businesses which have located to the CBD stating why they have moved here. Examples include AlphaGraphics, Wasatch Properties, KUTV, etc. This campaign is geared to other businesses along the Wasatch Front. This effort will continue through June 2004. Time Line—Campaign kick-off August 2003, spots will run intermittently through June 2004. Staff: Alison Weyher, Alison McFarlane, Josh Ewing 2. Leasing agents' support is vital to refilling vacant spaces Downtown. We will continue to educate the agents that Downtown has changed, that it is safe, easy to get around with lots of parking. A series of'open house tours' for commercial agents, once a month with stops at restaurants and clubs is a way to encourage • them to bring new tenants to lease space in the CBD. This plan will run in conjunction with the marketing plan. Timeline: Begin August, 2003 Staff: Alison McFarlane, Talitha Day 3. Because most business growth in the United States comes from expanding businesses, equally as important to the vitality of re-tenanting the CBD is maintaining the tenant base we have. We will continue to visit existing businesses on a regular basis, and publicize our availability to meet to solve problems. Recent examples of these efforts include discussion and implementation of parking in the center of 300 South, recruitment of new businesses to Main Street storefronts, and assisting in relocating the businesses along 300 South between Main and West Temple. Timeline: March, 2003 Staff: Alison Weyher, Alison McFarlane Success measurements: a. Recruit 5 new businesses (retail, office, etc.)to the CBD each quarter of 2003. Results First Quarter 2003: Curry In A Hurry Big City Soup Urban Barber b. Reduce overall CBD vacancy rate by 2% in 2003. • c. Approve expansion plans for 5 new businesses in 2003. Housing 1. There are approximately 3300 housing units within the Central Business District. Approximately 350 units were built for the Olympics. Current average vacancy rate is approximately 8%. 2. Twenty percent of the City's housing stock is located in the east downtown area. Only 12% of these units are less than five years old. 3. National trend shows baby boomers becoming empty-nesters who want to move to downtowns. Also, more and more young people are moving to downtown areas. Salt Lake City will develop a marketing plan to attract them to downtown. Action Steps 1. Salt Lake City will thoroughly analyze the downtown and east downtown housing market. Questions to be answered include: a. total number of units b. age of units c. type of units (rental, condominium, single family)\ d. size of units e. vacancy by type and price f absorption schedules g. identify locations for new housing construction opportunities Timeline: Complete surveys in Fall, 2003 • Staff: LuAnn Clark 2. Salt Lake City must identify partners to: a. develop new housing b. renovate existing housing stock c. help fund construction Timeline: Complete strategy and identify partners by June 2003 Staff: Redevelopment Agency and Housing and Neighborhood Development (Dave Oka and LuAnn Clark) Success Measurements 1. Lower overall Downtown housing vacancy rate by 3% 2. Begin construction on 25 new housing units in 2003 in CBD. Results First Quarter 2003: 1. Condominiums at Library Square 29 units 2. Price/Prowswood,300 East 400 South 120 proposed units Downtown Tourism 1. There are over 4,000,000 visitors to Temple Square annually. 2. There are over 3,000 hotel rooms in the Central Business District. • 3. In 2001 the Convention and Visitor's Bureau reported 232,418 convention attendees; in 2002, excluding the Olympics, that number jumped to 240,000. The • average daily spending of convention attendees is $725 per visit. Action Steps 1. Work with the Convention and Visitors Bureau to capitalize on Salt Lake City as a destination resort. a. Market Salt Lake City as hub of Utah vacation destinations. b. Promote downtown—shopping, nightlife, entertainment, LDS Church c. C. In cooperation with the Convention and Visitor's Bureau provide supplemental information on Salt Lake city to convention attendees and potential convention attendees. Timeline: Ongoing Staff: Alison Weyher, Alison McFarlane 2. Work with County to facilitate Salt Palace expansion Timeline: Ongoing Staff: Alison Weyher 3. Work with Convention and Visitors Bureau and County to insure full utilization of County owned facilities, such as Salt Palace, Abravanel Hall, Capitol Theatre. Timeline: Ongoing Staff: Alison McFarlane 4. Promote Olympic legacy projects in CBD. Timeline: March through June 2003 Staff: Mayor's Office, Rick Graham, RDA, Community and Economic • Development Success Measurements Salt Lake City prominently featured in 5 national publications as a resort destination. Results First Quarter 2003: 1. Salt Lake City listed as#10 of top 20 places to live and work by EMPLOYMENT REVIEW MAGAZINE (June, 2003) 2. Olympic Legacy towers will be installed in CBD this summer. Arts and Entertainment 1. Downtown is the cultural Capital of the Wasatch Front. Utah Symphony and Opera, dance companies, Delta Center, Capital Theater are all located downtown. 2. There are over 150 restaurants and clubs in downtown. All major arts galleries are located in the CBD. Action Steps 1. Explore ways to revitalize the Utah Theater. Identify performing groups, funding sources, work with County and other entities to develop support. Timeline: 2003-2004 Staff: Community and Economic Development, RDA, Mayor's Office 2. Work with Utah Cultural Commission to bring the Utah Museum of Art and • History to Main Street. Timeline: Ongoing Staff: Alison Weyher, Alison McFarlane, Mayor Anderson 3. Develop re-use plan for Hansen Planetarium. Timeline: 2003 Staff: Management Services 4. Work with U of U to locate services downtown. Timeline: Ongoing Staff: Mayor's Office and Community and Economic Development 5. Develop stay and play ad campaign—offer discounts to folks to do more than one thing downtown at a time... dinner and a movie, drinks after work, etc. Tie in with Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, KUTV