Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09/05/2006 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, 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 Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Kelly Murdock, City' s Financial Advisor; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Police Chief Chris Burbank; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; John Naser, Engineering Senior Project Manager; Max Peterson, City Engineer; John Spencer, Real Property Manager; Larry Spendlove, Senior City Attorney; Matt Williams, Real Property Agent; Kevin Keating; Vice President, Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC. ; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 36 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 36 : 21 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE OPTION FOR FUTURE REIMBURSEMENT FROM A BOND FOR PURCHASE OF THE GARFIELD SCHOOL SITE IF THE CITY ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO USE THE GARFIELD SCHOOL SITE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES . View Attachments Kelly Murdock, Dan Mule' and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Council Members had no questions . #2 . 5 : 38 : 07 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN APPLICATION FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVIDENCE PLACE APARTMENT PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 309 EAST 100 SOUTH. View Attachments LuAnn Clark, Gary Mumford and Kevin Keating briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked if Council Members wanted to deny the request. Council Members Saxton and Turner were in favor of denying the proposal . 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 , 2006 Councilmember Buhler asked for a straw poll on Option 3, the developer' s request . (See handout) Council Members Jergensen, Buhler, Christensen and Simonsen were in favor . #3 . 6 : 26 : 45 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONDITIONAL USES TO BE APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER. (PETITION NO. 400-05-17) View Attachments Alex Ikefuna, Kevin LoPicollo and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said this item would be moved forward. #4 . 6 : 39 : 02 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD DESIGNATE 500 WEST PARK MEDIANS AS PUBLIC SQUARES, MALLS OR PLEASURE GROUNDS UNDER SALT LAKE CITY CODE CHAPTER 15 . 12 . View Attachments Russell Weeks, Rick Graham and Mayor Anderson briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #5 . DISCUSS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. (CIP) This item was not discussed. #6 . 8 : 04 : 39 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § § 52- 4-204 , 52-4-205 (1) (c) (d) AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § 78-24-8 . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members voted aye . See File M 05-2 for confidential tape and Sworn Statement . #7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 9 : 31 : 55 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 33 p .m. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 , 2006 Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held September 5, 2006 . bj 06 - 3 Council Members, Linda Hamilton, Salt Lake County Public Works Director, has provided the information below in response to issues that have been raised in the news media on the Landfill Council's vote. This change can be handled administratively at the landfill and will not require a vote of the Councils to amend the landfill budget. Mary will be checking back with those of you who are interested in meeting to discuss this further. Solid Waste Management Factoids • Until April 2006, Allied Waste annually hauled roughly 165,000 tons of waste collected from commercial customers to the SLV Landfill. Allied also hauled roughly 165,000 tons annually from the SLV Transfer Station to its landfill in Tooele. In April, Allied opened its own transfer station and now diverts 40% of the waste it previously took to the SLV Landfill to its transfer station. The operating loss is roughly $1.2 million($4,600 per day). We pay $23.85 per ton for hauling and disposal with Allied. Our cost using the new hauler will be $18.50 a ton. • The school trust fund is not a relevant issue. Since, until April, we were doing a ton for ton swap, all Allied has to do is take all their waste to their landfill (like we are going to do with ours) and there will be zero impact on the school trust fund. If there is an impact on the school trust fund, it will be a result of an Allied decision—not the SLVWM Council's. • The complaints about it being a closed process ignore the fact that proposals responding to an RFP and the discussion around those proposals are protected under GRAMA. We could not legally divulge that information. • The reason we scheduled the meeting in such a hurry is that the company we are contracting with had to order the trucks today. If they did not, it would have been 180 days before they could get their trucks (rather than 90) and they would be 2007 models, which would be more expensive and would increase our costs. • The current estimated life of the SLV Landfill is 49 years with a capacity of disposing 35 million tons. This calculation does not include an additional 170 acres already owned by Solid Waste Management and permitted by the State that yields an additional capacity of 16,400,000 tons, or 23 years. • The Solid Waste Council is comprised of 5 members: o Rick Graham, Salt Lake City's Public Services Director o Ryan Dupont, Head of the Division of Environmental Engineering Division at Utah State o Russ Willardson, Public Works Director for West Valley and representative for the Council of Governments o Kent Miner, Salt Lake Valley Health Department o Linda Hamilton, Salt Lake County's Public Works Director MEMORANDUM DATE: September 1,2006 SUBJECT: Reimbursement Resolution for Expenditures Relating to Purchase of Garfield School REPORT BY: Gary Mumford AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide On August 1, 2006, the City purchased the Garfield School. The funding source was primarily fund balance in the general fund that was appropriated to the CIP fund for the 2006-07 fiscal year. The attached resolution gives the City the option to reimburse itself from bond proceeds if the City Council ultimately decides to use this site for the construction of public safety facilities. The resolution does not obligate the City, but preserves a reimbursement option. To be eligible for reimbursement, this resolution needs to be adopted by September 30th (60 days from expenditure of funds). • Anti I. 2006 SALT I 0 .R our CORP DANIEL A. MULE' - - - ��-wiffEl ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER TO: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer DATE: August 29, 2006 SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Official Intent to Reimburse Certain Capital Expenditures from Proceeds of Bonds to Be Issued for the Purpose of Constructing Public Safety Facilities STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer TELEPHONE NUMBER: 535-6411 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the above-referenced resolution on September 12, 2006. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: A reimbursement resolution needs to either describe the related project or identify the source of funds from which payment will come (such as Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds) and it also needs to state the maximum principal amount of bonds to be issued. In addition to allowing all eligible expenditures to be paid from the named account on or after the passage of the resolution, a reimbursement resolution allows the City to recoup eligible "hard cost" expenditures (such as land purchases, building construction) from future bond proceeds, provided that these expenditures were made no longer than 60 days prior to the adoption of the reimbursement resolution. Preliminary expenditures or "soft costs" (such as design work, engineering fees) are reimbursable without a reimbursement resolution as long as these costs do not exceed 20% of the bond proceeds. Soft costs are not subject to the 60-day time limit referenced above. On August 1, 2006, the City acquired the Garfield School at a cost of $2,130,600. The funding source for this purchase was the Eastside Precinct cost center in the CIP. Although this resolution does not obligate the City to issue bonds, this resolution would need to be adopted by September 30, 2006 in order for this property acquisition to be eligible for reimbursement from bond proceeds yet to be received in connection with this financing. Attachment H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\Public Safety Facilities Reimbursement Resolution.doc 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 22B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 11 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: B01-535-6082 Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 08/28/06 RESOLUTION NO._OF 2006 A RESOLUTION Expressing Official Intent Regarding Certain Capital Expenditures to be Reimbursed From Proceeds of an Obligation to be Issued by the City. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), is planning to acquire, construct, furnish and equip fire, police and other public safety facilities (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council") deems it necessary and advisable that it take such action as may be required under applicable provisions of law to authorize and issue bonds (the "Bonds") to finance the costs of the Project; and WHEREAS, all or a portion of the expenditures relating to the Project (the "Expenditures") (i) have been paid from the City's Capital Improvement Program Fund (the "Fund") within the sixty days prior to the passage of this Resolution or(ii) will be paid from the Fund on or after the passage of this Resolution and prior to the issuance of the Bonds; NOW THEREFORE BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the Expenditures with proceeds of the Bonds. Section 2. The maximum principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $178,000,000. Section 3. All actions of the officers, agents and employees of the City that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution, whether taken before or after the adoption hereof, are hereby ratified, confirmed and adopted. Section 4. All resolutions in conflict with this Resolution or any part hereof are hereby repealed. 2103594.01.03.doc 0869511/RDB/mo Public Safety Reimbursement Resolution Section 5. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 12th day of September,2006. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Chair, City Council [SEAL] ArI ST: By Deputy City Recorder APPROVED: By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney - 2- Public Safety Reimbursement Resolution J SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 1,2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Housing Trust Fund Loan to Wasatch Advantage Group for construction of the Providence Place Apartments 309 East 100 South AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Housing and Neighborhood Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark Salt Lake City has a Housing Trust Fund from which loans can be made to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City. Wasatch Advantage Group has applied to the City for an$850,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund as partial financing to construct the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South that will consist of 125 affordable rental housing units for residents at 60% of the City's area median income or lower. This group had previously applied for and received an$850,000 City loan for a 200 unit apartment project on 200 East but wasn't able to obtain the site. On July 11,2006,the Council held a briefing and discussion on the proposed loan. The current balance in the City's Housing Trust Fund is$2,767,000 before considering this loan request. Three other developers have expressed an interest in applying for City loans. The Housing Authority has indicated that it may sell a portion of its public housing,which could result in several loan requests for retrofit. The developers are asking for the same loan amount($850,000) as was awarded for the City Plaza project. Council Members asked during the briefing how the cost per unit of the Providence Place Apartments compares with the cost per unit of the City Plaza project. At this loan amount, the City's participation per unit will be$6,800. The City's average per unit participation has been $6,379 for multi-family projects from the housing trust fund for long-term loans including market rate units. The estimated total cost per unit for the City Plaza project was$112,794(total uses as provided on the loan application including land,parking structure,development fees,etc. divided by 200 units). Some of the costs are related to the commercial aspects of the City Plaza project including some parking for commercial customers. The total cost per unit for the Providence Place Apartments is$114,207(total uses as proposed on the loan application divided by 125 units). One of the reasons why the per-unit cost does not show a greater increase is that the costs of the City Plaza project included a commercial aspect. In addition,the land for the Providence Place Apartments was obtained at a favorable price,which helps to lower the cost per unit even though construction costs have significantly increased from the time when the City Plaza project was proposed. Mr. Kevin Keating representing the developers explained that the construction cost per square foot for the City Plaza Project was estimated to be$68 to$70 per square foot while construction cost for the Providence Place Apartments is approaching$100 per square foot. 1 The project meets the following new housing polices currently being considered: • Creation of a variety of city-wide residential housing units,including affordable housing • Proximity to mass transit,retail and commercial services • Housing units that are consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act • New housing development within the Downtown area • Per unit construction costs are within the industry standards • Provision of adequate off-street parking • Property acquisition was at or below market value • Developer fees are consistent with criteria adopted by the Utah Housing Corporation • A preference that developer ownership will continue for a minimum of seven years The project is NOT consistent with the following new housing policies/preferred criteria currently being considered: • The preference for mixed-income projects (mixed rents) • The preference for the number of affordable units to exceed the percentage of market rate units if the project is located in an area with a median income of 60% or above the City's AMI (the AMI for this area is lower than 60%) Inconsistencies with guidelines and usual practice are: a. The amount of the requested loan is in excess of the$300,000 maximum guideline. b. The interest rate requested is less than a Council resolution stating that interest on loans will exceed the interest rate the City earns on its investments. c. Repayment of the loan is requested to begin 90 days following construction with interest- only payments prior to this time. Typically,the City's loans require the first payment of both interest and principal to begin within 60 days of issuing a loan. MATTERS AT ISSUE: Loan Amount-The developers originally asked for a 40-year loan,but they have modified their request to include a balloon payment after 30 years. Both the Housing Trust Fund Board and the Mayor recommended a 30-year loan term. In the event that the developers refinance the project earlier, they will pay off the loan earlier. Typically,the developers' tax credit financing requires the developers to be involved in the project for at least 15 years following construction. Mr. Keating and his partners agreed that they would remain in the project for at least 15 years. Low- income restrictions stay with the property for 51 years. Interest Rate-The developers requested a 2.45% interest rate on the City's loan,and the Mayor proposed a 4.65% rate based on the City's investment earnings. As an option,the developers have proposed an interest rate that starts out at 2.45% and steps up to 6.8% over 30 years for an average interest rate of 4.65%. This would fit the developers' need during the early years of the loan and would provide the City with a 4.65% average interest rate over the life of the loan. Refinancing early would mean that the City receives less than the total projected interest,but allows funds to be loaned out again. The propose interest rates are as follows: Years Interest Rate 1-5 2.45% 6-10 3.65% 11-15 4.85% 16-20 5.90% 21-25 6.55% 26-30 6.80% 2 Mix of Incomes-A City subsidy is generally made available in order to encourage mixed-income projects (mixed rents). All of the units in the Providence Place Apartments are proposed for residents at 60% of the City's area median income or lower. All two bedroom units will rent at $767;all one-bedroom units will rent at$641;and all studio units will rent for$604. While the developer indicated that the project would allow for a mix of incomes,it does not provide for a mix of rents-lower income people would still pay the same rent amount. The Utah Housing Corporation has indicated to the Administration that this project would not be considered an "affordable mixed-income project" because it has no mix of affordable rents for lower average- median-income persons. Without some concession for lower-income renters,it is not likely that the project would be considered by low-income advocates to be beneficial to the low-income group. In order to provide for a sliding scale of rents to meet a variety of incomes,the developers said that they would need an additional City subsidy(increased loan amount). The Developer's indicated that the project will not"pencil" with additional developer investment. Mr. Keating pointed out that there are already a number of very low-income projects in the downtown area as well as market-rate and for-sale projects. He asserts that the Providence Place Apartments will help the city to start to meet the cross section of income levels in the downtown by focusing on upper lower-income households. Based on a market study,the project will fill a niche in the current housing inventory for those with income at 60% of area median income or less. Mr.Keating said that the project will appeal to potential renters because of quality of construction,affordability and downtown location. Mr. Keating also explained that the project benefits the local economy with local sub-contractors,local suppliers,local architects,and includes$5 million of federal funding through tax credits to the benefit of the local economy. Debt Coverage Ratio-In order to provide a debt coverage ratio of 1.15 ($115 of projected net rents for every$100 of debt service payments),the developers have proposed decreasing the permanent loan by$35,000 and increasing the deferred developer fee by the same amount. The Utah Housing Corporation sets a standard debt coverage ratio of 1.15. The ratio excludes deferred developers fees. Project Equity-Developer fees provide most of the financial incentive for development of affordable housing since operating profit is limited. For the Providence Place Apartments,most of the developers'fee(approximately$1,200,000 depending on escalating construction costs) is available once the project achieves 93% stabilized occupancy for 90 days,but a portion($377,790 including the$35,000 discussed under debt coverage ratio) is deferred over a 10-year period to be paid from net rent after all other expenses and loan payments are made. The senior lender is also requiring the Developer to provide construction completion guarantees,which means if there are construction cost over-runs,the developer will have to contribute funds to pay for the cost over- runs or defer more developer fee. Loan period-The Housing Trust Fund Board typically recommends 30-year loans. The Board forwarded a recommendation for a 30-year loan for the Providence Place Apartment project. The developers are asking for a 40-year loan amortization with a balloon payment at the end of 30 years. Mr. Kevin Keating told Council staff that the higher debt service of a 30-year loan may result in an unfeasible project. With a 40-year amortization,the monthly debt service amount is lower. Since the senior mortgage is sized based on how much net cash flow is available,the lower monthly debt service allows the developers to borrow more from the senior lender. 3 Loan Repayments-Typically, the City's loans require the first payment of both interest and principal to begin within 60 days of issuing a loan. The developers requested that repayment of the loan is requested to begin 90 days following construction with interest-only payments prior to this time. Housing Policy-The Council has yet to formally adopt the housing policy. Key concepts of that policy are using City resources to support mixed income housing with mixed rents and establishing a limited dollar amount for loans. As developers consider applying for future Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loans they may consider the Council's action on this loan as a precedent. The Council may wish to clarify through specific motion language whether the Council intends to set a precedent with this decision,or whether there are unique circumstances relating to this request. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: The attached resolution is per the Mayor's recommendation. The resolution will be revised if the Council approves a loan at another dollar amount or with different rates or terms. The loan documents will require that the project be developed as proposed. If a Council Member makes a motion to authorize a loan,the Council Member may wish to include some of the following points: • The Council recognizes the need for housing in this area of the City. • The Council recognizes the need for housing with this income level. • The Council recognizes the need for a variety of housing including studio,one bedroom and two bedroom units. • The Council recognizes the investment from other resources including$5 million in federal tax credits and$8 million invested through private activity bonds. • The Council re-affirms its long-term goal of supporting mixed income housing with emphasis on disbursing low-income housing throughout the city rather than concentrating low-income housing in a few areas,and believes that this project furthers the goal to a limited extent in that it enhances the income level in this neighborhood and may prompt other development. The City Council has several options relating to this loan request including the following potential motions. 1. ["I move that the Council'] Adopt a resolution authorizing 30-year$600,000 loan at 4.65% from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund to Wasatch Advantage Group for construction of the Providence Place Apartments with interest and principal payments beginning within 60 days of issuing the loan. (Mayor's recommendation) 2. ["I move that the Council'] Adopt a resolution authorizing 30-year$500,000 loan at 5% from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund to Wasatch Advantage Group for construction of the Providence Place Apartments with interest and principal payment beginning within 60 days of issuing the loan. (Housing Trust Fund Board's recommendation) 3. ["I move that the Council'] Adopt a resolution authorizing 30-year$850,000 loan from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund with a 40-year amortization and balloon payment at the end of the 30-year term and at an average interest rate of 4.65%with stepped rates beginning at 2.45% and increasing to 6.8%and with payments of interest during the construction period and loan principal payments to begin within 90 days following construction completion. (Developers' modified request) 4 4. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution authorizing a loan from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund to Wasatch Advantage Group for construction of the Providence Place Apartments (specify loan amount,loan term,interest rate, and when loan principal repayments begins) 5. ["I move that the Council'] Deny the loan request. The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference. On Apri119,2005,the City Council approved a 40-year$850,000 loan at an interest rate of 2.45% for the City Plaza Apartment project on 200 East that was to provide 200 affordable units for households with income at 60% of area median income or less. There were some delays between the loan request and approval because the city was drafting a new loan policy. Shortly after the loan was approved,the developer determined that the site was no longer available. After months of looking for a similar site,one of the original partners of the City Plaza project along with additional partners/investors acquired land at 309 East 100 South and requested a similar loan for a project to be known as the Providence Place Apartments. The Providence Place Apartments will consist of 125 rental units comprised of 30 two bedroom/two bath units (rent$767),69 one-bedroom/one bath units (rent$641),and 26 studio units with one bath(rent$604). Rents will be restricted and targeted to households at 60% of the area median income or lower. The Administration's transmittal points out that rents are in line with the independent market study. The$14,000,000 project will remain affordable for 51 years. The City's loan will be leveraged with$8,100,000 of private activity bonds issued by the Utah Housing Corporation and$4,983,000 of tax credits. The permanent financing will reimburse the partners for the cost of the land and predevelopment costs. The project will include 125 covered parking spaces in a tiered parking structure and an outdoor plaza and/or roof garden. All units will be handicap accessible. The project will include the following amenities: controlled access,on-site management office,club room/computer resource center/library,and fitness room. The units will have walk-in closets,dishwashers,and clothes washers and dryers. The project provides additional affordable housing units in the downtown area and increases the property tax base for the City. The local economy benefits with the use of local contractors and architects as well as from the increase in the number of city residents living near the central business district. A letter from the Central City Neighborhood Council dated May 3,2006 states that there was general support for this project. The developer will be eligible for an impact fee waiver of$162,500. The traditional source for funding these waivers is from fund balance. 5 • 9 8 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ,,;\ 1 _���an�,�I,��0 � NNE ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR J CITY COUNCIL TRANS A TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: J e 23, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo SUBJECT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Housing st and loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, for the construction of the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South. STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark, Housing&Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: City Council adoption of the resolution DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Kevin Keating, on behalf of Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, is requesting a loan in the amount of$850,000.00 from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund for construction of the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South in Salt Lake City. They are requesting these funds at an annual interest rate of 2.45%to be amortized over 40 years with interest only for the first 24 months of the loan during the construction and lease-up phase of the project. The project is proposed to consist of 125 rental units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60%of the area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two bedroom/two bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one bath units, and 26 studio units with one bath. The units will remain affordable for 51 years. The City would be in third position on the loan. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $14,275,867. Analysis: Housing and Neighborhood Development staff prepared a staff evaluation for the Housing Trust Fund Board regarding the application submitted for funding. The evaluation contains information on the project's weaknesses and strengths and compliance with statutory regulations and housing plan goals and priorities. The project was also reviewed by Dave Miner, President 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM wccvc�eo PnvcA - of Municipal Bond Consulting, Inc., because of Staff's limited experience with projects funded with private activity bonds. His review has been incorporated into Staff's evaluation. The key issues are listed below: • The project would provide 125 additional units of affordable housing in the City that would remain affordable for 51 years. The proposed loan would be leveraged with low- income housing tax credits and a private activity bond. • The project meets priority goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan to increase the City's housing stock, particularly by increasing the number of affordable housing units. (Please note that this is not the housing plan currently being discussed by the City Council. An analysis of the project and the new proposed housing plan is included on page four of the Staff evaluation—Attachment B.) • The project would be located near the Downtown area in proximity to mass transit and retail and commercial services. • The project did receive a letter of support from the Central City Community Council. • The Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR)for this project is below the standard DRC of 1.15. This standard is used by the Utah Housing Corporation on all tax credit and bond projects. The initial pro forma submitted with the application indicated that the DRC is 1.15. The pro forma did not include the repayment of the City's loan or repayment of the applicant's deferred developer fee. The applicant subsequently provided a new pro forma the date of the Housing Trust Fund meeting showing the DCR of 1.053 after calculating repayment of the City's loan and the deferred developer fee. • The applicant is requesting that the City's loan be a cash flow loan where payments would be made to the City only if there is sufficient net operating income available for repayment. The applicant needs this so they can meet the DRC of 1.15 for their other lenders. A loan guarantee will be provided by the project partners for the construction loan. • The developer's equity investment is only the deferred developer fee. There is no developer equity in the permanent financing of the project. • The loan is nearly three times the amount of the loan guideline of$300,000 established by the Housing Trust Fund Board in March of 2004. • The applicant is requesting an interest rate of 2.45%. As part of the annual budget process, the City Council adopts a resolution accepting a study performed in compliance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 approving the Housing Trust Fund appropriation and establishing loan criteria. The resolution outlines as a tangible benefit that in many cases the interest on loans will exceed the interest rate the City earned on its pooled investment. Without the tangible benefit the intangible benefits need to be higher. The City's average interest rate for fiscal year 2005 was 2.42%. Most loans the Housing Trust Fund Board Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 2 of 4 recommended were within that range. One exception was the loan for the Milestone Apartment project that received a 1% interest rate because it provided a higher than normal intangible benefit to the City because it preserved housing for very low income residents, many of whom are seniors,disabled or have special needs. The average AMI of the tenants of the Milestone is 32%. Interest rates have been increasing and the rate the City received on its pooled investments for April 2006 is 4.60%with an average rate of 4.37%since January 2006. • The applicant is requesting they be given a 40 year term. The only 40 year amortization terms the City has previously approved were required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Section 8 projects that were done in order to retain and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock and prevent its conversion to market rate housing. The entire Staff evaluation on this project is attached(see Attachment B). An analysis of how this project meets new policies currently being considered by the City Council is included on page four of the Staff evaluation. The developer will be eligible for an impact fee waiver in the amount of$162,500. The current balance of the Housing Trust Fund is $2,767,086. Approval of this loan would leave the fund balance at$2,267,086. Recommendations: A. Housing Trust Fund Board and Recommendation Following an extensive review and discussion on the key issues relevant to this project, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously recommended approval of a loan for $500,000.00 at 5% annual interest over 30 years, recognizing that Salt Lake City will be in a junior lien position and that any guarantees on the Ioan need to be resolved by Staff and the appropriate attorneys. The Board recommended the loan be hard debt and not a cash flow loan. As directed by the Board, Housing&Neighborhood Development Division Staff checked with Dave Miner and the City Attorney's Office regarding a guarantee because of the concerns raised by the applicant. Mr. Miner is of the opinion that the City cannot require this guarantee. Mr. Miner recommended that if a cash flow loan is given, the following language should be included in the loan documents to protect the City's interest in this project as follows: 1. The note would become due upon a refinance before the owner could take money out; 2. The note would become due upon sale of the property, including a partnership interest sale in excess of 50%; and 3. A clear definition of which project expenses could be paid by cash flow ahead of City loan repayments which would limit the distributions to the partners to reasonable management fees. Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 3 of 4 The City could require that the City loan be paid before the developer takes out the developer fee. B. Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Anderson reviewed the applicant's request and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's recommendation on May 30, 2006. Mayor Anderson recommended the loan request be approved for$600,000 at 4.65%annual interest amortized over 30 years as hard debt and not as a cash flow loan. The applicant has submitted a letter regarding the impact that the loan recommendation from the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board would have on their project (see Attachment D). PUBLIC PROCESS: This loan request was reviewed by the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board on May 9, 2006. The minutes from the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board meeting are included as Attachment C of this document. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 2.80 of the Salt Lake City Code: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Resolution#47 of 2005: Housing Trust Fund Appropriations and Loan Criteria Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment A: Resolution Attachment B: Staff Evaluation of the Providence Place Apartment Project Attachment C: May 9, 2006 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Minutes Attachment D: Impact Letter from Applicant Attachment E: Loan Application ATTACHMENT A Resolution RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC FOR • THE PROVIDENCE PLACE 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, Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, has applied to the City for a loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund in order to construct the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South in Salt Lake City that will consist of 125 affordable rental housing units for residents at 60% of the City's area median income or lower. 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 Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, for$600,000.00, with the appropriate guarantees, at four and sixty-five one hundredths percent (4.65%) per annum for thirty (30) years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund. 2. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, will use the loan funds to construct the Providence Place Apartment project at 309 East 100 South in 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 , 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED A O _ SALT LAKE FILE BY: DATE: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ATTACHMENT B Staff Evaluation EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC Name of Project: Providence Place Apartments Location of Project: 309 East 100 South Project Description: The project is proposed to consist of 125 apartment units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% of area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units and 26 studios with one bathroom. One parking stall will be set aside for each apartment unit. All units will be handicapped accessible. AMI Targets: Rents: 60% - 26 studio/one-bath units $604 60% - 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units $641 60% - 30 two bedroom/two-bath units $767 Amount and terms requested: $850,000.00 at 2.45% interest over 40 years Interest only is requested for the first 24 months during the construction and lease-up period. Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? Yes Are the funds leveraged with non-qovernment dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS — Construction Financing: Source Amount Construction Loan Calif. Bank & Trust $ 7,151,575 Predevelopment Loan Alliant Capital 4,983,077 Equity— General Partner General Partners 1,291,215 Gap Financing SLC HTF 850,000 TOTAL: $14,275,867 SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: Equity LIHTC—Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity Deferred Developer Fee 342,790 1st Mortgage Private Activity Bond 8,100,000 2nd Mortgage SLC HTF Loan 850,000 TOTAL $14,275,867 1 USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs $ 952,781 Site Work 352,583 Construction Costs 8,934,349 Construction Contingency 434,237 Ar' hitectural/Engineering Fees 388,000 Gen. Contractor & Developer Profit & Overhead 1,715,500 Interim Financing Expenses 422,896 Permanent Financing Expenses 325,197 Soft Costs (Survey, Market Study, Environmentals, etc.) 279,086 Syndication Costs 207,906 Project Reserves 263,331 TOTAL $14,275,867 Cost per unit: $114,207 per unit Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Repayment of the loan will come from the project's net operating income; therefore, the net operating income must be sufficient to support all of the project's debt. The Board may want to clarify the intent of the developer to repay this loan. The applicant refers to the possibility of needing this loan to be a cash flow loan wherein payments would only be made if net operating income is available. It has always been the Administration's policy not to support cash flow loans without extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances might include projects that provided housing to 1) clients at very, very low- incomes (30%AMI or lower), 2) clients with special needs, 3) clients transitioning out of homelessness, or 4) clients living with HIV/AIDS. The Administration has limited staff resources to properly audit cash flow loans to ensure all available funds are returned to the City. Staff is only aware of four cash flow loans approved by the City during the past 20 years: 1) the Milestone Apartment project (HTF funds) which is a Section 8 preservation project that would have resulted in a loss of 141 existing affordable housing units and was required by HUD (the primary lender) to be a cash flow, non-federal funds loan, 2) the Valor House project (CDBG funds) that provides housing to homeless veterans, 3) the Lowell Senior Apartment project (HOME and Renter Rehab funds) for very low-income senior citizens, and 4) the Hartland Apartment project (HDAG funds) that was approved twenty years ago consisting of 300 units, of which, 120 have been rent restricted for low-income residents. The Hartland project has been a continual challenge for the City to monitor and from which no payments have been provided by the developer/owner during the-project's 20-year history. Only one of the above projects was funded through the Housing Trust Fund. The City has not experienced the requirement suggested by the applicant that the senior lender will require this loan to be a cash flow loan, with the exception mentioned above on the Milestone project. The City subordinates on superior loans which provides the security that senior lenders usually require. 2 Does the project have demonstrated community support? The applicant has requested a letter of support from the Central City Community Council since this is a new construction project. The letter of support provided in the application was for a different project. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? The applicant has provided a list of local projects owned, operated and/or maintained by several of his partners. The applicant, however, does not have a loan history with Salt Lake City. Private Activity Bond Projects Because staff has limited experience on private activity bond projects, we requested Dave Miner, President of Municipal Bond Consulting, Inc., to review the bond portion of this project. Information from Mr. Miner's report has been incorporated into this evaluation. Project Strengths: The project would provide 125 additional units of affordable housing in the City. Project rents are in line with the market study. The market study supports the construction of this project. The market study was completed by an appraiser on Utah Housing Corporation's list of approved appraisers The project meets priority goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan to increase the City's housing stock, particularly by increasing the number of affordable housing units. The project will remain affordable for 51 years. The project would be located near the downtown area in proximity to mass transit, retail and commercial services. Project Weaknesses: The applicant is requesting an annual interest rate of 2.45% over 40 years. Interest rates are climbing and the Board needs to look at increasing the interest rates on all Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loans. One of the criteria outlined in the Resolution that authorizes the yearly appropriation for the Housing Trust Fund states that the interest charged on City loans should exceed the interest the City earns on its pooled investments. The rate of interest on the City's pooled investments for the last six months averages out at 3.86%. The interest earned in March 2006 was 4.42%. 4.5% is the minimum interest rate the Board should approve at this time for those projects that offer a significant, intangible benefit to the City. 5% is a more appropriate interest rate for projects that do not provide a higher than normal, intangible benefit to the City. Intangible benefits include providing housing to very low-to low-income residents, seniors, and disabled or special needs residents. The only forty-year amortization periods the Board has previously approved, other than the one for the City Plaza project, were required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Section 8 projects that were done in order to retain and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock and prevent its conversion to market rate housing. 3 Debt coverage ratio for this project is low. The standard ratio is 1.15. The DCR for this project is 1.15 with no repayment of the City's loan or the deferred developer's fee reflected in the proforma. Therefore, the DCR would not meet the standard ratio if repayments for our loan and deferred developer fees were included in that ratio. The Board may wish to have the applicant clarify these issues. Construction casualty insurance of$150,000, listed in the bond portion of the application, appears to be excessive. Operating expenses and the applicant's estimate of the property tax liability appear to be on the low side which may significantly, negatively impact operating income if the actual numbers are higher than estimated. The applicant used 0.86% as the estimated tax rate and it should be closer to 1.45% or higher. The Board may wish to have the applicant clarify this issue. The applicant is requesting nearly three times the amount of the loan cap previously established by the Housing Trust Fund Board. The $850,000 to previously approved for the City Plaza project that the applicant refers to in the application, was for an entirely different proposal for 200 units at a different street address and consisting of a different group of investors/partners. No set aside units have been included in the project for any special populations such as persons living with HIV/AIDS, developmentally disabled persons or those transitioning out of homelessness. Most of the 30-40 unit projects that utilize HTF funding include 4-6 set aside units that also provide more tax credit points for the applicant. Contingency has been calculated at 4%. This figure may be too low considering the rapidly escalating construction costs of the recent past. Developer's equity investment is only the deferred developer fee. There is no developer equity in the permanent financing of the project. A loan guarantee on this project has been/will be provided on the primary loan by the project partners but was not offered to the City. A loan guarantee would eliminate the concerns a cash flow loan creates. Though one has been requested, no letter of support from the Central City Community Council has been provided. The project previously reviewed by the CCCC was the City Plaza project, not this project. Housing Policies and Preferred Housing Criteria for City-funded Projects This project meets the following new housing policies currently being considered by the City Council: Creation of a variety of city-wide residential housing units, including affordable housing Proximity to mass transit, retail and commercial services Housing units that are consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act New housing development within the Downtown area Per unit construction costs are within the industry standards Provision of adequate off-street parking 4 Property acquisition was at or below market value Developer fees are consistent with criteria adopted by the Utah Housing Corporation This project is NOT consistent with the following new housing policies/preferred criteria currently being considered by the City Council fog' projects requesting City funding: The preference for mixed-income projects. This project is not a mixed-income project. The applicant states that 100% of the units will be provided for those at 60% of area median income or less. However, the project will not cash flow if rents are actually collected at a rate lower than 60%. A preference for the number of affordable units to exceed the percentage of market rate units if the project is located in an area with a median income of 60% or above the City's AMI. 100% of the proposed units will be for those at 60% AMI. The AMI for this area is lower than 60%. A preference that developer ownership will continue for a minimum of seven years. The developer"anticipates" having a continuing role in the project throughout the compliance period but has not committed to do so. No design information was presented that would allow for the evaluation of how design features would fit in with policies and preferences being considered by the City Council at this time. Board Options 1. Table the matter and request amended financial documents assuring repayment of the City's loan and adequate operating income. 2. Approve the request at 5% over thirty years with either a balloon payment or rate adjustment in the 17th or 18th year of the loan to a market rate for a subordinate real estate loan if the project is cash flowing adequately. This would ensure the City would not be subsidizing the project unnecessarily after 15 years of rent appreciation. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 3. Approve the request at a lower loan amount with an amended amortization period of 30 years at 5% interest with interest only for the first 24 months. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 4. Approve the request for the requested loan amount with an amended amortization period of 30 years at 5% interest with interest only for the first 24 months. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 5. Approve the request as presented for$850,000 at 2.45% over 40 years. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 6. Deny the request 5 r ATTACHMENT C May 11 , 2006 Minutes HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of May 11, 2006 The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Karen Cahoon, Cara Lingstuyl, Kent Moore, Peter Morgan, Nancy Pace, and Faina Raik. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandra Marler, CD Programs Administrator, City Council staff Janice Jardine and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Kent Moore called the meeting to order at 12:29 p.m. Cara Lingstuyl motioned to approve the March 16th minutes. Faina Raik seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from Kevin Keating, representing Wasatch Advantage Group, for a loan in the amount of$850,000 at 2.45% interest over 40 years to construct the Providence Place Apartment project to be located at 309 East 100 South. The project is proposed to consist of 125 apartment units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% of area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units and 26 studios with one bathroom. Mr. Kevin Keating representing Wasatch Advantage Group introduced Mr. Kip Sheppard, Mr. Jeff Nielson and Mr. Tony Hladek, managing members for the Providence Place Apartment project. Mr. Keating presented an overview of the project and answered the Board's questions pertaining to the project. He further explained that Wasatch Advantage Group would use the HTF monies for construction costs, land acquisition and provide permanent gap financing to make this project financially feasible Mr. Keating provided a detailed description of the project outlining the amenities and how the building design will complement the downtown neighborhood. Ms. Sandra Marler commented that Mr. Keating had submitted a current community council letter of support. Mr. Keating said the property site is in the downtown area near the proposed site for the City Plaza project that was presented to the Board a couple of years ago. Mr. Keating said that the property will be purchased from The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese. Mr. Keating stated that due to a smaller parcel, this project will contain 75 less units than the City Plaza project, but they are requesting the same $850,000 due to higher construction costs. Mr. Keating remarked that the market study supports the construction of the project and the project will help meet the goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. Mr. Keating explained that the senior lenders would require this loan to be a cash flow loan but said he believed the project would have sufficient operating revenues to meet the payments on a timely basis A discussion followed between the Board, staff, Mr. Keating and Mr. Sheppard in regard to guaranteeing repayment of the loan, security of the loan, and loan documents so that the project partners, the City and the tax credit investors would be comfortable. Mr. Keating said that the property secures the loan and that during construction they would be providing a construction completion guarantee for the senior lender. If an issue of nonpayment arises due to insufficient cash flow, the agreement would be to carryover the shortfall at simple interest to the next year. Mr. Keating further explained that if there was a shortfall, and the property foreclosed, the equity in the property would satisfy the loan. The Board asked for clarification pertaining to the debt coverage ratio. Mr. Keating explained that the 1.15 DCR is debt service before payment to the City and the developer. Mr. Sheppard confirmed that the partners would be guaranteeing the construction loan. Ms. Clark stated that Mr. Dave Miner, of Municipal Bond Consulting, recommended that the HTF loan have the same guarantee as the other lenders. Ms. Clark said the Board would like to be assured that the City will be repaid on this loan. Mr. Sheppard said they want to demonstrate their desire to pay back the funds but it could eliminate their ability to obtain tax credits if the loan is guaranteed. A lengthy discussion followed regarding tax credit laws, tax credit investors and debt coverage ratio. Mr. Sheppard said they would be willing to commit to a guarantee, in writing, for the HTF loan that all available cash flow be available to pay the subordinate debt. Peter Morgan moved to approve a loan in the amount of$500,000 for the Providence Place Apartment project at 5% annual interest over 30 years recognizing that Salt Lake City will be in a junior lien position and that the issues relative to any guarantees on the loan be resolved by the staff and the appropriate attorneys. Cara Lingstuyl seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. HTF Update by Luann Clark Ms. Clark said that there is a potential preservation project coming up which is the New Grand Hotel and that the meeting will probably be scheduled within the next couple of months. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m. 2 LIHTC PROFORMA pPProovidencee Place Apartments O 4. t, Units Ann.Incr. Per Mo. Yr;1` Yi:2:>:_' : >::Yr;3:_: :_:::::: Yr;4::h:_::,::.:,:Yr.;5">:.: Affordable Units 125 3.00% 82,943 995,316 W 1,025,175 1,055,931 1,087,609 1,120,237 Market Rate Units 0 2.50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Income 45 1.25% 5,625 67,500 68,344 69,198 70,063 70,939 Federal Operating Subsidies 0.63% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Rate 7.0% (6,200) (74,397) (76,546) (78,759) (81,037) (83,382) TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 82,368 988,419 1,016,973 1,046,370 1,076,635 1,107,793 Ann.incr. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 2,999 3% 31,243 374,917 386,165 397,749 409,682 421,972 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS 51,125 613,502 630,808 648,620 666,953 685,821 Capitol Replacement $ 250 2,604 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 CUMULATIVE RESERVES 31,250 62,500 93,750 125,000 156,250 NET CASH FLOW FROM PROJECT 48,521 582,252 599,558 617,370 635,703 654,571 Principal Amort. Rate Term Mo.Pay. Annual Pay 7,450,032 420 5.450% 420 39,764 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 850,000 480 2.450% 480 2,780 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 342,790 120 4.500% 120 3,553 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 46,096, 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 Per Mo. :::Ytr:1:::::::::::::.Yr;:2::::::::::::Yr;:3;:;: ::: : Yr;: ::: ::::Yr;.:5:::: Income Available to service LIENS 48,521 582,252 599,558 617,370 635,703 654,571 Debt Service Expense FIRST Mtge 39,764 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 NOI after First Mtge 8,757 105,082 122,389 140,201 158,533 177,401 COVERAGE RATIO ON FIRST LIEN MTGE 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.29 1.33 1.37 Subordinate Loans: SLC HTF 2.780 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred Developer's Fee 3,553 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OWHLF HOME Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal: Subordinate Mortgages 6,332 75,988 75,988 75,988 75,988 75,988 Debt Service All Mtge 46,096 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 Before Tax NI 2,425 29,094 46,401 64,213 82,545 101,413 COVERAGE RATIO ON ALL LOANS 1.053 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.18 CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL Liberty Senior Center 251 East 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Date: May 3rd, 2006 To: Jeff Nielson Re: Proposed 125 unit apartment complex at 309 E. 100 S. Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC) has heard the proposal by Wasatch Advantage Group regarding a 125 unit apartment complex. There was general support for this project with many people complimenting the size and look of the complex. We look forward to this addition to our Community. Thank you Thomas Mutter Chair CCNC ATTACHMENT D Applicant's Impact Letter WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP,LLC 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha,NE 68164 Telephone: (402)504-1942 Facsimile: 9402)504-1966 Email: kkeating@netwasatch.cotn May 19,2006 Luann Clark,Director Salt Lake City Corporation Housing&Neighborhood Development 451 So. State St.,Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Housing Trust Fund Loan Application for Providence Place Apartments (f.k.a. City Plaza Apartments)309 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Luann, We first want to thank you,your staff and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board ("Advisory Board")for considering our Housing Trust Fund loan application. As you know,the Advisory Board convened on May 11 ch to consider our loan request for the proposed construction of a 125 unit affordable housing development at 309 East 100 South(hereinafter referred to as the"Project"or "Providence Place Apartments"). After significant discussion regarding the merits of this Project, the Advisory Board concluded the Providence Place Apartments was worthy of the City's financial support and passed a motion to approve a$500,000 loan to the Project. We are very appreciative of the Advisory Board's action in support of the proposed development. However, after careful review of the loan terms proposed by the Advisory Board, we became concerned about how these loan terms would affect our overall project financing. Our original loan application requested an $850,000 loan with a 40 year term,40 year amortization period and 2.45 percent interest rate. These were the same loan terms previously approved by the Advisory Board, Mayor Anderson's office and the Salt Lake City Council for the original City Plaza Apartments project in 2005. The Advisory Board's motion to recommend approval of only$500,000 leaves us with a$350,000 funding gap. The only way to fund the gap is to borrow more from the senior lender at a higher interest rate. In addition,the Advisory Board's motion approving the loan reduced the loan amortization period from 40 to 30 years and increased the interest rate from 2.45 percent to a 5.0 percent interest rate. Together,the higher senior loan amount,the reduced amortization period and increased interest rate significantly increases the annual debt service payments required and reduces the available cash flow to below an acceptable 1.15 debt coverage ratio. Without additional help from the City this project may not be financially feasible. To keep the development moving forward, we respectfully request your assistance in bringing our concerns to the Mayor and the City Council and requesting,on our behalf,that they consider approving the $850,000 loan with our original loan terms. If the interest rate of 2.45 percent is not achievable due to increased costs of borrowing to the City,then we ask that the interest rate on the loan not be any higher than necessary and, in any event,not higher then the cost of funds to the City. We are committed to developing decent, safe,and affordable apartment communities. With the City Council's approval of this final aspect of our project financing we hope to start preparing the construction site within the next few weeks. The lack of affordable housing in downtown Salt Lake has been well documented in the City's own housing needs analysis. The 125 affordable apartment units proposed for the Providence Place Apartments will help the City satisfy its affordable housing needs and will benefit all the citizens of Salt Lake by addressing a very real affordable housing problem within the city. We are grateful for your continued assistance with regard to this loan application and look forward to partnering with the City to address the need for quality affordable housing downtown. Thank you again for your time and consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any additional questions concerning any aspect of our proposed development or in connection with the loan application. You can reach me at(402)504-1942 or by email at kkeating@netwasatch.com. Sincerely, Kevin M.Keating Vice President Acquisitions& General Counsel ATTACHMENT E Loan Application FUNDING APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Cover Sheet 'Project Name: PROVIDENCE PLACE APARTMENTS Applicant/Sponsor/Organization: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, a Utah limited liability company and its successors and assigns Mailing Address: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC CIO Kevin M. Keating 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha, NE 68164 Contact Person: Kevin Keating Phone Number: 402-504-1942 Fax Number: 402-504-1066 E-mail: kkeating netwasatch.com Federal Employee Identification Number: To be applied for upon organization of operating entity. Project Name: Providence Place Apartments Project Location: 309 East 100 South, near Salt Lake City's Central Business District. Amount Requested: $850,000 This is the same amount previously awarded to the City Plaza Apartments project by the Housing Trust Fund advisory committee and approved by Mayor Anderson and the City Council. For business reasons the original site was sold and the project was relocated to 309 East 100 South. The requested loan amount represents $6,800 per unit. On a per unit basis this is significantly less than loan amounts approved by the City in support of many other affordable housing developments. Terms Requested: Construction/Permanent Gap Financing, 40 year term, 40 year amortization at 2.45% interest. Interest only for first 24 months (i.e. during construction & lease-up period). Please contact Sandi Marler at 535-7269 if you have questions or need assistance completing this application. The application is typed in Microsoft Word and is available on disc. Project Description Part I 1. Describe the scope of the project(how many total units, how many affordable units, type of project, etc.). Please address how your project will be accessible/visit-able. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your project, if available. The Providence Place Apartments project will include 125 apartment units, 125 parking spaces in a tiered parking structure and an outdoor plaza and/or roof garden. All 125 apartment units will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% or below of Salt Lake County's area median income (AMI). The apartment building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units, and 26 studios with one bath. There will be one parking stall set aside for each apartment unit. There are also metered parking stalls on 300 East and 100 South streets. All units will be handicap accessible and comply with federal, state and local housing laws. The Developer's current plans include the following amenities: Project Based Amenities: • Controlled access • On-Site Management Office • Covered Parking • Club Room/Computer Resource Center/Library • Fitness Room Unit Based Amenities: • Balcony (Some Units) and/or Terrace Roof Garden • Dishwasher/disposal • Washer/dryer • Walk-in Closets The building design will take into consideration and complement the residential/commercial nature or this transitional downtown neighborhood. 2 2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plans for the area? Please indicate which master plan(s). Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will meet. Yes, the project conforms to the Salt Lake City Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005 and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan Development. The Project was designed to accomplish several goals set forth in the Salt Lake City Five-Year Consolidated Plan. First, it will achieve the goal of benefiting primarily low-to-moderate income citizens. Because the residents of this neighborhood are primarily low-to-moderate income individuals and families, the Project will provide much needed affordable housing to those residents. It will also increase the availability of newer, higher quality housing units in an area that currently holds the distinction of having a disproportionately high number of substandard quality units in its housing inventory. Having newer, higher quality units available with affordable rents will put pressure on owners of older neighboring rental properties to reinvest in their properties. In order to remain competitive owners of older properties in the area will have a real economic incentive to reinvest cash-flow back into their properties to make them more attractive and marketable. As owners of competing rental properties reinvest in their properties, the City will benefit by the increased property values, increased tax revenues and greater sense of community pride as older projects and neighborhoods are rehabilitated and repopulated. The Community Housing Plan Development stated that the goal of Salt Lake City was to enhance, maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices, mixed uses, and transit-oriented design. According to data cited in the Community Housing Plan Development (data provided by Equimark Properties Inc., Greater Salt Lake Multifamily Report, January 2000) 45% of the renters in the Salt Lake City metropolitan statistical area are unable to afford Fair Market Rents based on their income. Furthermore, the Central City district is identified as having a disproportionately high number of substandard units in its housing inventory. According to its own "Affordable Housing Needs Analysis" Salt Lake City has a tremendous need for more affordable housing to be developed within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Providence Place Apartments project addresses these issues and accomplishes several of the objectives set forth in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Development Plan. Restated below are the objectives, identified in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that this Project is designed to address: • the creation of a variety of housing types across the City; • the development of mixed use and mixed income housing; • the creation of affordable and transitional housing; • the use of innovative funding mechanisms for the development of affordable housing; 3 • architectural designs that are compatible with the neighborhood, incorporate open space, interface with public spaces, address parking issues and are aesthetically pleasing. The Providence Place Apartments will generate positive social and economic benefits throughout the Salt Lake City community through job creation, community building, and by facilitating business vitality by bringing more consumers to the downtown business district. The project is within walking distance of nearly 2 million square feet of retail located in the Central Business District. Tenants will enjoy excellent proximity to mass transportation (UTA and TRAX). A TRAX station is located two blocks west of the site on Main Street and the UTA bus line stops within the block on 100 East. This will allow tenants easy access to their employment and other city destinations in a reliable and environmentally friendly manner using existing transit resources. The apartment building and enclosed parking facility will be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with neighboring buildings. The high price of land and increased cost of construction associated with building below-grade parking and a high density mid-rise apartment building are obstacles that would make this project financially unfeasible as market rate housing. However, utilizing an innovative combination of funding sources including a Salt Lake City loan, bond financing, low income housing tax credits and deferred developer fees, the development team has assembled the sources of funds needed to bridge the financing gap. 3. What is the property zoned? The subject property is zoned "R-MU". The R-MU zoning designation allows for the type of multifamily residential development being proposed. 4. All new construction projects will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Community Council. Please provide a copy of the Community Council's response to the review of your project. Letters of support are attached as Exhibit A. 5. Please include a breakdown of the number of units that will be provided for the various percentages of area median income (i.e., how many units for those at 80%, 50% AMI, etc.), along with a list of the rents that will be charged to each group. Unit Type Total Number of AMI Target Monthly Base SRO/Studio - Bathrooms Units Rent Per Unit Studio 1 26 60% $604 1 1 69 60% $641 2 2 30 60% $767 4 6. How will the project be accomplished if the Salt Lake City Trust Fund is unable to fund this request? Due to the high cost of land and mid-rise construction design, some form of financial assistance will be required to make this project financially feasible. 7. How do you intend to use funds provided by Salt Lake City Corporation? The funds will be used to fund construction costs, land acquisition and to provide permanent gap financing for the project. Project Funding Part II 1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. If this is a tax credit project, please provide one complete copy of the tax credit application. Sources of Funding/Construction: Source Amount Const Loan California Bank &Trust $ 7,151,575 Predevelopment Loan Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity-General Partner General Partners $ 1,291,215 Loan Salt Lake City/HTF $ 850,000 Total Sources $14,275,867 Sources of Funding/Post Construction: Source Amount Equity LIHTC Equity-Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity-General Partner General Partners- Deferred Fees $ 342,790 1st Mortgage Private Activity Bond-CB&T $ 8,100,000 2nd Mortgage Salt Lake City HTF Loan $ 850,000 Total Sources $14,275,867 la. Ratio of Salt Lake City Trust Funding to total funding: Approximately 5.95% 2. Please list the uses of all funds for the proposed project, being as specific as possible. The total of Uses of Funds should equal the total project cost. 5 Uses: Land Cost $ 952,781 Site Work $ 352,583 Construction Cost $ 8,934,349 Construction Contingency $ 434,237 Architectural & Engineering $ 388,000 General Contractor& Developer Profit &Overhead $ 1,715,500 Interim Financing Expense $ 422,896 Permanent Financing Expenses $ 325,197 Soft Costs (Survey, Mkt. Study, Environmental, etc.) $ 279,086 Syndication Costs $ 207,906 Project Reserves $ 263,331 Total Uses $14,275,867 3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion? A professional valuation has not yet been completed. Using a cost based valuation method we estimate a project value of$14,000,000. If an income based valuation method were utilized the value would be considerably less due to the rent restrictions imposed by the land use restriction agreement. 4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the operating projection. Please show revenue and expense categories in as much detail as possible. Assumptions: The 1st year revenue and expense projections assume the project is leased and stabilized on January 1 of the 1st year of operation. Also assumed is a project vacancy rate of 7% annually, project revenues increase 3% annually and project operating expenses increase 3% annually. For detailed operating expense and revenue projections, please see attached Exhibit B. 5. What is the source of repayment of the funds? Net Cash Flow from Project Operations. 6. What type of security is being offered to the City? A security interest in land and improvements to the extent allowed by senior funding sources. 7. Please list all other governmental grants, loans, tax credits, licenses, etc., itecessary for this project to proceed. Please include information on the status of all funding required for the completion of this project. 6 Private Activity Bonds ("PAB")($ 8,100,000) bond issuance at approximately 5.25% interest rate, which rate includes credit enhancement). A private activity bond application was submitted to the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development on March 20, 2006. It is anticipated that we will receive notification of a volume cap award from the PAB review board on April 12, 2006. California Bank &Trust has expressed an interest in purchasing the private activity bond following issuance. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (estimated $4,983,077). Following a technical review, Projects funded with PAB's generally receive an allocation of LIHTC's based on a percentage of the projects eligible basis. The LIHTC/PAB application is currently under consideration by Utah Housing Corporation. Alliant Capital has provided a letter of intent to purchase the tax credits. Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund ($850,000 loan, 40 year term, 2.45% interest, interest only during construction and lease-up to stabilized occupancy). These are the same loan terms previously awarded to the City Plaza Apartments project by the Housing Trust Fund advisory committee and approved by Mayor Anderson and the City Council in 2005. Salt Lake City, Planning Division, Demolition Permit. Application has not been submitted. Salt Lake City, Planning Division, Building Permit. Application has not been submitted. 8. Please describe the purchase terms under which the applicant will/has acquire(d) the property. How much of the purchase price will be paid with equity provided by the applicant? By others? The applicant will acquire the real property from The Corporation Of The Episcopal Church In Utah for a purchase price of$925,281. The purchase price will be paid from owner's equity and proceeds derived from the sale of the low income housing tax credits. 9. If an appraisal of the property has been obtained, please attach a copy. Please see the attached Exhibit C. 10. Please state the number of years you will maintain this property as affordable. This property will remain rent restricted for 51 years pursuant to the terms of the land use restriction agreement (LURA) to be recorded by Utah Housing Corporation. 7 Applicant Information Part III 1. Please chick each of the following which is true for the Applicant (a) ' The Applicant is an individual doing business under his/her own name. X_(b) The Applicant has the status indicated below and is organized or to be organized under the laws of Utah A corporation A nonprofit or charitable institution or corporation A partnership known as or to be known as: A business association or joint venture known as or to be known as: A Federal, State or local government or instrumentality thereof Individual known as: Social Security Number of Individual: X Other (explain): a Utah limited liability company. 2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of organization: The operating entity will be a to-be-formed limited liability company authorized to do business in Utah. The applicant Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC is a Utah limited liability company formed on November 4, 2004. 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization. The operating company that will own and operate the project has not yet been organized. A new special purpose limited liability company (the "Operating Company") will be organized as the ownership entity for the Providence Place 8 Apartments. It is anticipated that Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC (or its assigns), will be the managing member of the new Operating Company. Kevin Keating, Kipling Sheppard, Dell Loy Hansen, Jeff Nielson, and Tony Hladek are members in Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC. 4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired? Wasatch Premier Properties, LLC a Utah limited liability company will provide the local on-site property management and compliance monitoring of the proposed project. Kevin Keating will provide management over-sight with respect to IRC Section 42 compliance matters. Wasatch Premier Properties, LLC currently manages other affordable properties in Utah, including the Palladio Apartments at 200 West 300 North in Salt Lake and the Springwood Apartments in Bountiful, Utah, along with a portfolio of over 10,000 market rate units across the western half of the united states. Please see development team resumes attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5. Please provide a brief description of your organization. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC has put together a development team that includes Kipling S. Sheppard, company president and industry veteran in affordable housing, Dell Loy Hansen, real estate developer and financial partner, and Kevin Keating, an attorney and development specialist in affordable housing. Tony Hladek, VP of Development for Wasatch Advantage Group, will head up the project management for Providence Place. In addition, Architectural Nexus, a Salt Lake based architectural firm has been engaged as the architect for the project and discussions have been initiated with Ingenuity Builders, Inc. as the general contractor for the project. 6. Who will be responsible for this project? Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC (or its assigns). Kevin Keating, Kip Sheppard, Jeff Nielson, Dell Loy Hansen, and Troy Hladek are each members in Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC will be the managing member in the to-be-created managing member (the "Managing Member") of the new Operating Company. The Managing Member will be responsible for the day to day operations of the project. 7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of project. Development Team resumes are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9 Current Ownership Information Part IV 1. Who is the current owner of the property? The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah is the Seller. 2. Who is the current manager of the property? Stephen Hutchinson, Chancellor, currently manages the property for the Diocese. 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the organization that currently owns the property. Officers: See below Directors or Trustees: Mr. George Gibson, President The Rev. Stan W.Ver Straten, Vice President Mr. Mark LeTourneau, Secretary The Rev. Adam S. Linton Ms. Patricia Vidiella The Rev. Susan Wiltsey Certification I, Kevin Keating, certify that this Applicant Disclosure of Ownership and Control is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Name: Kevin M. ating Title: Vice President, Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC Address: 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha, NE 68164 Date: March 24, 2006 io SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT r DATE: September 5,2006 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-05-17-A request by the Salt Lake City •s Planning Commission,requesting a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow certain Conditional Uses to be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community Development Department AND CONTACT PERSON: Wayne Mills,Senior Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal contains an ordinance for Council consideration to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow certain Conditional Uses to be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer (The Planning Director or Designee). B. The current ordinance allows the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve certain development requests that are unopposed by the community and comply with other City policies,in the following instances: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunications facilities 2. Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by 1,000 square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement 3. Minor subdivisions 4. Subdivision amendments not involving streets 5. Condominiums C. The Planning Commission is recommending the following changes: 1. All conditional uses should be reviewed through an Administrative Hearing except those that: a) Are listed as a"residential" land use, b) Are located within a residential zoning district, c) Abut a residential zoning district or residential use,or d) Require Planned Development approval. 2. All Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures that are requested in both residential and non-residential zoning districts should be reviewed through an Administrative Hearing. D. The purpose of the proposed amendment, as noted in the Administration's transmittal,is to: 1. Decrease the number of items on the Planning Commission agenda,thereby providing more time for the Planning Commission to focus on issues with impacts to the community (Council Staff note: The Planning Commission minutes indicate that the Planning Commission could have more time to allocate to long-range planning) , and 1 2. Offer an expedited process for those conditional uses with no impact to the surrounding community E. Key Points from the Administration's transmittal are as follows: 1. Notification and review processes required for items that qualify for an Administrative, rather than Planning Commission Hearing, would remain the same as that of any other requests reviewed through the Planning Commission. • Notification and presentation,if requested, to the affected Community Council (s) • Review by the pertinent City Departments and Divisions • Notification by mail to surrounding property owners fourteen days in advance of the Administrative Public Hearing 2. The appeal process would also remain the same for items that qualify for an Administrative Hearing: a) If any person including affected Community Council(s) object to the request prior to or at the Administrative Hearing,the request would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. b) Any person that does not agree with the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. The appeal must be made within 14 days of the decision. 3. The Planning Commission's proposed change now also requires that any appeals must specify,in detail, the reasons for appeal. The reasons must be based on procedural error,or compliance with the conditional use standards or zoning ordinance. 4. The Planning Commission initiated this request on June 8th 2005. 5. Planning Staff analyzed all Conditional Use requests reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004 and 2005. Through their analysis they determined that conditional uses that are commercial in nature with no impact the residential community,should be able to be determined by the Administrative Hearing Officer, and do not necessarily need to go to the Planning Commission every time. 6. Planning Staff's analysis showed the following. (Please see the attached spreadsheets at the end of this staff report for details.) • Out of 45 conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004, 17 Public/Private Utility Structures and 5 conditional uses fitting the proposed criteria could have been approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer, decreasing the Planning Commission's conditional use review by 48%. • In 2005, out of 32 conditional uses reviewed,5 could have been approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer (a 15% decrease). 7. Because each conditional use request would be analyzed according to eh existing and unchanged conditional use standards established in the Zoning Ordinance, Planning Staff indicates that any conditional use that is approved will be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. F. City Departments and Divisions were contacted for their comments. The Transportation Division, Building Services, Public Utilities,and the Fire Department all did not state any objections to the proposed text change. G. The Planning Division held an open house for Community Councils and other interested parties on December 5,2005. Seven people attended, and one wrote in support of the 2 J proposed amendment. The Planning Division did however,receive an e-mail from a constituent that stated they were in support of the proposed amendment with respect to utilities,but not with respect to the commercial zoning district. The constituent stated that, particularly in the East Central community,where commercial and residential properties are intermingled,but not necessarily abutting,the proposal is"too broad." H. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 25,2006 and forwarded a' positive recommendation to the City Council in regard to the proposed ordinance. 8 Commissioners were in favor and 1 opposed. 1. No members of any Community Councils or members of the public spoke. 