Loading...
Transmittal - 7/29/2021ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00606 Text amendment eliminating the special exception process from Title 21A. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, 801-641-1728 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00 (application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156)) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions; Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans; Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations; This proposal would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance and make changes to multiple sections of the zoning ordinance to address each of the 42 authorized 1 March 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:47 MDT) 03/23/2021 03/23/2021 special exceptions. Each of the authorized special exceptions would be addressed in one of the following ways: Prohibited and no longer authorized; Permitted by right, some with qualifying provisions; Permitted through a different process within the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor change to a dimensional requirement or to approve accessory or ancillary uses on a property. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts. The Planning Division receives approximately 150 applications for special exceptions each calendar year. The application fee is currently $265.00. The cost to process the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. The average processing time is about 17 hours and includes application intake, review for completeness, preparing public notices, routing for departmental review, reviewing the proposal to verify that applicable standards and other zoning regulations are complied with, explaining the proposals to neighbors who receive notice, determining if the proposal impacts neighbors and if so applying conditions to reduce those impacts, and producing decision letters. Some special exceptions require approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission. Additional tasks are required that include preparing staff reports, scheduling and noticing public hearings, and preparing for presentations for the public hearing. The level of public engagement increases because public hearing notices are mailed to a broader segment of the neighborhood. Special exceptions that are reviewed by one of the commissions require approximately 52 staff hours. Based on this information, the cost to the city to process a typical special exception application that is approved by staff is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48- 57% of the cost. If the special exception is required to go to a commission for approval, the staff hour cost increases to between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee. The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city. There are some exceptions that will be prohibited by this proposal. These exceptions are being eliminated because the make up the bulk of denied special exceptions, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions. The following is a short list of exceptions that will no longer be allowed: Additional height for dwellings in residential districts unless the block face already has buildings that exceed the current height limit or the property is located in a historic district; Additional height for fences, including in the front yard. Changes to fence height regulations were initiated by the City Council in 2019. This is being processed separately because fence height regulations impact every single parcel of land in the city; 2 Ground mounted utility boxes in rights of way unless the box serves the broader neighborhood or community; Grade changes and retaining walls over six feet in height that are not broken up by a horizontal step. This change was also initiated by the City Council in 2016 after a very tall retaining wall was built in the upper Federal Heights neighborhood. Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have specific qualifying provisions. These are detailed in the Planning Commission staff report from November 18, 2020 (Attachment 3.a.iii). There are some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, that the Planning Division identified as potentially impactful, that the Planning Commission asked for more detailed information, or that have generated enforcement actions by the city. These special exceptions are summarized in detail in the Planning Commission staff reports, but briefly discussed here for reference: Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving individual developments. Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific maximum with increased setbacks. Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage. Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall. In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to 10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement. Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1 zoning districts. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed changes went through an early engagement process that included notice to all recognized organizations, notice to AIA Utah, and notice to the Planning Divisions email list. The official early engagement period started on August 13 and ended on October 10, 2020. The public information document on this topic that was posted on the 3 Planning Division website was accessed by 147 individuals during this period. Comments were submitted from the Sugar House Community Council and four individuals. After the early engagement period several changes were made to the proposal in response to the comments. These changes included expanding the zoning districts where vintage signs could be placed as public art, modifying the inline addition regulations to allow minor extensions to buildings walls that do not meet current side yard setback requirements, and changes to the location of mechanical equipment when next to driveways, parking areas, or accessory buildings. As part of the public review process the Planning Division also reviewed zoning complaints to determine what types of issues are commonly associated with complaints related to special exceptions. The most common complaint was associated with mechanical equipment and outdoor dining. The outdoor dining regulations were modified to include a 10-foot setback when adjacent to a residential zone and hours that music could be played outdoors. Changes to the mechanical equipment regulations include prohibiting equipment from being placed on the roofs of accessory buildings and requiring screening when locating in a front or corner side yard. The Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 to review the proposal and provide input. The meeting was held virtually and broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel, Channel 17 and through the WebEx platform. During the work session, the PC directed the Planning Division to address the following issues: 1. Front yard parking when there are no other options for off street parking on the site; 2. Extra building height in commercial districts on sloping lots; 3. Inline additions within noncomplying side yards; 4. Ground mounted utility boxes; and 5. Accessory structure building height. The proposal was modified to address the issues. Front yard parking would be allowed in very limited situations with specific dimensional requirements; maximum building height in commercial zoning districts would be allowed up to a 10% increase in building height on sloping lots and the extra height does not result in the creation of an additional story; inline additions were limited in scale; ground mounted utility boxes were prohibited in rights of way when serving only a private development; and up to a 25% increase in accessory building height was allowed with an equal increase in setback. The Historic Landmarks Commission held a virtual public hearing on the proposal on November 5, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. One person spoke during the public hearing and discussed the importance that the proposal maintains the authority of the HLC to modify lot and bulk modifications within local historic districts and for landmark sites. The HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment 4 email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. Two people spoke during the public hearing, one person in favor of the proposal for streamlining approval processes and the resulting reallocation of staff resources to other city planning needs. Another person discussed the impact of making more things permitted and the loss of notice associated with that. It should be noted that notice is only sent to adjacent property owners/occupants and to property owners directly across the street. Nearly of all special exception requests are approved by staff after the noticing period ends. The special exceptions that generate the most opposition and are make up the bulk of denials include requests for extra height for single family homes and over height fences. These two options are being deleted as part of this proposal and would no longer be allowed. After discussing these issues, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal. It should be noted that this petition has no direct mailing list because the text amendment does not directly impact specific properties, no property owners or stakeholders indicated that they would like to receive notice regarding the changes, and no entities have requested direct notice related to special exceptions. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Planning Commission Meetings A. November 18, 2020 Public Hearing i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Hearing Notice iii. Staff Report B. September 30, 2020 Work Session i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Staff Report 4. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting November 5, 2020 A. Agenda and Minutes B. Staff Report 5. Original Petition 5 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to eliminate special exceptions from that title) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as follows: 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Building wall height; b. Accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building and accessory structure height; f. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as follows: 2. Repealed. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6 (Grade Changes) as follows: 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 4 feet at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except: a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 feet shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area; b. Within the side and rear yard areas, grade changes greater than 4 feet are permitted provided: 3 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. c. Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking areas; and (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Building Height: Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay 4 District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J (Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows: J. Modifications to Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face due to the natural topography of the site pursuant to the following standards: 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying zoning district; 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the 10% modification; and 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished floor to finished ceiling height. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as follows: 5 3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as follows: D. Maximum Building and Recreation Equipment Height: 1. Lots 4 acres or less: Building height shall be limited to 35 feet; provided that for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 2. Lots greater than 4 acres: Building heights in excess of 35 feet but not more than 45 feet may be permitted provided, that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. Building heights in excess of 45 feet up to 60 feet may be approved through the design review process and that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of 60 feet may be approved through the special exception process. 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H (Lighting) as follows: H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting installations comply with the following standards: 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses; 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a 6 minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring properties. SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G (Special Exception for Garages) as follows: G. Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B (Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table are amended): TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 Type Oof Structure Oor Use Obstruction Front and Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X 7 Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp” coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. X X X Notes: 1. ”X” denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2. Reserved. 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows: (3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6 feet may be required as a condition of approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2 (Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows: 2. Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use: Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use are limited to a one time expansion of up to 25% of the gross floor area, or 1,000 gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion. SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B (Enlargement) as follows: B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as provided in this section. 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks. 8 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. c. Interior side yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side yard setback(s) are permitted as follows: (1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line provided the following standards are complied with: i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building. ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time addition and no further additions are permitted. (2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone. (3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. (4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable overlay zoning district shall apply. d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone. 2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with. 9 SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F (Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows: F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage requirements. SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060 (Noncomplying Lots) as follows: 21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions: A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director after consultation with applicable city departments; D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and rear yards for the purpose of future development. E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street parking F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street parking is required, vehicle access and parking. G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning 10 requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as follows: Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the original footprint. A. Alterations, Additions or Extensions or Replacement Structures Greater Than the Original Footprint: In zoning districts which do not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the original footprint by 25% of the existing structure subject to the following standards: 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. 2. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of Section 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards for Legal Conforming Single- Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings and Twin Homes in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title. B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single- family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number of outdoor parking stalls shall be 4 parking stalls per dwelling unit SECTION 22. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 11 21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this section shall comply with the following standards: 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question; c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; d. Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a trained professional in historic preservation; e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the following may be considered: a. Evidence listed in Subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than 5 consecutive years; c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every 5 years. 12 C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety requirements as provided in Title 18, Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential Housing”, of this code. 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. SECTION 23. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use Limitations” as follows: 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth below: A. An accessory use shall be incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use or structure; C. No accessory use shall be established or constructed before the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with these regulations; D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an accessory use or structure. E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the zoning district. SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as follows: 13 A. Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a front yard. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than 20 feet to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a corner side yard. 3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard; however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one foot to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a 4 foot separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in Subsection A.4.b of this section. 4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than 4 feet to any portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. 5. Accessory or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than 10 feet to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. 6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 14 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the block; c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title. SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C (Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows: C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 1. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts, SNB and the RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory building and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increases one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one foot of structure height above 17 feet. 2. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet; 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14 feet. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided 15 the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor Dining) as follows: 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: “Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any zoning districts where restaurant and retail uses are allowed subject to the provisions of this section: A. Where allowed: 1. Within the buildable lot area; 2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design guidelines. B. All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title are met. 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining have been secured. 3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from the city; b. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws. 4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 16 5. Live music will not be performed, nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise control ordinance, Title 9, Chapter 9.28 of this code. Live music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 6. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of the use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as stated in Chapter 21A.44 (Parking). 7. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 25 feet of the outdoor dining area. SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D (Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows: D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and antenna support having a combined surface area greater than 10 square feet or having any single dimension exceeding 12 feet that is capable of transmitting as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in compliance with the regulations set forth below: 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a surface area greater than 10 square feet or any single dimension exceeding 12 feet may be located on any lot. 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, exceed 75 feet in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to Subsection D.3 of this section, the height therein specified. 3. Attachment to Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to withstand a wind force of 80 miles per hour without the use of supporting guywires. c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding rod. 17 SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b (Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows: b. Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. (2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard property line. (3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. (4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid fence so the equipment is not visible. (5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. SECTION 29. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of Salt Lake City Code as follows: 21A.40.100: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT: All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows: A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard property lines. B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to 2 feet. C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to two feet. D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 18 SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I (Barbed Wire Fences) as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following instances: 1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically aligned. d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60 degrees from a vertical line. f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use when the subject property is in a CG zoning district. SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J (Razor Wire Fences) as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 1. Razor wire is not allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 2. Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 19 3. No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than 7 feet high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. All razor wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning districts that do not have a minimum setback. SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L (Electric Security Fences) as follows: L. Electric Security Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited. 2. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 3. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 4. Perimeter Fence or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than 6 feet in height. There shall be at least one foot of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 5. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 6. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. 7. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than 60 feet. Signs shall comply with requirements in Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. 8. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access for Persons with Disabilities) as follows: 21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may be approved by the zoning administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required yard 20 areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal regulations. SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows: 21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES: A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while reducing the negative impacts they may create. B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A, unless exempted within Section 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without the applicable city permits and public way permits. C. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section. 1. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of new construction or as an addition to an existing building that requires additional utility service subject to the following standards: a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum of one foot from a side or rear property line. b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence, or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the adjacent parcel. 2. In a public right of way if each of the following criteria are satisfied: a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property; 21 b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space; c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley, necessary permissions and easements must be provided; d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or building or for any new use or accessory use on the property; e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or planned public improvement within the right of way; f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in the right of way; g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter 14.32 or its successor; and h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility provider, of the proposed development. 3. In a public right of way when the ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide utility service to the broader neighborhood, the location is consistent with any legal agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the proposed utility box complies with all applicable regulations. 4. The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in this section and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code. D. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such as stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment. E. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good visual quality and repair. 1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern. 2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering division requirements. 22 3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment. 4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than 15° from plumb. A service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility box within 72 hours after discovering or being notified of such damage to a box. SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.090 Modification to Parking Areas as follows: 21A.44.090: MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS: Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading, and the city may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. A. Authority to Approve Modifications: The planning director or transportation director may approve the following types of modifications provided that the Director determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the surrounding context (such as shape, topography, utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been created by the actions of the applicant. B. Authorized Modifications: 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 3. Front Yard Parking: a. The lot contains an existing residential building. b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 23 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a minimum depth of 20 feet. (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. (1) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing: a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side yard. c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar material with dust control measures in place. d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V (Historic District Signs) as follows: 21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. 24 SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage Signs) as follows: A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community at large. B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a sign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall require: (a) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, if currently existing; (b) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the sign meets the applicable criteria; (c) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; (d) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and (e) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 2. The zoning administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the sign: a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned development agreement or by the historic landmark commission; b. Is not a billboard as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and d. Meets at least 4 of the following criteria: (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other establishment on the subject site; (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the city, or region; (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or identity of a neighborhood; (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building where the sign is located; or 25 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 3. A designated vintage sign may: a. Be relocated within its current site. b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign including: (1) Shape and form, (2) Size, (3) Typography, (4) Illustrative elements, (5) Use of color, (6) Character of illumination, and (7) Character of animation. c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on a site. SECTION 38. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code Chapter. Chapter 21A.52 (Special Exceptions) is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 39. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order: Ground mounted utility box. SECTION 40. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order to Section 21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 26 Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals, boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities. SECTION 41. 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 ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance deleting special exceptions from city code(legislative) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney March9, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS A. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING i. AGENDA AND MINUTES ii. HEARING NOTICE iii. STAFF REPORT B. SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WORK SESSION i. STAFF REPORT ii. MINUTES 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES B. STAFF REPORT 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 7 Petition: PLNPCM2020-00606 August 5, 2020 The mayor initiated a petition to remove the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. August 5, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2018-00606 assigned to Nick Norris, Planning Director, for staff analysis and processing. August 11, 2020 Petition routed to each City Department and Division for review and comment. August 13, 2020 Early engagement period started by sending an email containing preliminary information sent to all Community Council Chairs informing them of the proposed text amendments, and that Planning Commission and City Council meetings would be scheduled in the future. August 13, 2020 Public information posted to the Planning Division website explaining the proposal and containing proposed text of code changes. August 14, 2020 Email notice of the digital open house sent to the Planning Division list- serve. This email is sent every two weeks with each item that is in the public engagement phase. September 17, 2020 Email sent to American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter with information on the proposal and seeking input from the architecture community. September 21. 2020 Presentation to the Sugar House Land Use Committee. September 30, 2020 Planning Commission work session to discuss proposal October 5, 2020 Planning Division internal review and drafting of recommendations from Planning Commission October 23, 2020 Public notice for November 5, 2020 HLC meeting sent to Division list serve, posted on city website, and posted on Utah Public Meeting website. October 24, 2020 Public hearing notice posted in newspaper October 29, 2020 Ground Mounted Utility Box discussion with City Departments and Rocky Mountain Power November 5, 2020 Public Hearing with the Historic Landmark Commission. HLC recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. 8 November 6, 2020 Public hearing notice for November 18, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing published in newspaper, posted on the Planning Division website and on the State of Utah Public Meeting website, and emailed to Planning Division list serve. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and conducted a public hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. December 7, 2020 Transmittal forwarded to Community and Neighborhood Department.                                                             9                                                                                 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10   The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendments - A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nick Norris at 801-641-1728 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.   11                                                                     3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 12 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 18, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-11182020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Consideration of a Stay of Decision - On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission approved a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to existing home located at approximately 1400 East Federal Way; Case number PLNPCM2020- 00465. That decision has been appealed. City ordinance 21A.52.120.B authorizes the Planning Commission to consider whether to stay the decision that is being appealed. A stay prevents the city from taking any further action regarding the application, including issuing building permits, performing inspections, or finalizing inspections, until a decision is reached by the appeals hearing officer. A stay does not prohibit the applicant from performing work on the subject property that does not require a permit or for work related to a permit that has already been issued. If a stay is not granted, the city would be obligated to issue permits, perform inspections and approve permits. The property owner proceeds at their own risk pending a decision on the appeal. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) CONSENT AGENDA 2. Kensington Tower Time Extension Request – Steve Brown, project representative, is requesting a one-year time extension of approval for the Kensington Tower Design Review. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019 for a 448-foot-tall multi-family residential tower. The subject property is 13 located at approximately 75 E. 200 S., in the D-1 (Central Business District) within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (385) 226-6479 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00786 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 2020 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 2321 S Windsor St - Andrea Palmer with Modal, representing the property owner, is seeking Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a detached structure at approximately 2321 S Windsor Street. The ADU will be located in the Southeast corner of the rear yard of the subject property. The ADU will measure approximately 561 square feet and will measure a height of approximately 11 feet 7 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential zoning district and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00512 2. East Liberty Tap House Conditional Use for a Bar at approximately 850 East 900 South - Caroline & Josh Stewart, the property owners, are requesting Conditional Use approval for a bar establishment to be located at 850 E 900 S. The space is currently occupied by the East Liberty Tap House and the bar establishment will retain the same name and ownership. The applicants are proposing to change the existing tavern/restaurant license and approval at this location to a bar establishment which requires a new Conditional Use approval. A Bar is allowed as a Conditional Use in the CB – Community Business zoning district subject to certain size limitations. An area that previously functioned as a private dining room will be incorporated into the bar's space for patrons. The building's exterior, parking and other aspects are not being modified through this request. The subject property is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226- 3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00558 3. Emeril Townhomes Planned Development, Design Review and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 833 W Emeril Avenue - Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new townhome development at 833 Emeril Avenue. The project will replace one single family residence on a single lot with 12 single family attached townhomes. The total site is 0.27 acres. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Planned Development: The Planned Development is needed to address the lack of street frontage and modifications to the TSA zoning regulations. Case number PLNPCM2020-00288 b. Design Review: The development requires Design Review approval as the development did not receive enough points through the TSA development review process for administrative (staff level) approval. Case number PLNPCM2020-00289 c. Preliminary Subdivision: The development also involves a preliminary plat to create the individual new townhome lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00347 The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) 4. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting 14 amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 15 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, November 18, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:26 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for conducting a virtual meeting. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:35 PM Chairperson Scheer stated that it is her and Amy Barry’s first time serving as Chair and Vice- Chair and asked the public for their patience while they settle into their new roles. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:08 PM Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to join and participate during the meeting. 6:41:48 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. ( 16 Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Clarification on whether extra height for buildings is allowed if the primary structure is nonconforming in height  Clarification on nonconforming structures PUBLIC HEARING 7:04:10 PM Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated she mentioned to the Historic Landmark Commission the issue of lack of public notice once the changes are approved. She also stated that over time uses associated with special exceptions have changed dramatically; an example is outdoor dining. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided information on notices that are provided to the public. The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:  Whether public comments received by staff are sent to City Council  Clarification on whether the neighborhood will still receive notices if the petition is approved  Clarification on the number of special exceptions in the zoning ordinance that are being changed  Clarification on how the proposed changes affect daycares MOTION 7:17:02 PM Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom, Urquhart, Paredes, Lyon, Hoskins, Bell, Barry and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20:37 PM 17 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18 2020 ii. NEWSPAPER NOTICE 18 19 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 iii. STAFF REPORT 20 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: November 18, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility in administering the regulation and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary 21 Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 22 • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues were identified through the public engagement process as of October 31, 2020: 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten-foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department and places hours that music can be played outdoors when the business is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. Special exceptions are an administrative process because the PC is the approval authority. The PC does have discretion in the process because the current standards are subjective, and applicants are not being denied a property right because the applicant typically has the option to comply with the zoning requirements without the need for a special exception. No changes were necessary from this comment. 