campaign Timeline: Fall: 2003 Staff: Alison McFarlane, Josh Ewing, Downtown Alliance Success Measurement 1. Increase in sales at restaurants, private clubs 2. Increased attendance at cultural and sporting events. Retail 1. There are three major malls within the downtown central business district— Crossroads, Gateway and the ZCMI Center. • 2. Twenty-five new retail stores have opened downtown since the Olympics 2. In 2001, Salt Lake City's share of the retail sales tax within the Central Business District was $5.66 million. Action Steps 1. Develop funding sources to help retail establishments fill street level spaces. a. RDA$20,000 grant program b. Revise revolving loan fund criteria. c. Increase Microenterprise Loan Fund loans to $25,000 maximum. Timeline: Spring 2003 Staff: Alison McFarlane, Bob Gore, RDA 2. Work with Property Reserve Inc. to expedite re-use plans for ZCMI and Crossroads Mall. a. Encourage PRI to keep tenants and general public abreast of developments through newsletters, monthly meetings, etc. b. Develop assistance program for businesses that will be asked to relocate. 3. Insure Nordstrom remains in Downtown area 4. Marketing campaign to encourage people to shop Downtown a. Utilize spots in advertising campaign(previously described under Office Market action steps), to build awareness for Downtown as shopping destination b. Cross promotions between stores and malls. 1111 c. Joint marketing between all Downtown shopping destinations Success Measurements • 1. Five new small locally owned retailers along Main Street in 2003. Results First Quarter 2003: 1. In April, six businesses were selected to receive first round of$20,000 grants from RDA. 2. Revolving Loan fund guidelines approved by Council in April 2003. Infrastructure 1. In 2001 Salt Lake City created 145 new parking stalls on 300 South in center of street. 2. Token program—city funded the Alliance $196,000 over three years, $85,000 this year. 3. Reverse angle parking on 200 South Action Steps 1. Identify other locations in CBD where additional parking could be added. Timeline: Ongoing—emphasis on Spring 2003 Staff: Transportation 2. Develop neon signage for parking structures and token program. Timeline: February 2003 Staff: Alison Weyher, Tim Harpst 3. Develop parking in the center of the street on 300 East • Timeline: April, May 2003 Staff: Transportation Success Measurements 1. Develop more than 100 new parking stalls in downtown 2. Insure that all major businesses participate in the token program Results First Quarter 2003: 1. Twenty-two night time parking stalls added in freight loading zones, on Main Street. 2. Twenty new stalls added by reconfiguring 'no parking' zones on Main Street. 3. Neon parking sign developed, available to lot operators. 4. 129 new center street parking stalls added on 300 East in June, 2003. 1111 I Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on • The Future Economic Development of Downtown January 2003 INTRODUCTION By most objective measures, downtown Salt Lake City is healthy and doing well. Yet, even though there is much "good news" about downtown, City leaders and residents share a concern about its future. At the beginning of 2002, the City Council named the future of downtown, and in particular, Main Street, as its top policy priority for the year. While downtown is much more than Main Street, Main Street is at the center it is the heart of downtown. The challenge facing Salt Lake City policymakers as we move forward after hosting the Olympics and into the 21 St Century is how to build upon downtown's many strengths, and further enhance the vibrancy and vitality of the downtown. • The CityCouncil'srole o e is to provide policy direction and to ensure that its efforts support the City's policy goals. The Council's tools are its authority to allocate city resources, including those of the Redevelopment Agency; to make zoning decisions; and to adopt ordinances. To help focus on how the Council could best fulfill its responsibilities, it held hearings in March and April. Over one hundred citizens including representatives from various interest groups, provided comments and suggestions. A draft policy statement was circulated in November, and a Public Hearing was held on December 3. Council members have also, throughout the year, individually and in small groups, had many meetings with downtown stakeholders and citizens to deepen their understanding of the issues and forces shaping downtown. As a result, the City Council's overarching policy regarding downtown is this: III The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our downtown commercial, tourist, and convention activity. To encourage the • relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key "anchors" away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown, including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city. Downtown, defined generally as the area from Temple Square on the north, to The Gateway on the West, to Trolley Square on the east, to the hotel district along the 600 South Street entrance to the city from Interstate 15, is important to Salt Lake City residents for a variety of reasons. Historically it has been the business, financial, retail, and government center of the City, County, region, state, and in many ways the entire Intermountain West. The health and vitality of Salt Lake City's downtown is important to city residents and people throughout the region. Business and commerce; institutional uses; local government and related public facilities; arts, culture and entertainment; tourism, and housing are all vital to the health of Salt Lake City's downtown. • A brief listing of the downtown's strengths shows what downtown Salt Lake City means to Utah: Business, and Commerce Salt Lake City is Utah's commercial and financial center. • The Central Business District within the downtown contains 28.8 percent of the total square footage of office space in Salt Lake County. When office space on the CBD's periphery is included the figure rises to 42.8 percent. (1) • Downtown Salt Lake City contains the corporate offices of the two largest banks in Utah, and 10 commercial banks operate in the Central Business District. 