Cities are political subdivisions of the State. Therefore COMPLIANCE ISSUES are limited to those places where the City is not supported by State code. The general plan serves as the rationale for any ordinance or investment a community wants to implement. ALIGNMENT ISSUES are those that relate to an internal inconsistency or a lack of justification. Finally, STRATEGIC ISSUES are ideas the City might want to consider when they conduct a formal update to their plan. The documents used in this review include: - General Plan 2010 (obtained from the City) - Land Use Codes (hosted online) - Culinary Masterplan, Jan 2012 - Sewer Masterplan, Feb 2012 - Secondary Water Masterplan, 2012 - Stormdrain Masterplan, Mar 2012 - Transportation Masterplan, Apr 2012 The purpose of this report is to provide detail behind the strategic plan that was developed in November, 2016. Mike Hansen 801.550.5075 mhansen@rural-community.com rural-community.com
Element Status Comments Current General Plan (10-9a-401) Weak vision, adopted in 2010 Transportation (10-9a-403) Moderate Income Housing (10-9a-403, -408) Land Use (10-9a-403) Current official map (10-9a-401, -407, 10-9a-103(34)) Current zoning ordinance (10-9a-502) Current zoning map (10-9a-502, 505) Publicly available plans and ordinances Capital improvements plan (aligned to GP 10-9a-406) Implementation steps Incomplete (no data, analysis, or justification) Non-compliant Adequate, rationale in code Being updated Zones not described or justified When was it updated? Found on City website Old projects, inconsistent with masterplans Inadequate, lacks specificity Required Ordinances Establishes planning commission (10-9a-301(1)(a)) Creates an appeal authority (10-9a-701) Residential facilities for elderly/persons with disabilities (10-9a-516) Permits compliant manufactured homes (10-9a-514) Addresses cell towers (can t prohibit) Reestablish non-conforming structure after calamity (10-9a-511) Permits charter schools (10-9a-305) Permits adult-oriented businesses With conditional use permit Not found Not found Procedures Land use authority (10-9a-103(24)) Planning commission (10-9a-302) Appeal authority (10-9a-701) Not found Noticing Noticing on the Utah Public Notice Website Excellent consistency
COMPLIANCE ISSUE: Age of General Plan 10-9a-401. General plan required -- Content. (1) In order to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, each municipality shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for: (a) present and future needs of the municipality; and (b) growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. Roosevelt s general plan was adopted in 2010, and various infrastructure masterplans were adopted in 2012. Prior to these efforts, the City operated under plans adopted in 2006 and 1997. An effective plan should assume a 20 year vision and have a 4-5 year implementation roadmap. The City should update its general plan before the energy markets begin to boom again. COMPLIANCE ISSUE: Inconsistent Transportation Element 10-9a-403. Plan preparation. (2)... (a) At a minimum, the proposed general plan, with the accompanying maps, charts, and descriptive and explanatory matter, shall include the planning commission s recommendations for the following plan elements: (ii) a transportation and traffic circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed freeways, arterial and collector streets, mass transit, and any other modes of transportation that the planning commission considers appropriate, all correlated with the population projections and the proposed land use element of the general plan; and The general plan adopted by Roosevelt in 2010 is the City s official policy. The transportation masterplan adopted in 2012 doesn t seem to have been incorporated or even referenced. The City should update its general plan to incorporate this masterplan (or at least a summary of its findings and maps).
COMPLIANCE ISSUE: Missing Moderate Income Housing Element 10-9a-403. Plan preparation. (2)... (a) At a minimum, the proposed general plan, with the accompanying maps, charts, and descriptive and explanatory matter, shall include the planning commission s recommendations for the following plan elements: (iii) for cities, an estimate of the need for the development of additional moderate income housing within the city, and a plan to provide a realistic opportunity to meet estimated needs for additional moderate income housing if long-term projections for land use and development occur. (b) In drafting the moderate income housing element, the planning commission: (i) shall consider the Legislature s determination that cities shall facilitate a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing, including moderate income housing: (A) to meet the needs of people desiring to live there; and (B) to allow persons with moderate incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life; and (ii) may include an analysis of why the recommended means, techniques, or combination of means and techniques provide a realistic opportunity for the development of moderate income housing within the planning horizon, which means or techniques may include a recommendation to: (A) rezone for densities necessary to assure the production of moderate income housing; (B) facilitate the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that will encourage the construction of moderate income housing; (C) encourage the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into moderate income housing; (D) consider general fund subsidies to waive construction related fees that are otherwise generally imposed by the city; (E) consider utilization of state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing; (F) consider utilization of programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency s funding capacity; and (G) consider utilization of affordable housing programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services. The general plan adopted by Roosevelt in 2010 contains a housing chapter, but in it states that the City should adopt a moderated income housing plan. The City should resolve this inconsistency with an updated general plan that contains a moderate income housing element. This element should utilize the tool developed by the Utah Division of Housing & Community Development.
