The URL can be used to link to this page

04/11/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Department Chief Administrative Officer; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Patrick Thronson, Mayor' s Communications/Public Relations Officer; Richard Johnston, Deputy City Engineer; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; David Oka, Redevelopment Agency Director; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director; Alison McFarlane, Mayor' s Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation; Edward Butterfield, Mayor' s Small Business/Economic Development Manager; Shon Hardy, Salt Lake County Animal Control; H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Lane Beattie, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce President/CEO; Natalie Gochnour, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Vice President; Bob Farrington, Downtown Alliance; Frank Matheson, Wasatch Real Estate Partners President; Peter Moyes, MHTN Architects, Dell Loy Hansen, Wasatch Real Estate Partners; John Dahlstrom, Wasatch Real Estate Partners; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 28 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . HOLD A DOWNTOWN FACT FINDING DISCUSSION. a. 5:29:32 PM Downtown Development Projects : • 5:30:01 PM H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints . • 6:02:18PM Frank Matheson, President of Wasatch Real Estate Partners and also representing Hamilton Partners . Additional presenters : Peter Moyes, MHTN Architects, Dell Loy Hansen, Wasatch Real Estate 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 Partners and John Dahlstrom, Wasatch Real Estate Partners . View Attachments b. Salt Lake Chamber • 6:34:01PM Lane Beattie, President and CEO, Salt Lake Chamber. • Natalie Gochnour, Vice President Policy and Communications, Salt Lake City Chamber . View Attachments #2 . 6:01:59PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING ROWLAND HALL - ST. MARK' S SCHOOL REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO INDUSTRIAL (I) AND TO AMEND THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS . 400-05-08 AND 400-05-09 . (MT. OLIVET CEMETERY) (ITEM Fl) View Attachments Councilmember Buhler said the issue would be postponed until next week. He said additional information had been presented which needed to be reviewed by the Council and other interested parties . He said the information would be posted on the City Council' s website . #3 . 7:27:03 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR UPDATING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. View Attachments Doug Dansie, Alexander Ikefuna and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council with the attached handouts . A majority of the Council was in favor of having the City work cooperatively with the Chamber of Commerce to complete the project. Discussion was held on addressing staffing and other resources needed to address the Downtown and Northwest Master Plan. Councilmember Christensen said resource issues could be considered during the budget process . Councilmember Buhler said the downtown policy statement adopted by the Council several years ago needed to be reviewed and updated. He said after the downtown subcommittee reviewed the issue, information could be sent to the entire Council . He said a follow-up meeting could be scheduled. The majority of the Council was in favor. #4 . 8:04:01PM RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL ANIMAL CONTROL SUB- COMMITTEE . View Attachments Jan Aramaki and Shon Hardy briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on the subcommittee' s findings . Councilmember Christensen said the City' s zoning ordinance contained some limits on the number of animals and might need to be updated. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 A majority of the Council was in favor of waiting for the public hearing before determining the number of animals which would be allowed. A majority of the Council was in favor of the proposed permit options which would be administered by the County. A majority of the Council was in favor of the proposed language regarding nuisance penalties . A majority of the Council was in favor of requiring licensing for cats and ferrets and following Animal Service' s sterilization recommendation for three or more cats . A majority of the Council was in favor of establishing feral cat colony registration permits including the trap-neuter-return program and lowering the registration fee . Councilmember Buhler said the $10, 000 grant associated with this issue could be addressed during the budget. A majority of the Council was in favor of establishing a $45 animal license fee with reduced rates for senior citizens . The fee schedule would include discounts for volunteer sterilization and microchip implants . A majority of the Council was in favor of increasing violation fines as follows : lst—violation $50, 2nd-$100 and 3rd-$200 . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the late fee issue was a policy question in terms of percentage of increase . Councilmember Buhler asked Council staff to work with Mr. Hardy to review fiscal impacts of proposed fee changes and what affect they would have on the general fund and the contract with Animal Services . Councilmember Buhler said the decisions made during this briefing could be modified after the public hearing was held on April 18, 2006 . #5 . 8:54:37PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . Executive Session was not held. 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 11 , 2006 #6 . 8:55:06PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . See file M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 59 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held April 11, 2006 . sc 06 - 4 222 South Main Cid e..9&:444 Total Gross Square Feet: 449,576 Square Feet(Office) Floor-to-floor height: 13 feet Total Rentable Square Feet: 414,092 Square Feet Per Window Mullion Spacing: 5 Foot Planning Module BOMA standards. Retail Space Available: 10,804 square feet(included in total Number of Floors:21 reantable square feet) Average Floor Size(Rentable):21,564(Floors 6-21) Electrical Watts per Square Foot:Lighting-3.5-volt amperes per square foot-lighting;Receptacle-2.0-volt amperes per Columns Per Floor:20 columns per floor,for floors 6-19, square foot only two interior columns,which are not at perimeter. Floor Loads (Dead and Live): Live-80 pounds per square Definition of"Shell Condition": Main lobby finish and foot(psf);Dead-partitions 20 psf;ceiling/mechanical/ elevator lobby on each floor is by landlord.Central HVAC electrical/plumbing 10 psf trunk locations will be placed on each floor. Storage Space Available:Limited amounts available in Number of Elevators:8 passengers, 2 Parking; 10 total parking structure elevators. One high rise elevator to be convertible for Service use. Back up Generator: 800 kW,277/480 V,3 Phase,4 Wire • Diesel Generator Size of Elevator Cabs:35 square feet(5 x 7),4-2,500 pound capacity cabs,4-3,500 pound capacity cabs Building Skin:Curtain Wall System,Stone Cladding, Pre-Cast Panels and Exterior Glass Elevator Speeds: Low Rise Passenger-500 feet per minute, High Rise Passenger-700 feet per minute,Parking-350 feet Type of Exterior Glass:Non-unitized Curtain Wall,Punched per minute. &Ribbon Window systems,Low-E green tinted/Low-E green tinted Spandrel and Ceramic Frit glass. Total Parking Stalls:817 stalls Architect:Skidmore,Owings and Merrill,LLP(SOM) Parking Ratio:2 spaces per 1,000 square feet General Contractor: Okland Construction Number of Parking Levels: 8 total, 6-above grade, 2-below grade Construction Start Date:2006 Ceiling Height:Parking structure-10 feet; Occupancy Date:2008 Office areas-9 feet WASATCH WASATCH HAMILTON PARTNERS• DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE PARTNERS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT 222 South Main 2 L �6/- 4 _. , 200 SOUTH STREET(PARKING ACCESS) t. .45 ■ I i — ' - 'L` �`� *ewe yr • IKARRICK:LOG GALLIVAN • . '' - I f ! - [G '' �"'f '''�' i. rn. :' I' '.LOWN- DG PLAZA e + 1 �. -,, UMID-BLOCK PAS-MAF " 1 ' = 1, WELLS 4 m I _WINGFARGO ,, AMERICAN TOWERS '" i PLAZA ,__. ,:iikl 1 g iii-1 . ,.. a , 300 SOUTH STREET(PARKING ACCESS) ,_ :.; Aft 1111, • I r....... onoMMIIIII .r •omis - samigiiIMNI ■U.-IBIIMIB11lIB ■1I1 ■I\IIIBIUIIU WASATCH WASATCH PARTN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE PARTNERS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT APR-13-06 THU 10:29 AM FAX NO P. 02 /\1 17$East 400 South, Site 600 ��p t�.x"AkC'i Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 801 364 3631 Fax 601 378.51')9ti M4. ber wwwsaltlakcchaiIb rorq y, i ,.� di fJtrah's Business Leader 'M April 11,2006 M ty+ir Rocky Anderson Mr. Dave Bubler Suite 306 Suite 304 451 Sc:lath State Street 451 South State Street Salt I.:skc City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 !)car Mayor Ac Jerson and Councilman I;ultler: The tialt I.,akc Chamber and its affiliate the Downtown Alliance remain excited about and dedicated to calaii:ilir.inlj on tame:mote. than$1.3 billion that will be invested in downtown Salt Lake City over the next five years.We view this investment as a once in a lifetime opportunity that will shape Utah's capital city for future i,cnct;,tions, Salt Cake City can count on our complete support, Understandably,business leaders are concerned about the potential construction impacts from store clnserres/displacement,changing traffic and parking patterns,noise, dust,utility disruptions and other imparts, Marty projects have already broken ground and still others are in the planning stages.We believe it is lithe to act. In 1,,c,ping wilh this desire,we have spent the past four months in a concerted effort to develop a business 55neltt yy for downtown construction impact mitigation. As part of this effort,we have interviewed over 70 downtown property owners, business people,city staff,consultants and others with an expertise on dteeutown issues, We have reviewed the lessons learned from the very different outcomes from the Main Street light rail construction and 400 south light rail extension.And,we have consulted with members of the Downtown Development Committee ittee and Downtown Alliance and Chamber hoards. Iijst:d on these intetview5,research and consultation,we recolairrrencl that we pursue a triage approach to construction impact mitigation that includes the close partnership of the Salt Lake Chamber/Downtown Alliaeee (as Utah's largest busine;1s association and downtown development organization),Salt Lake City Corp. (as the major regulator and service provider) and major project sponsors (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,I.1ainilton Partners/Wasatch Real Estate Partners, General Services Adiiitnistration/Muss Courthouse,and others). In re,.arcls to Salt Lake City Corp.,we ask specifically for the City to fund an additional staff person within the city's permitting department and to fund with us,on a 50'1/4-50%basis,a contract for a construction import m.itig:anon ombudsman to lead tactical construction impact mitigation.We envision this contract to be v itlurt the Department of Community Development,with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Salt 141;e Chamber, We t ect>mrncnd that the contract include the following responsibilities: Impact mitigation--Working^with the Chamber to resolve issues related to business access, traffic/parking,utility interruption,alternative transit plans,and business marketing and small business lour assistance. APR-13-06 THU 10:29 AM FAX NO, P. 03 Information sharing--Assisting with the development of a one-stop Web site and hotline for public emergencies and concerns, formation of a citizens'advisory council, and regular communication with stakeholders via email and newsletters. Project integration/coordination-•Attending regular meetings with project planners and managers, providing quick links to municipal department heads,organizing and hosting stakeholder meetings,attending appropriate project inspections, and assisting with other integration activities. The timing of she city's involvement is critical. Experts agree that tactical construction impact mitigation bhould begin months befote the start of construction. Even with the delay of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints downtown projects we still have construction of downtown housing, parking, and office :tlrare ;,beady underway, and many more planned projects slated to commence very soon (300 South t pruvCments (;ateway TRAX stations,Pioneer Park improvements,Hamilton Partners/Wasatch Real l'statr• 1'.rrtners high rise, and other projects), Because of the amount of construction currently occurring, or exile,u,:c.l to be on very soon,we ask that you fund a new permitting position and help us jointly fund a ccrarlet for an ombudsman no later than May 2006. \�r ve.ould be happy to provide additional information about this request and look forward to a productive parttx'rship as the city begins this exciting renewal process. Siitr;erdy, 11rsattie Robert F. Farrington,Jr. I'u siiln,t and CEO Executive Director Silt lake Chamber Downtown Alliance A"I"t'ACF1ni NT: • Crrr7stcuctiotti Impact Mitigation Plan • APR-13-06 THU 10:29 AN FAX NO, P. 04 'a WN. Construction impact Mitigation Plan ,..*,.s Downtown Salt Lake City Brickgrotlt7d In the next five years, investment in downtown Salt Lake City will exceed $1,5 billion. 'There is no period in the history of downtown Salt Lake City when so much investment has occurred in such a concentrated time frame. This investment represents a historic opportunity for city renewal, but may be disruptive to some downtown businesses and visitors. Effective construction impact mitigation, transportation planning, parking impact mitigation, and marketing will be nCcossary. Approach Thr, Salt Lake Chamber envisions a triage approach to construction impact mitigation that includes the close partnership of the Chamber/Downtown Alliance, Salt Lake City Corp., and major project sponsors. The overall effort will be patterned after the successful 400 South light rail transit project where business and property owners were vc:ry involved, information was shared frequently and openly, and contractors were in entivized to minimize impacts on existing businesses. A summary of roles and responsibilities includes the following: Salt Lake Chamber/Downtown Alliance-Overall lead for business coordination, public affairs and marketing. The Chamber will make extensive use of already existing organizational structures such as the Downtown Alliance Board, Chamber Communications Committee, Downtown Development Committee, Downtown Marketing Committee and Downtown Parking and Transportation Committee. Salt Lake City Corp.-Provides tactical construction impact mitigation. This includes threemajor components: ▪ impact mitigation -Working with the Chamber to resolve issues related to business access, traffic/parking, utility interruption, alternative transit plans, business marketing assistance and small business loan assistance. We will also consider the use of an incentive pool. • Information sharing- Includes a one-stop Web site and hotline for public em rgenc:ies and concerns, formation of a Community Advisory Council comprised of business and properties directly impacted by the project, convening of monthly meetings, and communication via email and newsletters, Project integration/coordination- Meet regularly with project planners and managers, provide quick link to municipal department heads, organize April 11, 2006 APR-13-06 THU 10:29 AM FAX N0, P, 05 and facilitate stakeholder meetings, attend appropriate project inspections, and other integration activities. Project sponsors — Each project sponsor andwould resp nd to coordination quests,sts. int of contact who can be used to provide information Major Work Tasks a It anticipated that the following c.xween the Saork tasks l be jointly t Lake Chamberiand Salt I.akeC ty Cvlemor ndLrn of Understanding Corporation; 1. Meet with impacted businesses and property owners. a. Form a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). 2. Work with developers and CAC to develop a memorandum of understanding that formalizes protocols to follow during the construction period. 3, Work with city staff and developers to establish a construction impact mitigation incentive fund. a. Fund will be used to award bonuses and pay for construction impact mitigation. 4 Serve on the ground to resolve issues related to business access, traffic, parking, utility disruption, alternative transit plans, etc. 5. Assist with the content for a one-stop Web site. 6. Explore the feasibility and help with the implementation of a hotline for public emergencies and concerns, 7. Initiate regular communication with stakeholders via email newsletters, one-on- one visits, regular stakeholder meetings and open houses, etc. 8. Attend regular meetings with project planners and managers. 9. Serve as a quick link to municipal department heads. 10, Attend project inspections when there are concerns on the part of the developers, the city or adjacent property owners and businesses. 11, Coordinate and implement a business marketing campaign. 12. Refer impacted business to city services for small business loan assistance. 13. Serve on the Second Century Plan Technical Team April 11, 2006 LOPEN FOR BUSINESS DURING CONSTRUCTION D O W N T W N i S LC 1 , , ,- . , IT'S THE PLACE it DOWNTOWN GUIDE 1 _.:iisilli ,►OR DEVELOPMENT NORDSTROM MEIER&FRANK �'' II II II 1 CROSSROADS PLAZA ZCMI CENTER® I , ) SALT LAKE CITY - .thedowntownmalls.com .�` J I ' 1 �� I � � I r;141.°Iiele The Downtown Token: ` `11 i f� 0 A Parking &Transit Validation I III i • I I I SLC from Downtown Businesses II TRANSIT - III I I ' • ro,k% III I 1 I I 1 I � i II . 1 , III 1 Use It For: I I U 1 'll 1) One hour of time at any SLC parking meter ,, ' !• 1 I 2) $1 off at participating lots/garages- f. I i. •� `�� 3) A free one-way fare on UTA TRAX or a I I • , J.........100.001 i regular UTA bus** ' C *multiple tokens may be used ! • **(2)tokens required for ski bus and flex-trans I I I 0111 _ 1I Find a list of participating businesses at _ .. . ' III .411.__ www.downtownslc.com. XX Downtown Alliance \ . an affiliate of the Salt Lake Chamber The Downtown Token is a program of the Downtown Alliance. A PUBLICATION OF T H E DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE OF SALT LAKE CITY Twelve Attractions. :. . r- :...-,-, -r* A . ,. _.,:. ..„, .._ . , t The Children's Museum of Utah The Lion 4• ' - ' - , - 7� House Clark Planetarium The Living Visit TEMPLE SQUARE Planet Aquarium Red Butte Garden Utah Salt Lake Ciy's ttl Tourist Attraction—in the heart of the city.Scores of things to see and do—and all are free! Museum of Fine Arts This is the Place �`' Heritage Park Utah Olympic Park Thanksgiving Point Snowbird Ski & adasjill4 Summer Resort Utah's Hogle Zoo •database dote ur roots in the wodd's largest genealogical Museum of Ancient Life • t I nagine ssing the Great Plains in 1857 with your belongings •view the newly designed dioramas in two o nandmn. visitors'centers. •Heor the world-famous Mormon Tobernacle Choir. •Admire Danish sculptor Thorvaldsen's Christus. •See the magnificent spires of the Solt Loke Temple. f. One Card. '='� t i t 1 t . ., LthIct pk 4 IT SA ass ` ` `JtS connect P • - _ Want more information?Coll 1-800-537-9703 L Or visit our Web sites:www.visittemplesquare.com or www.lds.org/plocestovisit .- n _ The Church of Jesus Christ of Lotter-day Saints C ‘ r. 1 ill Gallivan Plaza Rentals one catd� Business Meetings Attractions: ri. Company Parties — W,r, TW.... Weddings Oro "Wit" Festivals `PKE • ciA Concerts/Outdoor Movies Exhibits/Conventions Holiday Celebrations The Visit Salt Lake Connect Pass G A L L I V A N Ice Rink is your prepaid entrance to CENTER Tel:801 535 6113 Salt Lake's finest museums www.thegallivancenter.com and attractions. Purchase the Visit Salt Lake Connect Pass by ordering WWW.DININGATTEMPLESQUARE.COM online at www.visitsaltlake.com/connect &' or stop by the downtown Visitor Information Center at GARDEN Wrl'°�` °=� , 90 S. West Temple, Salt Lake City. RESTAURANT PANTRY RESTAURANT \� RESTAURANT \`// The Visitor Information Center hours are Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm, (Memorial Day-Labor Day until 6 pm),Sat-Sun 9 am-5 pm. FOR RESERVATIONS AND For more information: RESTAURANT INFORMATION www.visitsaltlake.com/connect CALL: 80I.S 3 9.191 I 8oi-521-2822 or 80o-541-4955 (toll-free) w 801 9 9 4--1143 3 Formal Wear 8001-328-25r86Zion Bookstore 1111111111111111111111 242 E.South Temple 254 S.Main Street The Library Store Scandinavian Shoppe 210 TheSht400 atLibrh 1755.West Temple WELCOME TO DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE © The Shops at Library Square 801-537-7788 801-524-8238 0 QTY! THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE IS © 74 S.See' Candies Lorenz Grinding&Fine Cutlery 74 Street PLEASED TO HAVE YOU AS OUR GUEST El 29 East 400 South 801-532-2312 801-363-2821 ElSuit2Fit AND INVITE YOU TO EXPERIENCE ALL Mechanized Music 15 East 400 South 511 West 200South 801-359-0799 THAT DOWNTOWN HAS TO OFFER. a 801-521-5979 TP Gallery ei McKay Jewelry Co. 252 S.Main Street The Downtown Guide lists all the restaurants, night- 157 S.Main Street 801-364-2961 801-359-0192 clubs,art galleries, retail, entertainment venues, hotels, 1 Toshiko Japanese Imports and more that exist within the Central Business District Moda Italia 78 S.Main Street 150 E.South Temple 801 355 8828 801-355-4950 boundaries in Downtown Salt Lake City(North Temple Uprok Music to 400 South,500 West to 300 East). Major city land- Night Flight Comics 324 S.State Street marks and locations are identified on the Downtown 210 East 400 South 801-363-7955 The Shops at Library Square Map for easy reference. 801-532-1188 UTah Artist Hands 61 West 100 South O.C.Tanner Jewelers 801-355-0206 All of the listings found in this Guide can also be found 60 E.South Temple 801-532-3222 Utah Book&Magazine on our website, www.downtownslc.com,along with 327 S.Main Street Ovation Audio 801-359-4391 current listings of all the events and activities that are 260 South 200 West 801-359-4989 Utah State Liquor Store happening Downtown. 