2. Commissioners discussed the following issues at the hearing: • The conditional use requests heard by the Planning Commission are rarely contentious. • The Commissioner who opposed the proposed ordinance change voiced the following concern-Some Community Councils are more informed than others of conditional use requests,and that applications could be approved without sufficient input. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Council may wish to consider further,the impacts of conditional uses from commercial property to commercial property. Because any conditional use that is within a commercial district and does not abut a residential use is proposed to be heard by an Administrative Hearing Officer,neighboring commercial properties may not,or may not perceive to have sufficient forum to air their concerns. - B. The Council may wish to discuss in further detail with the Administration,if the proposed taco Administrative conditional use process would address non-residential use of residential structures that may be located in either residential or non-residential zoning classifications? C. The Council may wish to discuss addressing the impacts of a conditional use in a commercial zone,on residential properties that it does not directly abut. For example,if a commercial property is granted a conditional use by the Administrative Hearing officer because it does not directly abut a residential use,it may still have an adverse impact if there are residential properties in close proximity. The Council may wish to consider requiring any conditional use request within 100-150 feet of a residential use be required to go to the Planning Commission. • D. The Council may wish to consider asking the Administration to ensure that all written notification to surrounding property owners,of a conditional use request,be detailed and clearly stated to convey in a obvious manner the action being requested. For example,use language that is understandable to people who are not in the planning profession. E. The Council may also wish to consider asking the Administration if it would be realistic to notify surrounding property owners of the decisions of the Administrative Hearing (possibly a website updated after each hearing,with links to the various staff reports),so they can be appealed to the Planning Commission,if a citizen so desired,and the citizen could have full access to the information needed to appeal in a timely manner. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan(1993) states the following goal relating to the proposed amendment: "Develop'business friendly' licensing and regulatory practices." 3 w B. 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. C. The Council's stated policy regarding maintaining a residential base is as follows- "The Council supports using its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the City,and to encourage population expansion. ' D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • June 16,2005 Petition Assigned. • December 5,2005 Planning Division Open House. • January 25,2006 Planning Commission Hearing. • March 28, 2006 Transmittal received in Council Office. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif, Alison McFarlane,Rick Graham,Tim Harpst,Louis Zunguze, Alexander Ikefuna,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Wayne Mills,Orion Goff,Larry Butcher,Ed Butterfield,Barry Esham,Annette Daley,Gwen Springmeyer,Jan Aramaki, Marge Harvey,Sylvia Richards,Lehua Weaver,Janice Jardine File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division, Expansion of Administrative Conditional Uses,Planning Commission Request 4 MN gi E Y a- C o- p.C L o N a m p o 0 _ -o 2 u .o m m w 5 p_ c m (0._ N 0 a� N >. • o a .o c 3 i _ p � C o O� y, N'p 0 ' - p E U > y E N� � j� O p � d N (6 0 `a a f0 Y N n N N 2 N r @ t Eo 00 E0 �, 0 � E u) r d � p E C E N E c 0 3 N E U,7_, I c i ( t6 Q O p L -o U N L E 0 0 0 2 Q O U a ❑ S U a a a o 0 o a o I- = d/n I-- 4 o N Q m m _ ' X a o m o _ s a E c U E_ - y c m m c c rn a E c O o t _ - c r O E E N a rn O m o f _ o 0 0 c U 7 o a p� n n c d n - O c o - N W p p _ 0 9 p 0 u m m 0 a _ Sy� a ❑ o o .c m N a +' a n m . C F a a .F 1 o a o '� v .c $ g j a� .. - U m -� � _ N � m xx i�}ifi 0 0 i - a g i i� �-am a it—o _ c n '� n ;a U i E l l s �° `0 15 0 e 1 t!!1 E 11, l 'S 1 B S e S i7 9 E ' j o. 0 0 5 u N o.- :1 ,-1 0 , E i o- .. E E E ,i i . I - EE33 d " ._ - 0 09 o a E 0 0 0 0 o a ' U 0 K U m U Z U 0 N n'cl' oU x X X x x x X X X X x X x X X x XXX X X X X X x X X X X' X X X X X X xX xix x x X X X a G o.a , 1 d y rI I I cN xX x X X )IXXXX i x X U o 0 = 2 ? N ao n a C = vE y o O a x x X .,. X X x x X X X X-X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X x i X x X X n E Ti. a E 1 O O z o I1 - 1 I ' 1 I I I , i � ; , cc y_ j I I � Ili1 I a,f a E , o IL X X X X X X x IX X X x z cc ' o 7.2 I 1 a o x ? i i t X a c c I ll 1rI II §. .- I i I 1 ' E c o X X X X x X X X X X X X X x j I I x X%X X X X X x X X X X X ccH Ini Y Z 1 + 4.' 1 C I ,r l f = c x IXIv X x x �.-. x x x m y o X X • x I I I a 1 ' (_ n Ilt ,o N a o n ,n n m m R og n , I' o ,,i LE go e n o a ‘,1', sr�q�4 • •f: $ "0 Q F o Q ,92 m “?(IS ,o o io o m aa}} q d d d u o 0 0 0 o o o d o o o d o 0 0 0 b C. o d o 0 0 �' a a a a a c v a a a a s < a s a._S a.Vfts LY:a a a a a - a s a a a a r0 N a) 4. 0-s m -a an 2 a = g- m C N dhflt C m y m 0 a° aci >, m o a) m 'O C U V N j N 5 o } N = y N (0 O Oo a,d a m $m f m a > Nt a L :: :: '-'4": :::c co a L °m to U ( c.) 1- S a t H a) d c 6 m oN LL ° m x _ _ d m U w ° U EdY 3E m e c a a. voi c m m - -- o a o) C-7 o m,, a � rm C� C7 .� ° m L� `>° v N a) c o .° .0 3 m LL c N >.•° o E m m D c c a) •c m Q c Q o = 3 O o O (a 2 O a >` C [tea (O U a, °.` O E m ._ Q a 'O corn - 3 (6 M E O O N a)Li- . tx N N m ,p m c`, a) 6 O 16 'O W - E, ,,,, a O p L m > LL Eo U O o 7 C C) m C Q- "O to O a tE c d d C E .y. d ON C O O .0 .0 662 U E�J H `m CC E >. m °' 0 a 2 2 o .>' o `m m U o - o m Li c a m o 3 0 m N N m .O a) a 'E m 'C a`) U1 a) m ° ° E N N a O C -8 C N a O)C -O ° L t (O L • mE _•o13 mocc0 - aE m o o. m22mwEEa? 2_ o ` Eo = a) ooD = P = o o m m.‘A N o c o o= " n E o -o a a > o = o o 4 (•0 B- -ao L o m `m'� o. E o r g o t Too 0 • rn O O m(n X O N m a) (� E U�Q co U U'O 0-'02 w U d U U_o 2 V) a N U U o ..2 7 co U U a a C 0 Q I U CO U c 0 aE 3 � o 0 X X X X X X x x X X X X X X X X X _?C X X X X X n X X X X x X m O c-' 2 m G c Q'c c • EO :. X X °) U o X X X X X X X N L-' a m g O ina D cc O m E 4111 Q Ed X X a X X X X X X X 74' X X X X X X u .�a G m- e g o z0 ;. cs.1 g al ik o X:1!! c o 'E > IIIX X X X X X x X a7 N Oa ,. a a E a ai x x x a) N O x N c O ET .0 a6- c x. 3.E x x X x x x X x x x x X x x x x x x x N Q N C O Z A0 x x x x x x X X x X x -p y O d N ft U' C N N coco O) I� co a (O V) Co N 0) N Co O. LO I' CO N O J N O p coD O ,- N- N. N- (7 a co a u) Co N N N N O a N LSO VN) r n ^ (^O N Q (`.) `m 6 o © O, o O o 0 6 o 6 6 0 O o 0 0 0 O O. 0 0 0 0 O c) 0 Nr 0 o O O O O a a a a a a a F- v :Tr v a v v v a v v :Jr v v � a a� a v a � v c v v v MAR 2 8 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNOUZE SALTa4., 'JMO R ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ,. 7 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ATE: ch 14, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo RE: Petition#400-05-17: a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.54— Conditional Uses,to allow certain Conditional Uses to be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer STAFF CONTACTS: Wayne Mills, Senior Planner, at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The Salt Lake City Code currently provides an Administrative Public Hearing Process where an Administrative Hearing Officer(the Planning Director or Designee)may approve certain development requests that are unopposed by the community and comply with City ordinances and policies. The types of development requests that currently fall in this category are: • Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses; • Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by 1,000 square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement; • Minor Subdivisions; • Subdivision Amendments not involving streets; and • Condominiums The review process, notification process,and Staff Report for requests reviewed through the Administrative Hearing process is the same as that of requests reviewed by the Planning Commission. The process is as follows: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM �% REcvcLee PAPER • Notification, and presentation if requested, to the affected Community Council(s); • Review by the pertinent City Departments and Divisions, such as Engineering, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fire, Building Services, and the Police Department; • Notification by mail to surrounding property owners fourteen(14)days in advance of the Administrative Public Hearing; and • A Staff Report describing the request, outlining the issues, and recommending action(approval or denial)based upon the ordinance standards for the type of request. There are two appeal processes available to projects that fall in the Administrative Public Hearing category. They are: • Any person may object to the request being considered in an Administrative Public Hearing prior to the scheduled hearing. If any person objects to the request being considered in the Administrative Public Hearing, the request is forwarded to the Planning Commission for review; and • Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. In addition to the appeal process, the Administrative Hearing Officer may decline to hear the request and forward it to the Planning Commission if any of the following are determined: • There is neighborhood opposition, • The applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or • At the discretion of the Administrative Hearing Officer. On June 8, 2005, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requested that the Planning Staff analyze the possibility of expanding the conditional uses that may be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer in an Administrative Public Hearing. Analysis: In response to the aforementioned request by the Planning Commission, Staff reviewed Section 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is the regulating ordinance for conditional uses. Staff also analyzed all of the conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission during the years 2004 and 2005. Summary spreadsheets of the 2004/2005 analysis are included in the attached Staff Report. After analyzing the 2004/2005 conditional use case history and the existing conditional use chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff determined that the conditional uses that are permitted to be reviewed by an Administrative Hearing Officer should be expanded to include those conditional uses that are commercial in nature and would have no impact to the residential community. To that end, the Planning Commission is recommending that Petition 400-05-17—Administrative Conditional Uses Page 2 of 4 Section 21A.54 (Conditional Uses)of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit review of all conditional uses through an Administrative Hearing except those that: • Are listed as a"residential"land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district, • Are located within a Residential zoning district, • Abut a Residential zoning district or residential use, or • Require Planned Development approval. In addition,the Planning Commission recommends that Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit Administrative Hearing review of Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures that are requested in both residential and non-residential zoning districts. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to: 1) Decrease the number of items on the Planning Commission agendas,thereby providing more time for the Planning Commission to focus on issues with impacts to the community,and 2) Offer an expedited process for those conditional uses with no impact to the surrounding community. In addition to the amendments to the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance stated above,the proposed ordinance amendment includes other changes to Chapter 54 to reflect the Administrative Hearing Officer's (Planning Director or Designee) authority to approve Administrative Conditional Uses. The proposed amendments also require appeals of administrative conditional uses to specify, in detail,the reasons for the appeal. The reasons for the appeal must be based upon procedural error or compliance with the conditional use standards or any other specific standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the particular conditional use. All of the proposed amendments to Chapter 21A.54 are shown in the ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Master Plan Considerations: The City Vision and Strategic Plan(1993) states as a goal that the City should, "Develop business friendly licensing and regulatory practices."One of the purposes of the proposed amendment is to allow conditional use requests that are commercial in nature and have no impact to the surrounding community to be approved through the Administrative Hearing Process. The Planning Commission finds that providing this option for conditional use approval is consistent with the goal of the City Vision and Strategic Plan by creating a business friendly regulatory practice. PUBLIC PROCESS: A public Open House was held on December 5, 2005, and seven people were in attendance. Prior to the Open House, Staff received an e-mail stating the following: Petition 400-05-17—Administrative Conditional Uses Page 3 of 4 "I don't have a problem with an administrative hearing for Low power wireless telecommunication facilities. I could even let the power company and cable boxes be done administratively. The Planning Commission has wasted a lot of time on these. However, I am opposed to administrative approval for uses that are: • Non-residential land use types; • Not located within a residential zoning district; • Do not abut a residential zoning district or residential use; • Do not require Planned Development approval; Perhaps you have a staff report, even a draft, of what you are proposing so I could get a clearer picture of it? Maybe there is a way to word these so that we know that our neighborhoods are protected? I worry that we could have three of these properties in a row on a street,the two on either side abut residential,but the one in the middle doesn't, so the middle one gets redeveloped in a non-compatible way. East Central is an area that comes to mind,there is lots of non-residential mixed in between the residential, and this proposal sounds way too broad to me." The individual that wrote the e-mail did not attend the public Open House. As stated above, seven people did attend and one public comment form was returned to Staff with the following comment: "This seems like a useful and wise amendment, which could allow for more attention to significant issues. I am in support of it." A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on January 25,2006. The Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the changes to Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed by the Planning Staff. The vote was 8 in favor and 1 opposed. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.54—Conditional Uses Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and 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 standards which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 7 of the Planning Commission Staff Report in Attachment 5b. Petition 400-05-17—Administrative Conditional Uses Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Petition No: 400-05-17: A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.54—Conditional Uses, to allow certain Conditional Uses to be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer. Date: Supervisor Approval: Division Director Approval: Contact Person: Wayne Mills Phone No. 535-6173 Initiated by Contact Person ❑ City Council El Property Owner ® Board/Commission Planning Commission ❑ Other Completed Check List attached: 17 Alley Vacation/Closure ® Planning/Zoning ❑ Federal Funding ❑ Condominium Conversion ❑ Plat Amendment ❑ Other Public Process: ❑ Community Council (s) ❑ City Web Site ® Public Hearings ❑ Flyers ® Planning Commission ® Formal Notice El Historic Landmark Commission ❑ Newspaper Advertisement ❑ HAAB review ❑ City Television Station ❑ Board of Adjustment ❑ On-location Sign ❑ City Kiosk C City Newsletter ® Open House ❑ Administrative Hearing 0 Other Compatible with Ordinance: Zoning Ordinance: Section 21A.50.050— Standards for General Amendments Modifications to Ordinance: Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 21A.54—Conditional Uses Approvals/Input from Other Departments/Divisions Division Contact Person ® Airport: Allen McCandless ® Attorney: Lynn Pace ❑ Business Licensing: ® Engineering: Craig Smith ® Fire: Brad Larson ❑ HAND: ❑ Management Services: ❑ Mayor: ❑ Parks: ® Permits /Zoning: Larry Butcher n Police: ❑ Property Management: n Public Services: ® Public Utilities: Brad Stewart ® Transportation: Barry Walsh n Zoning Enforcement: CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice with Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agenda and Minutes 6. Original Petition 1. Chronology CHRONOLOGY June 16, 2005 Petition Assigned October 18, 2005 Routed Proposed Zoning Amendments to City Departments/Divisions November 17, 2005 Mailed Notice of Public Open House December 5, 2005 Public Open House January 10, 2006 Mailed Notification of Planning Commission Public Hearing January 25, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing February 8, 2006 Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Ratified 2. Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Chapter 21A.54 Pertaining to Conditional Uses) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.54, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-17. WHEREAS, Chapter 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code contains certain regulations regarding conditional uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah finds after public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission that portions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code which relates to conditional uses should be amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City. Now, therefore,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.54.020, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to authority to approve conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.020 Authority: The planning commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee,may, in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.54.030, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to categories of conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.030 Categories Of Conditional Uses: Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: A. Uses Impacting Other Property: Uses that may give rise to particular problems with respect to their impact upon neighboring property and the city as a whole, including their impact on public facilities; and B. Planned Developments: The uses which fall within these categories are listed in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. C. Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: Certain types of conditional uses h ve een dete:;�fined by the + h ' +may be considered to be low impact due to their particular location and are hereby authorized to be reviewed administratively according to the provisions contained in section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement. 3. Any conditional use as identified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are listed as a"residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a Residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or 2 d. Require Planned Development approval. 4. Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures in Residential and Non-Residential zoning districts. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.54.060, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to procedures for conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.060 Procedures: A. Application: A complete application shall contain at least the following information submitted by the applicant, unless certain information is determined by the zoning administrator to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 6. Site plans are required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this part; 7. Traffic impact analysis; 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to chapter 2.62 of this code; 9. A statement indicating whether the applicant will require a variance in connection with the proposed conditional use; 3 10. Mailing labels and first class postage for all persons required to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to part II, chapter 21A.10 of this title; 11. Such other and further information or documentation as the zoning administrator may deem to be necessary for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule. D. Staff Report-Site Plan Review Report: Once the Zoning Administrator has determined that the application is complete a staff report evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the Planning Division and forwarded to the Planning Commission, or in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, along with a site plan review report prepared by the development review team. E. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or Designee, shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Part II, Chapter 21A.10 of this Title. (See Sections 21A.54.150 and 21A.54.155 of this Chapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with planned developments and Administrative Conditional Uses.) F. Notice Of Applications For Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, 4 such as a variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for all required approvals. G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. SECTION 4. That Section 21A.54.090, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to conditions on conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.090 Conditions On Conditional Uses: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee,may impose on a conditional use such conditions and limitations as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the conditional use, upon the City as a whole, or upon public facilities and services. However, such conditions shall not be used as a means to authorize as a conditional use any use which is intended to be temporary only. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening, parking and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this Title. Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the motion authorizing the conditional use. A. Violations Of Conditions: Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this Title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use approval.) SECTION 5. That Section 21 A.54.110, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to effect of approval of conditional use be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5 21A.54.110 Effect Of Approval Of Conditional Use: The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, alteration or moving of any building or structure, but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approvals that may be required by the regulations of the City, including, but not limited to, a building permit, certificate of occupancy and subdivision approval. SECTION 6. That Section 21A.54.120, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to limitations on conditional use approval be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.120 Limitations On Conditional Use Approval: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer than twelve(12) months unless a building permit is issued and construction is actually begun within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee. The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued. 6 SECTION 7. That Section 21A.54.155, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to administrative consideration of conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.155 Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21A.54.030C of this chapter. Applications for administrative conditional use approval shall be reviewed as follows: A. Preapplication And Application Requirements: 1. Preapplication Conference: The applicant shall first meet with a member of the Salt Lake City planning division to discuss the application and alternatives. 2. Community Council Review: The applicant shall meet with the respective community council(s)pursuant to subsection 21A.10.010B of this title. 3. Application: The applicant shall file an application and associated application fees with the planning office on a form prescribed by the city and consistent with this chapter. After considering information received, the planning director or designee may choose to schedule an administrative hearing or to forward the application to the planning commission. B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing And Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be mailed to all applicable property owners and the property shall be posted pursuant to subsection 21A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents, the planning director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. 7 At the administrative hearing, the planning director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for planning commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the planning director or designee. The planning director may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter and subsection 21A.40.090E7 of this-title any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. C. Appeals: 1. Objection To Administrative Consideration: The petitioner or any person who objects to the planning director or designee administratively considering the conditional use request may request a hearing before the planning commission by filing a written notice at any time prior to the planning director's schedules administrative hearing on the conditional use request. If no such objections are received by the city prior to the planning director's administrative hearing, any objections to such administrative consideration will be deemed waived. The notice shall specify all reasons for the objection to the administrative hearing. Upon receipt of such an objection, the matter will be forwarded to the Salt Lake City planning commission for consideration and decision. 2. Appeal Of Administrative Consideration: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the planning director or designee at an administrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City planning commission by filing notice of an appeal, explaining the reasons therefor, 8 within fourteen (14) days after the planning director's administrative hearing. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reason(s) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in Section 21A.54.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 9 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21 A.54-02-22-06 draft.doc 10 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Chapter 21A.54 Pertaining to Conditional Uses) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.54, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-17. WHEREAS, Chapter 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code contains certain regulations regarding conditional uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah finds after public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission that portions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code which relates to conditional uses should be amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.54.020, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to authority to approve conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.020 Authority: The planning commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, may, in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.54.030, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to categories of conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.030 Categories Of Conditional Uses: Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: A. Uses Impacting Other Property: Uses that may give rise to particular problems with respect to their impact upon neighboring property and the city as a whole, including their impact on public facilities; and B. Planned Developments: The uses which fall within these categories are listed in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. C. Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: Certain conditional uses may be considered to be low impact due to their particular location and are hereby authorized to be reviewed administratively according to the provisions contained in section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement. 3. Any conditional use as identified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are listed as a"residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a Residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or d. Require Planned Development approval. 2 4. Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures in Residential and Non-Residential zoning districts. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.54.060, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to procedures for conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.060 Procedures: A. Application: A complete application shall contain at least the following information submitted by the applicant, unless certain information is determined by the zoning administrator to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 6. Site plans are required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this part; 7. Traffic impact analysis; 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to chapter 2.62 of this code; 9. A statement indicating whether the applicant will require a variance in connection with the proposed conditional use; 3 10. Mailing labels and first class postage for all persons required to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to part II, chapter 21A.10 of this title; 11. Such other and further information or documentation as the zoning administrator may deem to be necessary for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the zoning administrator shall make a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule. D. Staff Report-Site Plan Review Report: Once the Zoning Administrator has determined that the application is complete a staff report evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the Planning Division and forwarded to the Planning Commission, or in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, along with a site plan review report prepared by the development review team. E. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or Designee, shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Part II, Chapter 21A.10 of this Title. (See Sections 21A.54.150 and 21A.54.155 of this Chapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with planned developments and Administrative Conditional Uses.) F. Notice Of Applications For Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, 4 such as a variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for all required approvals. G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. SECTION 4. That Section 21A.54.090, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to conditions on conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.090 Conditions On Conditional Uses: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, may impose on a conditional use such conditions and limitations as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the conditional use, upon the City as a whole, or upon public facilities and services. However, such conditions shall not be used as a means to authorize as a conditional use any use which is intended to be temporary only. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening,parking and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this Title. Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the motion authorizing the conditional use. A. Violations Of Conditions: Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this Title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use approval.) SECTION 5. That Section 21A.54.110, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to effect of approval of conditional use be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5 21A.54.110 Effect Of Approval Of Conditional Use: The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, alteration or moving of any building or structure, but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approvals that may be required by the regulations of the City, including,but not limited to, a building permit, certificate of occupancy and subdivision approval. SECTION 6. That Section 21A.54.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to limitations on conditional use approval be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.120 Limitations On Conditional Use Approval: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer than twelve (12) months unless a building permit is issued and construction is actually begun within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee. The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued. 6 SECTION 7. That Section 21A.54.155, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to administrative consideration of conditional uses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.54.155 Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21A.54.030C of this chapter. Applications for administrative conditional use approval shall be reviewed as follows: A. Preapplication And Application Requirements: 1. Preapplication Conference: The applicant shall first meet with a member of the Salt Lake City planning division to discuss the application and alternatives. 2. Community Council Review: The applicant shall meet with the respective community council(s)pursuant to subsection 21A.10.010B of this title. 3. Application: The applicant shall file an application and associated application fees with the planning office on a form prescribed by the city and consistent with this chapter. After considering information received, the planning director or designee may choose to schedule an administrative hearing or to forward the application to the planning commission. B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing And Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be mailed to all applicable property owners and the property shall be posted pursuant to subsection 21A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents, the planning director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. 7 At the administrative hearing, the planning director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for planning commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the planning director or designee. The planning director may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter and any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. C. Appeals: 1. Objection To Administrative Consideration: The petitioner or any person who objects to the planning director or designee administratively considering the conditional use request may request a hearing before the planning commission by filing a written notice at any time prior to the planning director's schedules administrative hearing on the conditional use request. If no such objections are received by the city prior to the planning director's administrative hearing, any objections to such administrative consideration will be deemed waived. The notice shall specify all reasons for the objection to the administrative hearing. Upon receipt of such an objection, the matter will be forwarded to the Salt Lake City planning commission for consideration and decision. 2. Appeal Of Administrative Consideration: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the planning director or designee at an administrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City planning commission by filing notice of an appeal within fourteen (14) days after the planning director's administrative hearing. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the 8 reason(s) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in Section 21A.54.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt City Attorna a Oil Date 2 00 b 9 By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: . I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.54-02-22-06 clean.doc 10 5. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice with Postmark b. Staff Report c. Minutes 5a. Original Notice with Postmark •IGE UTy� •* • ' aOOZ'' NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, January 11, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a) Initiate a petition for a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allowing ambulance services and government facilities in the manufacturing districts. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters F. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-772-H,M. Investments Retail Center—Conditional Use Planned Development Request. The H.M. Investments has submitted an application for a retail development center located at 1846 South 300 West Street,just south of Costco in the CG (General Commercial) Zoning District. Four parcels will be combined by deed to accommodate the new retail center. The existing structures would be demolished for the development of the new center. The proposed center would be comprised of six buildings containing retail shops and food services. Two of the buildings will have drive-thru lanes. Although, the proposed uses are allowed within the CG (General Commercial) Zoning District, development of multiple buildings on a single site requires Conditional Use Planned Development approval from the Planning Commission. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or Marilynn.lewis anslcgov.com) b) Petition 400-05-17—A request by the Planning Commission to analyze the feasibility of allowing additional conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer. The Planning Division has analyzed the request and proposes to amend Section 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit Public Private Utility Buildings and Structures and non-residential conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer if the requested use complies with zoning ordinance regulations and is unopposed. (Staff—Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne,mills c(�slcgov.com) 6) UNFINISHED BUSINESS the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be February 8, 2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcgov.com/CED/planninq. 5b. Staff Report DATE: January 18, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Wayne Mills, Senior Planner RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE JANUARY 25, 2006 MEETING CASE#: 400-05-17 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission PROJECT LOCATION: This is a zoning ordinance text change that is applicable City-wide. PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: Not Applicable COUNCIL DISTRICT: District One, Carlton Christensen District Two, Van Turner District Three, Eric Jergensen District Four,Nancy Saxton District Five, Jill Remington Love District Six, Dave Buhler District Seven, Soren Simonsen REQUESTED ACTION: Analyze the feasibility of allowing additional conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer. PROPOSED USE(S): The proposal is not use or site specific; however the proposed zoning text amendment pertains to conditional uses City-wide. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Code, Title 21A, Zoning Ordinance Staff Report, Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 1 MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: City Vision and Strategic Plan, adopted in 1993 SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: Not Applicable ACCESS: Not Applicable PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Salt Lake City Code currently provides an Administrative Public Hearing Process where an Administrative Hearing Officer(the Planning Director or Designee) may approve certain development requests that are unopposed by the community and comply with City ordinances and policies. The types of development requests that may be approved through the Administrative Public Hearing Process are: • Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses; • Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by 1,000 square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement; • Minor Subdivisions; • Subdivision Amendments not involving streets; and • Condominiums The review process, notification process, and Staff Report for requests reviewed through the Administrative Hearing process is the same as that of requests reviewed by the Planning Commission: • Notification, and presentation if requested, to the affected Community Council(s); • Review by the pertinent City Departments and Divisions, such as, Engineering, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fire, Building Services, and the Police Department; • Notification by mail to surrounding property owners fourteen days in advance of the Administrative Public Hearing; and • A Staff Report describing the request, outlining the issues and recommending action (approval or denial) based upon the ordinance standards for the type of request. Two appeal processes are currently in place to ensure that only those development requests that are unopposed are approved through the Administrative Public Hearing process. They are as follows: • Any person may object to the request being considered in an Administrative Public Hearing prior to the scheduled hearing. If any person objects to the request being considered in the Administrative Public Hearing, the request is forwarded to the Planning Commission for review; and Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 2 • Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. In addition to the appeal process,the Administrative Hearing Officer may decline to hear the request and forward it to the Planning Commission if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the Administrative Hearing Officer. On June 8, 2005 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requested that the Planning Staff analyze the possibility of expanding the conditional uses that may be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer in an Administrative Public Hearing. The Planning Staff has reviewed current ordinances and analyzed conditional use case history for the years 2004 and 2005 and recommends that Chapter 21A.54 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit any conditional use to be reviewed in an administrative hearing except those that: • Are listed as a"residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; • Are located within a Residential zoning district; • Abut a Residential zoning district or residential use; or • Require Planned Development approval. The Planning Staff also recommends that Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit Administrative Hearing review of Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures that are proposed in both residential and non-residential zoning districts. All of the proposed amendments to Chapter 21A.54 are shown in strike and bold format in Exhibit 1. COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS: The comments received from pertinent City Departments/Divisions are attached to this staff report for review(see Exhibit 2). The comments received from citizens are also attached as Exhibit 3. The following is a summary of the comments/concerns received: A. Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed zoning ordinance changes; however, some changes to the use of property will trigger different regulations pertaining to water, sewer and storm drainage. The Planning Department needs to continue to keep Public Utilities informed of new projects. Planning Staff Comment: Planning Staff responded to Public Utilities by stating that the review process for administrative conditional uses is the same as that of conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission in that they are routed to Public Utilities for Staff Report, Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 3 review and comments. B. Engineering: No comments received. C. Building Services: Building Services recommends that the language in Section 21A.02.050B2 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended to reflect the new procedure. Planning Staff Comment: Section 21A.02.050B2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that utility wires, cables, conduits, vaults, laterals,pipes, mains, valves or other similar equipment owned, operated and/or maintained by a governmental entity or public utility that are underground or above grade and smaller than 20 square feet horizontally, 10 cubic feet in volume or 3 feet above grade are exempt from zoning regulations. The proposed change to the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance would not affect this section of the Zoning Ordinance because it only pertains to those utility structures that are not exempt from zoning regulations and require conditional use review. Planning Staff met with the Development Review Supervisor in the Building Services Department to explain and clarify the proposed amendment. D. Transportation: The Transportation Division does not foresee an impact to transportation issues as part of this proposal. E. Fire: The Fire Department has no comments regarding this request. F. City Attorney: No comments received. G. Community Councils and Citizens: A public open house was held on December 5, 2005 and seven people were in attendance. Prior to the open house, Staff received an e- mail stating the following: "1 don't have a problem with an administrative hearing for Low power wireless telecommunication facilities. 1 could even let the power company and cable boxes be done administratively. The Planning Commission has wasted a lot of time on these. However, I am opposed to administrative approval for uses that are: • Non-residential land use types; • Not located within a residential zoning district; • Do not abut a residential zoning district or residential use; • Do not require Planned Development approval, Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 4 Perhaps you have a staff report, even a draft, of what you are proposing so I could get a clearer picture of it? Maybe there is a way to word these so that we know that our neighborhoods are protected? I worry that we could have three of these properties in a row on a street, the two on either side abut residential, but the one in the middle doesn't, so the middle one gets redeveloped in a non-compatible way. East Central is an area that comes to mind, there is lots of non-residential mixed in between the residential, and this proposal sounds way too broad to me. " Staff Responded to the e-mail with the following: "The proposal would allow administrative consideration of only those conditional uses that are unopposed and meet the conditional use standards as well as any other zoning requirements. The administrative hearing process requires the same notification to the surrounding neighborhood as the Planning Commission hearing process. The applicant and staff member assigned to the project are required to meet with the affected community council(s)prior to the administrative hearing being scheduled If the community council is not in support of the requested conditional use,planning staff would forward it to the Planning Commission for review. In addition, the required notification of an administrative hearing is the same as the required notification of a Planning Commission hearing; all property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property. If a neighbor, upon receiving notice, objects to the administrative hearing, the request would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Also, if any person objects to the decision made at an administrative hearing, the request is forwarded to the Planning Commission. The intent of this proposal is not to circumvent the Planning Commission process. It is intended to provide a process to review those conditional uses that are listed as a condition use in the use charts of the Zoning Ordinance, but would not have an impact on neighboring property due to their location in the City. This would free the Planning Commission's time to review the more controversial and technical planning projects. " The individual that wrote the e-mail did not attend the public open house. As stated above, seven people did attend the open house and one public comment form was returned to Staff with the following comment: "This seems like a useful and wise amendment, which could allow for more attention to significant issues. I am in support of it. " ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Planning Commission directive, Staff reviewed Section 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is the regulating ordinance for conditional uses. Staff also reviewed all of the Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 5 conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission during the years 2004 and 2005. Summary spreadsheets of the 2004 and 2005 year review are attached as Exhibit 4. After analyzing the 2004/2005 conditional use case history and the existing conditional use chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff determined that the conditional uses that are permitted to be reviewed by an Administrative Hearing Officer should be expanded to include those conditional uses that are commercial in nature and would have no impact to the residential community. Therefore, Staff recommends that Section 21A.54 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance is amended to permit any conditional use to be reviewed in an Administrative Hearing except those that: • Are listed as a"residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; • Are located within a Residential zoning district; • Abut a Residential zoning district or residential use; or • Require Planned Development approval. In addition, Planning Staff recommends that Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended to permit Administrative Hearing review of Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures that are requested in both residential and non-residential zoning districts. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to: 1) Decrease the number of items on the Planning Commission agendas, which provides more time for the Planning Commission to focus on issues with impacts to the community; and 2) Offer an expedited process for those conditional uses with no impact to the surrounding community. Review of the 2004/2005 conditional use case history shows that in 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed 45 conditional uses. Out of those 45 conditional uses, 17 Public/Private Utility Structures and 5 conditional uses fitting the proposed criteria stated above could have been approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer as per the proposed ordinance. This would have been a 48%decrease in the number of conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed 32 conditional uses. Out of those 32 cases, 1 Public/Private Utility Structure and 4 conditional uses could have been approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer as per the proposed ordinance. This would have been a 15% decrease in the number of conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission during 2005. This study shows that, although the percentage decrease is much less in 2005 due to the large number of utility structures in 2004, the proposed amendment would decrease the number of items that require review by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with purpose#1 stated above. Also, the conditional uses that could be approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer could be approved through the expedited Administrative Hearing process. The Administrative Hearing process is an expedited process because the hearings can be Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 6 scheduled at any time after the necessary review is completed, as long as the minimum 14 day notice requirement is met. In addition to the amendments to the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance stated above, Staff also recommends that other changes are made to the ordinance to reflect the Administrative Hearing Officer's (Planning Director or designee) authority to approve Administrative Conditional Uses. The proposed amendments also require appeals of administrative conditional uses to specify, in detail, the reasons for the appeal. The reasons for the appeal must be based upon procedural error or compliance with the conditional use standards or any other specific standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the particular conditional use (see Section 21A.54.155C—Appeals—in Exhibit 1). All of the proposed amendments to Chapter 21A.54 are shown is strike and bold format in Exhibit 1. FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal Since this petition is a modification of the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In undertaking the task, the Planning Commission must establish findings of fact based on the following standards contained in Section 21A.50.050 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) states as a goal that the City should, "Develop business friendly licensing and regulatory practices. " One of the purposes of the proposed amendment is to allow conditional use requests that are commercial in nature and have no impact to the surrounding community to be approved through the Administrative Hearing Process. Staff finds that providing this option for conditional use approval is consistent with the goal of the City Vision and Strategic Plan by creating a business friendly regulatory practice. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the City Vision and Strategic Plan adopted in 1993. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposal is not site specific. Each conditional use affected by the proposed amendment would be analyzed according to the existing and unchanged conditional use standards established in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that any requested conditional use is harmonious with its surrounding neighborhood. Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 7 Findings: The proposed amendment is not site specific. All future requests for conditional uses must comply with Zoning Ordinance standards to ensure compatibility with the community. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: All conditional uses reviewed pursuant to the proposed amendment, would be analyzed as to its affect on adjacent properties. If any requested conditional use appears to be detrimental to adjacent properties, the conditional use request would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Findings: The proposed amendments are written to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposal is not site specific. All requests for conditional uses would be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable overlay zoning districts. Findings: The proposed amendments are designed to be consistent with the City's applicable overlay districts. 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: The proposal is not site specific. All requests for a conditional use would be reviewed to ensure compliance with City codes and policies. Findings: All pertinent City departments will have review authority on conditional uses proposals to ensure adequacy of public facilities and services. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. That Section 21A.54.020: Authority, be amended to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve Administrative Conditional Uses; Staff Report, Petition#400-05-17 January 25, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 8 2. That Section 21A.54.030C:Administrative Consideration of Conditional Uses, be amended to eliminate the phrase,"have been determined by the City to be low impact" and replace it with, "may be considered to be low impact due to their particular location." 3. That Section 21A.54.030C3, be added to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve (through an Administrative Hearing) all conditional uses except those that: a. Are listed as a"residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a Residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or d. Require Planned Development approval. 4. That Section 21A.54.030C3, be added to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve(through an Administrative Hearing) Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures in Residential and Non-Residential zoning districts. 