4. Noncomplying Issues 23 Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. There are changes to chapter 21A.38, which regulates nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures that accomplish this by simplifying the regulations and reducing the need to submit land use applications. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances. The Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission and is discussed under the “Planning Commission Recommendations” section. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. No changes were made to this proposal in response to this comment. 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division used this suggestion to update the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. 8. Inline Additions A comment was received about the need to maintain inline additions as an option to provide flexibility when designing additions that fit in with the characteristics of the built environment. This is a true statement. This issue was also identified by the Planning Commission with a 24 recommendation to find a way to maintain inline additions in the side yard. Options are discussed in the next section of this report. Inline additions within side yards do create new impacts that the adjacent property owner may not have anticipated. The impacts often cited by the public when reviewing an inline addition within a side yard include privacy and shadowing. Privacy impacts include how windows are aligned with windows on neighboring properties and expanding the living space so that adjacent rear yards are less secluded. Issues associated with shadowing are identified when the proximity of the addition starts to shade a portion of a neighboring yard that was not previously in the shade. Trees and fences also create shading issues, fences are shorter than building walls and tree heights are not regulated by city ordinances. The remaining processes in the zoning ordinance do not contain similar flexibility or do not contain standards that help determine if an inline addition within a side yard is appropriate. The closest process is the design review process. That process does not contain specific standards about inline additions and would require some standards be added in order to be a useful tool for inline additions. 9. HVAC Locations and Setbacks HVAC equipment is generally required to be at least 4 feet from a property line and are not allowed to be in a required front yard setback. An average of 11 applications per year are made requesting to locate HVAC equipment within four feet of a property line or within a required front yard. In response to this comment, the proposal was modified to add flexibility, such as allowing the equipment in a front yard if it is located within 4 feet of the building, at least 10 feet from the front property line, and screened. There was a public comment that suggested that mechanical equipment may be appropriate if it was within 4 feet of a property line and adjacent to a driveway on a neighboring property. This was added as an allowed encroachment when next to a driveway, parking area, or an accessory building provided a 2-foot setback is maintained to allow future maintenance without the need to use adjacent property to access the equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The following section outlines the recommended changes made by the Planning Commission during the work session held on September 30, 2020. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in 25 noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. The Division created a proposal that would allow an inline addition within a noncomplying side yard provided: • The addition is limited to a single story; • The addition maintains the exterior wall height (or lower) of the existing building; • The addition can extend the existing noncomplying exterior wall no more than 20% in length. These provisions provide some flexibility in the regulations and reduce the potential impacts to neighbors. The proposal would allow the extension “by-right” and there would be no public process for meeting the provisions. An additional suggestion was to allow an addition to extend a noncomplying wall by up to 50% of the existing wall, but no more than 16 feet, which would be enough to accommodate an additional room within the building. The Commission can decide which option is best upon considering impacts and the need to be flexibility and allow for growth within existing buildings to better accommodate changing housing needs. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks within historic districts, which cover significant portions of the city. The provisions for inline additions would not apply to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the H Overlay already has standards and processes to address additions with noncomplying setbacks. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special 26 exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. This section was modified to require utility provider approval for location and access to utility boxes, setbacks from property line of one foot, and multiple requirements for locating a box in the ROW (each requirement must be satisfied) only when the box is necessary for neighborhood wide service and when an existing building on the property is being reused and there is no other location on the subject property. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 5, 2020. There was one public comment in support of the proposed changes as it retains the HLC ability to make modifications to lot and bulk requirements but simplifies the process to do so. The HLC passed a motion unanimously recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and enforced. Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: 27 The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The Planning Commission may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the Planning Commission makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 28 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to allow 10% increase on sloping lots. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact or the equipment is screened. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed in a limited manner in side yards. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 29 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private property added. Size limitations deleted. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in very limited instances. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 30 Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Special Exception Text Amendment Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020 Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020 Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020 No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 72 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 73 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O.801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL     801-535-6173 CELL   801-641-1728 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 74 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA    Principal           // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST  |  SUITE B123  |   SALT LAKE CITY   |   UTAH   |  84101 O. 801.533.5331       |       M. 801.560.7171     RenovationDesignGroup.com     | Facebook Fans     |     Houzz Portfolio 75 76 77 From:Kyle Deans To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 3:09:19 PM Nick, If the exceptions have been addressed in each of their specific sections of zoning code I fully support deleting the Special Exceptions from the code. Kyle R Deans Salt Lake City Resident 78 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, follow up meetings were held on September 30, 2020 and October 29, 2020 with Engineering, Real Estate Services,Building Services and Rocky Mountain Power to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings. Airports: no comments received. Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example? Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided. Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt. Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter. Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 79 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 80 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 81 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation September 30, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-09302020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR WORK SESSIONS: No public comment will be heard 1. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State St. – Aabir Malik, an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units in upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439 2. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. 82 The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 83 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, September 30, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 1:00:43 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Andres Paredes was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 26, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 1:00:59 PM MOTION 1:01:09 PM Commissioner Scheer, moved to approve the August 26,2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Scheer, Barry, Urquhart, Bachman and Bell voted “Aye”. Commissioner Lee abstained from voting as he was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1:02:04 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1:02:18 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, thanked the Commission for attending the meeting for work session items. 2:25:25 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes – Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and 84 structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 Nick Norris, Planning Director, briefed the commission with an overview of the proposal and seek input on 5 key issues with the proposal. The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Front yard parking: proposal is to eliminate. a. Have an issue with eliminating it. b. May impact more modest neighborhoods than wealthier neighborhoods. Some westside neighborhoods have narrow lots where side/rear cannot be accessed. It is not just the avenues or capitol hill. c. Reality is that even if someone has a driveway that leads to a garage, they park in the portion of the driveway in the front yard. If that is allowed, how is this any different in terms of seeing cars parking in the front yard area? d. Would like to see a proposal to allow it with some standards (dimensions, materials, location within front yard) e. If the block face has driveways, it should be allowed. f. Consider standards about parking slab being located closer to the side property line so it is similar to other driveways and not going directly into the middle of the lot.  Commercial Building height a. Is this an issue that is created by how building height is measured in commercial districts? i. For example, if the height is averaged on one slope, how does that translate to the next building face? One side gets the benefit of the slope, but the other doesn’t so in effect it is a meaningless. b. Try to figure out how to allow this when it isn’t adding an additional story of habitable space. Like if the front yard is fine, but the property slopes towards the back, can the rear of the building be level with the street facing façade? c. Can it be based on the length of the lot? Really wide lots may have to have some sort of stepping.  Ground Mounted utility boxes a. Support removing them from the ROW or private developments. b. Understands the need for flexibility with underground power requirements and the tradeoff with some utility boxes.  Accessory building height a. Concerns with just allowing an accessory building up to 75% of the height of the principal structure. What if the principal building is 35 feet tall, should the accessory building be allowed to be almost as tall as the maximum principal building of 28 feet? i. Consider an “up to height” as part of the increased height. 85 b. Concerned with the use of second stories on accessory buildings.  Inline additions a. Want to find a way to allow them inside yards. i. Can we allow a single-story addition to follow the existing setback line, but require a second story to comply with current step backs? b. OK with the front and rear yard proposals. Next Steps:  Engagement period ends on Oct 11th. Will see if there are any additional issues and address them when this comes back to the PC  Will work on addressing the key issues above and work solutions into the proposal.  Targeting November PC meeting for a public hearing due to workloads but would like to transmit by end of December. The meeting adjourned at 3:05:03 PM 86 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 ii. STAFF REPORT 87 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To : Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: September 25, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: This is a briefing only. The purpose of the briefing is to introduce the Planning Commission to the proposal, the purpose of the project, identify key issues, and answer questions. ATTACHMENTS: A. Public Information Guide Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception:  Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; 88 Special Exception Text Amendment  Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or  Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide each application. Proposed Changes and Most Frequently Applied for Special Exceptions The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The key changes are discussed below and based on the most frequently applied for exceptions. The chart shows the number of applications received in the last three years for each type of special exception. Unit Legalizations: Regulations will be relocated to the nonconforming chapter because this is recognized an existing use that has been in existence prior to the current zoning regulations. Replacing Non-Complying Building or building segment: regulations will be moved to noncomplying section because these are legally existing structures that retain certain noncomplying status rights. Home Day Care: This will be addressed through another text amendments that will make home day cares permitted or conditional uses based on the number of children cared for. Hobby Shops: These will become permitted uses in accessory buildings. Type of Special Exception # of  applications  Unit Legalizations 32  Replace Noncomplying Building 37  Home Day Care 37  Hobby Shop 42  Grade Changes 43  Mechanical Equipment in Required  Yard 44  Additional Height Accessory Building 47  HLC Bulk Modification 51  Inline Additions 97  Fence Height 104  What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. Top ten most applied for special exceptions for the past three years 89 Special Exception Text Amendment Grade Changes: specific regulations will be added to reduce the size of retaining walls necessary to retain the associated grade changes. The retaining walls will be required to be stepped based on the base zoning districts. Mechanical equipment in required yards: Will be permitted with setback and screening requirements added to reduce negative impacts. Additional Accessory Building Height. The permitted height will remain at seventeen feet for most residential districts (SR-1 and SR-1A have different height requirements). However, the height may be increased up to 75% of the height of principal building for an equal increase to side yard and rear yard setbacks. HLC Bulk Modifications: the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission would remain and authorized through the required process in the overlay zoning district for new construction and additions. Currently two different applications are required. This would reduce the need for a redundant application. Staff authority would be expanded to allow for similar allowances for minor modification applications. Inline Additions: additions to a side yard where the building does not comply with the minimum requirement would be prohibited. Additions in a front or rear yard would be allowed when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required front or rear yard. This is because front yard and rear yard setbacks are larger than side yard setbacks and do not create the same impacts to neighboring properties. Fence Height: this would be deleted. Specific maximum heights would be added. The HLC and PC will retain the ability to approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use application. (this is being processed as a separate text amendment). Other changes can be found in Attachment A as a quick summary of what would happen to each special exception. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. These factors will be fully analyzed in the final staff report prepared for the public hearing. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices:  removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues,  modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), 90 Special Exception Text Amendment  removing regulations that restrict property rights, do not create unexpected impacts, and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and  removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal that have been received as of Friday, September 25, 2002:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district.  No other formal input has been received from any community councils.  One email has been received from a resident of the East Bench Community. The text from that email is copied below. The actual email will be provided as part of the staff report for the public hearing on this item. Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. 91 Special Exception Text Amendment We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response has been provided. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Website analytics as of September 22, 2020 indicate 135 people have accessed the public information on the Planning Division website concerning this item. Changes That are Most Likely to be Controversial: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes require more study and input before they can be adequately addressed and may be controversial. It is possible that additional challenges are identified before the public hearing. The known issues are discussed below: 1. Inline Additions Proposed Change:  Remove the special exception process from the ordinance and require inline additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks but allow inline additions in front and rear yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into the front or rear yard. An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a 92 Special Exception Text Amendment time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. This proposal would require additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger, and the impacts are already reduced. 2. Extra Height in Commercial Districts This special exception is proposed to be deleted. However, recent development proposals have indicated that the rules for measuring height may be problematic on sloping lots. Prior to a final recommendation, the Planning Division will consider practical ways to address this so that property owners do not have to go through a process to address issues with sloping lots. 3. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes in Rights of Way. City staff from Planning, Transportation, and Engineering are proposing eliminating above grade ground mounted utility boxes from being in the rights of way when the utility boxes are only serving a private development. The purpose for this is that the equipment and infrastructure necessary for development should be provided on the private property associated with that development. When utility boxes are in the rights of way, it impacts the future use of the rights of way and limits the city’s ability to make changes, such as planting more trees, building protected bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and providing utility upgrades. 