205 West 400 South Oxford Shoe Shop 801-533-5901 65 West 100 South ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 801-355-8636 Utah State Wine Store The Downtown Alliance is a non-profit organization 255 South 300 East Paul Thomas Jewelers 801-533-6444 rving the downtown property owners, businesses, 57 West 200 South 801-363-2133 Utah Woolen Mills Clothiers CIresidents by promoting Downtown Salt Lake City 59 W.South Temple as the premier cultural, business,economic and enter- Reuel's Photo Blue 801-364-1851 370 S.West Temple tainment center throughout the Intermountain West. 801-355-1713 Vic's Key&Repair Shop 145 E.Social Hall Ave. Rite Aid Pharmacy 801-359-5972 72 S.Main Street ' DovmtownAlliance 801-531-0583 Western Nut Co. 434 South 300 West an affiliate of the Salt Lake Chamber Roots Floral Shop 801-363-8869 • • 324 South 400 West 175 East 400 South, Suite 600 801-363-7668 The Rose Shop Zim's Crafts 150 S.State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-268 2505 Tel:801-359-5118 260 E.South Temple 801-363-7673 Fax:801-328-5098 Rust Rare Coin&Gift 252 East 300 South For more information,visit our 801-363-4014 website at www.downtownslc.com. PRINTED MARCH 2006 0 0 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 0 3 c ,$ . 111 . a t11 :i $7; .e. .y.. c \ , ..< „, 1 -- 01i(. ...... :,,, 11:1 hoto.Salt Lake Convention&Visitors Bureau -04 C . 1 •-1� si9lio ' • I RESTAURANTS DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY IS HOST TO OVER 100 AWARD-WINNING RESTAURANTS, BREWPUBS, SAND- WICH DELIS AND FAST-FOOD EATERIES, AS WELL AS STREET FRONT RETAIL NEARLY 50 PRIVATE CLUBS AND BARS. 353 Market& Grateful Thread Ahh Sushi Auntie Anne's Pretzels Convenience Store 378 West 300 South in O'Shucks Bar&Grill 23 S.Rio Grande Street, 353 West 200 South 801-364-3615 22 East 100 South,Basement Upper Level at The Gateway Green Glass Art Japanese Cuisine&Sushi Pretzels AJ's Kwik Mart Private Club 801-456-0058 270 S.Main Street 357 W.Pierpont Ave. 801-359-6770 801-355-3335 801-933-4820 B.C.Chicken A La Carte 2 Go 380 S.State Street Audioworks Guthrie Bicycle 123BBQ 149 East 200 South 156 East 200 South East Hot Dogss and South0 d Coffee Bar 801-355-8866 801-364-9999 801-363-3727 801-364-2482 Havana Bros.Cigars Baci Trattoria ennion Jewelers Aloha Sushi 134 W.Pierpont Ave. O S.Main Street 217 East 300 South 336 West 300 South Italian 1-364-3667 801-961-8589 Hawaiian-style Sushi 801-328-1500 801-322-3224 Broadway Pharmacy&Market Heavy Metal Shop The Bakery 242 East 300 South 63 E.Exchange Place The Alta Club 250 South 300 East 801-363-3939 801-467-7071 100 E.South Temple Bakery Private Social Club 801-328-3300 Decade Snow&Skate Illusions 801-322-1081 249 East 400 South 329 East 300 South Bambara Restaurant 801-359-7588 801-328-8509 Applebee's 202 S.Main Street 159 S.Rio Grande Hotel Monaco Edinburgh Castle Scottish Jabe Art at The Gateway American Imports 341 W.Pierpont Ave. American 801-990-9708 124 S.Main Street 801-359-8246 801-456-5000 801-364-1406 Beehive Tea Room Jeanie's Smoke Shop Art of Main Street Café 12 West 300 South The English Garden 156 S.State Street 147 S. Teas and scones 210 East 400 South 801-322-2817 Bakery&Deli 801-328-4700 The Shops at Library Square 801-746-2488 801-364-6202 Ken Sanders Rare Books Ben&Jerry's Ice Cream 268 South 200 East Atlantic Café&Market 7 S.Rio Grande Street Especially For You Floral 801-521-3819 325 S.Main Street Upper Level at The Gateway 209 East 300 South European Deli Ice Cream 801-531-7557 801-524-9900 801-456-0070 © T. 801.359.5118 © 9 0 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM , ANTIQUES & HOME RETAIL Ben's Cookies Gaffe D'Bolla 158 S.Rio Grande Street 249 East 400 South at The Gateway Coffee&Tea House Antoinette's Antiques Jitterbug Antiques 801-456-2367 801-355-1398 247 East 300 South 243 East 300 South Cookies 801-359-2192 801-537-7038 Caffe Molise 0 ihana of Tokyo 55 West 100 South © Artifacts Kasim&Company S.West Temple Italian © 378 West 300 South 57 East 400 South apanese Grill&Sushi 801-364-8833 801-355-1898 801-596-0786 801-322-2421 © California Pizza Kitchen Asian Interiors Kennard Antiques Biaggi's Ristorante Italiano 156 South 400 West 350 S.State Street 215 East 300 South 194 South 400 West at The Gateway A 801-359-8993 801-328-9796 at The Gateway Gourmet Pizza&Pasta Italian 801-456-0075 U Bag Lady Michael Berry Custom Framing 801-596-7222 241 East 300 South 163 East 300 South Capt.Len's City Barbeque © 801-521-6650 801-521-0243 Big City Soup 45 East 200 South 235 South 400 West Barbeque Beehive Collectors Gallery Mountain Peaks Antiques 801 333 7687 368 East 300 South 235 East 300 South Caputo's Market&Deli 801-533-0119 801-201-0143 234 S.Main Street 308 West 300 South 801-532-7687 Italian Market&Deli Broadway Oriental Rugs Olympus Cove Antiques Soups and Sandwiches 801-531-8669 167 East 300 South 179 East 300 South 801-532-5810 801-532-1070 Blimpie Subs&Salads Carl's Jr.Restaurant 111 East 300 South 75 East 200 South Bungalow House Packer Glass Co. Deli Fast Food 239 East 300 South 150 West 400 South 801-355-0634 801-355-9395 801-363-3493 801-359-3749 Blue Iguana Carlton Café Carmen Miranda's Antiques Paradise Palm 158 S.West Temple,Basement 140 E.South Temple 270 South 300 East 307 East 300 South Mexican Carlton Hotel 801-359-7741 801-582-3212 801-533-8900 American 801-355-3418 Daghlian Oriental Rug Retro Rose Boston Deli 215 S.Edison Street 207 East 300 South \ 9 E.Exchange Place,Basement Carlucci's Bakery 801-363-7847 801-537-7757 Deli 314 West 300 South 801-355-2146 Bakery&Sandwich Deli DeConde's Furniture Salt Lake Antiques 801-366-4484 270 East 100 South 279 East 300 South Buca di Beppo 801-355-1727 801-322-1273 202 West 300 South Carriage Café Clian 330 W.South Temple Due Time Simantov Oriental Rug Galles 1-575-6262 Deli 279 East 300 South 341 S.Main Street 801-532-2399 801-521-4356 801-359-6000 Burger King 217 East 400 South Cedars of Lebanon Elemente Thomson&Burrows Antiques Fast Food 152 East 200 South 353 W.Pierpont Ave. 280 South 300 East 801-359-0529 Middle Eastern 801-355-7400 801-521-0650 801-364-4096 Butterfly Restaurant Generations Antiques World Furniture 13 North 400 West Charlie Chow's Dragon Grill 361 West 400 South 454 South 500 West at The Gateway 255 East 400 South 801-466-0456 801 519 6900 Asian Fusion Asian 801-456-8999 801-328-3663 Hills House Antique Gallery 126 South 200 West Café Pierpont Cher's Delicatessen 801-359-4852 122 W.Pierpont Ave 219 East 300 South Mexican Deli Howell's Furniture 801-364-1222 801-531-8121 358 S.Rio Grande Street 801-359-6622 Cafe Sha Sha Chilean Deli 175 East 400 South 222 S.Main Street American Chilean 801-322-4949 801-521-2311 ©0 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 0 Ei Christopher's The Dodo Restaurant THE GATEWAY 110 West 300 South 154 South 400 West The Peery Hotel at The Gateway Seafood&Steakhouse American THE GATEWAY IS AN OUTDOOR SHOPPING AND 801-519-8515 801-456-0570 LIFESTYLE CENTER SPANNING 2 BLOCKS IN Cindy Lee Café Elevations Restaurant 0 GWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY: RIO GRANDE STREET 264 S.Main Street 75 S.West TempleCI TWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 200 SOUTH. Chinese&Vietnamese Marriott Downtown Hotel 1', 801-359-4544 American RIO GRANDE STREET IS LOCATED AT 455 WEST. 0 801-537-6019 FOR A CURRENT LISTING OF STORES, PLEASE SEE: Cinegrill 344 South 300 East European Connection W W W.SHOPTHEGATEWAY.COM OR CALL 801-456-0000. Italian Diner 170 S.Rio Grande 801-328-4900 at The Gateway El Crepes abercrombie Hawk SkateEl City Marketplace Deli 801-456-0065 Abercrombie&Fitch Hollister Co. 46 West 300 South Accuscan Health Imaging Hot Dog on a StickEl Deli Five Star Restaurant Adrenaline Hard Wear Hot Topic 801-355-0100 268 S.State Street Aeropostal Humphrey Yogart Thai/Chinese American Eagle Outfitters J.Brooks Jewelers Coffee Garden 801-366-9366 Ann Taylor Loft J.Crew 254 S.Main Street Anthropologie J.Jill Sam Welter's Bookstore Fleming's Prime Steakhouse Apple Computers JMR Chalk Garden Coffee Bar 20 South 400 West Applebee's Restaurant Journey's 801-364-0768 at The Gateway Arden B Lane Bryant Steakhouse Auntie Anne's Pretzels Living Planet Aquarium Coffee Under The Bridge 801-355-3704 Baby Gap Love Sac 511 West 200 South Banana Republic Lollabella Boutique Coffee House Food Courts Barnes&Noble Booksellers Lucky Brand Dungarees 801-359-2278 Crossroads Mall,50 S.Main St. Bastille McDonald's The Gateway,140 S.Rio Grande Bath&Body Works McGrath's Fish House Costa Vida ZCMI Center Mall,36 S.State St. Bebe Megaplex 12 Theatres 169 S.Rio Grande Street Ben&Jerry's Ice Cream Mimi Maternity Upper Level at The Gateway Gandolfo's New York Deli Ben's Cookies of Oxford Olympic Legacy Plaza Fresh Mex 158 S.Main Street Biaggi's Ristorante Italian() Pac Sun 801-456-8646 Deli The Body Shop Panda Express 801-322-3354 Bombay Company Pears Courtyard Cafe Brighton Collectibles Quiksilver 130 West 400 South The Garden Restaurant Brookstone Rocky Mountain Chocolate Courtyard by Marriott 15 E.South Temple,10th Floor Buckle Factory American Joseph Smith Memorial Bldg. Build-A Bear Workshop Rumbi Island Grill 801-531-6000 American 0 Pizza Kitchen Samba Grill 801-539-3170 ico's Sbarro's Pizzeria Crusty's Qlifornia ristopher&Banks Silver Loft 358 S.West Temple Ginza Cingular Wireless Sky Box Sports Grille&Arena American 209 West 200 South Claire's Slate Creek Gift Co. 801 466 3190 Japanese Cuisine&Sushi Clark Planetarium Sole Outdoors 801 322 2224 Coldwater Creek Sona Laser Center Cucina Toscana Connected Wireless(Sprint) Starbucks 307 W.Pierpont Ave. Happy Sumo , Costa Vida Subway Italian 153 S.Rio Grande Cummings Studio Chocolates Sunglass Design 801-328-3463 at The Gateway D.Grant Ltd. Sunglass Hut Japanese Cuisine&Sushi Dairy Queen/Orange Julius Sur La Table Cummings Studio Chocolates 801-456-7866 Dick's Sporting Goods Taco Time 21 5.Rio Grande Street • Dodo Restaurant Thaifoon:A Taste of Asia at The Gateway High Rock Steakhouse EB Games Tilt Chocolatier 215 W.South Temple Edo Japan Trade Secret 801-456-0052 Radisson Hotel Express Tresor Jewelers Steakhouse Fanzz Verizon Wireless Cup of Joe 801-933-8024 Fleming's Prime Steakhouse& Victoria's Secret 353 West 200 South Wine Bar Victoria's Secret Beauty Coffee House Himalayan Kitchen Foot Locker Virgin Megastore 801-363-8322 73 East 400 South Fortier Jewelers Wells Fargo Bank Middle Eastern The Gap Wet Seal Curry in a Hurry 801-596-8727 Gap Kids Z-Gallerie 210 S.Main Street GNC Z'Tejas Southwestern Grill Indian Gymboree Zumiez 801-323-7030 Happy Sumo Sushi Bar 9ii0 6 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 A- :. 'Aoilo 00' V i 1, �. Hong Kong Tea House Kwan's Chinese Restaurant „Il l� L' 565 West 200 South 139 E.South Temple _ ,,. r - Chinese Chinese }"' 1(1 801-531-7010 801-596-2398 ±`N Lamb's Grill Cafe . 1 t N. , House of Kabob&Pita t✓• t / I 743 S.Main Street 169 S.Main Street 1 • dle Eastern American ,, 1 ti-_ d01-521-4442 801-364-7166 • �,r 1 a 1 t�►4y, s , HumphreyYogart Legal Donuts t','t4)` It - f 175 S.Rio Grande 30 East 300 South r>f . \ .' g. , at The Gateway Donut Shop ' a .' -! - • ,- Frozen Yogurt 801-436-6887 801-456-0050 * / / Leger's Deli ' / r `' !1 JB's Restaurant 111 East 300 South 102 W.South Temple Deli 11 American 801-578-1752 ' I 801-328-8344 5 'Conventionx ,ut�.e�,ea" Lemon Grass Thai Cuisine Joy's Deli 327 West 200 South 210 East 400 South Thai The Shops at Library Square 801-596-1778 Deli ZCMI CENTER, 15 S. MAIN STREET: 801-532-8787 Lion House Pantry 63 E.South Temple Judge Café&Grill Mormon Home Cooking All Digital Wireless Sbarro 8 East 300 South 801-539-3257 Bennion Jewelers Schlotzsky's American Blimpies Shapiro 801-531-0917 Market Street Grill Bliss Skool Lunch 48 W.Market Street Chang Chun Souvenir Stop at Judicial Corner Seafood Customer Service Center Temple Square 350 S.Main Street 801-322-4668 Deseret Book T-Mobile US Federal Courthouse Deseret First Credit Union T-Shirt Outpost American Market Street Oyster Bar Dollar Tree Taco Maker 801-521-3744 54 W.Market Street Dressed In White Tie One On Seafood/Private Club Edo Japan Tiffin Room(4th Floor Meier&Frank) Junior's Tacos 801-531-6044 Firenze Art Gifts Top Alterations 230 S.Main Street Franklin Covey Towne Express Tacos Martine Gloria's Cuts U.S.Post Office 22 East 100 South Great Steak&Potato Wells Fargo ewson's Sunrise Café European Tapas for dinner, Hope Gallery Which Watch O 6 S.West Temple American for lunch Inkley's Wilderness Woods ilo Inn 801-363-9328 Long John Silver Williams Fine Art American McDonald's Zions Bank 801-363-6393 Meier&Frank(Macy's) Mr.Mac MEIER&FRANK(MACY'S): Mrs.Cavanaugh's 801-579-7300 OC Tanner Parry's Office Supplies Payless Shoe Source Precision Time Premier Salon at Meier&Frank waljlrilil�OU S IOUICI be an event. Pretzel Time Pro Nails _ Repartee Gallery •, Y ' LATITUDE . LATITUDE RESTAURANTS"HAPA GRILL PARK CITY HARRY'S SUGARHOUSE'HARRY'S AT THE E.CENTER ICHIBAN SALT LAKE ' KAMPAI PARK CITY MIKADO DOWNTOWN 'MIKADO COTTONWOOD www.latituderg.com ' 888-921.5966 4 10 6 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 0 El 4• • McGrath's Fish House Musumeci's Italian Deli a 190 South 400 West 251 S.State Street at The Gateway Italian Deli tf' Seafood&Steak 801-596-2562 801-456-7890 WV_- Neighbor's Market The Melting Pot 44 N.State Street 340 S.Main Street Deli Fondue 801-355-8061 801-521-6358 • New York Subs The Metropolitan 14 West 300 South anoeu:Paul Consiglio 173 West 300 South Deli American 801-220-0516 801-364-3472 New Yorker Mikado 60 W.Market Street 67 West 100 South Fine Dining/Private Club Japanese Cuisine&Sushi 801-363-0166 Mo's e-0929 NordstromDOE ordstrom Café • Mo Neighborhood Grill N Main Street 358 S.West Temple Nordstrom at Crossroads Mall American American 801-359 0586 801-366 2879 THE DOWNTOWN MALLS Mr.Z's Cucina Italiana Nostalgia Coffee House 111 East 300 South 248 East 100 South Italian Coffee House&Deli CROSSROADS PLAZA AND ZCMI CENTER MALL 801-994-2002 801-532-3225 ARE LOCATED ACROSS FROM TEMPLE SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY. THESE TWO SHOPPING CENTERS WILL BE UNDERGOING A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT BEGINNING IN 2006. MANY STORES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED DUE TO THE LARGE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT, HOWEVER, A SELECT NUMBER OF RETAIL SHOPS AND EATERIES ANCHORED BY m NORDSTROM AND METER & FRANK (MACY'S) •' DEPARTMENT STORE WILL REMAIN OPEN THROUGH I it I CONSTRUCTION. FOR A CURRENT LISTING 1 ....... �/ STORES, PLEASE SEE: = ' - WWW.THEDOWNTOWNMALLS.COM OR CALL 801-321-5945. 4 Ili III tCROSSROADS PLAZA, 50 S. MAIN STREET: F,' 11 • t II Bellezza Salon Mrs.Fields Cookies • • Borders Books,Music,&Cafe Nations Creations Candy Barrel Nordstrom I / ') Chiang Mai Thai Grill Nordstrom Espresso Bar ,. s Chick-fil-A Nordstrom Express Café Cilantro's Panda Express ‘l I Crossroads Plaza Security The Kind Sandwich&Deli Office Trade Secret \\' ,41 • s - Customer Service Center Tresor Jewelers Dairy Queen Treats Ypsilon General Nutrition Center Hot Topic NORDSTROM:801-322-4200 I Jamba Juice Key Bank of Utah / Lenscrafters Mariposa P .[O Yi�l Co.ey 0 ICI WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 ©© Patrick Dry Goods HOUSING PROJECTS Olive Garden Romano's Macaroni Grill 163 West 200 South LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE 77 West 200 South 110 West 300 South 801-599-2457 THE CENTRAL BUSINESS Italian The Peery Hotel 801-537-6202 Italian Pauline Downs Apartments DISTRICT 801-521-3133 120 South 300 East One World Cafe 801-364-2934 CitiFront South 300 East The Roof Restaurant 0 600 West North Temple 0 anic food 15 E.South Temple,10th Floor The Plaza 801-359-5540 1-519-2002 Joseph Smith Memorial Bldg. Q at The Brooks Arcade Dinner Buffet 268 S.State Street Library Square Condos Orbit Café 801-539-1911 D 801-595-7234 226 East 500 South 540 West 200 South 801-554-4942 American Royal Eatery © Pierpont Lofts 801-322-3808 379 S.Main Street • • 346&350 W.Pierpont Ave. Liberty Metro Super Studios Fast Food U 801-467-6688 555 South 200 East P.F.Chang's China Bistro 801-532-4301 (Ramsey Group Realtors) 801-366-5000 174 West 300 South Chinese Rumbi Island Grill CIRenaissance Apartment Suites Wasatch Manor , 801-539-0500 171 S.Rio Grande 0 267 West 300 South 535 South 200 East at The Gateway 801-534-8500 801-484-6699 Panache Island Grill 299 S.Main Street,2nd Floor 801-456-4400 Uffens Marketplace International 336 West 300 South 801-535-4310 Salt Lake Roasting Company 801-532-5357 210 East 400 South Parkside Café The Shops at Library Square The Warehouse 215 S.State Street,Lobby Coffee Bar District Condos Deli 801-532-0450 327 West 200 South 801-355-0331 Samba Grill 801-595-UTAH (Urban Utah Homes) Passages Restaurant 162 South 400 West 71 W.South Temple Upper Level in The Gateway Westgate Lofts American Brazilian Rodizio BBC) 328 West 200 South 801-536-7200 801-456-2200 801-533-0709 Shogun Piastra on Gallivan 220 S.State Street 321 S.Main Street Marriott City Center Hotel Japanese Cuisine&Sushi Italian 801-364-7142 801-366-8065 Sicilia Pizza Pier 49 Pizza 221 East 300 South 238 S.Main Street Pizza za 801-961-7077 - '- MOP 1-530-1189 E ��I. Siegfried's Delicatessen I` Quizno's Classic Subs 20 West 200 South 30 East 300 South German Deli Deli 801-355-3891 ram• 1 -- 801-322-4300 , Skool Lunch Red Rock Brewing Company 60 E.South Temple a _• 254 South 200 West 801-532-5269 — Brew Pub Irk 1 V s +' Flit. le 801-521-7446 405 S.Main Street - -y i , 801-583-6208 _ � ,y Rio Grande Café Deli&Bakery 1 I-' r_. __ Rill 270 S.Rio Grande Street jwi—`""' - r Mexican SkyBox Sports Grille&Arena s i- / 801-364-3302 4 S.Rio Grande St // Upper Level at The Gateway - Rocky Mountain Sports Bar&Grill . Chocolate Factory 801-456-1200 158 S.Rio Grande Street at The Gateway Spencer's For Steaks&Chops Chocolatier 255 S.West Temple 801-456-0683 Hilton Salt Lake City Center Steakhouse 801-238-4748 ©ci WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 0 9 Squatters Pub Brewery Trofi Restaurant = 147 West 300 South 255 S.West Temple D 0 fW' Milli NW N Brew Pub Hilton Salt Lake City Center uuDoumD 801-363-2739 American 801-238-4877 Star of India 55 East 400 South Vienna Bistro OW Middle Eastern 132 S.Main Street 801-363-7555 European CATED LESS THAN 40 MINUTES FROM UTAH'S 801-322-0334 FAMOUS SKI RESORTS, 10 MINUTES FROM THE Starbucks Coffee 220 S.State Street Vosen's Bread Paradise SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FIVE Marriott City Center Hotel 249 West 200 South MINUTES FROM HIKING AND BIKING TRAILS, 801-363-4877 Bakery A TRAX RIDE AWAY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF 801-322-2424 9 S.Rio Grande UTAH, PLUS WORLD-CLASS ART, CULTURE, RETAIL, at The Gateway Washington Square Café RESTAURANTS AND A VIBRANT NIGHTLIFE, 801-456-0335 451S.State Street Coffee House Salt Lake City&County Bldg. . DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY HAS NEVER BEEN A Deli BETTER PLACE TO LIVE. Stoneground 801-535-6102 249 East 400 South Pizza,Pasta&Pool Wild Mushroom Pizza Artspace on Pierpont Dakota Lofts 801-364-1368 365 West 400 South 329 W.Pierpont Avenue 380 West 200 South Pizza and Sandwiches 801-531-9378 801-595-UTAH Subway Sandwiches&Salads 801-746-7100 (Utah Urban Homes) 18 West 100 South Artspace Bridges Project Deli Xiao Li 511 West 200 South Eagle Gate Apartments 801-364-6229 307 West 200 South 801-531-9378 109 E.South Temple Chinese 801-321-8700 Takashi 801-328-8688 Artspace City Center 18 W.Market Street 230 South 500 West Hollywood Condos Japanese Cuisine&Sushi Xing 801-531-9378 234 East 100 South 801-519-9595 368 S.State Street 801-530-1513 Mochi Ice Cream&Bubble Artspace Rubber Company Tango Grill Drinks 353 West 200 South Jackson Apartments 60 West 200 South 801-963-9888 801-531-9378 274 West 200 South Argentine Bistro&Parrilla 801-534-0332 801-364-1140 Yo Mama's Smokin'Good BBQ Belvedere Condos 311 S.Main Street 29 5.State Street LaFrance Apartments Thaifoon:Taste of Asia Barbeque 801-364-1901 246 West 300 South 7 North 400 West 801-746-0870 801-521-6319 Upper Level at The Gateway igham Apartments Thai Z'Tejas 1 E.South Temple The Metro Condos 801-456-8424 191 S.Rio Grande 8-744-1252 350 South 200 East at The Gateway 801-990-1429 The Tiffin Room Southwestern Broadway Lofts 51 S.Main Street Meier&Frank 801-456-0450 159 West 300 South New Grand Hotel Apartments at ZCMI Center Mall 801-467-2100 7 East 400 South American 801-359-1737 801-579-7300 ext.6116 Broadway Park Lofts 350 West 300 South Northgate Apartments Toaster's Cafe 801-532-5357 at The Gateway 151 West 200 South 135 South 500 West Deli Broadway Towers Apartments 801-533-0663 801-328-2928 230 East 300 South 801-534-1222 Palladio Apartments 360 South 200 West The Club Condos 801-320-4400 150 South 300 East 801-205-7111 The Parc at Gateway Condos 14 South 400 West Covey Apartments 801-456-0606 239 E.South Temple 801-355-5021 l'il 0 WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 ©© n's Shear ions Plaza Executive alliva vA HealthClub 299rS(Main Street,Fists Floor OflD A ©OD A 0 40 E.Gallivan Avenue 801-961-1300 801-595-1279ON s T I T U T IONS Premier Salon at Meier&Frank Slug Magazine 15 S.Main Street 350 W.Pierpont Ave. ZCMI Center Mall 801-487-9221 801-596-7787CO) DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY IS THE HUB OF Sports Mall Metro ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ACTIVITY IN THE Presto Print&Copy Center 155 S.Regent Street INTERMOUNTAIN WEST. 228 S.Edison Street Opening Soon 801-355-6131 Static Hair Salon Pro Nails 380 West 200 South All Types Check Cashing Mountain America Credit Union 36 S.State Street 801 363 9300 369 S.Main Street 180 East 100 South ZCMI Center Mall 801-328-2274 801-524-8882 801-534-9701 St.Vincent de Paul Weigand Homeless Day Center American Investment Bank UBS Bank The Road Home 437 West 200 South a 200 E.South Temple 299 S.Main Street#2100 American Towers Condos 801 363 7710 801-297-1000 801-521-8840 48 West 300 South Thrifty Car Rental TD Waterhouse 801-532-6259 Bank of the West 215 W.South Temple 142 East 200 South 2 East 300 South Russon Brothers Mortuary Radisson Hotel 801-531-3400 801-934-4448 255 South 200 East 801-355-7368 801-328-8846 Brighton Bank US Bank Trade Secret Saans Photography 50 S.Main Street 311S.11S.801-531-8000 801-534-6237 State Street 170 S.Main Street 173 East 300 South Crossroads Plaza 801-328-8827 801-350-0399 Charles Schwab Wachovia Securities Salon NV Tru,A Pilates& 268 S.State Street 201 S.Main Street 801-239-2080 801-534-0088 250 South 200 East Movement Studio 801-364-6864 511 West 200 South Chase Bank Washington Mutual 801 532 2677 185 S.State Street 201 S.Main Street Salt Lake Chamber 801-481-5017 801-322-2200 of Commerce United Tailors&Cleaners 175 East 400 South#600 161 East 200 South 80 West 300 South Wells Fargo 801-364-3631 801 364 1888 801-481-5350 79 S.Main Street 801-246-2677 Salt Lake City Courier Service Univision-Utah Deseret First Credit Union 299 S Main Street 17 East 400 South 215 S.State Street,Suite 100 S State Street 801 534 0400 801-519 9784 ZCMI Center Mall 801-246-1300 1-538-0894 Salt Lake City The UPS Store III 405 S.Main Street Police Department 32 West 200 South Edward Jones Investments 801-596-2837 315 East 200 South 801 363 7100 38 West 200 South 801-799-3000 US Post Office 801-323-0900 29 S.Rio Grande St Upper Level at The Gateway Salt Lake Community College 230 West 200 South Fidelity Investor Center 801-456-0660 Main Street Center 36 S.State Street 279 W.South Temple 115 S.Main Street at ZCMI Center Mall 800-544-5586 Zions Bank 801-957-2000 800 ASK USPS 1 S.Main Street(Head office) Irwin Union Bank 801-524-2330 Salt Lake Convention Utah Transit Authority 224 South 200 West &Visitors Bureau Service Center 801-532-3033 102 S.Main Street 90 S.West Temple 24 West 100 South 801-524-8826 801 521 2822 801-287-4664 Key Bank 50 S.Main Street 310 S.Main Street Salt Lake Tribune Women's Business Center at Crossroads Plaza 801-524-4924 90 South 400 West,Suite 700 115 S.Main Street#516 801-535-1101 801-257-8742 801-957-2028 Money Mart Sargent Salon Xmission Internet Services 370 S.State Street 11 E.Exchange Place 51 East 400 South#200 801-532-5766 801-355-3952 801-539-0852 T: 801.359.5118 ©© WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM NIGHTLIFEIDocu Prep Hertz Rent-A-Car s 151 S.Main Street 75 S.West Temple 801-461-0202 at Marriott Downtown 801-355-8427 DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY IS A VIBRANT PLACE TO Documart BE AFTER DARK, WITH THE CITY'S MORE THAN 100 30 East 300 South Homeless Services �1 531-6749 210 S.Rio Grande Street RESTAURANTS AND PRIVATE CLUBS AVAILABLE TO 801-359-4142 SATISFY ANY CRAVING. ALL THE ESTABLISHMENTS 175 East 400A1liance South,#600 wntown LISTED BELOW, EXCEPT TAVERNS, ARE PRIVATE CLUBS Howell's One-Hour Photo 801-359-5118 145 West 200 South FOR MEMBERS. 