5. That Section 21A.54.060D: Staff Report-Site Plan Review Report, be amended to state that staff report and site plan review report be forwarded to the Planning Director or designee for Administrative Conditional Uses. 6. That Section 21A.54.060E:: Public Hearing, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee shall hold a public hearing in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses and shall conduct the public hearings in conformance to the Zoning Ordinance. 7. That Section 21A.54.060G: Planning Commission Action, be amended to state that, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Administrative Conditional Use. 8. That Section 21A.54.090: Conditions on Conditional Uses, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee may impose conditions on Administrative Conditional Uses. 9. That Section 21A.54.110: Effect of Approval of Conditional Use, be amended to include the Planning Director or designee in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses. 10. That Section 21A.54.120: Limitations on Conditional Use Approval, be amended to include the Planning Director or designee in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses. 11. That Section 21A.54.155B2: Administrative Hearing, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee may approve an Administrative Conditional Use only if it complies with all standards in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the particular use. Staff Report,Petition#400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 9 12. That Section 21A.54.155: Appeals of Administrative Conditional Uses, be amended to state that an appeal of an Administrative Conditional Use must be based on procedural error, compliance with the standards that regulate conditional uses, or any specific standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the requested use. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Chapter 21A.54—Conditional Uses—Proposed Amendments Exhibit 2—City Department/Division Comments Exhibit 3—Citizen Comments Exhibit 4—2004/2005 Conditional Use Review Staff Report, Petition #400-05-17 January 25,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 10 Exhibit 1 Chapter 21A.54 — Conditional Uses Proposed Amendments Chapter 21A.54 CONDITIONAL USES 21A.54.010 Purpose Statement: A conditional use is a use which has potential adverse impacts upon the immediate neighborhood and the city as a whole. It requires a careful review of its location, design, configuration and special impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a particular site. Whether it is appropriate in a particular location requires a weighing, in each case, of the public need and benefit against the local impact,taking into account the applicant's proposals for ameliorating any adverse impacts through special site planning, development techniques and contributions to the provision of public improvements,rights of way and services. ( d. 26-95 § 2(27-1), 1995) 21A.54.020 Authority: The planning commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses,the Planning Director or designee, may, in accordance with thfft40,edures and standards set Otit in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-2), 1995) ak 21A.54.030 Categories,f Conditional Uses,; A Conditional uses shall consist ofItke following categories of uses: A. Uses ImpactingImpaeti4Qther PtOberty: Uses that may give rise to particular problems with respect to their impact upon negighboring property and the city as a whole, including their impact on,public faci es: d B.Planned Developments:The uses which fall within these categories are listed in the tables of permitted ,d conditional°uses found at the end of each chapter of part III of this title"for each catego 'f zonint district or districts. C. Administrative Consideration Alf Conditional Uses: Certain types-ef conditional uses b .:d d byam the City to be low • paet may be considered to be low impact due to their particular location and are hereby authorized to be reviewed administratively according to the provisions contained in section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement. (Ord. 13-04 § 34, 2004: Ord. 81-01 § 2, 2001: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-3), 1995) 3. Any conditional use as identified in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are listed as a "residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a Residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or reside itial use; or d. Require Planned Development approval. 4. Public/Private Utility Buildings acid Structures in Residential and Non- Residential zoning districts. 21A.54.040 Site Plan Review Required: Site plan review of development proposals is required for all conditional uses in all districts. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-4), 1995) 21 A.54.050 Initiation: An application for a conditional uSe may be filed,with the zoning administrator by the owner of the subject property orby an authorized agent. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-5), 1995) 21 A.54.060 Procedures: A.Application`. A complete application shall contain at least the following information submitted by the applicant,unless certain information is determined by the zoning administrator to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1..The applicant's name, address,telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant,and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 2 6. Site plans are required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this part; 7. Traffic impact analysis; 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to chapter 2.62 of this code; 9. A statement indicating whether the applicant will require a variance in connection with the proposed conditional use; 10. Mailing labels and first class postage for all persb4yequired to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to part II, chapter 21A.10 of this title; 11. Such other and further information or documentation as the Zoning Administrator may deem to be necessary for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. B. Determination Of Completeness:.Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the zoning administrator shall make'a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this titles. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule. D. Staff Report-Site Plan Review Report: Once the Zoning Administrator has determined that the application is complete a staff report.evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the yeAtitit000pafid forwarded to the Planning Commission, or,in the, i` :,.f Administrative Conditional Uses,the Planning Director or dotrignee, alo a site l review report prepared by the development review team. E.P blic Hearing: Planni Commission, or,in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, th lanning Director or Designee, shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Part II, Chapter 21 A.10 of this Title. (See Section 21 A 544.150 and Section 21A.54.155 of this Chapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with planned developments and Administrative Conditional Uses) F. Notice Of Applications For Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, such as a variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for all required approvals. 3 G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-6), 1995) 21 A.54.070 Sequence Of Approval Of Applications For Both A Conditional Use And A Variance: Whenever the applicant indicates pursuant to subsection 21 A.54 060A9 of this Chapter that a variance will be necessary in connection with the proposed conditional use (other than a planned development), the applicant shall at the time of filing the application=` r a conditional use, file an application for a variance with the Board of Adjustment. A. Combined Review: Upon the filing of a combined application for a conditional use and a variance, at the initiation of the Plannin ;Commission or the Board of Adjustment, the Commission and the Board may hold a joint session to consider the conditional use and the variance applications simultaneously. B. Actions by Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment: Regardless of whether the Planning Commission and Board otAdjustment conduct their respective reviews in a combined session or separately, the Board:of Adjustment shall not take any action on the application for a variance until the Planning Commission shall first act to recommend approval or disapproval of the application for the conditional use. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-7), 1995) 21A.54.080 Standards Fr Conditional Uses:The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional use based upon w written f ndings*fact with regard to each of the standards set forth below and, where applicable, any special standards for conditional uses set forth in a specific zoning district: A:'The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in this Title: B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans; C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets; D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed; 4 E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources; F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts; G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood; H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development: I. The proposed development preserves historical, architecturalarchitecturaf'.1kaTid,environmental features of the property; = J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses, K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case Of a planned development,the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatiblewith the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not h ? a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborh4,4stIr City as a whole, L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. (Ord. 35-99 § 95, 1999: Ord. 26-95 § 2,(27-8 1995). 21A.54.090 Conditions On Conditional Uses: The Planning Commissioni,,or, inSt case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee,may impose"oh a co"i ditionai use such conditions and limitations as may be necessary.araOkOpOate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vi *of thieonditional use,upon the City as a whole,or upon public facilities and services. Ho ter,er, suet„conditions shall not be used as a means to authorize as a conditional e any use which=is intended to be temporary only. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditins concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening,parking and otherrtters relating to the purposes and objectives of this Title. Such conditions shall be expressly:'set forth in the motion authorizing the conditional use. A. Violations of Conditions: Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this Title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use approval. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-9), 1995) 21 A.54.100 No Presumption Of Approval: The listing of a conditional use in any table of permitted and conditional uses found at the end of each chapter of Part III of this Title for each category of zoning district or districts does not constitute an assurance or presumption that such conditional use will be approved. Rather, each 5 proposed conditional use shall be evaluated on an individual basis, in relation to its compliance with the standards and conditions set forth in this Chapter and with the standards for the district in which it is located, in order to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate at the particular location. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-10), 1995) 21 A.54.110 Effect Of Approval Of Conditional Use: The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses,the Planning Director or designee;=,shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use nor the development, constructi `n, reconstruction, alteration or moving of any building or structure, but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approvalttlitinay be required by the regulations of the City, including, but not limited to, a building;permit, certificate of occupancy and subdivision approval. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-11), 1995) 21 A.54.120 Limitations on Conditional Use Approval: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director:or,,designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer than twelve (12)months unless a iding permit is issued and construction is actually begun within that period and is thereafter diiigently pursued to completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee. The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued.-(Cord. 26-95:§ 2(27-12), 1995) ,. 21A.54.130 Conditional Use Related'To The Land: An approved conditional,use relates-;only to, and is only for the benefit of the use and lot rather than the'owner or operator of such use'or;lot. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-13), 1995) 21 A.54.135 Alterations Or Modifications To A Conditional Use: Any land use currently listed as a conditional use under existing zoning regulations shall be required to obtain conditional use approval subject to the provisions of this chapter if the floor area increases by one thousand(1,000) gross square feet or more and/or the parking requirement is increased. A. Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Use: Applications for alterations and/or modifications to a conditional use may be reviewed according to the procedures set forth in section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. (Ord. 13-04 § 35, 2004) 21A.54.140 Conditional Use Approvals And Planned Developments: 6 When a development is proposed as a planned development pursuant to the procedures in section 21A.54.150 of this chapter and also includes an application for conditional use approval,the Planning Commission shall decide the planned development application and the conditional use application together. In the event that a new conditional use is proposed after a planned development has been approved pursuant to section 21A.54.150 of this chapter, the proposed conditional use shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, approved with modifications, or denied under the standards set forth in section 21 A.54.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-14), 1995) 21A.54.150 Planned Developments (not included) 21A.54.155 Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses:: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process,for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21A.54.030C oflthis,,chapter. Applications for administrative conditional use approval shall be reviewed as follows: A. Preapplication And Application Requirements: 1. Preapplication Conferenrce: The applicant shalt first meet with a member of the Salt Lake City planning di4,0-p,to discuss the application and alternatives. 3�p 2. Community Council Review: The'aiti*atit shall Meet with the respective community council(s)pursuant o subsection 21A.10.010B of this title. 3. Application: The a pplicant shall file an application and associated application fees wide planning office on a fin prescribed by the city and consistent with this chapter After c insidering information received,the Planning Director or designee maymaYiligriSetizi",tetc109,,art administrative hearing or to forward the application to the Planning Commission. -B. Administrative H£eanng: 4.Noticing And Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be mailed=to all applicable property owners and the property shall be posted pursuant to subsection 21A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents,the Planning Director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. At the administrative hearing, the Planning Director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for Planning Commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee. 7 The Planning Director may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter and subsection 21A.10.090B7 of this title any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. C. Appeals: 1. Objection to Administrative Consideration: The petitioner or any person who objects to the Planning Director or designee administratively considering the conditional use request may request a hearing before-:the Planning Commission by filing a written notice at any time prior to the Planning Drector's scheduled administrative hearing on the conditional use request. One such objections are received by the city prior to the Planning Director's administrative hearing, any objections to such administrative consideration"will be deemed'iwaived. The notice shall specify all reasons for theobjection;to the administrative hearing. Upon receipt of such an objection. the after will-be forwarded to the'Salt Lake City Planning Commission for consideration and decision. 2. Appeal of Administrative Consideration: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the Planning Director or designee at an administrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission by filing notice of an appeal, ' ' ' +he ason ' ore within fourteen(14) days after the Planning Director's administrative heating The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reasoti(s) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon p.rocedurallh ror or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed,`rin Section 2iA.54.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. (Ord. 81-01 § 3, 2001) 21A.54.160 AppealApp(atOf Planningommission Decision: Any patty aggrieved by a decision of the:-Planning Commission on an application for a conditional use, including a planned development, may file an appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board within thirty(30) days df the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision oftle Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the Planning Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. (Ord. 77-03 § 9, 2003: Ord. 83-96 § 6, 1996: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27 16);`:1995) 21A.54.170 Appeal Of Land Use Appeals Board Decision: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the Land Use Appeals Board on appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission may appeal to the district court within thirty(30) days of the date of the Land Use Appeals Board decision. (Ord. 83-96 § 7, 1996) 8 Exhibit 2 City Department/Division Comments Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:25 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: Petition#400-05-17, Amendment to zoning ordinance to allow broader administrative approval powers Categories: Program/Policy Wayne, The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed zoning ordinance changes. However, some changes to the use of property will trigger different regulations pertaining to water, sewer and storm drainage. The Planning Department needs to continue to keep Public Utilities "in the loop". There are too many possible issues to list, but just for flavor, a couple of issues that have become more important recently for PU to review are developments in the primary recharge areas and stream set backs. Thanks, Brad 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Mills, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:35 PM To: Stewart, Brad Subject: RE: Petition#400-05-17, Amendment to zoning ordinance to allow broader administrative approval powers Categories: Program/Policy Thanks for your comments Brad. The review process for administrative conditional uses is the same as that of conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission in that they are routed to Public Utilities for review and comments. Thanks again for your help. From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:25 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: Petition #400-05-17, Amendment to zoning ordinance to allow broader administrative approval powers Wayne, The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed zoning ordinance changes. However, some changes to the use of property will trigger different regulations pertaining to water, sewer and storm drainage. The Planning Department needs to continue to keep Public Utilities "in the loop". There are too many possible issues to list, but just for flavor, a couple of issues that have become more important recently for PU to review are developments in the primary recharge areas and stream set backs. Thanks, Brad 1 ni',Fr,nn5 Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:53 AM To: Mills,Wayne Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: Petition 400-05-17 Conditional Use Administrative Approval Wayne: Our office has one comment: Consider revising the language in Section 02.0502 to reflect the new procedure. LB Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:14 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry Subject: Pet 400-05-18 Categories: Program/Policy October 26, 2005 Wayne Mills, Planning Re: Petition 400-05-17, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow administrative approval of certain conditional uses. The transportation division review comments and recommendations are as follows: We see no impact to the transportation issues addressed in the proposed revisions. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Larry Butcher, Permits File 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:37 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Petition#400-05-17, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow administrative approval of certain conditional uses. Wayne, The Fire Department has no comments regarding the above named Petition. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Department 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 cell bradley.larson(c�slcgov.com 11/17/2005 Exhibit 3 Citizen Comments Page 1 of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Judi Short[Judi.Short@hsc.utah.eduj Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:37 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent; Mills, Wayne Subject: Dec 1 open house I don't have a problem with an administrative hearing for Low power wireless telecommunication facilities . I could even let the power company and cable boxes be done administratively. The Planning Commission has wasted a lot of time on these. However, I am opposed to administrative approval for uses that are • Non-residential land use types; • Non located within a residential zoning district; • Do not abut a residential zoning district or residential use; • Do not require Planned Development approval; Perhaps you have a staff report, even a draft, of what you are proposing so I could get a more clear picture of it? Maybe there is a way to word these so that we know that our neighborhoods are protected? I worry that we could have three of these properties in a row on a street, the two on either side abut residential, but the one in the middle doesn't, so the middle one gets redeveloped in a non- compatible way. East Central is an area that comes to mind, there is lots of non-residential mixed in between the residential, and this proposal sounds way too broad to me. 11/21/2005 Page 1 of 2 Mills, Wayne From: Mills, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:57 AM To: 'Judi Short' Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent; LoPiccolo, Kevin; Wheelwright, Doug Subject: RE: Dec 1 open house Categories: Program/Policy Thank you for your comments. I do not have a staff report at this time because we are in the study phase of the petition, but, hopefully I can clarify the petition for you. The proposal would allow administrative consideration of only those conditional uses that are unopposed and meet the conditional use standards as well as any other zoning requirements. The administrative hearing process requires the same notification to the surrounding neighborhood as the Planning Commission hearing process. The applicant and staff member assigned to the project are required to meet with the affected community council(s)prior to the administrative hearing being scheduled. If the community council is not in support of the requested conditional use,planning staff would forward it to the Planning Commission for review. In addition, the required notification of an administrative hearing is the same as the required notification of a Planning Commission hearing; all property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property. If a neighbor, upon receiving notice, objects to the administrative hearing, the request would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Also, if any person objects to the decision made at an administrative hearing, the request is forwarded to the Planning Commission. The'intent of this proposal is not to circumvent the Planning Commission process. It is intended to provide a process to review those conditional uses that are listed as a condition use in the use charts of the Zoning Ordinance, but would not have an impact on neighboring property due their location in the City. This would free the Planning Commission's time to review the more controversial and technical planning projects. I hope this clarifies the Planning Division's current proposal. If you have questions or recommendations, please feel free to contact me at 535-6173 or by e-mail. From: Judi Short [mailto:Judi.Short@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:37 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Wilde, Brent; Mills, Wayne Subject: Dec 1 open house I don't have a problem with an administrative hearing for Low power wireless telecommunication facilities . I could even let the power company and cable boxes be done administratively. The Planning Commission has wasted a lot of time on these. However, I am opposed to administrative approval for uses that are • Non-residential land use types; Page 2 of 2 • Non located within a residential zoning district; • Do not abut a residential zoning district or residential use; • Do not require Planned Development approval; Perhaps you have a staff report, even a draft, of what you are proposing so I could get a more clear picture of it? Maybe there is a way to word these so that we know that our neighborhoods are protected? I worry that we could have three of these properties in a row on a street, the two on either side abut residential, but the one in the middle doesn't, so the middle one gets redeveloped in a non- compatible way. East Central is an area that comes to mind, there is lots of non-residential mixed in between the residential, and this proposal sounds way too broad to me. 11/22/2005 PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Petition 400-05-17, An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would Expand the Types of Conditional Uses that may be Reviewed through the Administrative Hearing Process *All comment forms must be returned to the Salt Lake City Planning Division (,4ttn: Wayne Mills, 45.1 S. State Street, Room 406) by December 23, 2005. Please provide the following information: Name -Won ir At tya) a Address 3a A / frt lam. Sf • rr ( e _ Ci At, (if /a 3 Would you like to be notified of future public hearings regarding this proposal? Yes l/ No Comments(please use back of page if additional space is needed): 114's // a ct r Q 4 cJ< se a_ph etit dim CcJ"lM G.ex� cui ( 4- r e e !dle ('J,e t!-1 CQ c . y ` r JS Lee S • / avu ! vI S Lc/�/�!G'i^�� G7{ .74 v / Exhibit 4 2004/2005 Conditional Use Review 0 o I d ,T., 0 0 O O O C L co o O 9 ilh XNO ,6NmAdF - m COOCONON , Ld YCCCCO " O E I _ goQN ¢=¢Nz¢2 ,-� UO 6of 4.�L `o U . . . . . . . . I— a rn r 3 *;.§,, ';', k ‘‘'0 11 131 11. iiill II i - Il s I I I -' 1 i ' 1 G 'w } £�i 4 i , ; j ' m mj o c a. i E 4� 3 { i '' ,i v m _ U _ m i O o c rn `m n 2 `"" ',o c ._ c w . 0 E 3 a I l r$; � i"s -tilltt m i ° ao Ic m -9mE L9b - q ofE -iE i t_i $ ] ;',,nUcZl-Bs' om"a �i E ° ' o - . 000oU . c ' I 2.'.' E E o' x x >< ,. x x .. -. x x x - x x x >C X . t x x,x x X X x I4 4R K.at mil. K xix - x G c I ' i G .< x X .. hP - ,xIx .. XX j1E{1 I I ' ie W 0 E 1 s 1 1 I 0 `o ., c arx x x x x ;x x x x x x}c tfS' r, x as x ® ' a ® o E o m o p a o I-- IEP- H x x x x x ¢ x x x x oa z ry I I i 1 i tt yy I-- � 1 i II I . I , 1, r i yo 1 xli ; f I x� ¢m I t HI I xXI X I I ' x X X X= X X X X . X Xx X M, i # 1 II 1 i l4 I0 i 1 ' ' 1 1 ' i 72 7N X X 1 x j : 1 ` III IlL1 i 1 + N v0 off.: vvc I I" rg2 <pr ! ,f0•} �III)i x ; `° O 9C III S ir ; V av I V v a' V VIr xa 'iC!<!