COMPLIANCE ISSUE: Capital Facilities Planning 10-9a-406. Public uses to conform to general plan. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, no street, park, or other public way, ground, place, or space, no publicly owned building or structure, and no public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, may be constructed or authorized until and unless it conforms to the current general plan. The parks and the public services elements of Roosevelt s general plan contain useful language about intended investments, but the recommendations from the 2012 masterplans is not included. Many of the potential investments have already been developed. There is very little discussion about operations and maintenance strategies (not required, but recommended). When updating its general plan, the City should generally outline its capital investment needs for the next few years (as identified in the masterplans). The City should also formally incorporate a review of the general plan as a required step in its budgeting process. COMPLIANCE ISSUE: Missing Ordinances (various) All land use ordinances need to be justified in the general plan. There are changes to Utah s LUDMA (Land Use and Management Act) nearly every year. Roosevelt s ordinances don t seem to be compliant on residential facilities for elderly/persons with disabilities, regulation of cell towers, charter schools, or in defining its land use authority in the way the State requires. The legislature is expected to make significant changes to LUDMA in 2017. Our recommendation for Roosevelt is to begin an update of their general plan first, and then modify their ordinances to include missing elements and to address any strategic issues.
ALIGNMENT ISSUE: Plan - Zone Alignment The role of a future land use plan is to describe the future intent of an area. The role of a zoning ordinance is to describe the development rights associated with different parcels. Therefore, the future land use map shouldn t closely follow parcel lines, but each parcel on a zoning map needs a distinct designation. Doing this provides residents and developers a reasonable expectation of their rights, while providing the City administrative flexibility in transitional areas. However, inconsistency in planning and zoning will preclude the City from enforcing either designation. Roosevelt s plan was adopted almost seven years ago, and it is assumed that zoning has changed a number of times since then. There are a few areas that need to be looked at: The intent of the R-R-1 zoning designation along Cottonwood Creek (approx 600 S) is very different from the plan s higher density residential. The plan describes a transitional (RP-M-13) use near the hospital, but the zoning map designates it as professional office-residential. The future land use map identifies four different types of commercial zoning, but the zoning map and ordinance describe only one. ALIGNMENT ISSUE: Spot Zoning In order for a city to restrict a property right, they first need to provide a clear rationale for the restriction. This rationale usually centers on use patterns, traffic impacts, or other infrastructure considerations. Cities that regularly grant conditional permissions or that have inconsistent zoning patterns should revisit their zoning regulations to ensure that they are consistent with the plan. Roosevelt has chosen to segregate uses through zoning, but there are a few areas that would need to be looked at when the plan and/or ordinances are updated. These areas include: The M-1 zoning designation along Hwy 40 (approx 1307 W). Rezone as commercial? There are a few properties north of Lagoon St (600 E) that are zoned R-1-6. They seem out of place with the surrounding area.
STRATEGIC ISSUE: Annexation Potential Roosevelt s previous annexations have created a boundary that provided commercial tax revenue. However, Roosevelt currently provides a number of services to residents outside of its border. Incorporating some of these areas will increase the City s commercial potential along Hwy 40 and will increase its official population (which could be positive in formula-based funding opportunities). STRATEGIC ISSUE: North Business Park The future land use map discusses an expansive business park northwest of the City s potential annexation areas. However, the transportation master plan only suggests one future collector road as access (North Crescent Rd). STRATEGIC ISSUE: Border Density & Lagoon St Campus Roosevelt s shared border with Ballard is an economic handicap that will be difficult to overcome. One suggestion is to direct uses that generate higher impacts on the border of the community. If, for example, a large retail facility was located near the boundary, only half of the traffic generated by that use would need to be served by the community it is in (while still drawing activity from the neighboring community). There seems to be potential for a higher-density campus on Lagoon St. STRATEGIC ISSUE: Main St Housing Roosevelt s Main St is designated as a commercial corridor. The City should explore the idea of providing more flexibility in uses. Establishing a mixed-use zone would facilitate new and compatible uses, such as housing.