801-359-4592 The Downtown Place 210 East 400 South Internet Solutions AJ's Deseret Lounge Club Sound 801-524-8240 14 East 300 South 323 S.Main Street 579 West 200 South 801-746-0515 Tavern Eagle Gate College Salt Lake Live Music/Concert Venue 405 S.Main Street 801-595-7003 801-328-0255 801-287-9640 Jagged Edge Retreat 375 S.Main Street The Alta Club Circle Lounge 801-355-4674 E.S u Temple Eagle Gate Dental P 328 S.State Street 32 N.State Street Private Social Club Sushi&Jazz Bar KCPW Public Radio 801-322-1081 801 801-359-2655 210 East 400 South,Suite 10 -531-5400 801-359-5279 Baci Wine Bar The Enterprise Newspaper Crazy Goat Saloon 136 S.Main Street,Suite 721 KSL Channel 5 Television 140 W.Pierpont Ave 119 S.West Temple 801-533-0556 Wine Bar/Italian Restaurant Gentlemen's Club/Cabaret &KSL 1160 AM Radio 801-328-1500 801-328-4628 55 North 300 West Enterprise Rent-A-Car 801-575-5555 Bar X Inn 404 South 300 West The Depot 801-534-1888 Konica Business Technologies 111 155 East 200 South 13 North 400 West Tavern at The Gatewa 90 South 400 West 801-532-9114 y Exposure Graphics at The Gateway Live Music 435 West 400 South 801-456-0731 801-355-5522 801-582-6904 Cabana Club East South Exchange KUTV Channel 2 Television 3 31 Est 40/Piano Bar FedEx Kinko's 299 S.Main Street,Suite 150 32 E.Exchange Place 19 East 200 South 801-355-9538 Live Music&Dance 801-533-9444 801-973-3000 801-359-1300 Limelight Tanning Club Cheers to You Firestone Tire&Service Center 380 West 200 South 315 S.Main Street High Rock Lounge 204 East 300 South Neighborhood Bar 215 W.South Tem le 801-533-5288 (11 801-575-6400p © 1-363-6741 Radisson Hotel Lost Art Tattoo Hotel Bar oria's Cuts 348 S.State Street Club Bambara 801-933-8008 36 S.State Street 202 S.Main Street/Hotel 801-537-7858 Monaco ZCMI Center Mall House of Kabob Club 801-531-9793 Hotel Bar 268 S.Main Street Marriott Vacation Club 801-363-5454 Private Club&Lounge Good Times Tattoo 80- Main 0 801-521-4442 801320 1000eet Club Ice 511 West 200 South 108 Club South 500 West 801-485-4777 Mid City Salon Krewson's Sunset Bar 46 West 300 South Live Music&Dance-2 floors 206 S.West Temple Goodyear Auto 801-533-CLUB Shilo Inn 801-363 3223 Tire Service Center Hotel Bar 378 S.West Temple Oasis Stage Werks Club Manhattan 801-363-6393 801-328-8473 5 East 400 South 249 S.Rio Grande Dance Club Kristauf's Social Club Ha 801 363 0364 Hip Hop,Jazz,Salsa pPY Nail 16 W.Market Street 235 East 300 South Perry's Barber Shop I 801-364-7651 Martini Bar 801-366-4405 801-366-9490 376 S.State Street Club Piastra 801-355-8552 220 S.State StreetHenrie's Dry Cleaners Lo-Fi Café 218 West 300 South Phillips 66 Gas Station Marriott City Center Hotel 165 S.West Temple 801-363-6827 Hotel Bar All Ages Concert Venue 379 South 300 West 801-961-8700 801-480-5634 223 801-521-2423 East 300 South 801-328-8789 © WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM 41131 T: 801.359.5118 ©© Lumpy's Downtown Port 0'Call Social Club 145 W.Pierpont Ave 78 West 400 South Sports Bar Live Music/Sports Bar 801 938 3070rill fs) 589 (3 801-521-0loor Macaroni G Bar West 300 South Radio City Lounge Peery Hotel 147 S.State Street rivateAl N Club/Italian Restaurant Tav801e532-9327 _ 801-521-3133 4. The Red Door Market Street Oyster Bar 57 West 200 South Downtown CI 13 } 48 W.Market Street Martini&Wine Bar �� 6 llirri.111111.111411° Private Club/Seafood 801-363-6030 CI Restaurant ShaggY's Livin'Room '.. + ? El 801 322 4668 155 West 200 South .r '�^`1 c 4i 9"° Mo's Neighborhood Grill Live Music and Dance 358 S.West Temple 801-478-4310 ` N el ill4 Bar&Grill ff` 801-359-0586 SkyBox Sports Grill&Arena rie 4 S.Rio Grande :lieMonk's at The Gateway ;;i:x,r:. L+ R V I C E S 19 East 200 South,Basement Sports Bar : r it SERVICES Live Music&DJ's 801-456-1200 • 801-350-0950 Spencer's ABig 0 Tires Murphy's Bar&Grill 255 S.West Temple 2 4 West 4000ice 160 S.Main Street Hilton Hotel Salt Lake City 801-530-5010 West South 178 E.South Temple Center 801-519-8241 Bar&Grill/Irish Pub etBar 801-359-7271 Hotel 38-4748 Aerolab Salon Borge Anderson 511 West 200 South Photo&Digital Mynt Martini Lounge 234 South 200 East 63 West 100 South Tavernacle Social Club 801-364 4092 801-359-7703 Martini Bar 201 East 300 South 801-355-6968 Dueling Pianos Bar A 251 S.State Opticalt801-519-8900 251 S. 5#2 Broadway Luggage Repair 245 S.State Street New Yorker 801 359 7645 801-355-4779 60 W.Market Street The Velvet Room 149 West 200 South Alpha Graphics Private Club/Fine Dining Concert Venue 140 S.Main Street Butler's Hair Design Restaurant 245 East 300 South 1 363 0166 801-957-1222 801-364-8451 801-359-7701 0 0 Shucks Bar&Grill Vortex Artistic Printing Company California Nails 22 East 100 South 404 S.West Temple 377 West 100 South 50 S.Main Street Bar&Grill/Pool Dance Club 801 532 5363 House,Disco(3 floors) Crossroads Plaza 801-560-8600 House,Disco -7746 Associated Press 801-364-6181 Panache Wine Bar 30 East 100 South,Suite 200 City Weekly Newspaper 801-322-3405 299 S.Main Street,2nd Floor W 8 Su West Temple e 248 S.Main Street Wine Bar/Private Club 801-575-7003 801-535-4311 Retro&House DJ's 218 Wireless S.Main Street 801-359-0637 80 1 521-9045 Deseret Gym Barber Shop Pitchers 150 Social Hall Ave. • 75 S.West Temple Bellezza Salon 801-328-1910 Marriott Downtown Hotel 50 Hotel Bar&Pub CrossroadsMain Street Plaza Deseret Morning News 801-531-0800 801-532-7583 30 East 100 South 801-236-6000 Pool Hall Junkies Berner Eye Clinic 165 East 200 South Desktop Visual Products Beer&Pool Hall 8 East South 411 West 400 South 801-746-3334 801 322 0467 801-359-5808 Big Deluxe Tattoo Display Business 68 West 400 South 801-595-1186 451 South 300 West 801-322-1450 T: 801.359.5118 1 , 3 0O WyyW,pOWNTOWNSLC.COM A R 'I' The Leonardo Salt Lake Film Center at Library Square 210 East 400 South11 GALLERIE 209 East 500 South The City Library 801-531-9800 801-746-7000 11111 IIMU S E U j1Z Megaplex 12 Theatres Salt Palace Convention Center S Gateway 100 S.West Temple S.Rio Grande Street 801-534-4777 SThe -304-4636113 Scott M.Matheson Off Broadway Theatre State CourthouseEll DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY IS HOME TO NUMEROUS ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND DOZENS 272 S.Main Street 450 S.State Street OF ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS. 801-355-4628 801-238-73000 .141 • Olympic Legacy Plaza Tabernacle on Temple Square El 3W Gallery at The Gateway 50 W.North Temple at W Communications Hope Gallery South Temple& 36 S.Main Street Rio Grande Street 801-240-4872 159 West 300 South,Suite 200 at ZCMI Center Mall ' 801-983-9266 801-456-0000 Temple Square Visitors Center 801-532-1336El 50 W.North Temple Arrow Press Studios Rio Grande Depot 801-240-4872 165 S.West Temple Bldg.1 Leigh North Gallery 801-364-3302 300 S.Rio Grande Street p 136 S.Main Street,#202 3rd Floor 801-746-4451 Union Pacific Depot 801-502-9185 400 W.South Temple Rose Wagner 801-456-2000 Art Access Gallery Litvin Gallery 138 West 300 South Performing Arts Center 169 East 300 South 339 W.Pierpont Avenue 801-328-4004 Utah Jazz at the Delta Center 801-328-0703 801-355-2787 301 S.West Temple Marble House Gallery Salt Lake Convention 801-325-2326 The Art Is In 44 E.Exchange Place &Visitors Bureau 511 West 200 South 801-295-7400 Utah State Historical Society 801-521-6177 90 S.West Temple 300 S.Rio Grande Street 801-521-2822 801-533-3500 I Main Street Gallery Artisan Frameworks&Gallery 299 S.Main Street,Lobby Salt Lake City&County 351 W.Pierpont Ave. 801-535-4660 801-519-2787 Building 451 S.State Street Museum of Church History 801-535-6321 Bingham Gallery and Art 136 S.Main Street#210 45 N.West Temple 801-832-9220 801-240-4615 Contemporary Design Museum of Utah Art&Histor0 &Art Gallery 125 S.Main Street 30 East 300 South#105 801-355-5554 , 801-364-0200 New Visions Gallery ii,� Tr so' 575I I%is 0 01 Cordell Taylor South Gallery 47 t 400 South 575 West 200 South 801-539-0343 801-355-0333 .;fi•t` 1 : ! Nouveau Arts David Ericson Fine Art 353 West 200 South 418 South 200 West 801-533-8245 801-355-1850 • The Gallery at Librar S uare Palmers Gallery �' w 1 r - . 1 Y 4 378 West 300 South 210 East 400 South,Level 4 801-532-6952 /1 > — — -- 801-524-8200 ,�1 Patrick Moore Gallery M' t 'I• " Hellenic Cultural Museum + ■ 511 West 200 South y ' ._ r- 279 South 300 West 801-521-5999 r M1r •,� #. r W!;fit ' 801-328 9681 .rJ+ C• ' ° ip[� ifit ,sJFt��yd�+ .. ,r 1. MEIWWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM T: 801.359.5118 © 9 Phillips Gallery Social Hall Heritage Museum �■■■� MPI 51 S.State Street 444 East 200 South 801-321-8745 ..._ EN T E R 801-364-8284 lery L A C Premier Gallery of Art 50 East 300 Southam South 357 South 200 East 801-322-0376 P L A C E S 1111,111110 CO1 533-8373 A ©© epartee Gallery Downtown Tivoli5State OD0000 36 I State Street Gallery 255 S.State Street lapq ZCMI Center Mall 801-521-6288 801 364 4809 NI Unknown Gallery io Gallery 353 West 200 South DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY IS HOME TO THE • 300 South West 801 521-4721 UTAH JAZZ, BALLET WEST, UTAH SYMPHONY &OPERA, 300 Soth455We Williams Fine21Art TEMPLE SQUARE,THE OUTDOOR GALLIVAN PLAZA, (Rio801 533 3 Grande Street) Temple,Lobby h Sout THE GATEWAY, NUMEROUS FESTIVALS AND EVENTS e Rose Wagner Art Gallery 60 601 E.E.South AND WAS THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE TOOT OLYMPIC 138 West 300 South 801-355-2787 Women's Art Center WINTER GAMES. 345 W.Pierpont Ave. Salt Lake Art Center 801-577-8367 Abll Delta Center 20 S.West Temple 123 W.Southol H Temple 301 W.South Temple 801-328-4201 801-355-2787801-325-2000 T Shubrick Gallery ArFamily History Library 66 West 400 South 50 W est 2 Ticket outhr 35 N.West Temple 801-746-8506 801-355-2787 South W801-240-2584 Assembly Hall Family Search Center on Temple Square 15 E.South Temple 50 W.North Temple 801-240-4085 801 240 3318 Frank E.Moss Beehive House Federal Courthouse 67 E.South Temple 350 S.Main Street 524-6100 i801-240-2671 Brigham Young Historic Park Gallivan Center239 S.Main Street State Street&2nd Avenue 801-535-6110 801-240-3323 Good Game �Y Broadway Centre Cinemas Online Gaming Center 111 East 300 South 801-746-0288 60 E.Exchange Place 801-364-2550 , Capitol Theatre 50 West 200 South Historic Pioneer Park . — 801-355-2787 300 South 300 West Center for Documentary Arts Joseph Smith Memorial `�L 243 East 400 South Building&Legacy Theatre 801-355-3903 15 E.South Temple 801-240-1266 Children's Museum of Utah LDS Conference Center Opening September 2006 60 W.North Temple 801-3at 23-3383 Gateway 801-240-0075 01-3 The City Library Living Planet Aquarium 210 East 400 South at The Gateway 801-524-8200 32 N.Rio Grande Street 801-355-3474 Clark Planetarium &IMAX 3D Theatre Photo:Paul Consiglio 110 South 400 West 801-456-7827 T: 801.359.5118 1 5 ow WWW.DOWNTOWNSLC.COM DO Opp 0O •111111111 pDowntown Token Parkin,Lets UTA Tres Stations nHotel Accommodations • O UTAH ncanonN LDS STATE CAPITOL CONFERENCE �, 111 CENTER MEMORY W E © � GROVE S North Temple tseum of r Ctrh History TEMPLE SQUARE ..d Art . Far,History CI brary ., P-7 13 r 0 South Temple H Q O W H DELTA ibravanel CENTER Hall CROSSROADS ZCMI P PLAZA CENTER Ft Lake Japanese Church Ar Center •Social Hall 100 South of Chnst Museum Cathedral Church Vistor formation of St.Marks Shops at Cons.Corner II Salt Lake• SALT(LACE Buddhist Temple U.S.Post CONVENTIN CENTER Museum M. of Utah N Office •Art 8 er History a P Capitol 200 South Theatre r ® LA p 71 • First United Pierpont Art District w Methodist Church PlerporAvenue GALLIVAN Holy Trinity PLAZA R 01 Greek O chodox Perfo g Vgner r v W 300 South lG Church Arts(Tier CI {H Broadway Centre UW Cinemas _O° © Broadway Antique District P PIONEER PARK P P Market Street Downtown © F Frank Moss Alliance and 400 South Op 0•p Federal Salt Lake Chamber Central Christian Courthouse Church• I� to UNryl eSITY Or moo> © -�— 0 0 3 3 E CITY P LIBRARY a n r iii�. Matheson a lu 7. State Courthouse m o £ n wASHINGTON Leonardo at II N SQUARE Library Square DoEl000 • t Best Western Salt Lake •Courtyard by Marriott 7 Homewood Suites Plaza Hotel 130 West 400 South 10 Inn at Temple Square 13 Peary Hotel 801-521-0130 Vy.South Temple 801-531-6000 by Hilton 71 W.South Temple 16 Residence Inn by Marriott 423 West 300 South 80 West 3 300 South 2851 West 300 South 122 801-531-1000 801-521-4300 801-363-6700 801-355-3300 S Hampton Inn-Downtown z Hotel 425 South West 11 Marriott Downtown 14 Radlsson Hotel Carlton140 E H South Temple a Hotel Monaco 17 2060o S. West Templeown etel 801-741-1110 15 West 200 South Salt Lake City Salt Lake City S.West 801-355-3418 75 S.West Temple 215 W.South Temple 6 Hilton Hotel 801-595-0000 P 801-521-9500 801-531-0800 801-531-7500 3 City Creek Inn Salt Lake City Center 2 W.North Temple 255 S.West Temple 9 HoExpress Johnson >2 Marriott City Center is Travelodge 230 W3North Ls Renaissance Suites 14at4 Temple Square 801-328-2000 121 North 300 West 220 S.State Street 267 West 300 South 801-961-8700 801 W.North Temple 801-521-3450 801-634-8500 BO7-533-8200 1 6 ©© 1 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 31,2006 SUBJECT: Petitions 400-05-08 &400-05-09—Rowland Hall—St.Mark's School request to: • Rezone property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I • Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 6 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce, Senior Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing WORK SESSION SUMMARY AND NEW INFORMATION 1111"61 WORK SESSION SUMMARY: The Council received a briefing on the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment on March 7,2003. Issues discussed included: A. Clarification of the fmdings of fact and recommendation stated in the Planning staff report and the intent of the Planning Commission motion to deny the request based on the fmdings of fact. (Please see pgs.13-18 in the Planning staff report and pgs. 5-7 of this staff report for the specific findings and Planning staff recommendation.) B. The history of zoning,master plan recommendations,past development proposals for the property and historic use of the property for agricultural purposes. C. Potential options that could be considered such as rezoning a portion of the property and/or use of restrictive covenants, a conservation easement held by the City or a third party non-profit organization,or a development agreement.. D. The history and value of adopted master plans as guiding documents for future development. E. The reversionary clause and restrictions established on the property by the federal government in deeding the property to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association. F. Other potential purchasers of the property. G. Whether uses that may be appropriate for the property have been identified or evaluated. H. Future use of the Rowland Hall-St.Mark's property and school at the 800 South and Lincoln Street location. I. The current percentage/amount of subsidy from the General Fund used for operation/maintenance for the City cemetery. J. Whether long-range planning and analysis(50 to 100 years)has been done to address City cemetery space and long-term needs. 1 K. The need for open space and protection of open space and a comprehensive citywide open space policy direction. City open space policies historically addressed general foothill preservation and parks and recreation. L. Planning staff noted that a Critical Open Lands Inventory and Preservation Priority Assessment project is currently underway in the Planning Division. Planning staff is working with a consultant to provide a critical lands inventory and map and a refinem:int of open space categories and zoning districts. M. Whether the City has an inventory or analysis of natural open space areas within the developed area of the City. Types of uses in non-programmed open space include non-developed trails. N. Whether potential impacts to wildlife habitat in the area has been analyzed. O. Mechanisms available to address City parks and recreation needs such as funding allocation from the Capital Improvement Program and the recent bond election for Open Space and the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex. POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: OPTIONS: 1. Close the public hearing and continue action to a future Council meeting. 2. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 3. Do not adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 4. Other options that may be identified by Council Members POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Close the public hearing and continue action to a future Council meeting. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 3. ["I move that the Council'] Not adopt an ordinance rezoning property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on March 7,2006. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone approximately 13 acres of property at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue(currently owned by Mt. Olivet Cemetery) from Open Space OS to Institutional I. (Note: The property is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. The overlay district requirements and standards would still apply with the proposed rezoning.) 2. Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. 2 B. Prior to adoption of the 1995 city-wide Zoning Rewrite,the East Bench Master Plan identified this property for institutional land uses and the property was zoned Residential R-2. The R-2 zoning accommodated a variety of institutional and open space uses such as schools(public&private), churches,public parks,libraries,recreational areas and cemeteries. The City did not have a specific zoning classification for institutional and open space uses. C. Between 1874 and 1909 through acts of Congress the Mt. Olivet Cemetery was established. Land was conveyed to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association and rules and regulations for the cemetery were established specifically noting that the subject property is to be used permanently as a cemetery. The written documentation from this time period indicates that if the land ceases to be used as a cemetery the property will revert to the United States. in actuality this can be changed through an act of Congress. (Please see Attachment A for additional information.) D. The ordinance adopted in 1995 that enacted the city-wide Zoning Rewrite project rezoned property throughout the City and amended the adopted community master plans to maintain consistency with the new zoning. The zoning on this property was changed to Open Space and the East Bench Plan was considered updated consistent with the zoning. (The Institutional Zoning District does not allow cemeteries as a permitted or conditional use. The Open Space Zoning District does allow cemeteries as a permitted use.) E. The requested rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate development of a future private middle and upper school for Rowland Hall-St.Mark's with a soccer field and open space area on the southern two-thirds of the 13-acre parcel and school buildings and parking areas on the northern one- third of the property. The property is currently undeveloped. The Planning staff report notes that the property,if developed as proposed,would have access from Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way through the adjacent property. The adjacent property immediately east of the Mt.Olivet property is the Rowland Hall-St.Mark's McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus.Surrounding land uses include the Mt.Olivet Cemetery to the north, single-family residences to the south,the East High football field (on property leased from Mt. Olivet to the west),the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus and the Carmen Pingree School. (Please see attached maps for details.) F. Information submitted by Rowland Hall-St.Mark's notes: 1. On April 10,2003,Rowland Hall-St.Mark's entered into a contract with the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association to purchase approximately 13 acres of cemetery property fronting on Sunnyside Avenue. 2. The Mt. Olivet Association needs to sell the property to have sufficient funds to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery. 3. The contract between Rowland Hall-St.Mark's and the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association is subject to a number of conditions including rezoning the property from Open Space OS to Institutional I zoning classification and removal of the reversionary clause established by the Federal government in the deed held by the Association. 4. Release of reversionary interest includes Congressional consideration of the following: a. The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause. b. The owner of the property no longer needs the property. c. The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use. d. The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit. e. The U.S. Government does not need the property. f. There would be no significant costs to Federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 5. As part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's efforts to secure the removal of the reversionary interest and to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators,Rowland Hall-St. Mark's needs the support of the City and, if at all possible,the surrounding community. 