^ +.V �} a r } a{ N m 23 O O O) '° C N O C C N C 6 m N E C t6 a O p to N d 0 N:O c m a p a o oo `.- N m o.2-mo a e ' d>- UI! !Illi 0 m m NE v s d - -o ca n N- ._ o n u .- m m m m m o m m o -E 2 m ,c oQQQ2Q0 ��U o -m U H I a U H a) IV o tY m ' U c o • Et C ! 03_ ui Ea o T j _ a n r - m 5 L o a `-) 0 o mmaa .cc6 U' co m 1•mam oa > �-m v N m'- . c o .o 3 m a c m >,-o o C m p c ,c m tL m c p 'L c c o 3 o i o c m m I - g c m f0 D. o f m a " _ -C '3 N =� "? c v N m a N p m , 3 9 m ct p p m 3 prro `o m o `m g ? u_ O OO O a j m I C5 a C 0_ O O. a E c a a g. N if = 40 a O2 C N .. L N L i ... O U C C J ' N ` a! U O 6 2, U _ O U 8 0 V ..a C V O O N 7. d W 00 =1 3 C T. a ��a " o-� "p m Ji m 3 g w ¢t ., m . g m m a o E ? o t m d' °�c• > a ° c L 19 c - C L m y c—.o c m I E m g o_ a .' m _ E 'N w 0 E o L ro _ _. aci m u) E �OaCOk,i�0EC� 2 0 a_ u_o co 0 0 o � ° .;� o v ,_ as° o ao c ! g"e i li ®U x x x x x z xx x xxxx x xxxxx x - x x x xx o oct , I o ; x Xx rnx x x � 0 1 � x v vQ ! n i 1 e e ; i ® .6® X X X X j x x X X x _ x 10 1 s I I i I 1 c I 1 € 1 ® i `B X X i 1 m m a X �1. ! I da i ' 1 I 1HI x 'x x x x xx:� a i X I x i { X co 'm 1 1 1 :� I ! X 'X X X X I t X X N x x x x tii' �N i 1 !x x x x x x x j x x x i O_ N O (�'J ciZ 7 co Lo ,I. N N O C] LO _ O N ,� •V f� V i CO -,N e-. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 0 d t <t a d' V d. .:d- d' V__- V V ;F d' ct `._ _7. ct .:I- d' V F.._. 5c. Agenda and Minutes NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, January 25, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commissioners and Staff will have dinner at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,January 11, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a) Initiate a petition for a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allowing ambulance services and government facilities in the manufacturing districts. b) University of Utah Research Park Transportation Issues Working Group—Work program discussion and status update of the Transportation Issues Working Group established by the Planning Commission to address community council concerns regarding traffic and land use impacts related to the Research Park. The Planning Commission will discuss lifting a Planning Commission initiated hold on conditional use applications for excess building height in the Research Park. c) Petition 400-05-38, by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting approval of a new ordinance to require certain Salt Lake City funded projects to be certified using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)guidelines(approved December 14, 2005)—Clarification to establish that exceptions from applicability of new LEED certification requirements and determination of substantial compliance be decided by a High Performance Building Board, staffed by the Building Official or designee,to approve standards for exceptions. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-772 - H.M. Investments Retail Center—Conditional Use Planned Development Request. The H.M. Investments has submitted an application for a retail development center located at 1846 South 300 West Street,just south of Costco in the CG (General Commercial)Zoning District. four parcels will be combined by deed to accommodate the new retail center. The existing structures would be demolished for the development of the new center. The proposed center would be comprised of six buildings containing retail shops and food services.Two of the buildings will have drive-thru lanes. Although,the proposed uses are allowed within the CG (General Commercial)Zoning District, development of multiple buildings on a single site requires Conditional Use Planned Development approval from the Planning Commission. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) b) Petition 400-05-17—A request by the Planning Commission to analyze the feasibility of allowing additional conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer.The Planning Division has analyzed the request and proposes to amend Section 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit Public Private Utility Buildings and Structures and non-residential conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer if the requested use complies with zoning ordinance regulations and is unopposed. (Staff—Wayne Mills at 535-6173 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) 6) UNFINISHED BUSINESS ne next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be February 8,2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcqov.com/CED/planning. Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2006 ocations may require additional dedications. A public-way permi \ w be needed to work within the City right of way. 2. There \ill be no on-street staging for deliveries, all service are to be provide I on site. The site plan as shown is restricted to si• gle unit box truck deli •ries with front of store access. 3. Applicant mu • combine all of the lots by deed, as oposed, prior to the permit pros. Right of way dedication is an cipated at the northeast corner .r traffic control device, whi' may also be performed by dee I This dedication must be ►one to the satisfaction of the Engineering and ' ransportation Divisi. s' prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupa�. for any of the b ildings on the site. 4. The PlanningDirector ha mal a rt al of the modifications to the Pp site plan. 5. The applicant must meet all o ) e required parking for the uses on the final site plan. Commissioner De Lay also noted that t minutes `om the discussion conducted by the Planning Commission should be a► .licable to th• consideration of any modifications to the final site plan. a following con'tion is a result of the discussion: 6. Planning Corn sion further requires that a\ facades of all buildings be fifty percen glass and contain all other aest'�tic treatments. If building C i educed in square footage it must b from the southern face. The d veloper will provide vehicular/pedestri•n access from the west emp oyee parking lot to the main parking lot a • add additional landsc. (mg. Developer will also attempt to provide la dscaping along the •stern façade of building C. The motion w. seconded by Commissioner Scott. Commissioner Chamb" ss, Commissioner De Lay, Co' missioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McD► ough, Commissi a ner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commi loner Forbis voted "Aye's. Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. Petition 400-05-17—A request by the Planning Commission to analyze the feasibility of allowing additional conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer. The Planning Division has analyzed the request and proposes to amend Section 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures and non- residential conditional uses to be approved by an Administrative Hearing Officer if the requested use complies with zoning ordinance regulations and is unopposed. At 6:55 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition 400-05-17 and Wayne Mills. 8 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2006 Mr. Mills stated that presently there are two types of development requests that may be approved through the Administrative Public Hearing Process. They are: • Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses; and • Alterations or modifications to a conditional use that increase the floor area by 1,000 square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement. The review processes are the same for these types of conditional uses as for conditional uses reviewed by the Planning Commission. All City departments and affected community councils review the applications. Notification of the Administrative Hearings is the same as the Planning Commission Public Hearings. An Administrative Request can be approved once the hearing has been held and all conditions met. If the Administrative Request is contested, the Request is forward to the Planning Commission for review. Staff has analyzed the Zoning Ordinances and proposes to allow the Administrative Hearing Officer to review all conditional uses except those that: • Are listed as a "residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; • Are located within a Residential zoning district; • Abut a Residential zoning district or residential use; or • Require Planned Development approval. The Planning Staff also recommends that Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit Administrative Hearing review of Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures that are proposed in both residential and non-residential zoning districts. Mr. Mills stated that this petition was initiated by the Planning Commission to further allow the Commission more time to allocate for long-range planning. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance found in the Staff Report. Chairperson Noda opened and closed the Public Hearing as no public was in attendance. The Planning Commission went into Executive Session. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification regarding the Administrative Hearing process and the housing infill ordinance. Mr. Mills clarified by stating that the proposed amendment is for conditional uses only and is not associated with the compatible infill ordinance. Commissioner Scott noted that some community councils are less aware than others and some applications may be approved without sufficient public input. Commissioner Muir noted that there should be additional sensitivity to the area of West Salt Lake. It was also noted that the conditional uses brought before the Commission last year were not very time consuming or contentious. 9 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2006 \\, Mr. Mills noted the concern, but stated that an appeal can be made by any member of the public if they are opposed to the decision made in the Hearing within fourteen days of the decision. With reference to the time spent on these issues, Mr. Mills noted that it is important to remember the time spent in preparing for the meeting. Commissioner Galli noted that numerous governments throughout the United States have transferred responsibilities to the Planning Staff and agrees with the proposed petition. Chairperson Noda agreed with Commissioner Galli and considered the possibility of freeing up more time for the Planning Commission as a positive reform. Although, when community councils are not active, there should be concern and sensitivity by Staff. Commissioner Scott referenced a citizen comment found in the Staff Report from Ms. Judi Short supporting the idea of freeing up time of the Commission. Commissioner Seelig also noted that many citizens are not made aware of the implications of petitions when they state their support or opposition. Commissioner Scott stated concern regarding the possibility of an issue passing through the process without being brought to an appropriate measure of attention. Mr. Mills responded that he had written Ms. Short back with the proposed changes. As she has not contacted him, nor did she show up at the open house, Mr. Mills believes she is satisfied with the proposed changes. Mr. Mills stated that the,Planning Commission will be informed on the issues because of the information distributed to them via email and the City's list serve. Agendas for each meeting, including Administrative Hearings, are distributed through the list serve and should be considered carefully. If the Planning Commissioners wanted more information on the proposed project or to encourage the petition to go to the Planning Commission, Staff should be contacted and a discussion conducted. Commissioner Diamond asked if these changes would alter any conditional uses on signage. Mr. Mills responded that presently there are no conditional uses on signage within the City. Commissioner Muir made a motion in the case of Petition #400-05-17 in light of the comments, analysis, and findings of Staff in the Staff Report, that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following proposed zoning text amendments pertaining to Chapter 21A.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. That Section 21A.54.020:Authority, be amended to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve Administrative Conditional Uses; 2. That Section 21A.54.030C:Administrative Consideration of Conditional Uses, be amended to eliminate the phrase, "have been determined by the City to be low impact" and replace it with, "may be considered to be low impact due to their particular location." 3. That Section 21A.54.030C3, be added to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve (through an Administrative Hearing) all conditional uses except those that: 10 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2006 a. Are listed as a "residential" land use in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a Residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or d. Require Planned Development approval. 4. That Section 21A.54.030C3, be added to permit the Planning Director or designee to approve (through an Administrative Hearing) Public/Private Utility Buildings and Structures in Residential and Non-Residential zoning districts. 5. That Section 21A.54.060D:Staff Report-Site Plan Review Report, be amended to state that staff report and site plan review report be forwarded to the Planning Director or designee for Administrative Conditional Uses. 6. That Section 21A.54.060E:Public Hearing, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee shall hold a public hearing in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses and shall conduct the public hearings in conformance to the Zoning Ordinance. 7. That Section 21A.54.060G: Planning Commission Action, be amended to state that, in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses, the Planning Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Administrative Conditional Use. 8. That Section 21A.54.090: Conditions on Conditional Uses, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee may impose conditions on Administrative Conditional Uses. 9. That Section 21A.54.110:Effect of Approval of Conditional Use, be amended to include the Planning Director or designee in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses. 10. That Section 21A.54.120:Limitations on Conditional Use Approval, be amended to include the Planning Director or designee in the case of Administrative Conditional Uses. 11. That Section 21A.54.155B2:Administrative Hearing, be amended to state that the Planning Director or designee may approve an Administrative Conditional Use only if it complies with all standards in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the particular use. 12. That Section 21A.54.155:Appeals of Administrative Conditional Uses, be amended to state that an appeal of an Administrative Conditional Use must be based on procedural error, compliance with the standards that regulate conditional uses, or any specific standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance that regulate the requested use. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, 11 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting January 25, 2006 \ Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Forbis voted "Aye". L. Commissioner Scott voted "Nay". Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (This item was heard at7:20 p.m.) Commisst`.�ner Scott noted a subject of concern to the Commissioners regardi►g the Transit Oriented Di'rict Petition. Portions of the Transit Oriented District Petitio as been approved by the City Count I with a large change on the proposed height restriction . A discussion occurred when the petition was presented to the Planning Commission regardi►g the proposed height restriction. The Planning Commission recommended the proposed eight to be at 50 feet; although, the City Council has now approved a height restriction of 75 fe- with the option of going to 120 feet on the north side o\ the street. Commissioner Scott recom ended that an effort be m.o e to send a message to the City Council regarding the proposed heigl \change and the recom ended height from the Planning Commission. She requested a letter be sent. y. Commissioner Galli noted that the 1?lannin;, ' ommission may send a letter, but it should be drafted by the Chair of the Planning Commi .io 'n order to represent the appropriate jurisdiction. He noted that if someone wants to be heard in re,t4srds to a concern on an issue, the best effort is to attend the Hearing and discuss the matter with ty'e r eresentatives. He noted that many letters are received by the Planning Commission, but hea g the ancerns directly from the individual are more helpful. He requested that more participa.'on from the''lanning Commission be directed towards large item issues of concern to the City Council. Chairperson Noda agreed .nd concluded that she wo,Id attend the next City Council meeting with Commissioner Scott to 0 scuss the concerns. Chairper .n Noda also suggested that perhaps having a member of the Pla A ng Commission attend a City Co cil meeting each month could help resolve some of the oncerns as well as enhance the positi 0 of the Planning Commission. . \ Mr. Wheelwri!,i stated that although the month of January has\Rot had many items on the agenda, the February 0 eetings will have more. He informed the commissi' ners to be prepared for longer meetings in ebruary. The Pla' ing Commisslorrmeeting was adjourned at 733 p.m. by Chai erson Noda. v Cindy Rockwo c ' g la ng Commiss' n Secretary 12 6. Original Petition PETITION NO. lei-45^/7 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required QS ,ja Petition delivered to Planning 4/4(s- Petition assigned to: 1.40,4-, - `f t-s/ L'^^- Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date L.)", Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover Chronology • Property.,Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included w Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils t--'A-L Mailing Postmark Date Verification w, Planning Commission Minutes ' • Planning Staff Report wea- Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office \AAA Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. uJa 1 uts Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office N. O To O N d' O U U O O N C O P. EcUO Z •o o cn set �' 47.7 0)13 '- CD '3 > C C ° =O asTo Q a)� c4- (6 - .I � O a) Q";5 .0 y %w C -. t- mw i Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2005 more efficient. Ms. Coffey requested the Planning Commission initiate the following petitions to allow staff to start work on them: 41ihe Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to expand the types of onditional uses that could be approved administratively. (This item was heard at 5:53 P.M.) Ms. Coffey said that the first petition that she was asking the Planning Commission to consider initiating was to allow staff to study the possibility of allowing more conditional uses to be administratively approved. She said that from a cursory review, it seemed like non-residential related cases were less controversial and could be administratively approved. Ms. Coffey said that staff is trying to expand conditional uses to be approved administratively by an Administrative Hearing Officer. Ms. Coffey stated that currently only conditional uses for telecommunication facilities and expansion of existing conditional uses could be approved administratively. Chairperson Chambless inquired if an official vote by the Planning Commission was needed for the record. Ms. Coffey stated that only one Commissioner is needed to request the action. Motion: Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission initiate a petition charging staff with looking at expanding the types of conditional uses that could be heard and approved administratively. 2. The Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to allow design related issues to go through a new process called, "The Conditional Building and Site Design Review", rather than a conditional use process. (This item was heard at 5:54 P.M.) Ms. Coffey stated that the second petition relates to the fact that the zoning ordinance has several types of design issues that currently have to go through the conditional use process. She added that because staff has a new process called "The Conditional Building and Site Design Review", some things like height increases that are design related and not use related would be shifted out of the conditional use process to the new process. Motion: Commissioner Diamond moved for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to allow design related issues to go through a new process called, "The Conditional Building and Site Design Review", rather than a conditional use process. 3. The Planning Commission to consider initiating a petition to amend the zoning ordinance relating to notification requests. (This item was heard at 5:55 P.M.) 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 1, 2002 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance to Designate 500 West Street Park Blocks as "Public Squares, Malls, and Pleasure Grounds" in Accordance with City Code Section 15.12.020. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,Rick Graham, Louis Zunguze, Sam Guevara, Chris Burbank, Dave Oka, Gary Mumford,Mike Brown, Valda Tarbet, Jennifer Bruno,Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would amend City Code Section 15.12.020 to designate the"park block"medians on 500 West Street between North Temple and 400 West streets as"public squares, malls, and pleasure grounds."The Administration's stated intent of including the medians in the section is to implement a dusk-to-dawn curfew along their entire length. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on the proposed amendment at the Council's work session September 5. The City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed amendment formally the same night under Council agenda's "unfinished business" section. OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed ordinance. • Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending certain sections of Chapter 15.12 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to public squares. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. KEY POINTS • According to the Administration the medians—though termed "park blocks"—have never actually been designated officially for regulation.' • The Administration would like more regulation on the medians because the medians, particularly between 250 South and 400 South Street, are"frequently the site of loitering, sleeping, camping, fighting, drug dealing and other illegal activity."2 • According to the Police Department the proposed ordinance would help curb illegal activity because its effect would be to eliminate areas where large groups of people can congregate at night. 1 • Designating the medians as"public squares, malls, and pleasure grounds"would do two things: • It would allow the Administration to implement a dusk to dawn curfew on the medians. • WhPre designating the medians as parks could present future problems for businesses that sell alcoholic beverages, designating the medians under Section 15.12.020 would not. DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND The "park blocks" along 500 West Street, and particularly between 400 South and North Temple streets, have always been a key component of developing the 650-acre Gateway District. The Gateway District Land-Use and Development Plan, also titled Creating an Urban Neighborhood, called for 400 West, 500 West(north of 400 South) and 200 South streets to be the first streets to be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities.3 Five hundred West street also became unique in that the City acquired land on each side of the street to widen the right of way to so that at some point in the future 500 West could be the conduit for an underground rail stop at the north end of the Gateway. The Gateway Master Plan, adopted in August 1998, calls for 500 West Street to become a boulevard and"greenway" containing linear parks from 900 South Street to South Temple Street. According to the Master Plan the linear parks were designed to meet two goals. First the greenway would"provide an area for enjoyment for all people within the Gateway."The second goal is contained in a May 12, 1998, City Council motion in which the Council approved the location of the Intermodal Hub at 600 West 200 South.The motion reads in part: that future regional commuter rail alignments along 500 West and 200 South streets be preserved for enhanced regional commuter rail operations and that public utilities in those corridor be located to minimize obstructions;that the Gateway Master Plan and the design of the facility at 600 West and 200 South streets be flexible to accommodate future regional commuter rail technologies; that,to maximize present and future regional commuter rail connection,pedestrian corridors between the Union Pacific Depot and 500 West Street,and the Rio Grande Depot and the 600 West intermodal facility be preserved and enhanced within future development plans ... Some people have visualized the park blocks as tree-lined and similar to blocks in Portland, Oregon. Others have viewed them as ultimately becoming similar to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California. (Please see attached photo.) Most recently, City Council decisions on the disposition of property near 500 West Street and the location of light-rail stations on 400 West and 200 South streets were based in part on the potential of 500 West Street remaining a wide boulevard. However, for at least a year City officials have received complaints about the conduct of people on the medians at night. Some people brought events that occurred on the medians to the attention of reporters, and one broadcast reporter last November ran a two-night story titled The Dark Side of Downtown. (Staff has retained a copy of the story.) Earlier this summer there was a fatal shooting at 250 South 500 West. 2 Because of the events and growing complaints about conduct on the medians, Mayor Ross Anderson's Administration has proposed an ordinance that would amend City Code Chapter 15.12.020 to designate the medians between 400 South and North Temple streets as "public squares, malls, and pleasure grounds." The proposed designation would do three things, according to the Administration: • It would designate the medians based on their intended use as public space. According to the Administration, the medians have never officially been designated as anything. Its use by people and its maintenance by the City Parks Division have more or less made them parks by default.4 • It would allow the implementation of a dusk-to-dawn curfew on the medians. According to the Administration, the section of the City Code is one of two places where one might place restrictions such as curfews on public parks. Chapter 15.08, titled Park and Playground Rules, is another location.The hours of Charles Lee Miller Park, Pioneer Park and Memorial House in Memory Grove have separate entries setting use hours there. • It would retain the potential for businesses that serve alcoholic beverages to remain on 500 West Street or locate there in the future. Utah State law does not allow businesses that serve alcoholic beverages to locate "within 600 feet of any public or private school, church,public library, public playground, or park ..."5 It should be noted that the only other public space listed as a"public square,mall, or pleasure ground" is Washington Square which surrounds the City& County Building. A previous administration had Washington Square's designation changed from a park to a public square to allow a private club, Studebaker's, to locate in a building at 175 East 400 South that is across the street from the City& County Building. According to the Police Department, implementing a curfew on the medians between 400 South and North Temple would help the department reduce criminal activity on the park blocks. According to the department, dusk to dawn generally is a time that a large percentage of the criminal activity occurs. If it were unlawful to be on the park-block medians,police officers could contact and/or arrest persons in violation of curfew. Removing individuals for minor violations would lesson the chance of more serious offences taking place. The department notes that due to the curfew at Pioneer Park, officers see little crime occurring between dusk and dawn there. If officers see individuals in the park, they can quickly make an arrest which may lead to other violations such as possession of drugs. According to the department, people bent on criminal activity have realized the curfew at Pioneer Park is detrimental to their purposes and stay out of the park. According to the department, if after-hour areas where it is easy to gather and conceal criminal activities are eliminated, then groups that congregate in those places become smaller or completely disperse. Eliminating those areas by implementing tools such as a curfew helps reduce drug-related activities and violent crimes that seem commonplace when large groups congregate in an area.' 3 If one looks at the attached statistics and maps reflecting six months of activity on or near the medians, one can see that 500 West Street and, to some extent, 600 West Street have been the locations of a number of criminal activities. The Police Department supports the Administration's contention that establishing a dusk-to- curfew lessen the need of"police patrolling and presence" along the medians on 500 West Street because once enforcement of the curfew starts there would be smaller numbers of people which would lead to lower necessary levels of police officers. While there may be a potential for illegal activities to re-locate to other areas, there is a lesser chance for large groups of people to congregate to conduct illegal activity. ' August 2 letter from Rick Graham,paragraph 3. 