4. Bulk Modifications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District The ability of the Historic Landmark Commission to make modifications to setbacks, building heights, and other dimensional requirements helps new development fit into the historic development patterns of local historic districts. This authority is proposed to be authorized trough the existing processes required for changes to historic properties instead of requiring a second application and process. Staff is also considering expanding this authority to the planning staff for minor alterations that are approved at a staff level. This would allow staff to make some modifications in situations where someone is restoring a historic structure to its original condition when the current ordinance prohibits it or when additions to historic buildings require some modification to reduce the impact to the historic structure. DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 9/24/2020: Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received. 93 Special Exception Text Amendment  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal:  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments received  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: no comments received; however, a specific meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 to discuss.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Parks and Public Lands: no comments provided  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: no comments provided  Public Utilities: no comments provided  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided 94 Special Exception Text Amendment NEXT STEPS: The public comment period for this item runs through October 11, 2020. After the public comment period ends, the Planning Division will review the comment received (both internal and external) and make modifications to the proposal as needed. Due to Planning Commission workloads, this item is not likely to be scheduled for a public hearing until November 18, 2020. Please note that this is the third Wednesday of November. The meeting date has been changes to accommodate Veterans Day on November 11, 2020. It is possible that this item may be scheduled for a public hearing on October 28, 2020 depending on how many private development applications are ready to be heard on that date. That date already has two other city text amendments that are time sensitive. The goal is to have a recommendation and transmit this change to the City Council by the end of the calendar year. 95 Special Exception Text Amendment 96 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES 97 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 5, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-11052020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM Approval of Minutes for October 1, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Director’s Report Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda. Public Hearings 1. Fisher Mansion Carriage House Chemical Coating at approximately 1206 West 200 South - CRSA, on behalf of Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands, is requesting a Major Alteration to the Carriage House associated with the Fisher Mansion. The applicant is requesting approval to administer an anti-graffiti coating to the exterior of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House located at 1206 W. 200 S. The anti-graffiti coating is associated with the approved adaptive reuse of the carriage house as a River Recreation and Community Engagement Hub. The subject property is located at 1206 W. 200 S., which is designated as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. Both structures, the mansion and the carriage house, are listed as contributing to the landmark site. The subject property is located within the I (Institutional) zoning district and within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00509 98 2. Harvard Avenue Landscape Alterations at approximately 1362 E Harvard Avenue - Dean Anesi, Landscape Designer, on behalf of the property owners, Joan Hammond, and Joe Dick, is requesting approval from the City for site grading, landscaping, and a 20” high, stone veneer wall installed in the front yard without a Certificate of Appropriateness at the above-listed address. This type of project must be reviewed as a minor alteration to a property in a historic district. The house is a contributing building within the SLC Harvard Heights Historic District and is zoned R-1-7,000 Single-Family Residential District. The subject property is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Nelson Knight at (801) 535-7758 or nelson.knight@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00692 3. Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Other Business Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson elections The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, December 3, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date. For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued 99 SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Thursday, November 5, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:27 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters; Vice Chairperson Robert Hyde; Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Ewanowski, Aiden Lillie, Victoria Petro-Eschler, David Richardson, and Michael Vela. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; and Nelson Knight, Senior Planner. Chairperson Peters read the declaration to hold an electronic meeting without an anchor site. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:51 PM MOTION 5:35:57 PM Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the October 1, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Petro-Eschler seconded the motion. The three new commissioners abstained from voting. Commissioners Hyde, Richardson, Petro-Eschler, and Vela voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:18 PM Chairperson Peters welcomed our three new commissioners! Vice Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:38:17 PM Michaela Oktay let the commission know that we can make badges for HLC members to wear so if they visit a site they can show official credentials. Marlene will send out an email and each commissioner can contact HR to have one made. Public Comment- Chair Peters asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to provide public comments. There were no responses from the public. Director Norris showed a presentation how to “raise the hand” on webex, he also went through all the ways the public can alert the commission and staff how to participate. 7:46:31 PM Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A 100 special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Retention of HLC authority when it pertains to special exceptions  The importance of addressing the multiple special exceptions authorized and fixing the code  Overall a valuable and well thought out amendment. PUBLIC HEARING 8:11:00 PM Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated that the importance of the special exceptions authorized by the HLC. She mentioned projects of different use and magnitude that were only possible since the institution of HLC authorization of special exceptions. A well done project. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing. The Commission made the following comments:  All for simplifying the process. All HLC authorities are maintained, simplified and a step in the right direction.  Supportive of all the changes, a great idea. MOTION 8:14:33 PM Commissioner Hyde stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Historic Landmark Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion. Commissioners Lillie, DeLay, Richardson, Ewanowski, Vela, Petro-Eschler, and Hyde voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 101 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 B. STAFF REPORT 102 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: October 29, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Briefing and public hearing only. This proposal involves multiple chapters of the code and changes regulations that apply city wide. The purpose of the briefing is to inform the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) on the proposal and the process to date, specifically in regards to how the changes impact the authority of the HLC and the Planning Division when reviewing certificates of appropriateness proposals within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Although not required, the HLC may make a recommendation on the proposal. The recommendation would be provided to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment 103 C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. For the purposes of the HLC, the major change proposed result in moving special exceptions under the certificate of appropriateness process. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy, particularly outside of the H Overlay. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. The most impactful change that impacts the HLC involves the authority of the HLC to address bulk modifications. The HLC currently has the authority to approve bulk modifications as a special exception. This includes building height, setbacks, lot coverages, and any other regulation that deals with the placement of a building or structure on property located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. This authority includes the ability of staff to address bulk modifications to accessory buildings and structures and other proposals listed as minor alterations. This has proven to be a beneficial tool for the HLC because it has What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 104 provided flexibility in acknowledging that most historic buildings and development patterns within local historic districts were established prior to zoning. It has allowed the HLC to focus on design review standards with the overarching goal of preserving the integrity of a building, site and the established historic context. It has provided a mechanism to develop some lots within the city that were previously unbuildable and to design new construction on those lots with buildings that fit into the historic context. This proposal maintains that authority but eliminates the need to require a separate special exception application and process. The process to approve modification of lot and bulk standards would be now be retained through the existing Certificate of Appropriateness processes outlined in 21A.34.020. The benefits of this change include: • property owners would only need one type of application instead of the two currently required; • decisions would be based on the applicable standards in 21A.34.020 (alteration, new construction) and the general standards for special exception would not be needed; • Review time for staff is reduced due to the reduced analysis necessary with elimination of the special exception standards; and • Staff reports become shorter without the need for additional process review, motions, etc. The proposed changes include changing the authority section so that the surrounding context is more applicable than the current ordinance requires. The current ordinance says that the HLC can only approve a special exception if it is found that the underlying zoning district is incompatible with the historic district or landmark site. That wording is being changed to focus on the proposal complying with the applicable certificate of appropriateness standards and being compatible with the surrounding historic structures. Planning staff would be specifically granted the authority to approve modifications for those things listed in the ordinance as minor alterations. Those items listed include: 1. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; 2. Substantial alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site; 3. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 4. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; 5. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure; and 6. Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. This would most likely be used for proposals that fall into items one and two. The HLC would retain the authority to approve modifications for new construction and major alterations. The Planning Division would retain the ability to refer a matter to the HLC for decision if there is a question about the level of compliance with standards. 105 It is conceivable that any of the proposed changes within this proposal could impact properties within historic districts. However, the H Overlay District takes precedence over any other base zoning district requirement or general provision within the ordinance. Properties within the H Historic Overlay District may also be impacted by other proposed changes. Those key changes are discussed within the “Community Input” and “Key Code Changes” sections of this report. The provisions and processes within the H Overlay District would not be impacted by the changes and all exterior modifications of a property subject to the H Overlay would maintain some review process. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. This staff report focuses on the factors that are directly related to the HLC and the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and can be found in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that rarely, if ever, applied for), • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues have been identified through the public engagement process (as of October 29, 2020): 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, 106 coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten -foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. There is some risk that this creates unequal treatment and application of the special exception process and standards. 4. Noncomplying Issues Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances and the Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. However, that is not within the definition within the zoning ordinance and cannot be used to determine if a unit is self-contained. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. 107 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, to be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division updated the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. KEY CODE CHANGES: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes may have broader implications and deserve to be discussed in more detail. The following specific issues were discussed by the Planning Commission during a work session and are included as information for the Historic Landmark Commission. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The HLC would retain the ability to approve appropriately designed inline additions. However, outside of the H Overlay additions would be required to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger than side yards and the impacts are already reduced. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. 108 After reviewing these options, the Planning Division is of the opinion that trying to accommodate in line additions as suggested may trigger unintended consequences. The issues identified by Planning Staff include: • Limiting an inline addition to a single story: this required defining what a single story is, how it is measured, and how it interacts with the rest of the structure. For example, an addition could add a single story that had a larger floor to ceiling height than the existing structure, but still be considered a single story. The addition could potentially be a 28-foot-tall space and have the same impacts that a two-story structure may have. • Establishing a new method to measure height for single story additions may create unintended consequences to other structures and would require greater analysis. There are tens of thousands single family structures in the city that were build prior to the current side yard setbacks. Understanding the impact that such a change would have to those properties and the adjacent properties is a challenging task that would require significant staff research that is not currently available. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks, building height and other mass related regulations within historic districts. Maintaining this authority creates a benefit for properties within the H Overlay and is a relatively small, but effective, carrot for creating local historic districts. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. Front Yard parking is currently an authorized special exception, including in the H Overlay. The applicable approval processes in the overlay would apply to any request for front yard parking. Front yard parking would be considered a minor alteration in most circumstances because it would be proposed on properties that were developed prior to parking requirements being added to the Zoning Ordinance and new construction must comply with current parking requirements, including location of the parking. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. 109 Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. The HLC already has the authority within the H Overlay to approve additional height for accessory structures. This proposal does put some parameters around that additional height that are not currently within the ordinance. However, the HLC would have the authority to modify the height further on a case by case basis. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. The HLC is currently granted this authority through the general modification to bulk requirements within the code. As this typically applies to new construction, it would more than likely be reviewed by the Commission and not at the staff level. It is possible however that additions to commercial buildings that are within the H Overlay may be eligible for staff review. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples of city actions that may be impacted by allowing utility boxes to be placed in the rights of way include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. The proposed prohibition would eliminate the ability for utility boxes within historic districts to be placed in the public rights of way when the box is only serving a private development. Utility boxes that serve the broader neighborhood would still be allowed provided they comply with the size requirements in the code. It is possible that a utility box could be proposed in excess of the size requirements because the size requirements are considered bulk regulations. 110 NEXT STEPS: There are a few issues that remain unresolved and some modifications may be made after the HLC public hearing. Those issues involve the key code changes discussed by the Planning Commission. An additional issue that has been identified is additional building height in the Foothill Zoning Districts. There are no local districts mapped within the Foothill Zoning Districts. The relatively steep slopes and large grade changes across individual properties make it difficult to build a new building are make additions to existing homes and comply with the height requirements. This may be addressed by allowing minority percentage of the building to exceed the height, like the proposal in commercial districts. The HLC may provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the Planning Commission and City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The HLC may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the HLC makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 111 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; will rely on processes in base zoning district. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: deleted Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: deleted. Will be required to meet standards in code without exceptions. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; prohibited when buildings don’t comply with side yard setbacks. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 112 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: permitted in the public right of way if under a certain size and if the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, but prohibited in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will no longer be allowed. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 113 HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 114 Special Exception Text Amendment 115 Special Exception Code Changes (Current as of 10/26/2020) This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning: • Amends section 21A.06.050 C 6 • Deletes section 21A.24.010 P 2 • Amends section 21A.24.010 P 6 • Amends section 21A.24.050.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.060.D.6.a • Amends sections 21A.24.070.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.080.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.100.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.110.