3 6. Rowland Hall-St.Mark's needs to obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2007 in order to complete the purchase of the property within the terms of the contract. 7. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's believes that its ownership of the property will deliver a net benefit to the City and the surrounding community,both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. 8. It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property. 9. It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property (proposed school site). G. The public process included: 1. Presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Administration's transmittal notes the Yalecrest Community Council opposed the proposed master plan and zone change. In addition, other Community Councils-East Central,Bonneville Hills, and Wasatch Hollow-submitted letters regarding the proposal. None of the Community Councils supported the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs 6-9 for details.) 2. The proposal was also presented to and discussed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board on November 2, 8, and 16,2005. The Open Space Lands Advisory Board recommended against the request to rezone the Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. H. The City's Fire,Police,Public Services and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs. 3-5 for specific comments and detailed discussion.) The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project such as,but not limited to, a detailed traffic and parking impact study, adequate infrastructure (water/sewer) capacity, geotechnical report relating to inferred fault line location is at the northwest corner of the property. In addition,the petitioner will be required to apply for subdivision approval from the City. I. On November 30,2005,based on the Planning staff report findings and public hearing input,the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to rezone the property and amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. (Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details.) J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included the following. The Planning Commission minutes note that due to amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition,the general public comments were summarized. 1. Information provided from the Community Councils and the Open Space Lands Advisory Board. 2. Whether the rezoning and master plan amendment should be considered before the reversionary clause on the property is removed by Congress. 3. Specific uses and requirements in the Open Space and Institutional zones. 4. Discussion of specific details of the development plan proposed by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's. 5. Potential inconsistencies of the City's open space policies, specifically the City's position on the North Salt Lake property and preservation of the Mt. Olivet property. 6. Those in support of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space should be defined as a livable area,rather than a field with trash and a barbed wire fence. • Care of the land would be maintained in a manner to make the City proud, as Rowland Hall has previously proved itself in the Avenues area. • The desire of Rowland Hall for the proposed petition is not to ask for an increase in school population,but rather a request for more space. 4 • Many other options could be considered by the Mt.Olivet Association to sell the property for financial gain,including federal or state government who are exempt from specific zoning requirements; while Rowland Hall is proposing a petition to enhance the City within the guidelines. • An assurance for the land to be maintained as a mechanism for public use will be considered in a deed restriction. ,, • Only four of thirteen acres will be used for buildings,lending the remainder to the community. • Open Space is a rhetorical term in Utah; given the many options for a specific defmition and should consider the terms of being a usable and livable place for the public. • The present lease on Mt. Olivet has more impervious area than the proposed petition. • Traffic will be decreased as the proposed plan will create a unified school area. (Families with students attending schools on this campus can make single trips to this site,rather than trips to various sites.) 7. Those in opposition of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space is a natural area of land and should be preserved as a legacy. • Traffic in the area will increase—reducing the safety of the surrounding area. • Mt.Olivet Association has not found enough resources to financially sustain itself,and more time should be allowed for tools to be provided to the association and for the preservation of Open Space. • The value of an area of land for the earth to recharge itself is immeasurable and should be considered a premium space for the community. • Open Space is found less often as city growth continues. • Tools for rating the degree of importance of Open Space are being researched,and given time, will be considered as possible trading options. (This was taken directly from the Planning Commission minutes. Council staff does not have additional information that would clarify the intent of this statement.) • The land is irreplaceable. K. Planning Staff Findings and Recommendation 1. The Planning staff report provides the following fmdings for the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050-Standards for General Amendments. The standards were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Please see pgs. 13-17 in the Planning staff report for additional details.) a. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: Land use designations in the adopted master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives are either, developed with a nonconforming use or undeveloped. Undeveloped properties do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. A zoning amendment to an Institutional zoning classification does not ensure continued open space use of the property. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Modification of the Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property would set precedent for removal of additional properties within the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association boundaries not actively used for burial purposes from the Open Space designation. b. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings:The proposed development plan presented by Rowland Hall St.Mark's is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. However,the Institutional 5 zoning classification allows development intensification that would not be harmonious with the character of existing development. c. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: Rezoning the Mt Olivet parcel to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed within the existing Open Space Zoning District. The increased level of potential development could increase traffic generation levels and impact adjacent properties. The traffic generated by the proposed uses of an upper and middle school, soccer field and open space would not adversely affect adjacent properties. d. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional,standards. Findings: The proposed development concept plans through implementation of any necessary site design modifications and operational controls can be consistent with applicable zoning overlay districts. e. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Findings: The public facility services and utilities are in place to serve the subject 13-acre parcel. The final intensity of development and needs that the future development would place on services and utilities is unknown. If a specific developments demand exceeds service capacity, then the developer would be required to make system improvements as part of obtaining a building permit. The adjacent arterial streets can absorb the traffic generated by the proposed uses. 2. The Planning staff report provides the following findings for the requested master plan amendment. a. Land use designations in master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Developed properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives and existing zoning are nonconforming. Properties that lie in an undeveloped state do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plans. The amended East Bench Community Master Plan land use designation for the Mt. Olivet property is for open space uses. b. Operational financing difficulties could be alleviated by lease or sale of property to land uses that are consistent with the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use designation and existing Open Space Zoning classification. 3. Recommendation: a. The findings of fact show that the requested master plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property is not consistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the property from open space to institutional land uses is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Open Space Zoning District. This purpose is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. b. Potential development intensities of the Institutional Zoning District are greater than permitted uses within the Open Space Zoning District and have potential conflicts with the overall character of development in the immediate vicinity. Minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. c. Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests of Petition 400-05-08 and Petition 400- 05-09,to amend the East Bench Master Plan and rezone the 13 acres portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional land use and zoning classifications. 6 L. Zoning Information 1. The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. a. Area requirements: • Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq. ft. • Maximum building height: 35 ft.provided that for each foot of height over 20 ft.each yard and landscaped yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—30 ft.,side—20 ft.,rear—30 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft.,side(interior)— 10 ft.,rear— 10 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Special conditional use controls over communications towers are required. c. Permitted and conditional uses: cemeteries and accessory crematoriums,community/recreation centers,pet cemetery,country clubs,golf courses,natural open space,conservation areas,public/private nature preserves/conservation areas,public parks,private recreational facilities,zoological park, accessory uses,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking 2. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to regulate the development of larger public and semi- public uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses.The uses regulated by this district are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus-like site. a. Area requirements: • Minimum lot size: 2 acres for places of worship and 20,000 sq.ft. for other uses • Maximum building height: 35 ft.and 75 ft.through conditional use provided that for each foot of height over 35 ft. each yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—20 ft., side 20 ft.,rear—25 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft., side(interior)—8 ft.,rear—8 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Traffic and parking study required. New or expansion of institutional uses shall not be permitted unless the traffic and parking study provides clear and convincing evidence that no significant impacts will occur. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement c. Lighting—all uses shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or surrounding properties and uses and shall be shielded to minimize light spillover onto adjacent properties. d. Permitted and conditional uses: congregate care facility,caretaker/security guard living quarters, government offices, accessory retail sales/services within the principal building operated for employees,adult/child daycare centers,community/recreation centers,conference centers,dental/medical laboratories/research facilities/clinics/offices,medical/nursing schools,emergency response/medical service facilities, nursing care/sanitarium facilities,exhibition hall,hospitals,libraries,meeting halls for membership organizations,philanthropic uses,places or worship,religious assembly with exhibit hall,convents/monasteries,reuse of schools/churches,seminaries/religious institutes, colleges/universities,private schools K-12,professional/vocational schools,arenas, stadiums, fairgrounds,museums,private recreational facilities,heliport,accessory uses,bed and breakfast facilities,communication towers,off-site parking,park and ride parking with existing use, parking structure,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking 7 MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Issues relating to this request have been raised in many different ways and in many different forums throughout the process. The core issues that the Council must weigh include: 1. Whether to amend the zoning and the master plan to allow this project to move forward and seek Congressional action to remove the reversionary clause from the deed and allow Mt. Olivet to sell the property. 2. Whether to continue the current policy to require the property be maintained as open space consistent with the current zoning and master plan and past legal action taken by the City. 3. Whether to take in to consideration the potential risk that, should the Council not approve the master plan amendment and rezoning,the University of Utah(not subject to City zoning regulations)could purchase and develop the property at a greater intensity than proposed by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's. The Council may wish to evaluate whether that potential risk is significant enough that it justifies the rezoning for a lower intensity to preclude potential higher intensity use. (Please see Attachments B and C for additional information.) 4. If the Council does approve the request,the Council could consider the use of a development agreement,restrictive covenant and/or conservation easement to provide assurance to the community that the proposed development would occur as presented at the time of the rezoning request and provide an additional level of control on the property. a. The Planning staff report notes that minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. b. The petitioner's information notes : • It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property. • It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property(proposed school site). B. The Planning staff report notes that a narrow parcel along the northwest corner of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property is presently zoned RMF-75. Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate action to have the RMF-75 zoned portion of the Mt. Olivet property for a map amendment as part of a zoning map fine-tuning petition. The Planning Commission minutes do not indicate that this action was initiated by the Commission. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration if this issue requires action by the Council or Planning Commission. C. Council Members may wish to consider a future discussion to establish a clear policy direction relating to cemeteries and open space. The Planning staff report includes the following information provided by the City Public Services Department. 1. Presently the City has no plans to either expand the(Salt Lake City)cemetery space(the only potential expansion would be into Lindsay Gardens Park) or start a second cemetery in a new location in the City. Any decision to move in this direction would result from a policy discussion and agreement between the Mayor and City Council. If the City fills the cemetery without further expansion or new development, other public or private cemeteries will need to fill the public demand. 8 2. Development of the Salt Lake City Cemetery started in 1847. The cemetery is approximately 250 acres in size and plotted for 140,823 graves. The entire cemetery space is plotted out and developed. There is no additional space for expansion. To date, approximately 119,000 plots are used. Of the 21,800 remaining, 17,300 have been pre-sold. Only 4,500 burial sites remain for sale. Historically, on an annual basis approximately 600 burials occur each year. If the historical numbers hold,use of all available cemetery sites will occur within 36 years. The historical cemetery sales rate is 350 graves sites each year. Based on the 4,500 available burial sites for sale and historical sale rates, in 13 years there will be no sites available. 3. The present day data suggests that the cemetery will use up its available burial space in 13 years. Within another 23 years, all burial sites will be filled. Beyond that point in time,the City will continue to fulfill its obligation to care for and maintain the cemetery in perpetuity without the offsetting annual revenue generated by property sales and burials. 4. Salt Lake City has one public cemetery,the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Four(4)additional active cemeteries are located within the boundaries of the City:Mt.Olivet,a private cemetery owned by a consortium of local churches;Mt.Calvary,a private cemetery owned by the Catholic Diocese;B'nai Israel Cemetery,a private cemetery owned by the Temple Kol Ami Synagogue; and Larkin Sunset Lawn,a private cemetery owned by the Larkin family. It is my understanding that the public has access to each of these cemeteries regardless of affiliation except B'nai. I also understand that with the exception of Mt.Olivet and Larkin cemeteries,the others face the same capacity challenges as the City's cemetery. 5. Though the City has a municipal cemetery that it must maintain and operate in perpetuity,the City has no legal obligation to maintain an"active"cemetery. 6. The following actions may extend the Cemetery's"active"period: a. The historical consumption numbers may change over time; b. Resale burial plots that have been sold,but have not been used in a 60 year period(this could add a few hundred graves to the inventory over time); c. Develop double deep burials,which means that one burial plot may be used for two burials; and d. The construction of mausoleums,which allow burials to occur above ground in structures. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The East Bench Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan documents address the land use policy related to the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property. (Note: Amending the Open Space Plan is not required and is not part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's request.) 2. Most master plans do not contain specific land use policy regarding cemeteries. The Plans do address a variety of general land use categories such as residential,commercial,open space and institutional land uses. 3. The East Bench Community Master Plan(April 1987)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. 4. Prior to the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project,the Plan designated the Mount Olivet Cemetery property and Sunset Lawns Memorial Cemetery located at 2352 East 1300 South Street for Institutional uses. 5. In 1995,the Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project amended the land use designation of both these properties from Institutional to Open Space. 6. The Salt Lake City Open Space Plan(October 1992)defined a comprehensive corridor approach to connecting the City's open space resources to provide a safe,enjoyable experience of the natural features of Salt Lake City. The Open Space Master Plan defines policy for connecting open space amenities and does not provide land use policy. The land use policy of open space for the Mt.Olivet property is defined in the amended East Bench Master Plan. 9 B. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re- establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The Plan discusses the value of open space including recreational opportunities and preservation of wildlife habitat,wetlands,riparian and stream corridors, and the foothills. 1. The Plan identifies the following goals: a. Conservation of the natural environment. b. Enhancement of open space amenities. c. Connecting various parts of the City to natural environments. d. Educating citizens on proper use of open space. 2. The Open Space Plan identifies Sunnyside Avenue and 800 South as part of the Transvalley Corridor (Foothill Section). A future trail corridor is shown along the north side of Sunnyside/800 South on the sidewalk/right-of-way. Specific reference to Mt. Olivet states"The north side of Sunnyside Avenue is lined with both private and public open space. The south half of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery parcel is vacant and could generate development pressure in the future. This should be monitored to assure the corridor is kept wide enough for adequate walkways and open space. A crosswalk could be developed to connect at the baseball area on the east side of 1300 East to the adjacent trail corridor and residential area." C. Several adopted community master plans and small area plans contain policies and recommendations that emphasize the need for preservation,acquisition,protection,maintenance and management of watershed,foothills, wetlands, wildlife habitat,riparian/stream corridors,and natural open spaces. Implementation strategies include a range of options such as refining zoning regulations relating to open lands. D. The City's recently adopted Open Lands Ordinance notes: 1. The need to protect diminishing open lands within Salt Lake City or its environs. 2. The City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan to identify,protect and manage open lands. 3. The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and site development ordinance recognize the need to protect the unique values offered by wetlands, foothills and urban trails. E. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation, considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. F. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. G. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. H. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. 