11111 3 • Retail Services Although it contains 10 to 15 percent of the total space leased for retail in Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City's downtown is perhaps the only downtown in the nation to have four destination malls within its borders: The Gateway, the Crossroads Plaza, the ZCMI Center and Trolley Square. • Salt Lake City's downtown workforce grew by nearly 25 percent to 61,000 people between 1990 and 2001, leaving a significant daytime population to support retail services. • According to a May 2002 survey conducted by the Downtown Alliance, 32 percent of Salt Lake County's population said they had visited the downtown "within the past week" to dine, shop, or seek entertainment. Institutional As Utah's capital, Salt Lake City is the seat of state government • including state and local courts, and the local presence of the Federal Government. • Near downtown are the State Capitol and the University of Utah, providing further opportunities to attract people to the core of the city. • As the World Headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City's downtown is a magnet to members of that faith worldwide, as well as a draw to tourists from throughout the world. Temple Square and other LDS sites downtown including the world-renowned Family History Center draw more than five million visitors per year. • Downtown is also home to several religious communities including the Roman Catholic and Episcopal dioceses, a number of historic churches the Cathedral of The Madeleine, the Cathedral Church of St. Mark, the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, the historic First Presbyterian and II 4 First United Methodist churches, and the Buddhist Temple, each of which attracts people to the downtown area. II Local Government and Related Public Facilities Maintaining Salt Lake City's downtown has been a major concern of city government for decades. • Since 1975 the City's Redevelopment Agency has allocated a substantial amount for downtown public improvements, land purchases and sales, and loans to businesses to renovate buildings. • Salt Lake City voters approved bond issues of $30 million and up to $84 million respectively to renovate the City & County Building and build a new main library and public plaza. • Salt Lake City elected officials also have been instrumental in encouraging the construction of the state's only operating light rail lines, and the location of the State Courts Complex in the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. • Arts / Culture / Entertainment Downtown remains the focal point of arts, culture and entertainment in Utah. • It is the home of Utah's premier performing arts organizations and Utah's only major league sports franchise. • The Capitol Theater, Abravenel Hall, and the Delta Center serve as venues for a wide variety of special events. The Days of '47 parade, the Utah Arts Festival and the New Year's Eve First Night celebration identify Salt Lake City as a core activity center for the region. Tourism Downtown is the focal point of Utah's convention business. • 5 • • It is home to the Salt Palace Convention Center and more than 5,000 hotel rooms. (2) • In terms of square footage, downtown contains 67 percent of the top meeting space in Utah. It contains the two top facilities for meeting space, three of the state's top five facilities for meeting space, and five of the state's top ten facilities for meeting space. (3) • Salt Lake City also attracts ski visitors from out of state to stay in downtown hotels while enjoying several world-class resorts within a one-hour drive of downtown. Housing Downtown living is on the rise in Salt Lake City, and housing is an increasingly important component of downtown. • Partly due to the concerted efforts of the City Redevelopment IllAgency, housing stock in downtown has increased substantially during the past decade, to where it is now estimated that 4,500 residents live in the downtown's core. • Downtown is bordered on the east by a neighborhood that has the highest density of any neighborhood in the state and on the west by a neighborhood that is projected to ultimately be the home of 13,000 residents. (4) Downtown is not in decline. According to a recent economic study conducted by the University of Utah's Bureau of Business and Economic Research for the Downtown Alliance, in the 1990's every major economic indicator for downtown has been positive, including: • 24% increase — 12,000 more employees — working in the CBD • 69% increase in housing units • 30% increase in office square footage, with the lowest vacancy rates in a decade. ID • 45% increase in retail square footage 6 • 54% increase in wages • 35% increase in commercial bank deposits • • 25 new restaurants and 15 new private clubs • 6% increase in retail sales The only major indicator that has been a disappointment, however, is one that is among the most visible — retail sales. While retail sales increased a slight 6% from 1990 to 2001, sales peaked in 1996, and then declined by 21%. The loss of retail business from downtown to the suburbs and other retail outlets such as the Internet, coupled with the empty storefronts of South Main Street have led policymakers, the news media, and citizens to be concerned about the viability and vibrancy of Main Street. To further focus and shape City policies to enhance the success of downtown and Main Street, the City Council adopts these statements of principle: 1. City's Leadership Role The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown, encouraging business investment, working to retain as well as attract • businesses to downtown, and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector. There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City, through the tools available to it, is a catalyst and coordinator, not a wealth-creator in and of itself. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles including but not limited to infrastructure, business licensing, regulation, zoning and code enforcement and public safety are done efficiently, effectively, and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. III 7 The City should encourage and facilitate communication and • cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown, such as the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, the Downtown Merchants Association, the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, and County, State and Federal governments. The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing, and not duplicating, the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 2. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't find in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown things that cannot be experienced anywhere • else. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways, for office, cultural, retail, and institutional uses. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown, for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop, eat at a restaurant, or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area. Marketing campaigns should target Salt Lake City residents, the daytime population, particularly office workers, University of Utah employees and students, visitors, and the suburban population, particularly residents of South Davis County. 8 . o The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint • marketing opportunities, such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. o The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street, in addition to retail, that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums, a Broadway- style theater, Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique "draws" to downtown. 3. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years, City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five, ten, even twenty years into • the future. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies. The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past, and the time for implementing a coherent, rational, and achievable program is now. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks, the City Council supports having the Administration provide updates to the Council and the public on the program's implementation. Regularly, the Administration should share, on a confidential basis as needed, its efforts with a III 9 subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of IIICouncil and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 4. Support All facets of Downtown Development Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown — such as nightlife or retail —while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. Each element is important in its own right, but, like an ecosystem, the success of each is intertwined and interdependent. These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: • Business center, providing the premier location for a variety of businesses, in particular, local, regional, and where possible national headquarters. o Indicators of success include: 1. Square footage and type of office space in the . downtown inventory 2. The vacancy rate 3. The number and size of"headquarters" located in the downtown. 4. New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. 5. Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. 6. Existing businesses renewing their leases. • Retail, supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. o Indicators of success include: 1. Number of jobs generated 2. Square footage of retail 3. Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. 4. Sales tax revenue generated. 10 . • Institutional Center • o Indicators of success include: 1. Increased presence of county, state and federal offices 2. Presence of educational facilities available to the public • Local government and related public facilities o Indicators of success include: 1. Well-maintained public infrastructure 2. Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area • Arts, culture, entertainment and nightlife, providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors o Indicators of success include: 1. Sales generated • 2. Number of nights of entertainment offerings 3. Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities including theater for Broadway productions and museums • Tourism including convention visitors o Indicators of success include: 1. Convention bookings 2. Hotel occupancy rate • Housing— available at all ranges of income levels —will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown o Indicators of success include: 1. The number of housing units 2. Vacancy rates 3. Population II 4. The mix of market rate, middle income, affordable • and low income housing units FIRST STEPS • Based on the quantity and quality of public input the City Council has received resulting from its focus on Main Street and Downtown, the Council suggests the following areas be considered immediately relating to the seven elements of a successful downtown: o Business Center o Administration should identify major corporate presences in downtown, ascertain their satisfaction, and make appropriate efforts to ensure that they will remain downtown and not relocate to the suburbs. o Administration, in cooperation with EDCU, should target businesses to locate corporate or regional headquarters downtown. o The City should encourage greater cooperation between • the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, and EDCU. o The Administration should meet with major landowners of property fronting Main Street between 600 South and South Temple, to ascertain plans for development and to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should endorse legislation to be presented to the Utah Legislature extending historic preservation tax credits — that currently exist only for residential properties — to commercial properties. o The City should utilize the assistance of the Utah Heritage Foundation in identifying key vacant or underutilized historic buildings and all