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.26.010.J • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.3 • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.4 • Amends section 21A.32.100 H • Amends section 21A.34.120.G • Amends section Table 21A.36.020.B • Amends section 21A.36.350.A.3 • Amends section 21A.38.040.H.2 • Amends section 21A.38.050.A • Amends section 21A.38.050.G • Amends section 21A.38.060 • Amends section 21A.38.070 • Adds new section 21A.38.075 • Amends section 21A.40.040 • Amends section 21A.40.050.A.6 • Amends section 21A.40.050.C • Amends section 21A.40.065 • Amends section 21A.40.090.D • Amends section 21A.40.090.E.3.b • Adds new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical Equipment • Amends section 21A.40.120.I Barbed Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.J Razor Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.L Electric Security Fences • Amends section 21A.40.130 Access for Persons with Disabilities • Amends section 21A.40.160 Ground mounted Utility Boxes • Amends section 21A.44.090 Parking Modifications (this is the proposed parking chapter, not the current parking chapter) • Amends section 21A.46.070.V Historic District signs • Amends section 21A.46.125 Vintage signs • Deletes chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions • Makes technical changes • Makes changes to references associated with the amended sections 116 Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. Amending 21A.06.050.C.6 1 6. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions modifications to dimensional 2 standards for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. This 3 authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the 4 H Historic preservation overlay district that are eligible for administrative approval by 5 the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain special exceptions 6 modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and 7 are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 8 a. Building wall height; 9 b. Accessory structure wall height; 10 c. Accessory structure square footage; 11 d. Fence height; 12 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 13 f. Signs pursuant to section 21A.46.070 of this title; and 14 g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 15 zoning district where it is found that the underlying zoning would not be compatible 16 with the historic district and/or landmark site proposal complies with the applicable 17 standards identified in 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic 18 structures. 19 20 Delete section 21A.24.010.P.2 (eliminating additional height in foothill zones) 21 21A.24.010.P.2 22 Height Special Exception: The Planning Commission, as a special exception to the height 23 regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum 24 building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a 25 height special exception the Planning Commission must find the proposed plan: 26 a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to 27 these regulations; and 28 b. Satisfies the following criteria: 29 (1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the 30 foothill height limitations are applied, 31 (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on 32 the particular lot, and 33 (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified 34 and reasonably mitigated. 35 c. In making these considerations the Planning Commission can consider the size 36 of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. 37 d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade 38 the Planning Commission that the criteria have been satisfied. 39 e. The Planning Commission may deny an application for a height special 40 exception if: 41 117 (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or 42 nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support 43 foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; 44 (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure 45 through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on 46 the lot; 47 (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, 48 and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or 49 (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 50 Repealed 51 Amending 21A.24.010 P 6 (modifying grade change requirements in foothill zones) 52 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building 53 permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade 54 more than four4 feet (4') at any point for the construction of any structure or 55 improvement except: 56 a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 six 57 feet (6') shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in 58 chapter 21A.52 of this title shall be permitted for the construction of below grade 59 portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change 60 transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the 61 buildable area; 62 b. Within the front, corner side, side and rear yard areas, proposals to modify 63 established grade more grade changes greater than 4four feet (4') shall be 64 reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.52 65 of this title are permitted provided: and 66 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. 67 (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. 68 69 c. As necessary to construct driveway access from the street to the garage or 70 parking area grade changes and/or retaining walls up to six feet (6') from the 71 established grade shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards 72 in chapter 21A.52 of this title Within the front and corner side yards, grade 73 changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: 74 (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking 75 areas 76 (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. 77 Delete reference to special exception for extra height in R-1, R-2, and SR districts 78 21A.24.050.D.6.a: 79 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 80 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 81 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 82 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 83 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 84 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 85 118 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 86 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 87 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 88 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 89 21A.24.060.D.6.a 90 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 91 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 92 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 93 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 94 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 95 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 96 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 97 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 98 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 99 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 100 21A.24.070.D.6.a 101 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 102 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 103 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 104 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 105 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 106 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 107 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 108 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 109 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 110 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 111 21A.24.080.D.6.a 112 6. Additional Building Height: 113 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 114 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 115 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 116 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 117 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 118 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 119 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building 120 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 121 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 122 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 123 21A.24.100.D.6.a 124 6. Additional Building Height: 125 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 126 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 127 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 128 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 129 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 130 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 131 b. Additional Principal Building Height:: Requests for additional building 132 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 133 119 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 134 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 135 21A.24.110.D.6.a 136 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 137 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 138 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 139 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 140 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 141 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 142 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 143 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 144 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 145 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 146 Delete special exception for extra height in all commercial zoning districts in 21A.26.010 J 147 21A.26.010 J: 148 J. Modifications To Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in 149 commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face 150 Additions to the maximum height due to the natural topography of the site may 151 be approved pursuant to the following procedures and standards: 152 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the 153 underlying zoning district; 154 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the 155 portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height 156 of the zone without the 10% modification; and 157 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from 158 finished floor to finished ceiling height. 159 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: 160 a. The Planning Commission may approve, as a special exception, additional 161 height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the 162 standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for 163 approval are found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 164 2. Modifications Of More Than Ten Percent Of Maximum Height: 165 a. Design Review: Through design review for properties on a sloping lot in 166 Commercial Zoning Districts, pursuant to chapter 21A.59 of this title, the 167 Planning Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval the Planning 168 Director or designee, may allow additional building height of more than ten 169 percent (10%) of the maximum height, but not more than one additional story, if 170 the first floor of the building exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The 171 additional story shall not be exposed on more than fifty percent (50%) of the 172 total building elevations. 173 Changes to 21A.32.100 D 3 and D 4 deleting special exception for recreation equipment height 174 and heights for public utility buildings in the OS Open Space zoning district 175 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake 176 City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 177 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of sixty feet (60') may be approved through the 178 120 Special Exception process. are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when 179 needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as 180 fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 181 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department 182 that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from 183 the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is 184 deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure 185 necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. 186 Changes to 21A.32.100 H additional height for sports related light poles in the OS zone. 187 H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting 188 installations comply with the following standards 189 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will do not have an adverse 190 impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, 191 traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses. 192 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into 193 adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 194 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other 195 similar uses may be permitted to exceed the maximum heights up to 70 feet 196 in height provided the lights are located a minimum of 30 feet from a 197 residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring 198 properties. 199 200 Changes to 21A.34.120 Garages located in hillsides in the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill 201 Overlay 202 G. Special Exception For Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A 203 garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may 204 be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the 205 following standards: 206 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of 207 parking. 208 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and 209 satisfy the standards of the YCI. 210 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main 211 floor of the house. 212 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. 213 Changes to Table 21A.36.020 B Obstructions in Required yards 214 TABLE 21A.36.020B 215 OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 216 217 121 Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. 2 X X X Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line..Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X Changes of established grade for commercial or industrial uses in zones, where conditionally or otherwise permitted, the grade is changed to accommodate site retention or detention requirements X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, Changes of established grade greater than 4 feet are special exceptions subject to the standards and factors in chapter 21A.52 of this title Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp" coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X X Notes: 218 1. "X" denotes where obstructions are allowed. 219 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the 220 surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the 221 surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the 222 procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52 of this title. reserved 223 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the 224 property. 225 226 Changes to 21A.36.350 A 3: fence and wall height associated with homeless resource center 227 122 21A.36.350.A.3. A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of six6 feet (6') high shall 228 be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required 229 site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6six feet (6') may be 230 approved by the Planning Commission as a special exception required as a condition of 231 approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a 232 detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; 233 Changes to 21A.38.040 H 2 enlarging a structure with a legal non-conforming use 234 21A.38.040.H.2 235 2. Enlargement Of A Structure With A Nonconforming Use: Alterations or modifications 236 to a portion of a structure with Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use may be 237 approved by special exception, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title, 238 are limited to a one time expansion of up to if the floor area for the nonconforming use 239 does not increase by more than twenty five 25 percent (25%) of the gross floor area, or 240 one thousand (1,000) gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being 241 able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking 242 requirement of this title. within the limits of existing legal hard surfaced parking areas 243 on the site. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning 244 certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use portion of a 245 structure beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-246 time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted 247 as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time 248 expansion. 249 Changes to 21A.38.050 A Noncomplying structures and inline additions 250 A. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its 251 location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as 252 provided in this section. Horizontal in line additions or extensions to existing 253 noncomplying building portions are considered not creating a new nonconformance 254 and are subject to special exception standards and approval of subsection 255 21A.52.030A15 of this title. Vertical in line additions or extensions to existing 256 noncomplying building portions are considered creating a new nonconformance and 257 are not permitted. 258 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks 259 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the 260 minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further 261 reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable 262 requirements of Title 21A. 263 b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is 264 less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does 265 not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all 266 other applicable requirements of Title 21A. 267 c. Interior side yards: Any addition to a principal structure with a 268 noncomplying setback is permitted provided the addition complies with the 269 minimum side yard setback requirement and maximum wall height as 270 specified in the underlying zone. In determining if a side yard is 271 123 noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be 272 the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. 273 274 d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be 275 expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building 276 wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and 277 complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning 278 district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side 279 yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner 280 side yard setback of the underlying zone. 281 2. Noncomplying as to height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum 282 height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of 283 the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied 284 with. If the existing setbacks of the structure are noncomplying, then an 285 expansion of the building shall comply with the height and applicable setback 286 requirements of the underlying zoning district. 287 Changes to 21A.38.050 G replacement/reconstruction of a noncomplying structure 288 The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal 289 structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is subject to the 290 special exception standards of subsection 21A.52.030A19 of this title permitted provided 291 the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of 292 noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement 293 of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section 294 complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage 295 requirements. 296 Changes to 21A.38.060 Noncomplying lots: adding paragraph A addressing subdividing a lot 297 with two or more principal buildings. 298 A. Subdividing Lots containing two or more separate principal buildings. Lots that 299 contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to 300 place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions 301 1. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 302 2. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, 303 and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 304 3. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director 305 after consultation with applicable city departments; 306 4. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, 307 and rear yards for the purpose of future development. 308 5. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front 309 yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-310 street parking 311 6. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 312 street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street 313 parking is required, vehicle access and parking. 314 124 7. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note 315 shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and 316 utilities. 317 8. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 318 Changes to 21A.38.070 Legal conforming single-family detached dwelling, tw0-family dwelling, 319 and twin home. 320 Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 321 located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal 322 conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family 323 detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the 324 original footprint. 