10 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • April 21,2005 Applicant presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council • April 25,2005 Petitions delivered to Planning office • June 1,2005 Petitions reassigned to planner • June 29,2005 Additional information received(requested by Planning Division) • November 2, 8,& 16,2005 Open Space Lands Advisory Board meetings • November 30,2005 Planning Commission hearing • December 13,2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,Lisa Romney,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce,Jennifer Bruno,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones,Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley,Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School/Mt. Olivet,approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue 11 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending the East Bench Master Plan and Rezoning property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue) AMENDING THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN AND REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO INSTITUTIONAL (I), PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-05-08 AND 400-05-09. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area,the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the East Bench Master Plan and change of zoning for the property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The East Bench Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein. SECTION 2. REZONING OF PROPERTY. The property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from open space (OS) to institutional (I). SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of property identified above. SECTION 4. CONDITIONS. This Ordinance is conditioned upon the following: (a) Removal of the reversionary clause on the property by the United States Congress; (b) Sale of the property from Mount Olivet Cemetery to Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School and recording documentation of such sale with the Salt Lake County Recorder; and (c) Execution and recordation of a Development Agreement between the City and Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School substantially in the form of the draft Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish this Ordinance until the conditions identified herein have been satisfied, as certified by the Salt Lake City Attorney. If the conditions identified herein have not been satisfied within two years from the date of adoption, this Ordinance shall become null and void. SECTION 6. TIME. The City Council may, by resolution, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Rezoning 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue--03-14-06 dra8.doc 3 DRAFT -4/11/06 When Recorded Return to: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: Planning Director 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ROWLAND HALL—ST. MARK'S SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ("AGREEMENT") FOR ROWLAND HALL— ST. MARK'S SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH is made as of , 2006 (the "Effective Date") between Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah non-profit corporation(the "Declarant") and Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: A. The Declarant is the owner of real property located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). B. The Declarant desires to restrict use of the portion of the Property described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Restricted Portion") so that at least 25% of the Restricted Portion will be free of buildings, paved parking areas and paved driveways. C. The Declarant desires to develop and use a portion of the property described on Exhibit C hereto (the "Open Space Portion") as a recreation area. D. The Declarant desires that the Property is to be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this Agreement. E. This Agreement is executed voluntarily by both parties hereto for the mutpal benefits set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby covenants and declares the Property and every portion or interest therein, is now held and shall hereafter be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the restrictions, rights, conditions, and covenants herein set forth, each and all of which is and are for, and shall inure to the benefit of and pass with the Property and every portion of or interest in the Property, and shall apply to every owner and occupant thereof, and their successors and assigns. All restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this Agreement shall run with and burden the Property and shall be binding on and for the benefit of the Property and all other persons having or acquiring any interest in the Property. ARTICLE 1 RESTRICTED PORTION USE RESTRICTIONS 1.1 Prohibited Uses. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the Restricted Portion (the "25% Portion") shall be at all times free of buildings, paved parking areas and paved driveways; provided that the Declarant shall have the right to relocate, move, reposition or adjust from time to time, in its sole discretion, the 25% Portion within the Restricted Portion. 1.2 Permitted Uses. Except as otherwise prohibited in Section 1.1 of this Agreement, the 25% Portion may be used for any uses allowed in the Institutional zoning classification and for the following uses (it being understood that the following uses are not exclusive permitted uses): (a) Recreational uses, including, without limitation, playing fields, tennis courts, outdoor basketball, track, baseball, soccer, and field facilities; (b) Park-like uses including, without limitation, picnic facilities, outdoor stages and amphitheaters, gazebos, and playground equipment; (c) Pedestrian landscaped amenities including, without limitation, pathways, sidewalks, walkways, patios, courtyard areas, trails, terraces, benches, patios, water features, decorative walls, and other ornamental features; (d) Landscaping, including, without limitation, trees, bushes, water sprinkler systems and other utility systems, water features, light poles, and other ornamental features. (e) Uncovered but enclosed decks and patios; and (f) Uses necessary to secure the stability, safety, and practical use of the ground, such as earth retaining wall or terracing. 1.3 View Corridor from Transvalley Corridor Trail. At such time as Declarant applies for a building permit for buildings on the Restricted Portion, Declarant shall cooperate in good faith with the Planning Director of Salt Lake City ("City") to locate such buildings in 2 a manner that reasonably preserves the northwest view corridor from the Transvalley Corridor Trail to be constructed by Declarant along the south boundary of the Property. ARTICLE 2 OPEN SPACE PORTION RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declarant agrees to construct, improve and maintain the Open Space Portion for one or more recreation fields and for related improvements. No permanent buildings may be constructed upon the Open Space Portion. 2.2 Declarant agrees to allow public access to and use of the Open Space Portion during daylight hours at times when the Open Space Portion is not used for Declarant's own activities, subject to reasonable and customary scheduling control, maintenance and upkeep, management and safety regulations of Declarant. 2.3 Declarant agrees that upon completion of the recreation field(s) upon the Open Space Portion, Declarant shall relinquish its lease (right to exclusive use) of the City owned recreation field located at the corner of Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way. 2.4 Declarant shall not construct or install any lighting for the recreation field(s) on the Open Space Portion. Declarant may install such lighting as may be appropriate for security and to prevent crime. ARTICLE 3 TRAILS 3.1 Cemetery Trail. Declarant agrees to designate, develop, dedicate and maintain a public trail easement, at least feet in width, to provide public access and passage between Sunnyside Avenue and the Mount Olivet Cemetery across the western portion of the Property. The cemetery trail shall be open and available for use by the public during all times that the Mount Olivet Cemetery is open to the public. 3.2 Sunnyside Trail. Declarant also agrees to designate, develop, dedicate and maintain a public trail easement, at least feet in width, to provide public access and passage along Sunnyside Avenue across the southern portion of the Property. ARTICLE 4 GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.1 Maintenance. The Declarant shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Property. 3 4.2 Traffic Mitigation. Declarant acknowledges that its development of the Property will create an impact upon the vehicle traffic in the area. Accordingly, upon Declarant's application for a building permit for buildings on the Restricted Portion, Declarant shall contribute $100,000 to the City to be used for traffic calming/pedestrian safety on Sunnyside Avenue. 4.3 Site Plan Approval. Declarant's site plan for the development of the Property shall be approved by the City Planning Director prior to the issuance of any permits, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 4.4 Duration. This Agreement shall continue in full force for a period of one hundred (100) years from the Effective Date (the "Term"). Within the last year of the Term, the owner of the Property and Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City") shall review the covenants and restrictions of this Agreement in light of conditions existing at that time, and determine whether and for how long the covenants and restrictions shall remain in effect. If no agreement is reached and recorded within the last year of the Term, then the Term shall extend for another one hundred (100) years. 4.5 Enforcement. Each of Declarant and the City shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding in law or in equity, all covenants and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Agreement. Declarant shall retain the right to contest the existence of any alleged violation of this Agreement. 4.6 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended by duly recording an instrument executed and acknowledged by the owner of the Property; provided that this Agreement cannot be amended without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 4.7 Covenants Run With the Land. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, and all restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this Agreement shall run with and bind the Property as covenants running with the land and shall inure with and burden the Property and shall be binding on and for the benefit of the Property and the Declarant and other persons having or acquiring any interest in the Property. 4.8 Persons Bound. This Agreement and the restrictions created hereby shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Declarant, its successors and assigns; all occupants, tenants, licensees and invitees of the Property; and upon any person acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or otherwise. The new owner of the Property, including, without limitation, any owner or lienholder, who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise, shall be liable for all obligations arising under this Agreement with respect to the Property after the date of sale and conveyance of title. 4 4.9 No Public Right or Dedication. Except for the anticipated public use of the trails and the Open Space Portion, nothing in this Agreement is a gift or dedication of all or any part of the Property to the public, or for any public use. 4.10 Attorney's Fees. In the event the Declarant or the City initiates or defends any legal action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding (in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable), shall be entitled to recover from the losing party in any such action or proceeding its reasonable costs and attorney's fees (including, without limitation, its reasonable costs and attorney's fees on any appeal). All such costs and attorney's fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of any legal action or proceeding and shall be enforceable whether or not such legal action or proceeding is prosecuted to judgment. 4.11 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement does not waive the right to enforce that provision, or any other provision of this Agreement. 4.12 Articles, Sections and Exhibits. The Article and Section headings have been inserted for convenience only and may not be considered in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. Unless otherwise indicated, any references in this Agreement to articles, sections or exhibits are to Articles, Sections and Exhibits of this Agreement. Exhibits A, B and C attached to this Agreement are each incorporated herein by this reference. 4.13 Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal service, by United States mail or by United States express mail or other established express delivery service (such as Federal Express), postage or delivery charge prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the Declarant or the City at the address set forth below: Rowland Hall— St. Mark's School 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 ATTN: Headmaster Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ATTN: Planning Director 4.14 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are independent and severable. A determination of invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any one provision of this Agreement by a court of competent jurisdiction does not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of this Agreement. 5 EXECUTED as of the date first set forth above. Rowland Hall—St. Marks School, a Utah non-profit corporation By Name Title STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2006, by as of Rowland Hall — St. Mark's School, a Utah non- profit corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation Ross C. Anderson, Mayor Attest: Christine Meeker Deputy Salt Lake City Recorder STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2006, by Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC 6 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2006, by Christine Meeker, Deputy City Record for Salt Lake City Corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC I:\Agreements 06\Rowland Hall-Decl of CCRs clean.DOC 7 Exhibit A Property Legal Description Exhibit B Legal Description of Restricted Portion Exhibit C Legal Description of Open Space Portion DRAFT--4/11/06 When Recorded Return to: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: Planning Director 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ROWLAND HALL—ST. MARK'S SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ("AGREEMENT") FOR ROWLAND HALL— ST. MARK'S SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH he D tied is made as of , 2006 (the "Effective Date") bybetween Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah non-profit corporation (the "Declarant") and Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City"). RECITALS: A. The Declarant is the owner of real property located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). B. The Declarant desires to restrict use of the portion of the Property described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Restricted Portion") so that at least 25% of the Restricted Portion will be free of buildings, paved parking areas and paved driveways. C. The Declarant desires to develop and use a portion of the property described on Exhibit C hereto (the "Open Space Portion") as a recreation area. D. The Declarant desires that the Property is to be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this DeclarationAgreement. E. This Agreement is executed voluntarily by both parties hereto for the mutual benefits set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby covenants and declares the Property and every portion or interest therein, is now held and shall hereafter be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the restrictions, rights, conditions, and covenants herein set forth, each and all of which is and are for, and shall inure to the benefit of and pass with the Property and every portion of or interest in the Property, and shall apply to every owner and occupant thereof, and their successors and assigns. All restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this Declaration Agreement shall run with and burden the Property and shall be binding on and for the benefit of the Property and all other persons having or acquiring any interest in the Property. ARTICLE 1 RESTRICTED PORTION USE RESTRICTIONS 1.1 Prohibited Uses. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the Restricted Portion (the "25% Portion") shall be at all times free of buildings, paved parking areas and paved driveways; provided that the Declarant shall have the right to relocate, move, reposition or adjust from time to time, in its sole discretion, the 25% Portion within the Restricted Portion. 1.2 Permitted Uses. Except as otherwise prohibited in Section 1.1 of this DeelafatienAgreement, the 25% Portion may be used for any uses allowed in the Institutional zoning classification and for the following uses (it being understood that the following uses are not exclusive permitted uses): (a) Recreational uses, including, without limitation, playing fields, tennis courts, outdoor basketball, track, baseball, soccer, and field facilities; (b) Park-like uses including, without limitation, picnic facilities, outdoor stages and amphitheaters, gazebos, and playground equipment; (c) Pedestrian landscaped amenities including, without limitation, pathways, sidewalks, walkways, patios, courtyard areas, trails, terraces, benches, patios, water features, decorative walls, and other ornamental features; (d) Landscaping, including, without limitation, trees, bushes, water sprinkler systems and other utility systems, water features, light poles, and other ornamental features. (e) Uncovered but enclosed decks and patios; and (f) Uses necessary to secure the stability, safety, and practical use of the ground, such as earth retaining wall or terracing. 1.3 View Corridor from Transvalley Corridor Trail. At such time as Declarant applies for a building permit for buildings on the Restricted Portion, Declarant shall cooperate in good faith with the Planning Director of Salt Lake City ("City") to locate such buildings in 2 a manner that reasonably preserves the northwest view corridor from the Transvalley Corridor Trail to be constructed by Declarant along the south boundary of the Property. 1.1 Maintenance. The Declarant shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Property. ARTICLE 2 OPEN SPACE PORTION RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Declarant agrees to construct, improve and maintain the Open Space Portion for one or more recreation fields and for related improvements. No permanent buildings may be constructed upon the Open Space Portion. 2.2 Declarant agrees to allow public access to and use of the Open Space Portion during daylight hours at times when the Open Space Portion is not used for Declarant's own activities, subject to reasonable and customary scheduling control, maintenance and upkeep, management and safety regulations of Declarant. 2.3 Declarant agrees that upon completion of the recreation field(s) upon the Open Space Portion, Declarant shall relinquish its lease (right to exclusive use) of the City owned recreation field located at the corner of Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way. 2.4 Declarant shall not construct or install any lighting for the recreation field(s) on the Open Space Portion. Declarant may install such lighting as may be appropriate for security and to prevent crime. ARTICLE 3 TRAILS 3.1 Cemetery Trail. Declarant agrees to designate, develop, dedicate and maintain a public trail easement, at least feet in width, to provide public access and passage between Sunnyside Avenue and the Mount Olivet Cemetery across the western portion of the Property. The cemetery trail shall be open and available for use by the public during all times that the Mount Olivet Cemetery is open to the public. 3.2 Sunnyside Trail. Declarant also agrees to designate, develop, dedicate and maintain a public trail easement, at least feet in width, to provide public access and passage along Sunnyside Avenue across the southern portion of the Property. 3 ARTICLE 4 GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.1 Maintenance. The Declarant shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Property. 4.2 Traffic Mitigation. Declarant acknowledges that its development of the Property will create an impact upon the vehicle traffic in the area. Accordingly, upon Declarant's application for a building permit for buildings on the Restricted Portion, Declarant shall contribute $100,000 to the City to be used for traffic calming/pedestrian safety on Sunnyside Avenue. 4.3 Site Plan Approval. Declarant's site plan for the development of the Property shall be approved by the City Planning Director prior to the issuance of any permits, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 41.34.4 Duration. This greement shall continue in full force for a period of one hundred (100) years from the Effective Date (the "Term"). Within the last year of the Term, the owner of the Property and Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City") shall review the covenants and restrictions of this Deel-aratienAgreement in light of conditions existing at that time, and determine whether and for how long the covenants and restrictions shall remain in effect. If no agreement is reached and recorded within the last year of the Term, then the Term shall extend for another one hundred (100) years. /1.11.5 Enforcement. Each of Declarant and the City shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding in law or in equity, all covenants and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this DeelafationAgreement. Declarant shall retain the right to contest the existence of any alleged violation of this DeelarationAgreement. 44.6 Amendments. This DeelaratienAgreement may be amended by duly recording an instrument executed and acknowledged by the owner of the Property; provided that this Peelar-atisnAgreement cannot be amended without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 4 64.7 Covenants Run With the Land. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, and Aall restrictions, rights, conditions and covenants in this Dee4ar-atienAgreement shall run with and bind the Property as covenants running with the land and shall inure with and burden the Property and shall be binding on and for the benefit of the Property and the Declarant and other persons having or acquiring any interest in the Property. 44.8 Persons Bound. This DeelaratienAgreement and the restrictions created hereby shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Declarant, its successors and assigns; all occupants, tenants, licensees and invitees of the Property; and upon any person acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of 4 law or otherwise. The new owner of the Property, including, without limitation, any owner or lienholder, who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise, shall be liable for all obligations arising under this DeAgreement with respect to the Property after the date of sale and conveyance of title. 4:84.9 No Public Right or Dedication. Except for the anticipated public use of the trails and the Open Space Portion, Nothing in this DeelaratienAgreement is a gift or dedication of all or any part of the Property to the public, or for any public use. 1.91.10Attorney's Fees. In the event the Declarant or the City initiates or defends any legal action or proceeding in any way connected with this greement, the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding (in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable), shall be entitled to recover from the losing party in any such action or proceeding its reasonable costs and attorney's fees (including, without limitation, its reasonable costs and attorney's fees on any appeal). All such costs and attorney's fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of any legal action or proceeding and shall be enforceable whether or not such legal action or proceeding is prosecuted to judgment. 4.104.11 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Deelar-ationAgreement does not waive the right to enforce that provision, or any other provision of this greement. 1.111.12 Articles, Sections and Exhibits. The Article and Section headings have been inserted for convenience only and may not be considered in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. Unless otherwise indicated, any references in this Deelar-atienAgreement to articles, sections or exhibits are to Articles, Sections and Exhibits of this greement. Exhibits AI-a B and C attached to this DeelaretieriAgreement are each incorporated herein by this reference. 4.121.13 Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Declaration^greement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal service, by United States mail or by United States express mail or other established express delivery service (such as Federal Express), postage or delivery charge prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the Declarant or the City at the address set forth below: Rowland Hall—St. Mark's School 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 ATTN: Headmaster Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ATTN: Planning Director 5 'I.13'1.14 Severability. The provisions of this DeelaratiefiAgreement are independent and severable. A determination of invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any one provision of this greement by a court of competent jurisdiction does not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of this De ion Agreement. EXECUTED as of the date first set forth above. Rowland Hall—St. Marks School, a Utah non-profit corporation By Name Title STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2006, by as of Rowland Hall — St. Mark's School, a Utah non- profit corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation Ross C. Anderson, Mayor Attest: Christine Meeker Deputy Salt Lake City Recorder STATE OF ) ) ss. 6 COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2006, by Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2006, by Christine Meeker, Deputy City Record for Salt Lake City Corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC I:\Agreements 06\Rowland Hall-Decl of CCRs.DOC • Exhibit A Property Legal Description Exhibit B Legal Description of Restricted Portion Exhibit C Legal Description of Open Space Portion ORGINIAL ADMINISTRATION'S PAPER WORK FOR ITEM A2F1 WAS IN THE APRIL 11 , 2006 PACKET AND IS STILL AVAILABLE ON LINE: http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/20 06reports/Apr°/2020061047706A2.pdf IF YOU WOULD LIKE ANOTHER COPY PLEASE CONTACT THE COUNCIL OFFICE. n pp (IA ZS A. LOUIS ZUNOUZE ...e\ 11�a 'it'_erli 'Cr reii© � ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor DATE: i , 2006 ekl# FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo ' % r RE: Downtown Master Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director, at 535-7759 or alex.ikefuna@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing to consider options for updating the Downtown Master Plan DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Salt Lake City is presently considering updating the Downtown Master Plan. Several major projects are driving this renewed interest, including discussion regarding creation of an arts district, development of a Downtown transportation study, increased need for housing, mall redevelopment, and the relocation of LDS Business College and inclusion of a satellite branch of Brigham Young University in the Downtown area. In all, Downtown Salt Lake City is poised to benefit from approximately$1.5 billion in planned investment over the next two to five years. In 1995 the City Council adopted the Downtown Master Plan, modeled on the 1962 Second Century Plan. The plan identified a number of development and redevelopment themes which evolved into specific projects with quantifiable results in the City's Downtown Master Plan. Many of the themes identified in the plan now need to be updated. For example, Downtown transportation issues now focus on how best to expand light rail, rather than on whether or not to implement it. Given the emerging development opportunities, it is critical that the City proceed in a timely and effective manner to update the Downtown Master Plan such that maximum benefit can be accrued from the development opportunities at hand and also continue to build on the success of the 1995 Plan. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM ;� AE CCC LED PAPER A. Provided a review of the 1995 Downtown Master Plan, outlining policies and accomplishments B. Identified and outlined the pros and cons of three potential visioning and planning processes for the Council to consider. A. Review of the 1995 Downtown Master Plan The 1995 Downtown Master Plan identified 11 areas of focus: • People Oriented Activities • Memory Grove Extension • Balanced Transportation System • Downtown Zoning Modifications • Salt Palace Expansion/Update • Theme Monument • Consolidated Courts Complex& • Gateway Redevelopment Area Civic Center • Sports Park/Stadium • Town Square/Block 57 • Housing The Planning Division has reviewed each of the themes,policies, and projects identified in the 1995 Downtown Master Plan and has provided a determination of whether these items have been accomplished or not. Attachment A identifies specific projects and policies that have been implemented in each of these areas with recommendations for the future. It is clear from the review by the Planning Division that the 1995 Plan has been very effective in spearheading the Downtown's current successes, as evidenced by the Gallivan Plaza, Matheson Courthouse, and transportation upgrades including light rail. B. Potential Visioning& Planning Processes for Consideration In order to ensure that the Downtown continues to thrive as a major center for commercial, business, and residential development, it is necessary that the City Council determine the direction of future planning for the Downtown area given the current state of the Downtown Master Plan. Attachment B provides details on the benefits and concerns of three differing approaches to consider in updating the Downtown Master Plan. Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) The R/UDAT program is an intensive process that provides a"snapshot"of an area and its immediate concerns. It is designed to provide cities with direction regarding a visioning process. In this process, architects and other design professionals visit a project area for a short period of time and develop a plan to provide vision and goals for future development. The City's 1988 previous participation in R/UDAT was highly successful, bringing together many divergent groups to create a shared vision. Numerous ideas generated in this process, such as identification of districts within the Downtown area, were incorporated in the 1995 Downtown Master Plan. The City's participation in R/UDAT was extremely useful in helping the City determine a direction for areas of future planning. As a result,the City has enjoyed great success in the development of distinct districts within the Downtown, such as Gateway, Main Street, and Trolley Square. Downtown Master Plan Update Page 2 of 4 1995 Downtown Master Plan Update Updating the 1995 Downtown Master Plan can also be accomplished through the standard planning process. Planning staff would compile background information, maps, and demographic information and review existing documents and policies to identify what has been accomplished and what remains to complete. Public input is a vital part of the Master Plan process; as such, stakeholders representing a variety of entities throughout the community would be encouraged to participate. Housing agencies, property owners, advocacy groups, developers, and business owners would be invited to share their views and visions. Staff would conduct Open Houses to gather stakeholder input and then analyze the information gathered, identify land use conflicts, formulate recommended policies, create a Master Plan document draft, present the draft to the public, incorporate comments, and prepare a final draft for review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council. Chamber of Commerce Proposal The Chamber of Commerce proposes to initiate a process similar to that of the 1962 Second Century Plan, with an emphasis on the importance of the capitol city's role in the larger region. The Chamber has a strong presence in the Downtown and a unique ability to solicit participation from business stakeholders who have a broader perspective and unique perspective on strategies to ensure ongoing success of the Downtown business district. Discussion: Because the R/UDAT process is designed to provide cities with a starting point for identifying goals and creating an early vision, repeating it now would redirect the City's current development vision rather than update and enhance the direction the City is already moving. Unless the City is uncertain of the direction of future planning Downtown, repeating the R/UDAT process is unlikely to provide the best result. The Chamber of Commerce is committed to a Downtown planning process. If the Planning Division proceeds with a Master Plan update independent of the Chamber's process, it is probable that neither process will obtain the desired public participation. Two planning processes without careful coordination will likely result in conflicting and confusing visions for the Downtown area. A partnership between City staff and the Chamber of Commerce would allow the City and community(business and residents)to pool knowledge and reach a shared vision for future development. It would also lessen confusion and frustration for the public by streamlining public input into a single process. Working jointly with the Chamber, City Planning staff would not only realize an unprecedented level of public participation in the updated Downtown Master Plan but share an enhanced understanding of the City's role in regional development. Recommendation: It is apparent that there are advantages to participating with the Chamber of Commerce in formulating an updated Downtown Master Plan. The Chamber is prepared and eager to move forward with the planning process. Participating with the Chamber in this project offers the City a unique opportunity to encourage greater citizen participation and strengthen its Downtown Master Plan Update Page 3 of 4 partnership with the business community. While the City cannot rely solely on the Chamber's process to garner information from all concerned groups, creation of a business-community vision for the Downtown would ensure a built-in implementation group and provide the City access to the issues, visions, and goals of a large citizen group who are often reluctant to participate in the public process. Should the City elect to participate with the Chamber of Commerce in the planning process, a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party will be vital. The Administration considers the Chamber's primary contribution to this collaborative effort to be that of a champion of regional cooperation and a reaffirmation of Salt Lake City's key role as the catalyst for regional economic prosperity and the nucleus for governmental and civic activities Statewide. Downtown Master Plan Update Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A: Downtown Master Plan Review MEMORANDUM 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Planning and Zoning Division (801) 535-7757 Department of Community Development TO: Louis Zunguze, Community Development ' ector FROM: Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director,,. DATE: March 30, 2006 SUBJECT: Downtown Master Plan. Salt Lake City is presently considering updating the Downtown Master Plan. Several major projects are driving this renewed interest, including: A proposal for an arts district, development of a Downtown transportation study, increased need for housing, mall redevelopment and the relocation of Brigham Young University and LDS Business College to Downtown. The Planning Division has prepared this memorandum to provide a status of the implementation of the current master plan and identify options for the development of an update to the existing plan. STATUS OF CURRENT DOWNTOWN PLAN As identified in Attachment A/Downtown Master Plan Implementation Review, several of the policies of the 1995 Downtown Master Plan have been implemented to varying extent. The Attachment/Review identifies the major policies of the Downtown Master Plan and indicates the extent to which each policy has been implemented. The Review also suggests potential future recommended actions. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR UPDATING THE EXISTING DOWNTOWN PLAN Background Over the course of the last 50 years there have been three major Downtown planning processes: 1) The Second Century Plan, organized by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce in 1962, 2) Regional/ Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT), organized by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1988; and, 3) The Downtown Master Plan adopted by the City Council in 1995. The Second Century Plan focused on eleven major projects to be complete by the year 1985. The projects included the construction of the Salt Palace, Main Street beautification and raising City Creek, among others. Not all were accomplished by 1985; however, all were accomplished in some form by the year 2000. K/UDAT is a program of the American Institute of Architects where architects and other design professionals "visit" a project area for approximately three days and develop a"plan"to provide vision and goals to revitalize the area. This is an intensive process that provides a snapshot of the City and its immediate concerns. The 1988 R/UDAT was very successful in galvanizing interest in Downtown and many of the concepts highlighted by the plan were later integrated into the official Downtown Master plan. The Downtown Master Plan is the result of the official City master planning process. The Plan was generally patterned after the 1962 Second Century Plan. It focused on 11 major projects which had quantifiable results. This is officially adopted City policy. Many of the concepts in the Downtown Master Plan are still valid but are in need of update. For example, transportation is still a major issue and concern, but the debate has moved beyond whether to implement light rail and is now centered on how best to expand light rail and other forms of transportation. Similarly the debate has moved beyond merely providing housing, and is now centered on how to best increase the number of housing units Downtown. Therefore the update of the Downtown Master plan will be primarily a modernization of existing policies, not a wholesale rewriting of new policies. OPTIONS FOR UPDATING PLANNING POLICIES FOR DOWNTOWN There are currently proposals to reconvene all three Downtown planning processes: the Chamber of Commerce "Second Century" process, the American Institute of Architects "R/UDAT" process, and the official Salt Lake City Master Plan process. Each has its own advantages and drawbacks, as discussed below. The Chamber of Commerce is proposing to initiate a type of Second-Century Plan. This proposal has many merits because the Chamber provides a strong regional voice for Downtown that is lacking within the Citizen/Community Council input system. The Chamber also has the ability to draw from many members that are often difficult or reluctant to participate in the public process. Also, by creating a business community vision, there is a built-in implementation group. By participating in the Chamber's process the City would be able to hear the issues, visions and goals of a large number of stakeholders in Downtown. In addition, the Chamber is ready to begin a new planning process. Therefore, the possibility exists to either allow the Chamber to move forward independently or to move forward concurrently with a City run process. There are advantages to mixing the Chamber public relations process with the City's citizen input process to insure maximum input. The City will particularly benefit from the Chambers efforts to create regional consensus (outside of City limits). However, the City cannot rely on the Chamber's process completely because the City plan must include an opportunity for all interests to be heard on an equal basis to ensure that the issue of neighborhood interface and the broader City goals are adequately addressed. The City must also prepare a plan that will be adopted as a legal policy document by the City Council. Therefore, if the City and the Chamber choose to engage in a joint effort, it is critical that each party has a clear understanding of their role in the process. These roles should be defined from the onset to eliminate any confusion and to insure the best possible output. In general, the R/UDAT process also has many plusses. The previous effort was viewed as very successful by the community and effectively launched interest in completing a formal Downtown Master Plan that was later adopted by the City. R/UDAT brought many divergent groups together to create a shared vision. Various "Districts" were identified for areas of Downtown. Those concepts were included in the Downtown•Master Plan. R/UDAT is an excellent endeavor Downtown Master Plan 2 4/4/2006 when there is a need to spark interest in Downtown, however, the interest already exists and there does not seem to be a need to kick start a completely new vision at this time. Clarification and renewal of existing policies is the immediate priority. There is momentum to update and clarify the existing vision. In addition, the time constraints of applying for a new R/UDAT process would delay its implementation. There is a long selection process through the American Institute of Architects who must determine whether to instigate another study. The process would also be very long and labor intensive for City staff because of the amount of coordination and sub-committees involved in preparation for the main event. Because R/UDAT will not be able to come online for a considerable amount of time, it cannot be concurrent with a City process unless the City is willing to delay the Plan's development. Therefore, it is not recommended that a R/UDAT be pursued independently at this time. However if the AIA wishes to participate in a R/UDAT like format (intensive charettes and design workshops) within the confines of a larger planning process, it would certainly be welcome. The official Salt Lake City Master Plan process focuses on traditional practiced and legally required forms of information gathering and community interface. This process will need to be followed regardless of other processes if the intent is to have a legally adopted document. RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION The Downtown Master Plan should be updated (not reinvented). This is the legal document and the one that should be ultimately produced. Because the Chamber is ready to proceed, it may be possible to blend the two processes to create a document or even two independent documents that share a common vision and are prepared using the same citizen input process. In such a scenario, City staff would be heavily involved with the Chamber's process to cull public input. This would allow the City and business community to share in each other's knowledge and insure the visions are compatible. This partnership would also lessen confusion and frustration of citizens and those who wish to participate in the process by having one public input process rather than two or more. The Chamber process would be augmented or expanded to include a City public process that reaches out to all citizens, rather than just the business community, to insure that all parties are represented. The final document could be a single joint plan that is within an adoptable format for the City or two documents, with the City document coming after the Chamber document in an adoptable format. However, before the City and the Chamber embark on any joint effort, both should first negotiate a clear understanding of the proper roles and responsibilities each will have in developing the plan. Attachment B represents a proposed task list and outline of how the City would proceed if it is determined not to partner with the Chamber. This outline should serve as a base point for negotiating a joint process so that the City and Chamber may jointly move forward completing a document that is adoptable and has broad community input and support. It is staffs recommendation that a R/UDAT process not be independently pursued at this time because of the lack of need to spark interest in creating a new vision for Downtown. It is suggested that the AIA work with the City to include the design community in the Chamber/City process. A timeline, outlining the necessary steps to update the plan is included as Attachment B and should be followed if it is determined that the City should proceed on its own without partnering with the Chamber Downtown Master Plan 3 4/4/2006 ui a) .