financial incentives available to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should strongly consider encouraging legislation to extend the expiration date of the Central Business Redevelopment District to enable the City to • 12 continue to use RDA tools in the future to bolster the center of downtown. • o Retail o The City should continue to support and encourage retail on Main Street, with complimentary retail at The Gateway, Trolley Square, and in East Downtown in an effort to generate economic growth in the broader downtown area. o The City and RDA, in conjunction with local businesses and landowners, should actively promote and market our downtown's opportunities to national, regional and local retailers, using existing plans and studies to identify and recruit potential retailers for the downtown area. o Perceived parking problems continue to be a major obstacle to retail activity downtown. The City should continue to support the Parking Token initiative of the Downtown Alliance, but also look at more aggressive marketing of existing downtown parking to Salt Lake residents. Such marketing efforts could include • advertising the availability of parking but also the advantages of covered parking at a mall versus parking in a flat parking lot in the elements of sun and snow. Marketing efforts also should dispel misperceptions that no parking is available downtown. o The City should also consider additional free parking downtown, such as that provided on a pilot basis on 300 South. The cost-benefit of parking meters should be studied. o The UTA Free Fare zone should be advertised by the City and downtown merchants. The UTA, the City, and downtown merchants should evaluate and implement ways, including small buses and possible expansion of the Free Fare Zone, to link the Gateway, Main Street, the future Intermodal Hub, and Trolley Square in such a fashion as to make movement around the downtown simple and easy for any visitor. o The City should encourage and support the owners of the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza in undertaking • 13 significant renovations and upgrading of both mall • properties including making the retail spaces more accessible to the streets. o RDA dollars should go toward supporting additional retail in all the CBD with a primary focus on filling vacant Main Street locations. o The Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants Association should be encouraged to develop more joint marketing opportunities with conventions being hosted in downtown to attract more tourists to stores and restaurants. o Given the proximity to downtown of communities in South Davis County, those communities should be targeted in a special marketing campaign. Emphasis should be on helping Davis County residents feel welcomed to and appreciated by Salt Lake City. o Efforts to make Main Street more pedestrian friendly should continue by creating elements that generate interest along the length of Main Street. Elements could include public art, window decorations and benches • where people can relax. o 100, 200, and 300 South streets, along with South Temple Street, are important links between Main Street and West Temple Street, where much of the convention and tourist traffic flows. Efforts should continue to be made to make these links as inviting as possible to pedestrians. o Institutional Center o The City should meet with the State Building Board and/or its executive director to find opportunities to work together to enhance state offices or locating state cultural centers downtown. o The City should meet with officials of the University of Utah to find areas where the City and University can work together to locate functions that attract people and activities downtown, including classrooms, museums and galleries. 14 o The City should meet with officials of Salt Lake Community College to ascertain the success of their , downtown classroom building and to see if there is anything the City can do to aid its success. o The City should meet with officials of the LDS Church to ascertain any plans for expansion of office space, use of properties (such as State Street and First South) in the downtown area. o Local government and related public facilities o The City Council will continue to support making downtown more friendly to pedestrians, the disabled, and bicyclists. o The City should pursue ways to move the future construction of a light-rail connection to Salt Lake City International Airport — including completion of the downtown light-rail loop — further up the list of projects on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long-range transportation plan. o The City Council is committed to support the installation • of Olympic legacy memorabilia in a prominent location downtown. o Arts, Culture, entertainment, and nightlife o The City should focus on offering several successful events, such as "First Night," rather than putting efforts into weekly activities that are less likely to be successful. o The City should consider current alcohol policies and monitor any changes in state laws that may be proposed in 2003. o In partnership with Salt Lake County—the owner of downtown arts facilities — consider the feasibility and advisability of constructing a Broadway-style theater on or near Main Street, capable of presenting full-scale productions. o The City Council will support marketing efforts to dispel misperceptions that "there's nothing to do" downtown. S o Tourism • o The City should support a feasibility study regarding g further expansion of the Salt Palace to keep Salt Lake City competitive in attracting conventions. o The City should cooperate with the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Utah Travel Council in attracting convention business and tourists to Salt Lake City. o Housing o The City should continue to encourage downtown housing for a full spectrum of income levels throughout the downtown area. o The City should conduct an inventory of land within two blocks of the new main library that could be used for housing sites