325 326 A. Alterations, Additions Or Extensions Or Replacement Structures Greater Than 327 The Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do 328 not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or 329 twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the 330 structure may exceed the original footprint by twenty five25 percent (25%) of the 331 existing structure subject to the following standards: 332 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not 333 project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the 334 structure being replaced. 335 2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which 336 are noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of subsection 337 21A.52.030A15 of this title. 338 3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the 339 provisions of section 21A.36.190, "Residential Building Standards For Legal 340 Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings And 341 Twin Homes In Nonresidential Zoning Districts", of this title. 342 343 Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed twenty 344 five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or extensions or 345 replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in 346 an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the 347 provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title. 348 Adding new section 21A.38.075 Unit Legalizations: relocated from special exception chapter. 349 A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City 350 community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one 351 or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such 352 units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing 353 housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 354 neighborhoods within the city. 355 B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this 356 section shall comply with the following standards. 357 358 125 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether 359 a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall 360 provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 361 a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar 362 documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; 363 b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building 364 permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the 365 dwelling unit in question; 366 c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 367 d. Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a 368 trained professional in historic preservation; 369 e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 370 f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit 371 (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or 372 g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public 373 record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 374 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 375 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling 376 unit, the following may be considered: 377 a. Evidence listed in subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has 378 been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; 379 b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied 380 for more than 5 consecutive years; 381 c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections 382 B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction 383 upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 384 d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 385 which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling 386 unit at least once every 5 years. 387 3. The property where the dwelling unit is located: 388 a. Can accommodate on-site parking as required by this title, or 389 b. Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or 390 bus stop in service at the time of legalization. 391 4. Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except 392 for those related to excess units. 393 C. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following 394 conditions: 395 1. The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the 396 dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life 397 safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential 398 Housing", of this Code. 399 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be 400 completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. 401 3. If a business license is required by Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code of ordinance, 402 the unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen 403 (14) days ofany correction required by this section being completed and approved 404 by the City Building Official.. 405 406 126 D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the Zoning 407 Administer, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. A notice of 408 application shall be sent to property owners and occupants as required by chapter 409 21A.10. The purpose of the notice is to allow neighbors to submit evidence regarding the 410 existence of the dwelling unit and the length of time that the unit has been in existence. 411 Changes to 21A.40.040 Use limitations: clarifies accessory uses. 412 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: 413 In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use, 414 building or structure shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth 415 below: 416 A. An accessory use, building or structure shall be incidental and subordinate to the 417 principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; 418 B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or 419 control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly 420 authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal 421 use or structure; 422 C. No accessory use, building or structure shall be established or constructed before 423 the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in 424 accordance with these regulations; and 425 D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the 426 provisions of chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an 427 accessory use or structure. 428 E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with 429 the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this Title. For residential uses, 430 this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as 431 home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and 432 other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed 433 in the zoning district. 434 435 Changes to 21A.40.050 A 6 accessory structures on double frontage lots. Clarifies where 436 accessory structures can be located on lots that have two front yards (a street along the front 437 yard and back yard) 438 21A.40.050 A 6: Double Frontage lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a 439 property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in 440 a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 441 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the 442 primary entrance to the principal building is located; 443 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the 444 block; 445 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 446 d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this 447 title. 448 449 Changes to 21A.40.050 C Maximum height of accessory structures. Changes how accessory 450 buildings are measured for height and increases the allowed height up to 75% of the principal 451 structure if the setbacks are increased. 452 127 C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 453 1. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU 454 Districts, SNB And The RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures 455 in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of 456 the accessory building and shall conform to the following: 457 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 458 twelve12 feet (12'). The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 459 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided 460 the setbacks increases 1 foot for every one 1 foot of building height above 12 461 feet. 462 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 463 exceed 17 seventeen feet (17') measured to the midpoint of the roof. The 464 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 465 the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase 1 466 foot for every 1 foot of structure height above 17 feet. ; and 467 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 468 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 469 2. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District And SR 470 Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 471 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the 472 highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: 473 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve 474 12 feet (12'); nine9 feet (9') measured from established grade in the SR-1A 475 zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% 476 of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the 477 SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every one 478 1 foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. 479 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 480 exceed seventeen17 feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the 481 top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building 482 coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory buildings 483 structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14fourteen feet (14'). The 484 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 485 the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning 486 district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every 1 foot of building 487 height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district.; and 488 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 489 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed 490 accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block 491 face. 492 493 128 Changes to 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining changed to permitted with clarified 494 standards related to noise, setbacks, and location. 495 21A.4o.065 Outdoor Dining 496 "Outdoor dining", as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any 497 zoning district where restaurant and retail uses are allowed and for any noncomplying 498 restaurant or retail use subject to the provisions of this section: 499 A. Where allowed: 500 A. Within the buildable lot area, Outdoor dining in the public way shall be 501 permitted subject to all City requirements. 502 B. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 503 C. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a 504 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 505 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 506 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 507 D. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a 508 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 509 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 510 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 511 E. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all 512 applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining 513 design guidelines. 514 B. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in 515 commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. 516 Outdoor dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 517 Zones and for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or 518 drinks through the provisions of the special exception process (see chapter 519 21A.52 of this title). All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following 520 conditions: 521 1. All applicable requirements of chapter 21A.48 and section 21A.36.020 of this 522 title are met. 523 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor 524 dining have been secured. 525 3. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private 526 property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of 527 the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate 528 approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained 529 from the City. 530 b. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, 531 umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 532 c. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular 533 traffic; and 534 4d. The main entry has a control point as required by State liquor laws. 535 5e. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to 536 any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for 537 property. 538 6f. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor 539 dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt 540 Lake City noise control ordinance, title 9, chapter 9.28 of this Code. Live 541 129 music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 542 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning 543 district. 544 7g. No additional parking is required unless the total outdoor dining area 545 ever exceeds five hundred (500) square feet. Parking for outdoor dining 546 areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet is required at a ratio of 547 two (2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of outdoor dining 548 area. No additional parking is required in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, TSA, or 549 G-MU Zone. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of an 550 use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as 551 stated in Chapter 21A.44 Parking. 552 8. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 553 twenty five25 feet (25') of the outdoor dining area. 554 ii. H. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the 555 environmental performance standards as stated in 556 section 21A.36.180 of this title. 557 iii. i. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where 558 such use is likely to have the least adverse impacts on 559 adjacent properties. 560 561 Changes to 21A.40.090 D Amateur radio facilities with surface area exceeding 10 square feet. 562 Removes the special exception process for extra height. 563 21A.40.090 D: Amateur Radio Facilities with Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet 564 Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and 565 antenna support having a combined surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or 566 having any single dimension exceeding twelve 12 feet (12') that is capable of transmitting 567 as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission 568 as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in 569 compliance with the regulations set forth below: 570 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with 571 a surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or any single dimension exceeding 572 twelve12 feet (12') may be located on any lot. 573 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, 574 exceed seventy five75 feet (75') in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to 575 subsection D3 of this section, the height therein specified. 576 3. Attachment To Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be 577 attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions 578 are satisfied: 579 a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than twenty 580 20 feet (20') above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. 581 b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or 582 mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and 583 its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side 584 of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building 585 roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to 586 withstand a wind force of eighty (80) miles per hour without the use of 587 supporting guywires. 588 130 c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding 589 rod. 590 d. Other Standards: The antenna and its support structure shall satisfy such other 591 design and construction standards as the Zoning Administrator determines are 592 necessary to ensure safe construction and maintenance of the antenna and its 593 support structure. 594 e. Special Exception For Increased Height: Any person desiring to erect an amateur 595 ("ham") radio antenna in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall file an application 596 for a special exception with the Zoning Administrator pursuant to chapter 21A.52 597 of this title. In addition to the other application regulations, the application shall 598 specify the details and dimensions of the proposed antenna and its supporting 599 structures and shall further specify why the applicant contends that such a design 600 and height are necessary to accommodate reasonably amateur radio 601 communication. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the proposed design 602 and height unless the Zoning Administrator finds that a different design and 603 height which is less violative of the City's demonstrated health, safety or aesthetic 604 considerations also accommodates reasonably amateur radio communication 605 and, further, that the alternative design and height are the minimum practicable 606 regulation necessary to accomplish the City's actual and demonstrated legitimate 607 purposes. The burden of proving the acceptability of the alternative design shall 608 be on the City. 609 610 Changes to 21A.40.090 E 3 b electrical equipment exceeding the permitted size for cell towers. 611 Requires electrical equipment to be located on private property and prohibits the equipment 612 from being located between the street facing façade and the street. 613 21A.40.090.E.3.b Electrical Equipment Located On Private Property: Electrical 614 equipment shall be subject to the following standards: located in the rear yard, interior 615 side yard, or within the buildable area on a given parcel. In the case of a parcel with an 616 existing building, the electrical equipment shall not be located between the front and/or 617 corner street facing building facades of the building and the street. 618 619 Electrical equipment located in a residential zoning district, shall not exceed a width of 620 four feet (4'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of four feet (4') to be considered a 621 permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical equipment exceeding 622 these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 623 624 Electrical equipment located in all other CN, PL, PL-2, CB, I or OS Zoning Districts shall 625 not exceed a width of six feet (6'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of six feet (6') to 626 be considered a permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical 627 equipment exceeding these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 628 . 629 630 Electrical equipment exceeding the dimensions listed above shall be reviewed 631 administratively as a special exception per chapter 21A.52 of this title. 632 633 The electrical equipment and any necessary building shall be subject to the maximum lot 634 coverage requirements in the underlying zoning district. 635 i. Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 636 131 ii. If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the 637 equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard 638 property line. 639 iii. Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an 640 enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. 641 iv. If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public 642 space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid 643 fence so the equipment is not visible. 644 v. The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is 645 subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 646 647 Adding new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical equipment. Requires mechanical equipment to be 648 located on private property subject to specific standards. 649 21A.40.100 Location of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be 650 located as follows 651 A. Front and corner side yards and double frontage lots: Only allowed if located within 652 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the 653 equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard 654 property lines. 655 B. Side yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. 656 C. Rear yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. 657 D. Prohibited areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment 658 is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of 659 exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the 660 fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 661 662 Changes to 21A.40.120 I Barbed wire fences: removes special exception requirements and adds 663 standards to address impacts. 