> C.) 0 0 0 \ c c 0 75 06 k _ 20 = ® o = » 2 M 75 « 7 0 0 co (z1 co 2M / \ � L kk ) / kk 0 § E % o E % o E E 0 = o .c , = o 9 = o f CE ® B m ® ® E � 0 Q k § \ CO k § / k c o ° @ 2 e o \ \ Ti 0 o 2 0 0 o aag3m afq 22 / Q � - 0 § C co o \ o .a E 0 TD 0 n ® a _ ƒ 0 2 % t o d $ a a o ° ° o I m E _ > 7 / 3 76\ ƒ $ as S Cl) / / I f ° CZ 0 @ E ± / If c \ / £ m / f2 / ® s � omR % -o—.0 b $ 2 q 2 -0 _c _ @ b c m a ¥ S ¥ _ CO 2 C -0s\ 5 � � � � � 2Z � � � o o . c as (I) o — m B c = ® CD CL UII , ƒ � 2 � % / $ c / ° / / cE = moo $ « C c § , 2 � 723 / « \ f ) Q J � t \ ® u) : w $ 5o /$ § § £ £ \ m / �a C E & o » ao23 c5oa0 Ct m _ = @o o = _cg » 7o / � k / � R � \ 7 / $ / ® 0 = 2n ± E \ aEEn3 a-= 0 % 2 / � 27eb . Q Q _ § o $ 2 d / / 2 « 2 E a o 0 o — Q _E = om5 = 5 � £ » wno £ �2 / / / \ 30U) .. E a o 2 co2 o % •.- k § � / f / � o, = /k k E / 2 . $ 2 = � 7 < g « • crt /2 � o. .§ \ d / � \ a) .0" _ » E• c n c Q U) E a) s m R Ts a) I m a o2E y2 « U0 E fk 222E tw / W c .i -..c 0- UQ § / co .� 0 0 0) m a. Q $ @ 2 0) O 2 — @2 / . M 7 \ / \ ) = I r 7 $ \ \ / L 0 � U U U UOO U) LU - °a 7).a °a}, a) a al 3 (5 55 C au) a)_ a`) a`) a`) CD LI- _� E w U a) .a 0) 0) 0) 0) E a) W rnL 1.+ Y -0 L 1 (U (D V -I C C (0 a) a) a) a) Y ` V O v c_) 0 _cc) o +t+ � c � c c0) 0 oal C 0) Na) 0) N a) 0 >. C C) G a) O "O a) O "O 0 •= '5 (6 _ ._ 0 _ .S oo a. a. O 0 c c co a) ca 0 C 0 > -0 o cri c) o • 0) aa)) � a) •�° as >, 0) - E a) Y 0 c 0) ca n co -c ca A co c > C a.5� o __U 0 _* o a) Zs aS o ` L o C L c .0 CD C ..., a Z. .N co Q (6 C1 Y C 4' c (o .- N ( c a) '� To a N C Y o a O 0 E °) X c V a) a) •- a) :' A o a) 0 2 a -0 0 C a) o >' c y a) O (B N "C- , o -0 O u) N y C c d a n'� ca o "- C� 0 O f) .Y • a 5 E .NU c as U a) oo C o C c C -a E m o Ey v�'io c) •> > •> E aa)) 'E `- 'c 0 a) co tV E } -: o ca °-=a c 0 c a0• 00 cv a) Y c6 .N O v) oU (4 C L C O O C O ` a) c 0) 0) (o ` _ U 0 t < oca a N U) a C i C ca > o �O • o C c6 N d a) (� C (U N o O •- () 0 C V) 7 U) -C 0 a) U to .0 C c� ` C N a- 0 j — 2 < 10 C 'cv v_ -2 E o 0 (n 3 0 0 = -Jaa) o -0 •Ca) C _ Cc aa) o 13 oa U) E2oa) oo a) a o4 .C > oai I- -) COI- a. 11Q >- H 2I- 0U) } I a.>- < co 2 o >- coO >- >- 4_ ai- - o - `- C .0 O C 0 C E (n w - _ rn a) c co N 0a) c m C)(/) C_).0 u) cote C 15 N p).`,..co (n .5 E o f o L C Y c l o V 0 H N H U () N ca o ° 0 O y o u) _ _ N Edo D p N O 0 a � '� 000 `� o n _0 CO . y c a 0 _c aE � d o o (n c r � M o o _ o C o 06 0 cn E 3 > `° 0 0o Coo0 � a) cs v 0 o c (i) E0 -0Ui N Q a) coa) a) u) L.N N (n Z O a) co C•O (� (n (B N .<U a) a) + .Lcaoa) a) '50) a) a) u) o }; oNN 3co •• co O = O NOC N oa C O N O j 0 .� j N 0 ci H a co � 2HCNJOcA W (au) W (A �Y .0 W '> cnau) o it' E o a N Y O co t N > (A +`� U) N .O 0. < -o -a0 co 0 coo a c oC (0 o Y 2 as � � = ca OL O O` o (U C IT) a) C a. Cam C� � 0aa) ILU 0a, y •O o 0 ' o .5 o = c ca >, c u) o 3 0 O a .— L — 03 ++ L 0 C "p C 0 . 0 0 0 E MI M Oa a Q co L C L a '- 'C ++ a) • — o >, 0 cv 0 V -pa) 0 O) C C 7 c CC _ O ,- .Q O N = -c E 0 o E a•V cu 0 L p > aJ C C C C C E -O 4-, a) c C OL -p a) O a) _c O O O 0 c aa-. E E � U � c o rn � N vo y a CD CO 0 Q o E c u_ a) -E-- c 0) 0 0 a 0 x -o c o o .- 3 a) o L c � 0 ,� 0 w c� Q - � UU � � � Z U ° w ' CO .� 0 CU L_ _C .0 O Va) 0 3 3 3 .0 asc = rn coui CO a) U O U 0 >p a)c Y '- c > > a) 1 O 0_ > D : - ; CO > O 5P L O) ••-�• G - C c O o 45 (B U (Q CO73 4) w > C 7O a) a) L O -C a) C a) .._.. 7 C a) L) N Q _o a) .L-. p O 0.• N a �• O O O O O •� O L a) ♦) E > U) -C a �,0 0 a) L rno W o � C co a) 0 c � cn 0 a a) C .- C 'O w. O L "p O 'O 00 3 M a) _aL w 4- cB d 0 O -p U a) (v ,-- ca .OQ EQ) >,m C ,tn a) yc- 00 0 a) CO 'U a) >, a) C _ a) = s O Q — N +- C. L O L 0 Q 2O "O Tuc c .0 ,o)O > U j, a) 0 E O .0 (Oj O O L 0 ,_ E C Q E ui i as c c — � a) 0 > Y p o c6 • N u) Cl) 0 0 > O a L Z "O a) c0 ... y_.. .c 0 (Q c C a) •p-0 ' E L o a) 70 in >,+_' — O • U L .O fB U) c0 O o `� 6 3 a`�iUV E ui c ua) o- a) o a > o � � Z cflc a) a) L a) a) a) (II o u) 0 (B ° N L U L O v) a) (o O > Z (awn } cp2Q o E >- F- 7, � � (oo � FF— . = N c A a) a) COL V/ _c -0 _c 0 C o a) >, �; a) a) u) a) 0 c .0 m 'E O 05 0 O V >, cwn Ri V c 1-C C • � `t O -- al 0- E05 O y 0 t a° o o c 0 CO C .) �O c) 0. a) US C L C O•- O L 4- :a) , (,) L o 7 (a 7 V) 03 O 4) CD (Q (Q C O x L• -0 -4. N O N a) C . L. J U) • W +. O Q C 2 7 a) .V) I— Ua ma V E ES ac) v C V `m .p 0 c(0 RS FO- m > o 'o a) a- l— � . Ca - C o ZcE -o Ts • j La 0V . � 3 N m ! . corn 0 E C 0 ._ a) C U' c '4- 0)c a) ui) a) a) O o ° c 3 Y o 00 : .�•+ L - c 0 -p 0 as c 0 — ra 46 a) -o CO >a) > ✓ r•' a) -0 E 0 0) o 2) •+>--. C > > C U N O "O C ca a) U O ca a) t u) w E s d' co L 0 O U E N c a) t+ u) 0 N Cl) Q (a • O C U O a) C -0 E d co n 0 co ca .� oi a) > a) 0 p a) L m m re OcOncva � U � UO c o O . a 'a 3 3 c >, >, •C o) a m o a 0 0 0 d �� , c o �, c00o) >. a a0) 2 • oos o >0 — � a) -0 a) a) -0 d > O c(a > O ccaa a.. _0 d u) cn _o O _ C) >' U O O j,12 O o _ 0NN oacio � � c) E co O m 0 a) -o 2 co in Q ° a) O L ti O To Z a) a) -_ c a) U >' "o p O c O U _c O L ca To O OU co as c ` } U 0 r CD 0 0 0 - (�• C O O X - a) C OC t ca 0 N co N Z U 'n as Cans o Tr, as oa)) a) °)E' c_�a 0) oo � ooc0 C Uo � �� a) o a) mo �. c� o oci � � 2E � ca � � � oo � s oo0mdu, c)- -o � at°) � c o � . a� � rn a) o cY o o E2 a) 03 c au aa)) 3 o) o oc O 'c o � .- c a) D a) � m a) ` - La 0. .0 C a) 0 O C c c c >' > U `s � C O ° cnZ o 0 c mu' Q a) '3 . U a) c a) E (0 0 _ 0 (0 O) O N O ca ` to a) U) 0 _O 0 V) ca o •N _O L a) .� U a) O C : 'Fa 0 _C U ,C c u) C .s- o C i 0 Un 6 c - N - Z. C" 0 -0 c L O).� CO OL a) i 'N E a) V Y N O Q i� a) O c c O1'C N U O' E c — 1- 0 0 (a '— ..-, C ,ca V a) N >, as 00 al al ,U 0 ca u0) �c c �- u) Om co > 'C •cn 0 O O -c a) a) +. L u) • _c 0) ca +r C • a) U 0 > � o � coo -oo � II-- > � u) dI-- Cl as 0.CZ < EI- . '7ZII-- 3 -oo > >, co -t ca a) ui a) O ca a) m o 00 � c>a C c) � E ' coo E 3 ,� m r A m > o zt.oa) a) oE _c :• 00V ,- 4_ vic' c O I O 4--. O a) 'a)0 O M c6 a) a L Q N O L= a) L 0 C to ca a) O).— O) a) a O >'.°)c L `c o a) ° o = c -, co w aa)) >,�a 0) o 0 rn= 0 c - .c o � > 0) co 00 .0 0 0 c c`a c - Cl) 3 a) c c-, O O` co en _c co U c U -`a) a) a) p LO Es U_0 .a U NQ l 0 U U co C U 7 o� N ma o o oUI ° a) iL i old co u) F- I� > 2 I- i_ -0 c u) c y o co o 0 q; 4- o o0oL_ a) m a) a) o ca a) ro 5 -C •a Eo c°) ca .c � `r) coo) �o aoi aoi2 E � ccn O E H > oa) Lo > �� o >' c o o °� �� ° > rn con >O ° N ca `0 0 N Z a) a) t ao C c (acn 0. a) 0 off o U E c � o � � NOU oco � � o E � _J o. 0 0 E O o@) > -r cav) O ocvcgc8Z L O co C L o o U O " o o d a 413 L o O a) •v +�+ as c E C L- C �L •U C U o -0 E 0) O O a a (0 (o ` O O E •c a) O co Cl) 03 E E -a cn c a) c o . o -a au a) a) o c- cxo o a) au') o Z Z w' .� E .c Z 0 _c C a) .0 co . 0) N C O C O C O ots a) C U 0) U C)Y L C •C C co co 0) C 0) U (o G O � O � O C a) -0 � L 'a .0 • O (V a. -0 a. � 3 0 coo o 0 0 0 O a_ E O U V) 4- o) a) C C15 10 CD a) OO R) a) Y co E O 0 > v _ m C N C L >.w a) E C (o E O C aa F- 'o i i.' Vi a) C 2C Y U) a) oc -c o a) c. o .E 3 -o a) a) '52 -c C ci o 0 0 � _c c') a ? � Nal +,> cco � E aoi Ecoic o a) � oio � c o - o .` Ec (i u) o `' > c00C c ai C L a) Y C a) E aor) O cn a) O C c U a •- L 4L- a) C cp c N >. N co N a C .c N N y a V tea) v) 0 a � � ._ cu'uuicco c' O >. cLo �ocn E •-cc 23 aoc c 0 � � Eo os � r >, o -o - u) - c .� E a) o _c -oEao CO = w cn d o �� o iti ac o � v� �jc o � � � o C CO oo c E v� ;� � o ctn 5" E � •o io a) > ° L- c , o c - .o > co a) To ° •o :� •9 ocm 3 O To ac N ° c 0) a`'" a= .2 -oo .3 c � o c O co �o •o -c >. •_c_ c o a-ai c a) oY a' F. E o o a)To - - a) > c CO a' c- 3E cca� .- a) cn a) U cocco L- > 0 •.. = •, - ., L 2. o C c ° E o L �' E n o �c c a�'� 03 c � � E E ono 0 c- c a) •c �) ow) cpTs >, 2 cod c c c co c � E o c2o c cu) c N 3 43 a) co •> c > EU > .cv iLa m f oc ui a`) •E 2 1- � E N ! o` L_ o ZII- O $ ac) n. 0 0 - Da2 al c c occ oo .it SZO coacv) a} Q o . J0 >- D ad aC) co v co E Y •L (octl - � o co r o f C Cl. A -0 CO = E > •C o V 4_ c) c o -o m a) o c a) co 0 2 o E E . c o � 2 d• 0 o) X . C c C O n Y ccooCcn —o a9 a) oa) ° Cl) v E -v m 4_ -- a) E 115 Cl) U O) to _ a) o O j co 03 a) a) L a) c co 0 •5 a) c = > v ccoo c -C fl .0 Y co Q E 2 4' u) O i- C a) L. a L C O 0 I- I- F- co a)3 o X o a.. oo I- oo E .S 4- 4- O O O eL .� C a) o L (� a) 0 c ca c O E i 0 L_ I- ' C � ca) c n, no co oEoE �_ a) �' � aoic3cE O E O N o a) a) U) o cn L A` L — L O 3 ^, I- -o N ... > o) L o 4 aco 4>/ ". -o o .... °) o c' ao V0 0 0 a) C 0 0 > C C C — O O c cn u) L O_•- E C N a al ca C o a0)•E o12 oY Ws ai c o C as L a) o o 4- Maaoo L 'cnD N o M 3 L - o ° E : wco aoo -O E O) C C . Cl) c @ O @ _ ) \ 03 z al = f c \ 2 ? 2 = c L. ■ 0 > > @ ' o m E = . . . E w c - c O 0 0 0 § . \ / / \ / f as cc ƒ ƒ ƒ re / / Do s0 § E R 2 C C• % cD co co < 0) / ( \ • E 2 / 2 E ■ 0 2 c E 2 / m to cc 2 ' o o s E O % O \ O / ƒ 4 / > - 0 0 cD / / \ f $ / = / k / al o m ._ ) 0 0 2 c c@ 5 2 & anu) _ mc x eo > w % a 2a coo oa m 7202 2 = o R £ c x E c c e •- a a = » o C 2 0 m 2 o n o c = 2 ac .gR ± oo ° � ocRm 2 / c ) Co :)o 2 / ° & 0 -0 $ ) � ffk 0 = o/ \ ° % e R / / / / / \ CD / k � / � / f / / 8 / / �al § CD \ f 0 k / \ \ 2 § k C RC = n CI a - ce ki_ o72 � E � g /% § ƒ\ / k § $ / 2 � 3 ) E '..2 0) 5S ( % / Q0 $ @ / \ c 2 § C § ° 2 E $ o ° k \ \ 0 : Cl)) / § \ / 0 \ f ¥ \ - a § / a o 0)C § / Co C C 0 C k 0 k \ � k » we » » m357 0 » e22 ■ oae2Rnc2n Co co — ui _c 7a -0 C ± § E § m o / 0 Es o --; fU 0 2 } c . 77 k e 0 _ to- CL o $ ) k7 -0 0 - k / -c ) 5 @ ± E $ k ° $ Il ° � % ,- ° e CL .§ o co@ o a 7 n n E = x £ m c > 0 o c o ® x — o 0md � c oe @ % u c o m D E $ a e 0 0_ < I CD 7 a _e E5 c so O. $ / 7 / § k \ 0:C 0 0) as / - \ 5 '- ) ƒ § f \ $ 3522 & oc (0 M m c I. I.. co 2 = C $ . C ® 2 � / $ \ 2 � \ 2 / = 2 2 ( / 2 2 2 ® ƒ § C ) e e C = >2 0 @ = f ■ � - 5 a I E ■ / 2 I E ■ k S / t • § 2 2 / x E ? c 6 0 0 0 n a) w o c \ b % c 2 CD W / z . 8 IX k // / \ 2 • 2 £ - $c n £ - ® f• -0 . 2 2 0 2 7 a) \ 5 a) a e a) 0 4 0 a) . (0 0) E c Eo > E .c G > E c E c — c c — E — _ — E a) ƒ / ƒ > / ƒ > / / > 2 / / > aRt / ¢ 20k400k ¢ 000) C ± k -o k ƒ @5 § E2 / o -0 0 ® � o 0 i— � � ' 2 � � 0 w: ) 0 2 \ C 2 2 / R e 2 / E 0 22 0 @ / m = / a 0 o g 6. ■ o — _ = To- sea C I > EE n S5 I $ k � / \ E E t = b2 / - k © � k . ) R § / C.) © RQ / 2 § % � C. _k > C U0 � £ so ° / E 6 . J CO U _ £ % m = U 2 2ET. ® 2 w c § ' 0 o > — 0 E e t ( 0 E \ ƒ § oo7n - f \ a = o 0 • • \ / / 5 \ �4 \ § / / % $ a) 0 ° u \ 5@ c " 5 U c > 3 _>� 2 = t § % 0 \ § / t02f0 . E 2 § f0-k c / L' a. x 132Om ¥ < a_ ± Z (0O X » wmealo23m 0 — 0- E 0 E a) / � 7 % 2 n >+ to $ / O f R 00c CL \ c c Q %\ k @ \ c 0 f 2 0 c % R % e e 2 wo O < 2 0 / / •- C co . < x C.) \ m 0 U $ 0- „ a) C CI m c 223 0 E 0 \ 0 0 TD ° § eUo a) a) t E c � � 3 $ ƒ o0 / o - a f c a7 \ 2 " ƒ 22ff ƒ 13 2 c n 0 2 f $ o § 6 \k a) / k EL o E _CD / $ 2 § / [ E 3 7 ) S f 0 OE\ � / � / / 1-3 2 0 — _a 4 \ CD CD E / / a) ƒ \ c2o5 / 00 roam -0 -0 / kk \ \ 2 2 ?« Jo u 00 c c 0 al c 0 a) CD _ a_ / / $ E E $ c $ Q / @ @ 0 a) £ o e � 0 . N 2 7 > 7 / § 2 _e = UEo = ± ) « 2 \ ] ) ) 5 / E \ / % \ § / \ :ko \ - / ¥ 2 oo i . £ § c >. E f 0 § $ 2c � � � 0- \ / O Q k X � // £ƒ _ = 2: CD o o » @ 92 > ma) 0c - % D \ 2 6 = £ § \ z CD s. > CO C U \ 0 U ° O / 3 E % ±2 0_I C 2 2c $ o gym / / C > § / =O >, =a 7, ) 0 a E CD z C M a) c a) Li- 'ai '- U U U U •- � E Q� 0 O o >+ C O L a) a) a) = a) c 7jilZ'so 0 CD y0 as as > N C C U O O Ct co a) a) O O U c2 a.ec it r u) Q U U Q- a) ci C U a) 'C 0 a) a) a) E O a) a) c0 c ° c0 •v) .- ad 06c 0 ccca c c cco) (a 0 > C U C o ca v ca v al N 45 c .o Oo OU OU w — =a ao a. 0 C O L o to+' co a C V a) a) N _c (a a) ) a) ` a) To >' Q o 0 a) C r U U) a) 0 a) co �. O U (A O O 0 O),U N _ ° O C a) 0 c Ua) c = a) 3Oa 0 cat c cw L co •c -c La � = o ,n ° c c ° o ♦, 03 caca0o 3 o c � ca) _ re, cso aoca C > o)y Y p, •.•• N O C U 02 C 3 c U 0 _c4- a) E .2 o' � o _co0 � � N .2 0 ca m Q o m m O N c) is c � U) -° -C °) u) a0 W .>.. °c) N a) Ec o Ta CO �, O CO ca o)•c ea - -° U .` rn oc o E O to ca O ° o c a) O >, O m "° .� • O U 7 N C -O a) 0-C - 0) - a) > N O p- Y co o 0 co a) as c Q a) U O CD � o a' Q"co 2 `� coc a �-o a) •• U 0 0 ccnn ° •- c .. 0U 3 .`o •. Q ._ = Q-a 5 CD '7) .v a) U � 1 � v C co 5xs > � 5a) .c ma3i o c`a ° ° moo � .o acio > m C a) H � DL � H >- Z a) ZQa _oQ 2 .So >- a0a ac >- O 3 o 0 03 -0 a) C) ca cc C Z E. 2 E 3 as O O C o) >, a) co c -o •S o U 2 o vi co v ° m o X 3 ° m ui c�a �i r 3 •a) .- U a) -0 a) a) U) Q 0 2 0 o > +U. 1) d °) ca > ° N U aa)) c 0° m U CT' • ° 'O 0) u0i �_ c`a � 2 2c boo � >, ° U QcccT1 = 3 ° o o � c o � U Q•� II-.a' a) a) o c O 0 cn ma) � c -c .. E ` = N ° oU) ooc ,_ oc ° •�' us aa)) o o ° o QU .N 1 _ocacai— a) i_ LYdcv 1— UUu) LLu) E C G E a c c c C t) 4- �- 0 ) �; c o > 'Q• ° 6.-o c 0 c a) ° d u°)i N a) c c p 0 > a) mo 7 •cCL0 � a o 0i- 0 : E � a) 0 -C . o 0 �- o a o a)m 't "a E n oo1` ft . E o a) T) 2 N c° d :n � 5 Q 0 C ƒ 22 / 7 ■ M o > C M 0 @U. R $ » > 0 � / g g / 0) Co moo \ / ° ° k R f = C 0 $ b = U B CC C / ± c c c ® c CD c > c c : c 5 / % E O k 0 0 ƒ o 0 a) o go s § = / qk % $ : & R § m2gf2 / q _ Co ' n > = c > . aR _ m = g o o38R � E ' / = = � •= o c c a E � n c _ � o c 7 o f o c e . 2 e = \ foo = ' o / £ @ R « c e o n o c a) m o o M e e -0 o n o 0 '5 a 2 o c a o n L (1.) = o 2 ® k= � 7k B / > " Ro / R / wg / � c C / o ® ® = = = c � o � n ¥ ± ece > — n 2 c o 0 0 = 0 o © 0 = 2 - - k I /k 0 � R % a Cl) $ 3 � � § E a)0 ■ o � c \ » & \ § s ) $ S = % � 7 \2g c * ° ® e = M — a- m 5 E fR2 / % / = E/ 20 E0 . 2 E § S & w E 2 E — 0 e e - 2 = c & 0 ± 2 a e E * k q \ 5 0 ° • /= q % 2 \ q k� C 0 % m % 0kO _ I (D0 § \ CC2 0 CD 0 % o \ cc = � » oo o cc * w — » • @ ccm 9 — o22f / " $ � S & # m � m £ « = 6 f o 5 0 $ 2 o 7 ƒ 15 G k § % > § a ƒ 0 $ § o -c \ 2 / f ZUmcNn » Ncm20-O ›- Io = ZRoz2Ct5EEB « o Co ƒ 5 >. • \ � (0E v § •>. E - C � % . CC ° 13 C 0) \ § 0. 2 § C 0) c m C ® ® a) a Co . = Rf § ƒ � f $ co C § o co / R2 .co_ / . ° C \ f § 0 # oa ƒ / RR _U g _ 2 � Co \ .0. Co § § K� / f I 2 — J / 2 k j $ / c c5 ° o 0 ƒ k 0 / f C C C O 0 c O a 0 W _ +r L 0 +r L. C ++ L Co CO.a ,0 c RS"pr a)al ' .0 �=,, L o E r O i c O L. O i = co > d �O Co V �O .c 2 C� �O > c u) CC co 0' o - = o Q. 'Q 'a '0 O 0 a) 0 U d U �) w U CO d O) >' U ao � a `o MIn c c o as'J 2o , '"' C fo ..„CD CIS N a) 3 .0 a) 2 u) X L N sw CM U •L co C CO •N .�m O d o s d o F+ U C LIFO C U C a) o- co C - c '-' d E co CD N C >' 3 0 co +�. E c C E 3 co co E ` G) c• m G) 0 -o 2 co C> cD o O. 2 -• Q U c • 0 a U 6 �• O co co N O O O U • } (o N N N ` co C u) .- U ,_ p -0 (o O '� E N O. co _a cL. (o U ` O O >, O .0 L L- 7 +O. a) 1 o E Z m C Uo RI >- F- '> E o E Z = co co) CD L a 73 4-0 5 E VcoV E V o a 0 = N aN 0 0 C 0 S3 o. a mo •c _ m Co R oa) . O �' 'N Np E co C Q -00 d 2 L ►-o a `o O Le cQ 2 > a d RS m (I) t) V E O V n .Q CD .Q a ,a a) O > a) to ° co in Ec I— a) aa) co • ~ 0 � o a3 O m G ac`o CO i- E C) 0c`o (/) d C 2 2 2 _oc § 2o / E © / \ 2 § 4-1 $ _ @ f § 0 0 / = t a) / k - I o 0 4-1 . § \ & E / ƒ $ \ 3 a) G¥ tE .\ C a / o ° 2 ° @ oI_ \ O 2E � � � f N b � 20 k \ _o a) 2 / k @ _ E � ." o _ � � � � � � � a) / o . / \ / ƒ\ ƒ/ as 7 0 ° o t ƒ �$ o w E � R & R3C = r >1 : o Zs0. CC•; 0 0 @ 0) . Q .- 0 0 f r \ ATTACHMENT B: City's Master Plan Process Outline CITY MASTER PLAN PROCESS (NO PARTICIPATION FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR AIA) TASKS 1. COMPILE BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Compile base information and maps • Review existing Planning Documents and Policies and identify what has been accomplished, or unaccomplished and where we want to go (see Attachment A) • Gather demographic an statistical information (existing land use, property ownership maps, property acreage, zoning, historic preservation information, non-conforming uses, conditional uses, traffic counts, etc.) • Identify existing and known future projects Time frame: May 2006-July 2006 2. CITIZEN INPUT • Issues Gathering • Open Houses (initiations extending to, but not limited to, the following) o Community Councils o Business Owners o Chamber of Commerce o American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association and other design professional organizations o Institutional use representatives o Housing agencies, social service agencies and advocacy groups o Property Owners 3. ANALYZE INFORMATION AND PREPARE DRAFT DOCUMENT • Analyze information gathered • Identify land use conflicts • Formulate recommended policies and implementation items • Create a public draft • Advisory Committee(community council representatives, business owners, property owners, representatives of major institutions, representatives of Historic Landmark Commission, Transportation Division, UTA, housing advocacy groups, representatives of specialty housing agencies, design professionals, UDOT) • Identify issues and goals. • Review draft document including recommended policies and action items. Time frame: July- September 2006 4. PREPARE FINAL DRAFT FOR ADOPTION PROCESS Time frame: September to October 2006 5. ADOPTION PROCESS • Review by Community Councils, Transportation Advisory Board, Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board, Housing Trust Fund Board, Historic Landmark Commission, etc.) • Planning Commission Recommendation • City Council Adoption Time frame: Community Councils December 2006, Planning Commission January 2007 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT DATE: April 10, 2006 TO: City Council Members PREPARED BY: Jan Aramaki, staff for Council Subcommittee SUBJECT: Council Subcommittee (Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, and Soren Simonsen) Discussion and Recommendations relating to proposed revisions to Chapter 8, Animal Control Ordinance The Council Animal Control Subcommittee discussed key issues and developed recommendations for the Council's consideration. However, one key policy issue that the subcommittee did not come to a consensus on was regarding animal limits. One option that would allow residents to have more than the permitted number of animals (cats, dogs, and ferrets) is through a special permit. The subcommittee is open to exploring various options of special permits, such as: update the existing rescue permit; and consider a foster permit and a fancier's permit. Under this approach, a special permit shall be issued to an applicant once a site inspection has been conducted and approved by Animal Services, and approval has been granted by Salt Lake Valley Health Department and the appropriate zoning authorities. It should also be noted that sections of zoning code would need to be reviewed in relation to the number of animals permitted in various zoning classifications. The Subcommittee suggested that the Council discuss these recommendations prior to the April 18 public hearing so that the public can consider the recommendations as they make their comment at the hearing. This memo is intended as a brief review of the key issues and a summary of the Subcommittee's recommendations. It is not a comprehensive summary of the ordinance. Council staff is available to meet individually with Council Members to discuss issues in more detail, and the original Council staff report and Administrative paperwork are available on the Council's web site and can be provided in hard copy. Items in italics were not discussed by the subcommittee, but are inquiries from Council staff. Note: Sections of Chapter 8, Animal Control ordinance are subject to change once the Council determines "permitted number of pets for a household." Subcommittee Recommendations: 1. Consider whether to limit the total number of pets per household to four(4)— (Administration's proposal of a four animal limit allows a combination of not more than two dogs, two ferrets, or up to four cats) or to focus on nuisance issues in lieu of a limit Residents have expressed interest to have an option for pet owners to legally own or foster more than the permitted number of animals under such circumstances as: 1 a) when there are combined households, such as when two people get married, the number of animals often exceed the permitted number; and b) a pet owner who has the permitted number of animals according to City code is interested in providing a home for a pet(s) that belonged to a family member, loved one, or close friend who passed away; and c) when a person has the permitted number of pets allowed in his/her municipality but later moves into Salt Lake City to find he/she now exceeds the permitted number of pets allowed according to Salt Lake City code; and d) a resident has met the permitted number of pets, but would like to rescue and own an additional animal. a. Consider the following possible exceptions: 1. Rescue Permit: Recommendation from Council Subcommittee— Revise Existing Pet Rescue Permit, Section 8.04.130 of Salt Lake City Code: To allow a resident to own an additional animal beyond the permitted number of animals, the Council subcommittee recommends the City Council revise Section 8.04.130 Commercial and Pet Rescue Permits-Required When-Application- Issuance Conditions of Salt Lake City code to allow a responsible pet owner to own one additional pet beyond the permitted number of animals as long as the pet is rescued, sterilized, and microchipped. Refer to "Attachment B" for proposed language. Does the Council: • Support the subcommittee's recommendations? • Wish to consider allowing a resident to rescue and own more than one additional animal? • Oppose allowing the rescue permit? 2. Foster Permit: Recommendation from Council Subcommittee— Permit to Foster Animals The Council subcommittee would also like to propose for the Council's consideration a Household Fostering Permit as part of Salt Lake City Code. An annual permit to foster animals will allow a pet owner to foster beyond the permitted number of animals on a temporary basis. Council staff notes: "Attachment C,"Permit for Foster Animals, is Taylorsville ordinance as a model which allows a resident to foster more than the permitted number of animals based upon a conditional use approval process. Does the Council: • Support the subcommittee's recommendation? • Wish to discuss if the allowable number of foster animals shall be limited? • Wish to explore the option of issuing a permit based upon a conditional use permit process similar to Taylorsville? 2 • Wish to set a Foster Permit fee in line with other permit fees or wish to implement a higher fee? • Oppose allowing a foster permit? 