2 Administration transmittal, Page 1, last paragraph. 3 Creating an Urban Neighborhood,Page 25,second column, top August 2 letter from Rick Graham,paragraph 3 s Utah Code,Title 32A September 1 e-mail from Lt. Mike Brown 4 Third Street Prome- Wade is the heart of f maturing urban • entertainment dis- .. I •"'�,.-� I f • trict in downtown ! • I< •> ' e P,,-,tom - .1 : Santa Monica, Cali- . , " , , . ?�. i a:.. t+" _ fornia, that was . ,''�, 4 i Ldt p- f is 4�jr''t._ 4• .ti developed through .. f' , • .. 'I ! t ` public/private col- -At d 1" • : . , - s•{ t I'1.11 I laboration. (Preced- iR �` r a + r • \ -�/{'• ing page: The Enter- i g dR I t - . pb a ,_ ' \ tainment Center at ' \t,, ' .. 4 s :. e _ fl ' Irvine Spectrum.) if,i �� ' ' ,' ;,, ..q, •'� ..2 , - 1 4 t'i Syr s ri y! .;.-ak•- . ,, �� ' is 4 In the few operating UECs visitors tend to Urban Entertainment stay for a few hours and return regularly in Center Districts a pattern that more closely resembles that found at shopping malls than at theme parks, UEC districts are urban areas that have been although there is greater emphasis on even- revitalized and/or repositioned as leisure des- ing activity. Regardless of the word "urban" tinations through the development and repo- in the name, UECs are not restricted to down- the of properties and public spaces and towns. They are found anywhere that enough the attraction of desirable tenants. For the people are found, including the suburbs and most part, the urban structure of streets, tourist spots. Nevertheless, no matter where sidewalks, and buildings remains intact, yet the project happens to be, the conceptual sometimes the street is closed to vehicular qualities of urbanism—the density, vitality, traffic and transformed into a pedestrian and eclecticism of amenities—are essential. promenade, either permanently or during the evening. Examples include One Colorado in Pasadena and Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, both in California, and Times TYPES OF URBAN Square in New York City. ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS In major metropolitan areas, the "anchor" for such redevelopment may take the form of Urban entertainment centers generally fall regional destinations like stadiums, arenas, into two broad categories: districts and com- and convention centers, many of which are plexes, the latter of which includes a variety entertainment oriented. Often, smaller-scale of notable subtypes. What distinguishes these amenities like cinema complexes that draw categories are the processes and players re- from a smaller market area are sufficient to sponsible for their development as well as spur rejuvenation in smaller communities. differences in form, operation, and location. Although UEC districts can emerge organi- 24 2 r A\ P'. - TLY G0'RPO r I,OIT RICHARD GRAHAM -- J s ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR .0 MEMORANDUM TO: Russell Weeks, Policy Analyst FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department DATE: August 2, 2006 RE: Response to July 28, 2006 Email—500 West Street Commons My briefing paper may have not been clear about the zoning issue you raised. You are absolutely correct in your belief that the property is not zoned as open space. I have learned by asking that the island probably has no zoning at all because it is part of the street right-of-way. Doug Wheelwright told me that technically, street right-of-ways are not zoned at all, and in certain situations involving encroachments or leases, abutting property zoning is cited. I stated in my briefing report that the park island is designated as a park, loosely using the work designate because the site was designed to support park-like uses. The islands were specifically designed to encourage and support public access and use like other public spaces. Clearly, it is not a typical park, though it shares common design elements. It is a public space that encourages public attention and use. Since it has a daily public use function it has to fall into some type of classification that allows its use to be regulated. When the island was developed no administrative action was taken to give it a proper or official designation. Because it became the Parks Division's property to manage and maintain, and because it bore similar use qualities to a park or public space, it automatically fell under pre-established park use regulations by default. As a result of the problems the community experienced at this site the Administration looked for a solution. Since it really isn't a park, it was necessary to give it a clear and proper designation. Chapter 15.12,under 15.12.010, allows certain public properties located in commercial centers to be used for public squares, malls or pleasure grounds. Section 15.12.030 allows for restricting, and since hours of use became an issue, this section was amended so that the 500 West Street Commons had a use restriction between dusk and dawn. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 WWW.SLCGOV.COM uccvcLco>nvcn You raised the issue of restricted use in Pioneer Park. Chapter 15.08, Parks and Playground Rules, allows for the establishment of Park Hours in Section 15.08.020. A former Mayor,with approval from a former City Council amended this section to excluded Pioneer Park from traditional hours of use. 15.08.020-A2., states that Pioneer Park shall be closed to the public between one-half(1/2) hour after sunset to seven o'clock (7:00) am the following morning. This section also allows for use restrictions in other public parks. I hope this information in someway answers your questions. I have asked Chief Burbank to respond to your questions about incident statistics. I am sorry that I do not have that information. Salt Lake City Police - Offenses Reported - Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 500 West"Park"Blocks(North Temple-400 South*see map for detail") 6 month total- Class Description PART I CRIME Other Offenses Reported Persons Aslt Agg-Non Family Id Weapon 2 2 Aslt Agg-Non Family Strongarm 1 1 Aslt-Intim/Threats/Physical 3 3 Aslt-Intimidation/Stalking 1 1 Aslt-Simple Assault 13 13 Aslt-Simple On Police Officer 1 1 Fam Off-Domestic Criminal Natu 1 1 Homicide-Nonfamily Gun 1 1 Robbery-Car Jacking 1 1 Robbery-Residential Strongarm 1 1 Robbery-Street Gun 2 2 Robbery-Street Id Weapon 4 4 Robbery-Street Strongarm 4 4 Sex Aslt-Free Text 3 3 Sex Aslt-Rape Strongarm 2 2 Persons 18 22 40 Property Arson-Residence 1 1 Burg-Forced Entry Non Resident 9 9 Burg-No Force Entry Non Reside 5 5 Burg-No Force Entry Residence 4 4 Damaged Prop-Business 1 1 Damaged Prop-Free Text 1 1 Damaged Prop-Priv Veh 10 10 Damaged Prop-Private 2 2 Damaged Prop-Public Property 2 2 Forg-Of Checks 1 1 Fraud-False Pretenses 1 1 Fraud-Meg Use Credit Cards 1 1 Larc-Free Text 8 8 Larc-Frm Motor Veh(Prowl) 25 25 Larc-From Building 3 3 Larc-Lost/Misdelivered 1 1 Larc-Parts/Access/GasNeh Strp 2 2 Larc-Pick Pocketing 3 3 Larc-Shoplift 2 2 Stolen Veh-Inside-Rec'd In 8 8 Stolen Veh-Inside-Rec'd Out 5 5 Stolen Veh-Outside-Rec'd In SI 6 6 Stolen Veh-Poss Stolen Veh 1 1 Stolen Veh-Report Unfounded 1 1 Property 77 26 103 Public Order Juv Offenders-Ncic Hit/Runaway 1 1 Liquor-Minor In Tavern Over 18 2 2 Liquor-Possess Illegally 37 37 Morals-Urinating In Public 6 6 Priv-Trespass 75 75 Pub Ord-Abandoned Prop/Arprt 1 1 Pub Ord-Cntrl Of Person/Corrtn 1 1 Pub Ord-Curfew 1 1 Pub Ord-Found Bikes 2 2 Pub Ord-Public Intoxication 19 19 Pub Ord-Public Order Free Text 4 4 Pub Peace-Disorderly Conduct 4 4 Pub Peace-Dist The Peace 4 4 slcpd crime analysis/500 w park blocks clipped.xls 8/16/2006 1 of 2 500 West"Park"Blocks(North Temple-400 South`see map for detail`) 6 month total- Class Description PART I CRIME Other Offenses Reported Public Order Pub Peace-Harassing Communicat 1 1 Pub Peace-Loud Party 2 2 Pub Peace-Mentally III Subject 2 2 Pub Peace-Runaway 2 2 Pub Peace-Susp Activity 7 7 Pub Peace-Transient 2 2 Public Order 173 173 Public Service Pub Ord-Ambulance Sick Calls 21 21 Pub Ord-Comm Action Team 1 1 Pub Ord-Found Property 8 8 Pub Ord-Industrial Accident 1 1 Pub Ord-Lost Prop 10 10 Pub Ord-Missing Juvenile 1 1 Pub Ord-Missing Person 4 4 Pub Ord-Police Assistance 1 1 Public Service 47 47 Society Comm Sex-Prostitution 1 1 Comm Sex-Solicitatn By Female 1 1 Drug-Amphetamine Possess 1 1 Drug-Barbiturate Possess 1 1 Drug-Cocaine Possess 23 23 Drug-Cocaine Sell 14 14 Drug-Cocaine Solicitation 1 1 Drug-Forged/Altered Prescrip 1 1 Drug-Found Narcotic Equip 1 1 Drug-Found/Surrendered 1 1 Drug-Heroin Possess 4 4 Drug-Heroin Sell 1 1 Drug-Imitation Drugs 1 1 Drug-Marijuana Possess 7 7 Drug-Marijuana Solicitation 1 1 Drug-Narcotic Equipment Poss 75 75 Drug-Synthetic Narcotic Poss 2 2 Escape-Id Type Institution 1 1 Escape-Out Of State Ncic Hits 4 4 Escape-Warrants All In State 125 125 Health-Drugs Misbranded 1 1 Obst Pol-Criminal Investigatio 3 3 Obst Pol-Fail To Move On 1 1 Obst Pol-Failure To Stop Fr Po 3 3 Obst Pol-Making False Report 5 5 Obst Pol-Resisting Officer 3 3 Weap-Carrying Concealed 4 4 Weap-Carrying Prohibited/Speci 1 1 Society 287 287 Traffic Traf-Alcohol In Or About A Veh 3 3 Traf-Driving Under Alcohol/Clb 8 8 Traf-Hit And Run 2 2 Traf-Impound/Aband Veh 7 7 Traf-Moving Traffic Viola 1 1 Traf-Non Moving Traffic Violat 13 13 Traf-Non-Reportable Accident 12 12 Traf-Officer Involved Accident 1 1 Traf-Reportable Accident 6 6 Traffic 53 53 6 month total-Offenses Reported 95 608 703 slcpd crime analysis/500 w park blocks clipped.xls 8/16/2006 2 of 2 NORTH TEMPLE .1. J Alf 3 UTHTEMPLf II •� \ DELTA !/ •• CENTER >k 03 I= \ . cl 0 a. PI ERP4NT LU i _I. . . 303 S P?.P.F` _ ' � . F fl s30 s 61 Salt Lake City Police - Offenses Reported 500 West "Park" blocks ( North Temple - 400 South) Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 (6 months) Frequency of Incidents 500 w park blocks clipped.shp N 1 - 12 • 13 - 27 \J• 28 - 47 W -- E Railroads.shp Parks.shp S hO.RTH.TEMPLE. / ec /r .53UTH TEMPLE __„› DELTA CENTER ( . ;.s ..- 0 I 0 \ 5 ,. N as ,, ,x PI ERPOM R W 2 ,tt �• g 3(}0 S II, w O- e„ p[; PIONEER. 1 PAR I. 1 5cos v• Salt Lake City Police - "Part 1" Offenses Reported 500 West "Park" blocks ( North Temple - 400 South) Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 (6 months) N 500 w park blocks clipped_go_part 1.dbf W :' N. E Part 1 Crimes- 95 NfRailroads.shp Parks.shp _ _ _$ RTH.TEMPLE_ .. it) dif: lrI fiOIJTH TEMPLe tom (:i U ELT.4 CENTER ;/ E4 0 ! 1 _ ._.._. _ iP Ab t Q i 2005 I I' 0, p, PI ERPONT f� ❑ • Cb PIONEER PARI- 4 .= 500 S v * nI Salt Lake City Police - Offenses Reported 500 West "Park"blocks ( North Temple - 400 South) Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 (6 months) Drug, Warrant & Trespass N 500 w park blocks clipped_go_part_1.dbf ED Drugs-134 i 0 Warrant-129 W 7.p,\ E 0 Trespass-75 i Railroads.shp MEI Parks.shp Salt Lake City Police-Dispatched Calls Feb 1 thru Jul 31,2006 500 West"Park"blocks(N Temple-400 S) 35 25 �. as <sx 43',' e a t a a ',' - 20 ., ' ' - `1 #' .i. aQ .„ > r S15 : s � q F' '`I � r t 10 ,,„... � '- # { >��i$� '.mot `. 3 i...:;.:..„,,,,, ,Ii„,t, .. ...,„1.,:rftax.v,..,.;;;:.4 T....,4...,..!,:,:' ..: •,,,,,- • ••:, ,4.4:y, : ii.,-,.:.; ..,,,:•:: ••:`,,i: ...:::. •c,..,.,.....L.I. ,, 101\ is i O i 4. O C o_ J E O d is O na t N _ N 2 Q N ,' c co E co co co co 3 cn c co co c co co c co Salt Lake City Police-Dispatched Complaints Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 500 West"Park"blocks Hour of Day Count of OCC_NUM hour How Received 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 total 911 13 5 4 7 5 5 7 6 13. 8 11 7 5 10 8 10 16 7 17 17 18 12 15 18 244 Telephone 52 25 41 15 11 7 13 21 27 34 32 31 32 31 40 33 33 35 34 40 41 58 72 66 824 OfficerOnView 27 19 17 12 18 4 3 42 56 44 34 23 21 23 20 33 30 40 29 49 50 56 46 49 745 total 92 49 62 34 34 16 23 69 96 86 77 61 58 64 68 76 79 82 80 106 109 126 133. 133 1813 slcpd crime analysis/500 w park blocks dp clip to street.xls 8/17/2006 I NORTH.TEMP LE _ • $ • ,Ir &UTH TEMPLE " " - ��� �" D ELTA i--/ N! CENTER Z. I ID% r t ra t liar �.. _. �D 5 '. 0 F1 ERPOM W �I ❑' -o• • •t 1 30,0 S O 10 " Fe,' PIONEEP. PAR I, ' ' o III 7 son s ii Salt Lake City Police - Offenses Reported 500 West "Park" blocks ( North Temple - 400 South) Feb 1 thru Jul 31, 2006 (6 months) Dispatched Complaints (1813 total) 500 w park blocks dp clip to street.dbf t 1 - 15 • 16 -42 N • 43 -74 a 75 - 114 \ • 115 - 281 r‘ E Railroads.shp Parks.shp AUG �08 2006 S =� •' �.� A rr�gay CORROR�IOt'RICHARD GRAHAM ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON .. - .w..eJ : PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart<� DATE: August 28, 2006 Chief Administration Officer FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department SUBJECT: Ordinance amendment that designates the sections of the 500 West median islands between North Temple Street and 400 South Street as a"common" area, and establishes public use restrictions. This transmittal is an amendment to an earlier Council Transmittal dated July 18, 1006. STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham 535-7774 Boyd Ferguson 535-7796 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend Section 15.12.020 of the City Code by adding Paragraph B., 500 West Street Commons,which provides a designation and description of the property; and that Section 15.12.030 be amended to set public use restrictions. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: The entire corridor of the 500 West Park Islands between North Temple and 400 South is currently designated as public park property, and as such, allow daily public access and use between the hours of 5:00 am and 11:00 pm. A section of the corridor between 250 South and 400 South, which is adjacent to the Road Home and other homeless service facilities, is used heavily as a gathering and loitering area for people who seek services from the facilities. This same section of island space is frequently the site of loitering, sleeping, camping, fighting, drug dealing and other illegal activity. It is a site that requires an inordinate amount of police patrolling and presence. To the west of this site is residential property and private business, and to the east is the Rio Grande Depot and private business. All are impacted in some way by the nighttime activity that takes place on this City property. The section of island from 200 South to North Temple is not impacted as severely as the south section of the island, but the same behaviors appear to be moving northbound behind the Gateway District. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 WWW.SLCGOV.COM accrcco PnPca Though the park island are designated as a park it does not function as a typical park, nor does it contain typical public park amenities such as open space play areas, playgrounds, restrooms or designated activity areas. The islands are formally landscaped, have pathways, sitting areas, waste cans, lights and art pieces. Given its current utility it is not providing the community typical park amenities and under its current design and function, never will. Though the gathering and loitering problems occur during all hours of the day, greater problems are typically seen in the evenings and early hours of the morning. To support the local residential and business community, and to aid the Police Department in its efforts to manage activity on the island it is proposed that the park island designation be changed to a"common" area, and that public use be restricted between the hours of dusk to dawn. This recommendation to change the use hours is supported by the Police Department. It should be noted that for the very same reasons the Pioneer Park property had its use hours restricted between dusk and dawn several years ago. That change has produced positive results. This proposed ordinance amendment does not include the plaza property adjacent to the west side of the Road Home facility. That plaza area was developed several years ago to provide a space off the public sidewalks for homeless service users to gather. Though this space has created its own set of problems, including loitering, late-night gathering, camping, fighting and crime, no change in use hours is being recommended at this time because the plaza space will change dramatically once the 200 South light-rail extension and Gateway expansion projects get under way. Though this plaza area requires a higher degree of policing the Police Department supports no change at this time. Additional signage was added to the plaza area at the Police Department's request, and that signage has aided its enforcement capabilities. PUBLIC PROCESS: No formal public process has been conducted, but the local community council is aware of the proposed changes. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Public Square Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 15.12 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PUBLIC SQUARES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 15.12.020, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 15.12.020 Areas Designated: The following shall be designated as public squares, malls, and pleasure grounds, as provided in section 15.12.010 of this chapter, or its successor: A. Washington sSquare, described as follows: Being all of Block 38, Plat "A", Salt Lake City, encompassing the area between Fourth and Fifth South Streets and between State and Second East Streets. B. 500 West Street Commons, described as follows: Being all of the following described property, encompassing the median islands in 500 West Street between North Temple Street and 400 South Street: 1. The median island in 500 West Street between 400 South Street and 250 South Street, more particularly described as follows: Beginning south 454.78 feet and east 5.33 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 62, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, located in the West half of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence S00°0l'22"E 58.24 feet to a point of curve, chord bears S27°40'58"W 7.91 feet; thence southwesterly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S27°39'00"W 11.46 feet; thence southerly 11.92 feet along a 12.34 foot radius curve to the left; thence S00°0l '22"E 112.81 feet to the point of curve, chord bears S27°41'37"E 11.46 feet; thence southeasterly 11.92 feet along a 12.34 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S27°4 3'41"E 7.91 feet: thence southerly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right: thence S00°01'18"E 133.96 feet to a point of curve. chord bears S27°41'05"W 7.91 feet: thence southwesterly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord hears S27°39'04"W 11.46 feet: thence southerly 1 1 .92 feet along a 12.34 foot radius curve to the left; thence S00°01 '15"E 238.41 feet to a point of curve, chord hears S27°41'33"E 11.46 feet; thence southeasterly 11.92 feet along a 12.34 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S27°43'34"E 7.91 feet; thence southerly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right; thence S00°01'15"E 33.50 feel to a point of curve, chord bears S10°15'03"W 155.91 feet; thence southwesterly 156.75 feet along a 437.18 foot radius curve to the right to a point to reverse curve. chord bears S10°09'50"W 176.90 feet: thence southerly 177.86 feet along a 491.89 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S46°4.5'23"W 8.03 feet: thence westerly 9.00 feet along a 5.51 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve. chord bears N46°47'47"W 8.03 feet; thence northwesterly 9.00 feet along a 5.51 foot radius curve to the right; thence N00°01 '15"W 90.58 feet; thence N06°06'32"W 75.43 feet; thence NOO°01'15"W 195.47 feet to a point of curve. chord bears N27°41'05"E 7.91 feet: thence northeasterly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord hears N27°39'04"E 11.46 feet; thence northerly 11.92 feet along a 12.34 foot radius curve to the left; thence N00°01'15"W 238.41 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N27°42'58"W 11.46 feet; thence northwesterly 1 1.92 feet along a 12.33 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears N27°41'32"W 7.91 feet; thence northerly 8.23 feet along a 8.52 foot radius curve to the right: thence N00°01'18"W 133.96 feet to a point of curve. chord bears N27°40'58"E 7.91 feet; thence northeasterly 8.23 feet along a 8.51 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord bears N27°39'09"E 11.46 feet; thence northerly 1 1.92 feet along a 12.33 foot radius curve to the left; thence N00°01 '22"W 112.81 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N27°42'16"W 11.46 feet; thence northwesterly 11.91 feet along a 12.33 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears N27°42'16"W 7.92 feet; thence northerly 8.23 feet along a 8.52 foot radius curve to the right; thence N00°01'22"W 233.87 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N77°31'49"E 39.06 feet; thence northeasterly 54.14 feet along a 20.00 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve, chord hears S 12°28'22"E 188.52 feet; thence southeasterly 190.01 feet along a 437.22 foot radius curve to the right to the point of beginning, contains 1.63 acres more or less. 2. The median island in 500 West Street between 200 South Street and 100 South Street, more particularly described as follows: Beginning west 43.78 feet and north 2.95 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 65, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township l South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. The following courses are along the top back of curb; thence SOO°00'36"E 65.15 feet to a point of curve, chord bears Si3°15'01"W 208.55 feet: thence southwesterly 210.42 feet along the arc of a 454.61 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S24°35'47"W 33.76 feet; thence southwesterly 33.76 feet along the arc of a 505.27 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve. chord bears N78°39'50"W 39.22 feet; thence westerly 54.91 feet along the arc of a 20 foot radius curve to the right: thence NOO°00'36"W 291.10 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N44°58'53"E 28.28 feet: thence northeasterly 31.41 feet along the arc of a 20 foot radius curve to the right; thence N89°58'21"E 60.34 feet to a point of curve, chord bears S45°01'07"E 28.29 feet; thence southeasterly 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20 foot radius curve to the right to the point of beginning, contains 0.63 acres more or less. 3. The median island in 500 West Street between 100 South Street and South Temple Street, more particularly described as follows: Beginning west 43.80 feet and south 3.05 feet from the Southwest corner of Block 80, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 1 West. Salt Lake Base and Meridian. The following courses are along the top back of curb, Point is also point of curve, chord hears S44°58'39"W 28.28 feet; thence southwesterly 31.41 feet along the arc of a 20 foot radius curve to the right; thence S89°58'21"W 60.34 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N45°01'21"W 28.29 feet; thence northwesterly 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20 foot radius curve to the right; thence NOO°01'04"W 655.89 feet to a point of curve, chord hears N60°32'34"E 17.42 feet; thence northeasterly 21.1.4 feet along the arc of a 10 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord bears N89°58'58"E 70.01 feet; thence easterly 73.57 feet along the arc of a 67.72 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears S60°34'41"E 17.42 feet; thence southeasterly 21.14 feet along the arc of a 10 foot radius curve to the right; thence SOO°01'04"E 655.88 feet to the point of beginning, contains 1.56 acres more or less. 4. The median island in 500 West Street at South Temple Street, more particularly described as follows: Beginning west 64.72 feet and north 19.23 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 80. Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. The following courses are along the top back of curb, Point is also point of curve, chord bears S89°58'48"W 58.83 feet; thence westerly 65.16 feet along the arc of a 42.06 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve, chord bears NOO°01'07"W 99.01 feet; thence northerly 110.30 feet along the arc of a 69.26 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve, chord hears N89°58'48"E 58.83 feet: thence easterly 65.15 feet along the arc of a 42.06 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve, chord bears S00°01'18"E 99.01 feet; thence southerly 110.30 feet along the arc of a 69.26 foot radius curve to the right to a point of beginning, contains 0.22 acres more or less. 5. The median island in 500 West Street between South Temple Street and North Temple Street, more particularly described as follows: Beginning west 44.00 feet and north 22.04 feet from the Southwest corner of Block 83, Plat A. Salt Lake City Survey, located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 1 3 South Range 1 West, and Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. The following courses are along the top back of curb, Point is also point of curve_ chord hears S60°32'26"W 17.42 feet; thence southwesterly 21.14 feet along the arc of a 10.00 foot radius curve to the right to a point of reverse curve, chord hears S89°58'48"W 70.01 feet: thence westerly 73.57 feet along the arc of a 67.72 foot radius curve to the left to a point of reverse curve, chord bears N60°34'49"W 17.42 feet; thence northwesterly 21.14 feet along the arc of a 10.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence N00°01 '12"W 73.40 feet to a point of curve, chord bears N 12°20'04"E 192.64 feet; thence northerly 194.14 feet along the arc of a 450.17 foot radius curve to the right to a point of compound curve, chord bears N57°20'40"E 37.77 feet; thence northeasterly 39.90 feet along the arc of a 35.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence East 2.33 feet to a point of curve, chord bears S45°00'36"E 35.35 feet; thence southeasterly 39.26 feet along the arc of a 25.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence S00°01'12"E 256.96 feet to a point of beginning, contains 0.57 acres more or less. SECTION 2. That Section 15.12.030, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 15.12.030 Use Restrictions: The following restrictions relating to public parks and playgrounds under this code, as amended, shall be fully applicable to the public properties designated in section 15.12.020 of this eb-apter, or its successor, but not the restrictions relating to the proximity of class B nonprofit clubs to public parks and, in the case of the public property designated in section 15.12.020B, not the restrictions relating to the proximity of class C beer establishments, class C nonprofit clubs, or any other establishments that sell or serve alcoholic beverages, to public parks, for the reasons set forth in the statement of purpose in section 15.12.010 of this chapter, or its successor: Section 5.68.020 of this code; section 5.74.200 of this code; section 11.12.080 of this code; chapter 15.08 of this title (except that 500 West Street Commons shall be closed to the public from dusk until dawn), or their successors. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006 Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Amendment to 15.12 re public squares 8-16-06.doc 5