664 I. Barbed Wire Fences: 665 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following 666 instances: 667 a. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 and D-2 districts and to secure 668 critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the 669 following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary 670 to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed 671 wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction 672 is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 673 b. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: 674 (1) Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. 675 (2) The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. 676 (3) No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above 677 the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is 678 vertically aligned. 679 (4) No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. 680 (5) The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 681 60 degrees from a vertical line. 682 (6) All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. 683 132 (7) The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a 684 residential use when the subject property is located in a CG zoning district. 685 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for 686 nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of 687 this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted 688 uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the 689 placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping 690 out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, 691 microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly 692 necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any 693 residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is 694 occupied as a place of residence. 695 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in 696 required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as 697 gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master 698 plan. 699 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be 700 permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of 701 barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant 702 outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical 703 line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the 704 barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the 705 applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner 706 agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 707 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may 708 approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire 709 fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is 710 reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from 711 dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave 712 stations or construction sites. 713 714 Changes to 21A.40.120 J Razor wire fencing: removes special exception requirements and adds 715 standards to address impacts. 716 J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 717 and EI zoning and D-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and 718 sites located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following 719 requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the 720 facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 721 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as 722 a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 723 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special 724 exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around 725 commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other 726 similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is 727 not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Not 728 allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 729 133 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front 730 or corner side yard setback The razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum 731 fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 732 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence 733 that is less than seven7 feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen18 734 inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor 735 wire is being attached. 736 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve 737 razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor 738 wire is necessary for the security of the property in questionAll razor wire shall be 739 setback a minimum of three (3) feet from public property in zoning districts that 740 do not have a minimum setback. 741 742 Changes to 21A.40.120 L Electric security fencing: removes special exception requirements and 743 adds standards to address impacts. 744 L. Electric Security Fences: 745 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 746 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are 747 prohibited. 748 2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a 749 commercial zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements 750 in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 751 23. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required 752 front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 753 34. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be 754 constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 755 45. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used 756 unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six6 feet 757 (6') in height. There shall be at least one1 foot (1') of spacing between the electric security 758 fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 759 56. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site 760 staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to 761 accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 762 67. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten10 feet (10'). 763 78. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning 764 signs that read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty60 feet 765 (60'). Signs shall comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. 766 89. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or 767 box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. 768 769 Changes to 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities. Removes the special exception 770 process and allows staff level decisions based on federal regulations. 771 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities: building permits for an uncovered 772 vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, 773 under four 4 feet (4') in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with 774 disabilities, under four feet4 (4') in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may 775 be approved by the Zoning Administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered 776 ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required 777 134 yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal 778 regulations. approved, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Application for a special 779 exception for an access structure for persons with disabilities shall not require the 780 payment of any application fees. 781 782 Changes to 21A.40.160 Ground mounted utility boxes: removes the ability to locate these in the 783 right of way when it exceeds a certain size and prohibits the ability to place utility boxes in the 784 right of way when the box only serves a single development. (this section may be see additional 785 changes) 786 21A.40.160E2: The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground 787 mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in 788 this section and title 14, chapter 14.32 of this code. 789 a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six6 inches (6") above 790 ground level. 791 b. A ground mounted utility box installed in a park strip or behind the sidewalk in 792 the public way meeting the following criteria: 793 (1) A ground mounted utility box not exceeding a height of three3 feet (3') and 794 a footprint of four (4) square feet, or a box not exceeding two2 feet (2') in 795 height and a footprint of eight (8) square feet. 796 (2) The pad for a ground mounted utility box shall not extend more than six6 797 inches (6") beyond the footprint of the box. 798 (3) A ground mounted utility box in a residential zoning district is located 799 within fifteen15 feet of the interior lot line of an adjacent property. 800 (4) Excluding manufacturing, business park and general commercial zoning 801 districts no more than three (3) ground mounted utility boxes, excluding 802 exempt utility boxes, shall be allowed within a six hundred sixty foot (660') 803 foot segment of street right of way, unless approved as a special exception. 804 (5) Any small ground mounted utility box that is less than sixty percent (60%) 805 of the allowed size in subsection E2b(1) of this section shall be exempt from 806 the special exception requirement of subsection E2b(4) of this section. The 807 dimensional requirements of this section do not apply to the equipment 808 necessary for placing electrical service under ground. 809 c. A ground mounted utility box installed in a public alley that does not interfere 810 with the circulation function of the alley. 811 d. Ground mounted utility boxes that only serve a single development or parcel 812 are prohibited in a public right of way. 813 21A.40.160 F: delete 814 F. Special Exception: Proposed ground mounted utility boxes not specifically 815 addressed in subsection E of this section or that do not meet the standards of 816 subsection E of this section may be approved as a special exception pursuant to 817 chapter 21A.52 of this title and the following requirements: 818 1. Application: A special exception application shall be made on a form 819 prepared by the planning director or designee and submitted to the 820 planning division, that includes required information and the following 821 additional information: 822 a. Described plan of the proposed ground mounted utility box: 823 135 (1) Dimensions of box and footing/platform detail. 824 (2) Location of contact information on the box. 825 (3) Description of cabinet materials and finish treatment. 826 b. A location analysis which identifies other sites considered as 827 alternatives within five hundred feet (500') of the proposed location. 828 The applicant shall provide a written explanation why the 829 alternatives considered were either unavailable, or technologically or 830 reasonably infeasible. 831 2. General Standards And Considerations For Special Exception Review Of 832 Ground Mounted Utility Boxes: No special exception application for a 833 ground mounted utility box shall be approved unless the planning 834 director or the planning director's designee determines that the ground 835 mounted utility box satisfies the applicable standards related to size, 836 spacing and/or location of the following criteria: 837 a. Evidence that the existing ground mounted utility box location 838 and/or size are within a pattern that allowing an additional or larger 839 ground mounted utility box will not create a significant impact on the 840 character of the area. 841 b. Evidence submitted that shows another location is not practical to 842 service the subject area. 843 c. Sufficiently demonstrates the reason that the larger cabinet is 844 necessary. 845 d. Demonstrates that the subject block face location is the only feasible 846 location for the ground mounted utility box based on technical or 847 physical constraints. 848 e. Ground mounted utility boxes are spaced in such a manner as to limit 849 the visual impact of the box when viewed from the street or an 850 adjacent property. 851 f. The location will not obstruct access to other installed utility facilities. 852 g. The additional cabinet is compatible in design and size with the 853 existing ground mounted utility boxes in the area. 854 855 Amending 21A.44.090 (proposed chapter) 856 21A.44.090 MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS 857 Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the 858 standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and 859 Loading, and the City may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. 860 A. Administrative ModificationsAuthority to Approve Modifications 861 The Planning Director or Transportation Director may approve the following types of 862 modifications without requiring approval of a Special Exception, provided that the Director 863 determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or 864 vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the 865 surrounding context to accommodate an unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, 866 utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been 867 created by the actions of the applicant. 868 136 869 B. Authorized Modifications 870 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, 871 or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the 872 Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent 873 with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not 874 limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 875 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 876 B. Special Exceptions 877 The following types of exceptions may be approved through the Special Exception process in 878 section 21A.52.040, provided that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Special 879 Exception in section 21A.52.060 in addition to the standards provided in this section. 880 3. Exceptions PermittedFront Yard Parking 881 a. The lot contains an existing residential building. 882 b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. 883 c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 884 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the 885 tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 886 d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the 887 property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 888 e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 889 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a 890 minimum depth of 20 feet. 891 (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. 892 (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or 893 for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is 894 consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. 895 a. Front Yard Parking Exception 896 For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in Table 21A.44.060-A: 897 Parking Location and Setback Requirements, it may be allowed if all of the 898 following conditions are met: 899 (1) The rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed by vehicles, specifically; 900 (a) Clearance for a driveway could not be provided in the side yard on either 901 side of the building that is free from obstructions that cannot reasonably 902 be avoided, such as utilities, window-wells, a specimen tree, a direct 903 elevation change of three feet (3') or greater, or retaining walls three feet 904 (3') high or greater; and 905 (b) There is not a right-of-way or alley adjacent to the property with 906 established rights for access, where: 907 a. The travel distance to the property line is less than one hundred feet 908 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has at 909 least a minimum twelve foot (12') clearance that is, or could be paved; 910 or 911 137 b. The travel distance to the property line is more than one hundred feet 912 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has an 913 existing minimum twelve foot (12') wide paved surface. 914 (2) It is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and 915 setback requirements; 916 (3) Parking is limited to an area that is surfaced in compliance with the Off Street 917 Parking Standards Manual; 918 (4) The parking area is limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 919 (5) Vehicles using the parking area will not project across any sidewalk or into the 920 public right-of-way; and 921 (6) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 922 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing 923 a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district 924 b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 925 maneuvering. 926 b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side 927 yard. 928 c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar 929 material with dust control measures in place. 930 d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove 931 mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved 932 driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is 933 subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a 934 commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. 935 a. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Surfacing Exception 936 Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may be permitted in the CG, 937 M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts provided that: 938 (1) The lot is used for long-term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 939 maneuvering; 940 (2) The vehicles or equipment stored are large and/or are built on tracks that 941 could destroy normal hard surfacing; 942 (3) The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6") of road base and other 943 semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually; 944 (4) A hard-surfaced cleaning station is installed to prevent tracking of mud and 945 sand onto the public right-of-way; and 946 (5) Any vehicles or equipment that contain oil are stored with pans, drains, or 947 other means to ensure that any leaking oil will not enter the soil. 948 949 950 21A.46.070 V Historic District signs: removes the special exception and allows the existing 951 processes to modify sign dimensions in historic districts to be reviewed as a minor alteration. 952 21A.46.070V Historic District Signs: The Historic Landmark Commission may authorize, 953 as a minor alteration special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or 954 placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement 955 of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that 956 the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period 957 138 or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the 958 historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site 959 has been designated a vintage sign as per section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the 960 modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the Historic Landmark 961 Commission subject to the appropriate standards of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 962 963 21A.46.125 Vintage signs: removes the special exception process and establishes the zoning 964 certificate as the process to approve vintage signs. 965 The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and 966 reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt 967 Lake City's heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the 968 community at large. 969 B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 970 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the 971 reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be 972 processed through the zoning certificate process in accordance with the 973 procedures for a special exception, as per chapter 21A.52 of this title21A.46.030: 974 a. Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a special 975 exceptionsign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall 976 require: 977 (1) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, 978 if currently existing; 979 (2) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the 980 sign meets the applicable criteria; 981 (3) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; 982 (4) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and 983 (5) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 984 2. The Zoning Administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the 985 sign: 986 a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and 987 has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned 988 development agreement or by the Historic Landmark Commission; 989 b. Is not a billboard as defined in section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; 990 c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or 991 restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, 992 d. Meets at least four (4) of the following criteria: 993 (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other 994 establishment on the subject site; 995 (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the 996 City, or region; 997 (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or 998 identity of a neighborhood; 999 (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; 1000 (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building 1001 where the sign is located; or, 1002 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of 1003 lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 1004 3. A designated vintage sign may, by special exception: 1005 139 a. Be relocated within its current site. 1006 b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These 1007 modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign 1008 including: 1009 (1) Shape and form 1010 (2) Size, 1011 (3) Typography, 1012 (4) Illustrative elements, 1013 (5) Use of color, 1014 (6) Character of illumination, and 1015 (7) Character of animation. 