and study the feasibility of purchasing the sites for housing uses. o The City should explore ways to protect further • multifamily housing units on 300 East Street between South Temple and 400 South streets and encourage in-fill development of multifamily housing along 300 East Street. o The City should encourage retail services, especially grocery stores, necessary to support an increased residential population as well as services that cater to downtown workers. Notes Except where noted, all factual statements were taken from the Downtown Alliance's Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 prepared by James A. Wood of the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Noted exceptions follow: 1 . Collier's CRG. 16 2. City Council staff estimate. The Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 study defined the • Central Business District's borders as North Temple, 300 East, 500 South and 500 West streets. The borders do not appear to include hotels between 500 South and 600 South streets including the 850 rooms in the Little America Hotel or the 775 rooms in the Grand America Hotel. Other hotels south of 500 South Street contain at least 375 rooms. 3. The Enterprise lists. 4. Creating an Urban Neighborhood: Gateway District Land Use & Development Master Plan adopted by the Salt Lake City Council on August 11, 1998. i • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 29,2003 SuBjEcT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loan to BC Development Group, LLC for the Westgate II Apartments AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 2 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Housing and Neighborhood Development, LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement and related loan documents with BC Development Group, LLC, for a$150,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund.This action would facilitate the construction of the Westgate II Apartment project located at 1520 West 300 South.The project will have 36 units,4 of which will be market rate units,the remaining 32 units will be rented to • people at 35-45% of area median income. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the resolution as proposed. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution. > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project is consistent with policy statements in the City's 1974 Central City Community Master Plan,Community Housing Plan,Vision and Strategic Plan,the Futures Commission report,the 1990 Urban Design Element and other related master plans. > ANALYSIS The Westgate II Apartment project consists of 36 units in one 3-story buildings at 1520 West 300 South.Twenty-four of the units are two-bedroom and 12 have three bedrooms.The apartment complex will have underground parking,landscaped grounds and a resident community business center. The project developer will set aside units for developmentally disabled persons,physically handicapped and mentally ill persons.Ten total units will be reserved for special populations. All ground floor units will be visit-able and four units will be 100% handicapped accessible. The project will consist of four units at market rate and the remaining 32 units being priced for • renters with 35-45% of area median income.The project financing is based on area median income rents being between$409 and$547 for two bedroom units and$468 to$547 for three Page 1 bedroom units. Area median household income for Census Tract 1027 is$29,455 and median family income is$30,709. The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on July 17,2003 and • recommended approval of a$150,000 loan for 30 years at 2.5% on the condition that the applicant provides a letter of support from the Poplar Grove Community Council and that the applicant agrees to provide housing for clients of Valley Mental Health.The applicant has been unable to meet with the community council due to a meeting cancellation and a full agenda relating to the discussion on the proposed Nordstrom move to The Gateway. The developer will continue to try to meet with the community council. The transmittal includes the minutes of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board July 17,2003 meeting. ➢ BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed loan from the Housing Trust Fund will be for$150,000 at 2.5% interest for thirty (30)years. Key Bank,Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,and Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation(UCRC)are also providing funding for this project.The total cost of project will be$3,917,585. The current balance of the Housing Trust Fund is approximately$2,600,000. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, LuAnn Clark,and Sandi Marler File location: Michael\Staff Reports\Housing Trust Fund • • Page 2 AUG 2 6 2003 "'ALISON WEYHER �SARI ®umxi ctfromu,r,��,�.,t ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, 'ef Administrative Officer DAII'E: August 18, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and BC Development Group, LLC, for the construction of the Westgate II Apartment project located at 1520 West 300 South. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: A$150,000 loan will be made from the Housing Trust Fund. Approval of this loan will also result in a waiver of$28,480 in impact fees,which will need to be covered by the General Fund. DISCUSSION: BC Development Group, LLC, is requesting a$150,000 loan for 30 years at 2.5% interest from the City's Housing Trust Fund to construct a 36 unit, 3-story apartment building. The project is located at 1520 West 300 South and will be comprised of 24 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units,underground parking, landscaped grounds with a tot lot, and a resident community business center. Four of the 36 units (2 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom)will be market rate units. The remaining 32 units will be available for residents between 35-45% of the area median income. The rents for the affordable two-bedroom units will range from $409 to $547 with the rents for the three-bedroom units from$468 to $547. The rents for the market units will be$650 for the two-bedroom units and$750 for the three-bedroom units. The developer has set aside three units for developmentally disabled persons; two units for physically handicapped persons; and five units for mentally ill persons for a total of ten units for special populations. All ground floor units will be visit-able and four units (2 two-bedroom and 2 three- bedroom)will be 100%handicapped accessible. The loan requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be leveraged with funds provided by Key Bank for the construction loan as well as purchasing the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation(UCRC) and the owner. The City will be in third position on the loan. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $3,917,585. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ,, eOn July 17, 2003, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and recommended approval of a$150,000 loan for 30 years at 2.5%, subject to the applicant providing a letter of support from the Poplar Grove Community Council and the applicants agreeing to provide housing for clients of Valley Mental Health. Attached please find a copy of the staff report and the minutes of the July Board meeting. The developer attempted to schedule the project on the Popular Grove Community Council agenda in July and August. The July meeting was cancelled and the August agenda was full due to the discussion held on the Nordstrom issue. The developer will attempt to attend the September meeting but we are recommending that the developer not be delayed any longer so he can finalize his financing and construction approval of this project. The loan from the City impacts both of these arrangements. The current balance of the City's Housing Trust Fund is $2,792,922; approval of this loan request would leave the fund balance at$2,642,922. S S • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO THE WESTGATE II APARTMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, BC Development Group, LLC, has applied to the City for a $150,000 loan at 2.5% over thirty years to construct the Westgate II Apartment project consisting of 32 affordable housing units for residents between 35-45% area median income at 1520 West 300 South in Salt Lake City, Utah. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with BC Development Group, LLC, for$150,000 at 2.5% over thirty years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund. 2. BC Development Group, LLC, will use the loan for construction of the Westagate II Apartment project to be located at 1520 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. • 3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LAKE CIT)'ATT RNEY'S OFFICE DATE: _ /Er - C � BY: = CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: BC Development Group, LLC Name of Project: Westgate II Apartments Location of Project: 1520 West 300 South Project Description: This project is a new construction project that will be comprised of 24 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. All ground floor units will be visitable and four units (2 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom) will be 100% handicapped accessible. Four of the 36 units (2 two-bedroom and 2 three- bedroom) will be market rate units. The remaining 32 units will be available for residents between 35-45% area median income. AMI Targets: Rents: 35% 8 two-bedroom units $409 40% 6 two-bedroom units $478 45% 8 two-bedroom units $547 35% 6 three bedroom units $468 40% 4 three bedroom units $547 • Three units will be set aside for developmentally disabled persons; two units will be set aside for physically handicapped persons; and five units will be set aside for mentally ill persons. Amount and terms requested: $150,000 at 2.5% for 30 years Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? 32 units will be affordable for residents between 35-45% of the area median income. Four units will be market rate units. Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes Proposed Funding: Equity Key Bank $2,542,134 1st Mortgage UCRC 1,010,000 2nd Mortgage SLC 150,000 Other Def. Devel. fee 215,451 TOTAL: $3,917,585 Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? • Yes 1 • Does the project have demonstrated community support? Community Council will not review this project until July 23rd. The applicant has promised to provide a copy of their letter of support following that meeting. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? Yes. A list of completed projects is included in the application. Project Strengths: Project owner has successfully built, developed, owned and rehabilitated similar projects. Owner currently has a loan with Salt Lake City and has met all requirements, is current on the existing loan and provides required information in a timely manner. Owner has previously owned and managed tax credit properties. The project meets priority goals of the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan to increase the number of affordable housing units with three bedrooms and to develop housing programs to meet the needs of those who work and live in the City. • The project will remain affordable for 99 years. Market study indicates that there is a market that is adequate to absorb these affordable units. Market study was prepared by an entity approved by the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC). Project Weaknesses: No formal appraisal submitted. Capital replacement reserves are below the State of Utah Safe Harbor Schedule Board Options Approve applicant's loan as requested, subject to appraisal and letter of support from community council. Deny applicant's loan request. III 2 . HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of July 17, 2003 IIIThe following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Karen Cahoon, John Francis, Daniel Greenwood, Cara Lingstuyl, Peter Morgan, and Richard Tyler. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Program Specialist, and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Cara Lingstuyl called the meeting to order at 12:07p.m. New HTF Board member, Daniel Greenwood, was introduced. Consider a request from BC Development Group, LLC, to purchase property located at 1520 West 300 South in order to construct the Westgate II Apartment project that will consist of 32 affordable units for families between 35-45% of area median income and 4 market rate units. Mr. David Baus of BC Development Group was present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the project. Mr. Baus is requesting a $150,000 loan at 2.5% interest to be amortized over thirty years. Mr. Baus stated that a year ago, the HTF approved approximately$270,000 for BC Development to acquire and renovate Westgate I. Mr. Baus said Westgate I has been a success with currently no vacancies. Mr. Baus explained that Westgate II is a mix of two bedroom and three bedroom units with underground parking. Mr. Baus said that the City has required two parking stalls for two and three bedroom units and that they were able to meet the requirements. Mr. Baus provided construction drawings and details to the Board. Mr. Baus said 1111 that they purchased two adjacent homes with the intent that one of the homes will be the managers unit as well as a resident community business center. Mr. Baus said that there will be some families that will move from Westgate Ito Westgate II into the larger units with rent being comparable to Westgate I. The Board asked if the manager's office would manage both complexes and Mr. Baus replied yes and will be managed from Westgate II. Mr. Baus apologized for not obtaining a letter of support from the Popular Grove Community Council but confirmed the project will be reviewed at the July 23rd meeting. Mr. Baus stated that in regard to income, the project is targeting low-income with average median income of 39%, and construction will consist of two bedroom units ranging from $409 to $547 and three bedroom units from $468 to $547, with four market rate units. Mr. Baus indicated that there has been no response from the agreement Westgate made with the Division of Mental Health and the Long Range Planning in providing clients for their housing units but will continue providing them with vacancy notices. Richard Tyler motioned to approve the loan request subject to receiving the letter of support from the Community Council. Peter Morgan seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from Farquhar Properties, LLC, to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartments consisting of 29 studio apartments and 8 one-bedroom units located III at 544 East 100 South. Ms. LuAnn Clark stated that Mr. Ben Logue of Farquhar Properties is out of town due to a death in the family and that she will be answering any questions pertaining to the project. r Ms. Clark gave a brief account of the history of the Trenton Apartments and the applicant's previous experience in purchasing older apartment properties. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Logue . application states that he is applying for HOME funds but funding will come from HTF. Ms. Clark said that the project has the support of the Central City Community Council and letter was provided by from the Chair. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Logue has agreed to meet with the Trenton tenants upon loan approval and that renovation will be completed one unit at a time. Ms. Clark said the safe harbor for capital replacements for rehabilitation is a minimum $300 per unit but Mr. Logue feels that the $250 per unit will be adequate because of the extensive renovation they are doing on the project. Ms. Clark said copies of the agreements with TURN, The Road Home and Valley Mental Health will be provided before the loan is presented to City Council. Ms. Clark explained that in Mr. Logue's application, regarding "use of funds", presented as Attachment A, (itemized tax credit expense description) had not been provided but would be available for the Board's review. Ms. Clark said that the level of affordability range average is 35% to 45%, 24 studio units at 35%, 5 studio units at 42% and 8 one-bedroom units at 45%. Peter Morgan motioned to approve the loan request for$280,000 at 2.5% interest for 30 years. John Francis seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Discuss RDA Funding Ms. LuAnn Clark advised the Board that the RDA had recently approved a $1,102,268 allocation to the Housing Trust Fund and had requested the Board wait until January 2004 for the funds to be transferred. Ms. Clark added that the RDA had requested the Board consider providing all or part of the new allocation to the Providence Place project. This project, located on the Fetzer ill property on West Temple, will come before the Board m in the near future. When asked if the Board would have to approve funding for this project because of the RDA allocation, Ms. Clark said the Board should give fair consideration for funding of the project as they do all projects. Ms. Clark indicated that approximately$708,000 of RDA funds is still available which will be used for one of the loans just approved. Discuss Housing Trust Fund Ordinance Amendment Ms. Clark stated that the HTF Ordinance passed with one change to the HTF recommendation and that change was in the term of affordability and that is, if the term is less than five years, it will require the first home owner to meet the federal income standards established by HUD. If the HTF monies are kept longer than 5 years, then the term of affordability would have to be 15 years. Ms. Clark said the City Council approved the amendment to allow the Board to meet quarterly, rather than monthly, with additional meetings as needed to conduct business of the HTF.. Ms. Clark said a September meeting is scheduled and there will be a meeting in January that will involve reviewing allocations for HOME and HOPWA. Ms. Clark said a calendar will be prepared and will be included in the September packet for review and discussion. Ill 2