1016 c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. 1017 d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 1018 original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 1019 advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be 1020 relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, 1021 D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 1022 e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business's new site, should the business 1023 with which it is associated move, provided that the business's new location is 1024 within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 1025 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage 1026 on a site. 1027 1028 140 Special Exception Text Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 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. In deciding to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the goals and policies the City’s plans. The Salt Lake City Preservation Plan includes statements regarding how zoning impacts the preservation of property and that flexibility is necessary to ensure changes do not negatively impact the public benefit of historic districts. (Please see action pg. III-22 Action 2 of the Preservation Plan) This concept is expanded in more detail with specific policies related to regulations in policies 3.3a through 3.3h. A link to the plan can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/historicpreservation/Poli cy/presplan.pdf 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance by ensuring their enforcement and administration. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act (State Code). The proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and State Code, better allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposal is consistent with and does not impact the enforceability of any existing appeal process references in any zoning overlays. The purpose of the H Overlay District includes the following statement: Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of Historic Districts or individual landmarks;”. This proposal helps achieve this purpose by providing the HLC the authority to consider modifications within the overlay for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the surrounding historic buildings. 4. The extent to which a proposed text The proposed changes This proposal removes red tape in the approval process and provides a benefit for property owners within the H 141 Special Exception Text Amendment amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. eliminate legal conflicts, improve enforceability and administration of City Code, and so implement best professional practices. Overlay by allowing for flexibility for appropriate changes to properties within the Overlay. The proposal reduces staff time necessary to review proposals, reduces the time spent by the HLC in considering changes, and allows for a more streamlined approval process. The benefits lead to a more efficient use of city resources at a reduced expense to the property owner. 142 Special Exception Text Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district. o The Sugar House Community Council submitted a forma response in response to the proposal.  No formal input was received from other community councils.  Emails were submitted by a resident of the East Bench neighborhood that was generally in support of the proposal. o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response was provided from AIA. However, comments were received via email from a local architecture firm. That email was not in support of the changes primarily due to the removal of flexibility that special exceptions may provide. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: 143 Special Exception Text Amendment  Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020  Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020  Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020  No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 144 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 145 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA   Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division   DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION   TEL     801-535-6173 CELL   801-641-1728 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com   WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 146 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA               Principal            // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST  |  SUITE B123  |   SALT LAKE CITY   |   UTAH   |  84101 O. 801.533.5331       |       M. 801.560.7171     RenovationDesignGroup.com     | Facebook Fans     |     Houzz Portfolio 147 148 149 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting was held on September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received.  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example?  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided.  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 150 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 151 From:Reichgelt, Roberta To:Norris, Nick Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 3:02:32 PM Got it. Thanks From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:22 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment This type of special exception says that it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. The PC processing time for special exceptions is historically around 45 days. We don’t have an application for additional height in a commercial district that hasn’t also required design review or planned development due to some other requested modification. So we don’t have any data on how long this specific special exception would normally take. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:07 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks, is the special exception process generally shorter than a planned development? So this different would be that it might take the applicant longer in the future? From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:29 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Not common. We have had two requests in the last three years and only one other in the previous 10. Most are already in the planned development or design review process anyways and address height in those processes. This option is mostly used in zoning districts that don’t have the extra height option through the design review process. ICK ORRIS 152 N N Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:01 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Hi Nick, Could you help me understand if this is a common request? I have followed planned development process on height requests that are much larger than this. How did the special exception process for this type of request come to be and why was it not able to be approved through the Design Review? You can call me if it’s easier than responding via email: 385-214-9628. Thanks, Roberta Special Exceptions in 21A.26 Commercial Zoning DistrictsZoning ordinance section 21A.26.010 Paragraph J authorizes a special exception for additional height if the additional height is less than 10% of the maximum allowed in the specific zone. For example, in the CB zone the maximum height is thirty feet. A special exception could approve up to three feet. This has resulted in three different ways for extra height to be granted: Through the planned development process (limited to a maximum of five feet); Through the design review process (including when allowed under the base zoning and in cases where the lot is sloping, which is almost every lot); and Through the special exception process. The proposal would be to delete this paragraph so that the extra height is authorized only through the planned development process or when allowed by the base zoning district through the design review process. From: Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:59 AM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>; Wright, William <William.Wright@slcgov.com> Cc: Makowski, Peter <Peter.Makowski@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment 153 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. 154 HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 155 From:Draper, Jason To:Norris, Nick; Briefer, Laura Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 11:23:59 AM Sounds good We just want to make sure that we don’t run into problems with antennae height for SCADA systems and other communications. It seems that these changes are specific to amateur and private property, but just want to make sure we are able to at least have review available for these antennae. Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:15 AM To: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks Jason, a few questions The riparian, lowland, and any other flood zone requirements would still apply and not be impacted by these changes. They would be reviewed during building permit review. The underground encroachments in this instance apply to private property. Wasn’t sure if that was made clear in the info provided or if there are other issues that Public Utilities has. There are a couple of sections that address antennae tower height. Can you clarify which section that comment is referring to? None of the public utilities facility on West Temple is zoned OS. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:28 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment 156 I have a couple of comments: Replacement of noncomplying building must meet riparian and flood zone requirements. Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less – must meet provisions of the flood hazard and riparian overlay and lowland conservancy overlay zones Underground encroachments – We would rather see this as not permitted or at least need to establish the encroachment table before this goes away. Public Utility buildings in OS Zone: I think this looks good – no office buildings in OS Ground mounted utility boxes – support this action. I’m a little concerned with a 60 ft max for an antenna tower and no mechanism to present a case for anything taller. Some years ago there was a discussion to zone the 1530 South West Temple Park as OS. We may need the property for future expansion of our campus. Do you know if any of our campus is currently OS? Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:47 AM To: Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Wanted to follow up with these proposed zoning changes that may impact public utilities. I haven’t received any comments yet, so wanted to do a final check to see if there are potential issues. The biggest changes for public utilities are the changes exempt public utility structures from the height requirements in the OS zone (pg 11 of the attached) and permits taller fences when necessary to secure critical infrastructure and facilities (pg 26-27). We hope to take this to the PC on November 18th for a recommendation. The other change that you may want to know about it is prohibiting ground mounted utility boxes in the ROW when they are only serving a private development. The change would require those to be on private property. Let me know if you have any concerns with the changes. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 157 From: Norris, Nick Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <pamela.lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <jennifer.mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use 158 process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 159 From:Barry, Michael To:Norris, Nick Cc:Young, Kevin; Larsen, Jonathan; Larson, Kurt Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 1:23:56 PM Nick, I do not have any suggested changes. Thanks. MICHAEL BARRY, P.E. Transportation Engineer TRANSPORTATION DIVISION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7147 From: Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:22 AM To: Larsen, Jonathan <jon.larsen@slcgov.com>; Larson, Kurt <Kurt.Larson@slcgov.com>; Barry, Michael <Michael.Barry@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment FYI If you have any comments or input, please provide them by September 11. KEVIN J. YOUNG, P.E. Deputy Director TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL      801-535-7108 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth 160 <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please 161 don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION   TEL   801-535-6173 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com   WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 162 From:Laughlin, Chris To:Norris, Nick Cc:Bollwinkel, Lee Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:45:44 AM Hey Nick, Hope we’re not too late. I just spoke with Bruce Brown in engineering and he said the poles are 70 ft. tall for our field lights. 30 ft sounds good for property distance. Chris Laughlin | RAC Program Manager From: Kogan, Lewis Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:57 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>; Bollwinkel, Lee <lee.bollwinkel@slcgov.com>; Laughlin, Chris <Chris.Laughlin@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Importance: High Nick, my sincere apologies, I must have missed your first email and it got lost in my inbox. I am going to defer to the experts here: Lee, Chris, can you please review Nick’s questions below at your earliest convenience, and let him know how the proposed changes to ordinance would impact lighting and recreational equipment heights, particularly for the Regional Athletic Complex? Thanks! Lewis From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com 163 WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 164 From:Kammeyer, Matt To:Norris, Nick; Kogan, Lewis Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:38:34 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Nick and Lewis, I’m responding directly to you in relation to Kristin’s question about driving range fence heights. Driving range fences typically fall within the 60 to 80 foot range. The Top Golf range fence is upward of 125 feet. Let me know if I can provide more info. MATT KAMMEYER Director, Golf Program   GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-485-7823 FAX 801-466-6705 WWW.SLC-GOLF.COM WWW.SLCGOV.COM From: Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 1:23 PM To: Kammeyer, Matt <Matt.Kammeyer@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: text changes impacted OS zone Hi Matt- Hope you all had a great event today. I apologize I missed it, thank you for asking me! I’m tied to being close to my mom right now as she is not healthy and needs a lot of care. Anyhow, please see Nick’s email below. Can you tell me how tall driving range fences are? KRISTIN RIKER Public Services Deputy Director; Public Lands Salt Lake City Public Lands Divisions Parks, Trails & Natural Lands, Urban Forestry CELL 801-514-0205 TEL 801-972-7804 FAX 801-972-7847 165 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to 166 figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 167 From:Parisi, Lauren To:Norris, Nick Subject:Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:15:00 PM Hi Nick, Danny had asked if I could review the special exception text amendment information you sent over and, upon review, the RDA fully supports the proposed texts amendments as they are. These amendments will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. We commend your team’s great work. Thanks, LAUREN PARISI Project Manager REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7242 WWW.SLCRDA.COM   Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance.  The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception.  There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance.  Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions.  An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance.  An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks.  The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.   There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on.  Here is a partial list: Building Services:  Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities:  Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures.  Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated.  Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property.  Civil Enforcement:  the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception 168 will be eliminated.  HAND:  the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process.  Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.    Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020.  The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission.  It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October.  The transmittal and City Council process will follow.  Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606.  You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes.  I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.  Thank you for your time!       169 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 170 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaeffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director Department of Community and Neighborhoods; From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: August 4, 2020 Re: Zoning amendment related to the special exception process in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.52 The Planning Division would like to request that a zoning text amendment be initiated to eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance authorizes more than 40 exceptions to the zoning ordinance through this process. An average of 150 applications are submitted each calendar year, generating approximately 3,000 hours of staff time and about 8% of the total workload in the Division. The purpose of the change is to reallocate staff hours to better respond to the city-wide needs that are created by growth, align the zoning ordinance with city goals, and restore the long range land use planning function of the city. One of the reasons for the proposal is partly due to the allocated resources for the Planning Division which does not support the workload of land use applications that are authorized or required by the zoning ordinance. Eliminating this process helps delay the need for additional staffing in the Planning Division. Exceptions would fit into one of the following categories: • Deleted from the ordinance and no longer allowed. This is for those exceptions where an application has not been submitted in several years, relatively few applications have been received or where applications are routinely denied. • Allowed by right in the ordinance. This is for those exceptions that are routinely approved with little or no public input, that match changing trends in how property is used, or do not create impacts that are greater than permitted activities. • Allowed through an existing process. This is for those exceptions where the zoning ordinance already has an established process and the special exception application is redundant, when the exception is used to determine legal status of a use or structure, or when another process may be more appropriate. A public process will be conducted to gauge public input on the proposed changes. It is possible that the public input received could change the direction or outcomes of the proposal. Due to the inability to hold community meetings in person, all engagement will be performed virtually. All recognized organizations will be notified of the proposal and staff will be made available to provide an overview of the proposal and answer questions that the community may have. This proposal will impact the development community and builders, architects, and developers will be included in the engagement process. The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The memo explains the issue, provides a brief description of the process, and the resources required. For this potential proposal, the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision. 171 l Page 2 This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. _____________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor _____________ Date August 5, 2020 172