3. Fancier's Permit: The Council subcommittee would also like to propose a Fancier's Permit as part of Salt Lake City Code which would allow residents to breed their pets as long as they have obtained and maintained this annual permit. Council staff notes: Taylorsville ordinance has again been used as a model, refer to "Attachment D,"which allows a resident to breed more than the permitted number of animals based upon a conditional use approval process. Does the Council: • Support the subcommittee's recommendation? • Wish to discuss if the allowable number of animals for purebred dogs and cats shall be limited? • Wish to explore the option of issuing a permit based upon a conditional use permit process similar to Taylorsville? • Wish to set a Fancier's Permit fee in line with other permit fees or wish to implement a higher fee? • Oppose allowing a Fancier's Permit? b. Consider using the following tools to minimize impact on the community: 1. Nuisance Penalty Council staff notes: Animal Services recommends including Section 8.04.370, Animal Nuisances Designated Penalty, and Sections 8.04.130 through 8.04.210 (sections of City code pertaining to permits) as part of Section 8.04.220 Court Order Procedures. By including Section 8.04.370, Animal Nuisances, and Sections 8.04.130 through 8.04.210, sections of code relating to permits, to Section 8.04.220, Court Order Procedures, the Director of the Animal Services Office, or his or her authorized representative has authority to petition the Court for the desired action -- this will heighten both nuisance enforcement efforts and enforcements efforts relating to permits. 2. Taylorsville model — `conditional use' approach Council staff notes: research findings came about after the subcommittee met; the subcommittee did not consider this option regarding Taylorsville City "animal permit"ordinances are tied into zoning ordinances. In order for a resident in Taylorsville to be issued any special animal permit, a resident must apply for a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. According to Taylorsville City, there were numerous applications made when the permits were first enacted, but the numbers have reduced. Taylorsville City claims there has been success with this process and feedback from the community has been positive. A process of this type addresses notifying neighbors, adequate space, living circumstances, etc. They report only one conditional permit has been revoked. 2. Require cat licensing, with a limit of four(4) total cats per household (this number would meet the permitted animal limit); three (3) or more adult cats would require compliance with additional regulations. 3 Council staff notes another policy issue that the subcommittee did not come to a consensus on was regarding cat licensing. According to the Administration, other local municipalities such as Murray, Sandy, Taylorsville, Cottonwood Heights, Herriman, and Ogden currently require cat licensing fees that are in line with dog licensing fees. Requirement for a microchip implant is to increase the chances that a lost cat is returned to its owner and to make pet cats clearly identifiable from feral cats. However, a microchip implant requirement can be controversial, such as, when microchips became mandatory in the City of El Paso, the American Kennel Club opposed that requirement because of concerns they had about government requiring microchip identification with the opinion an owner should be able to make the decision on how to identify his/her pet. Humane Society supports mandatory cat licensing and states communities should consider methods of identification such as microchipping. Council staff notes that a. Consider establishing a 60 day grace period. Council staff notes: Does the Council wish to establish a 60 day grace period as to when the ordinance would go into effect to allow ample time for pet owners to be informed and provide ample time for them to license their cats before the ordinance goes into effect? b. Consider sterilization in keeping three (3) or more cats. Council staff notes: Animal Services recommends requiring sterilization for three (3) or more cats in a household. 3. Require ferret licensing, with a limit of 2, but with same criteria for cat licensing. Does the Council Support the subcommittee's recommendation? 4. Establish Feral Cat Colony Registration permit including the Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) program. a. Consider $10,000 grant for No More Homeless Pets in Utah, as recommended by the Administration (subject to "Doug Short" requirements). b. Consider the feral cat colony registration fee to be a one-time fee or reduce the fee from the proposed $25 annual fee proposed by the Administration. The Administration's proposed annual fee for a feral cat colony registration permit is $25. One of the subcommittee members recommended the Council explore a one- time fee rather than an annual fee, with even possibly reducing the one-time fee from $25 -- taking into consideration individuals who utilize the Trap-Neuter-Return program also have the expense of having the animal sterilized and vaccinated. (According to Animal Services, the proposed annual fee of$25 for a feral cat colony registration permit does not cover their actual costs associated with the TNR service, and is in line with other permit fees.) Does the Council: • Support the subcommittee's recommendation to support the $10,000 grant for No More Homeless pets in Utah, as recommended by the Administration, or wish to defer action to the budget process? • Wish to keep the feral cat colony registration fee at a $25 annual fee as proposed by the Administration? • Wish to consider making the feral cat colony registration fee a one-time fee or reduce the fee? • Oppose the feral cat colony registration permit and TNR program? 4 5. Change Animal License Fees. The subcommittee supports the 3-tier structure of licensing as an incentive for owners to license their pets — incentive: to sterilize and microchip an animal, results in a reduced fee. For an unsterilized pet, rather than raising the fee from $25 to $35 as proposed by the Administration, the subcommittee recommends raising the fee to $45 or$55 and using the increase in fee toward Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) as a proactive approach in giving it to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to use funds toward TNR program. Council staff notes: Salt Lake City's contract with Salt Lake County Animal Services is a five year contract with yearly renewals and a contract expiration date of July 2008. According to the contract, prices stated are firm for the initial 2-year term of the Agreement. The subcommittee discussed options for a three-tier structure starting from the base license fee for an animal that is not sterilized or microchipped with incentive cost reductions in license fees when an animal is sterilized and microchipped. The Administration's proposed fees have been used to illustrate for the Council's discussion on how license fee reductions can serve as an incentive for pet owners to take additional steps to sterilize and microchip an animal. Animal License Fee Administration's Subcommittee Option Subcommittee Proposal Option Base License $35 $45 $55 (Unsterilized animal) Discount for (27) (37) (47) sterilization Subtotal $8 $8 $8 Microchip implant (3) (3) (3) discount License Fee $5 $5 $5 Base License $25 Senior Citizen Life- time fee Discount for ($5) sterilization License Fee $20 Does the Council: • Support the subcommittee's recommendation in raising the license fee for an unsterilized pet from the proposed $35 to $45 or$55 to be used for TNR? • Wish to identify certain cost reductions other than what the Administration has proposed? • Wish to support the Administration's proposed annual license fee for an unsterilized pet of$35? 6. Increase Violation fee for pet 'at large'. The subcommittee supports the Administration's proposed increase in fee for animals "at large." Does the Council support the subcommittee's recommendation? 5 7. Discuss late fee. Council staff notes: late fee was not discussed by the subcommittee but has been brought up by constituents. The question has been raised whether the late fee of$25 is in line with other Salt Lake City late fees. Does the Council wish to discuss this further? cc: Sam Guevara, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Ed Rutan, Larry Spendlove, Steve Fawcett, Lisa Romney, Ken Miles, Shon Hardy, Holly Sizemore, Karen Bird, Mike Bodenchuk, Drew Allen, Diane Keay, Peggy Raddon, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Marge Harvey, Diana Karrenberg, Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer, Barry Esham, Val Pope, and Lisa Romney 6 Attachments to Salt Lake City Council Animal Control Subcommittee Memo April 7, 2006 1 . Attachment A: Information from Administration on the number of permitted pets in various municipalities. 2. Attachment B: 8.04.130 Commercial and Pet Rescue Permits, with suggested changes by Council staff. 3. Attachment C: Taylorsville City's Ordinance for Foster Animals Permit 4. Attachment D: Taylorsville City's Ordinance for Fancier's Permit 5. Various articles: a. "Pet Limit Laws: Closing the Door to Loving Homes" b. "Dog & Cat Licensing Compliance, Costs and Effects" c. "Weekly Sound Off' d. "Dogs will be dogs...but cats won't" 7 ATTACHMENT A City/County Cat Licensing Cast per License Number of Pets Allowed Required? per Residence' Murray yes $5(dog or cat) 2 dogs,2 cats North Ogden voluntary $40 dog 2 dogs,2 cats cats $5 sterilized,microchipped Kennel permit allowed in some $10 sterilized,not chipped areas $30 non-sterilized,not chipped Ogden yes $10 sterilized dog,$5 sterilized cat 2 dogs,8 cats $30 non-sterilized $25 lifetime for sterilized cat $75 lifetime for sterilized dog Provo voluntary $8 sterilized 2 dogs,2 cats, 1 pot-bellied pig $12 non-sterilized Kennel license available Salt Lake City voluntary $5 sterilized 2 dogs,2 cats current $25 non-sterilized Salt Lake County voluntary $8 sterilized - Permit required for more than License for $35 non-sterilized 2 dogs,2 cats or 2 ferrets ferrets required Sandy yes $6 sterilized 2 dogs,no more than 6 pets • $24 non-sterilized total Hobby permit for up to 5 dogs •$53) Taylorsville yes $5 sterilized 2 adults(dogs, cats,or ferrets), License for $25 non-sterilized No more than 4 pets total ' ferrets required Various permits available($15) West Valley City voluntary $5 sterilized 2 licensed animals License for ferrets $25 non-sterilized Sportsman's permit allows up and pot-bellied to 5 dogs • pigs required Boise, ID no $15 sterilized dog 4 total(dogs and cats) $40 non-sterilized dog Non-commercial kennel license available Denver, CO yes $7 sterilized not listed • (permit required for non-sterilized pet) Multnoma County yes $9 sterilized cat 2 animals (Portland, OR area) $18 sterilized dog $30 non-sterilized Seattle,WA yes dog-$33 unsterilized, . $15 sterilized cat-$20 unsterilized, $10 sterilized potbelly pig -$115, renewal $25 • Information as of January 2004 • • Attachment B 8.04.130 Commercial And Pet Rescue Permits Required When Application- Issuance Conditions: A. 1. It is unlawful for any person to operate or maintain a kennel, cattery, pet shop, groomery, riding stable, veterinary clinic or hospital or any similar establishment unless such person first obtains a regulatory permit from the Office of Animal Services, in addition to all other required licenses and permits. 2.All applications for permits to operate such establishments shall be submitted, together with the required permit fee, on a printed form provided by the Animal Services Office to that office. Before the permit is issued, approval shall be granted by the.Salt Lake Valley Health Department, the -- Deleted:City-County appropriate zoning authority, any applicable business licensing authority, and the Animal Services Office. B. A pet rescue permit for,animals may be authorized for owners of dogs„Fats,_ (Deleted:foster J and ferrets to keep one additional Aog,cat, or ferret in a residential area, but '-(Deleted: and j no more than five (5) total licensed animals (dogs, cats, and ferrets) per (Deleted: no more than three(3)I household provided: Deleted:s or Deleted:s 1. The rescued pima i endin adoption from a local City or County � P g p Y SY. Deleted:Such j operated animal shelter or a section 501(c)(3), United States Internal Revenue Codejadditional language will be added at a later point to cover Deleted:s situations if two households are combined, or an animal is left behind Deleted:are because of the owner's death.l and -[Deleted:,humane society shelter, 2.,Approval is granted by the appropriate zoning authority,,Salt Lake Valley - - Deleted:Such animals are awaiting Health Department, and Office of Animal Services; and adoption;and¶ Deleted:City-County 4_ Adequate areas for confinement,and shelter are provided; and Deleted:areas 5. Other provisions of this Title are complied with, and no animal or premises is deemed to be a nuisance; and 6. The rescued animal is sterilized; and 7. A certification from a veterinarian to certify that the rescued animal receives regular medical care and is well cared for by the resident; and 7 The holder of a pet rescue permit assumes all responsibility for the animal .---{Deleted:6 regarding licensing, care, liability and oversight. C. Holders of a pet rescue permit shall be subject to all requirements and regulations of this Chapter pertaining to commercial establishments. (Ord. 69- 99§6, 1999: prior code§ 100-1-2e(1)) ATTACHMENT C TAYLORSVILLE CITY--8.12.110: PERMIT FOR MI ANIMALS: Where permitted by the zoning ordinances, owners of dogs and cats may obtain a permit to keep more than two (2) dogs or cats in a residential area, provided: A. Such pets are the property of a local public animal shelter or a section 501(c)(3), internal revenue code, animal welfare organization; B. Such pets are awaiting adoption; C. Compliance with zoning requirements; D.Approval is granted by the health department and the director; E.Adequate areas for confinement and shelter are provided; and F. Other provisions of this title are complied with, and no pet or premises is deemed to be a nuisance. (Ord. 03-17, 7-2-2003) • ATTACHMENT D TAYLORSVILLE CITY--8.12.090: FANCIER'S PERMIT;AUTHORIZED WHEN: A.Where permitted by the zoning ordinances, owners of purebred dogs and cats may obtain a permit to keep more than two(2)dogs or cats in a residential area, provided: 1. Such pets are individually licensed; 2. Such pets are registered with a national registry, such as, but not limited to the AKC, UKC or Field Dog; 3. Complies with zoning requirements, the health department and the director; 4.Appeal is granted by the health department and the director; 5.Adequate areas for shelter and confinement are provided; and 6.All other provisions of this title are complied with, and no pet or premises is deemed to be a nuisance. B. The holder of a permit issued under this section may keep one litter intact until the animals reach five(5) months of age; one animal from the litter may be retained until it reaches twelve(12)months of age. At no time may the holder of a permit retain more animals than is indicated on the permit. (Ord. 03-17, 7-2-2003) Pet Limit Laws: Closing the Door to Loving Homes April 10, 2000 Proponents of pet limit laws argue that these ordinances are necessary to.stop animal neglect and abuse caused by people who take in more animals than they can adequately care for. Others claim that pet limits are necessary to ensure sanitary conditions, or to maintain safe and pleasant neighborhoods. But are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack of sanitation? Or, do they end up limiting the availability of loving homes and putting the lives of dogs and cats at risk? The San Francisco SPCA has considered the various claims made for strict pet limit laws and found little in the way of evidence, or common sense, to support them. What we found was that pet limit laws: • are unnecessary to protect the well-being of people and animals • are arbitrary and intrusive • penalize responsible pet owners • force many caregivers to stop providing care to homeless animals • put the lives of even well cared-for animals at risk At the same time that household limits discourage responsible individuals from providing a good home for more needy animals, they do not prevent an irresponsible one from acquiring unlimited animals. Unfortunately, caring can't be mandated, and a pet limit law will only end up punishing those who care. Millions of compassionate people provide dogs and cats with food, love, and shelter in their homes. Others may even put aside their own needs in order to care for beloved pets. Still others work tirelessly,to feed, foster, and rehabilitate strays and unwanted abandoned animals, all at their own expense. For every one of these caregivers, a pet limit law may exact a heavy toll. Each of these individuals may face citations, fines, other penalties, and even confiscation of the animal§:th y love. For these reasons, The San Francisco SPCA opposes legislation arbitrarily limiting the number of pets a person can care for in their home. S: ..-:,C, • .: ,._::,I,: :.I .: ,z-1 Page 1 of 4 PET LIMIT LAWS ARE UNNECESSARY Are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack of sanitation? Do pet limit laws protect the well-being of people and animals? In our view, they do not. Whereas one individual may be able to responsibly care for and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one. And if problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at their disposal in terms of animal welfare, health and property rights laws. In fact, unsanitary conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all unlawful in virtually every community—regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or not. PET LIMIT LAWS ARE INTRUSIVE AND ARBITRARY Just how are pet limits determined?In one community, the limit might be two pets. In others, four, five, eight, even twenty pets might be allowed. More often than not, the number is arbitrarily chosen. Enforcement is also arbitrary. In response to concerns about pet limit laws, some communities have admitted that these ordinances "will be enforced on a complaint basis, and pets which are maintained indoors or do not raise the ire of neighbors will not generate enforcement." While it may sound reassuring to some, this justification leaves the door wide open for pet limit laws to be used as a weapon of retribution in neighbor disputes over concerns totally unrelated to pets. Laws that regulate a person's behavior inside their home should seek an appropriate balance between the public's safety and welfare and the individual's right to privacy. But while pet limit laws are highly intrusive, there is little, if any,corresponding benefit to public safety.What good is gained from an uncompromising prohibition against more than a limited number of pets, particularly if they are confined to an owner's property and create no problems? Certainly, if neighbors are totally unaware of their presence, prohibiting pets does not in any way protect or maintain anyone's health, happiness or peace of mind. And what about multi-pet households where neighbors do not mind or even enjoy the presence of these animals?In fact, there is no benefit gained from such a prohibition—nor is there likely to be any enforcement. Should government pass laws that are not going to be enforced?Should communities outlaw behavior that does not impact neighbors or interfere with the rights of others? Local governments have embraced the position that because responsible multi-pet households will not generate enforcement, these residents need not fear violating the law.In essence,Iocal governments are making outlaws out of normally law-abiding citizens and telling them it is OK to break the law as long as they don't get caught! Passing laws that aren't enforced or are enforced sporadically is unfair and counterproductive. Few people are likely to comply with a pet limit law that isn't enforced. And those who voluntarily comply can probably be counted among the most responsible pet owners in the community.There is little equity or sense in enacting a law that only ends up penalizing the very people whose behavior is already exemplary. And such a view undermines our respect for the law. Page 2 of 4 Needless to say, truly irresponsible pet owners will not be affected. If the law is not enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is selectively enforced against them, they are likely to surrender their animals, adding to the numbers of dogs and cats killed, or abandon them, adding to some of the perceived problems the law was intended to solve. PET LIMIT EXEMPTION PERMITS ARE ALSO INTRUSIVE AND RISKY Many local jurisdictions enacting pet limit laws allow caretakers who have more than the allowable number of pets to apply for an "exemption" permit. Therefore, these jurisdictions claim, "responsible" pet owners need not fear the law. This view is shortsighted and would put multi-pet households in a Catch-22: choosing between not seeking a permit and violating the law on the one hand; or, applying for a permit, but risking exposure and confiscation of their pets if they are denied. In other words, multi- pet households would fear applying for a permit, because to do so would expose them to penalties and possible loss of their beloved companions if denied a permit. And,in some jurisdictions, the exemption permit requires a "kennel" license—which cannot be granted in many neighborhoods due to zoning restrictions, no matter how "responsible" the caretaker. In short, no exemption at all! PET LIMIT LAWS PUT THE LIVES OF ANIMALS AT RISK It is not uncommon for rescued animals, particularly those who are hard-to-place by virtue of abandonment or abuse, to be in a "foster" environment for long periods of time. Foster homes are in critically short supply in almost every community and it is common for such homes to temporarily house more animals than the average pet owner. In addition, there are countless Good Samaritans who feed and care for neighborhood strays and feral cats.Many pet limit laws define these individuals as "owners" for purposes of enforcing local ordinances. It is ironic that groups and individuals rescuing and caring for homeless and unwanted dogs and cats (often at personal expense) should be targeted for restrictive and punitive legislation. Of greater concern, caregivers and rescue groups may be forced to stop caring for foster pets or homeless cats, because to do so would violate the local pet limit law, resulting in needy animals being denied care, and also leading to increased euthanasia at taxpayer expense. By contrast, the maintenance of multi-pet households or the feeding of homeless cats—including sterilization, food, and veterinary care—is uniformly accomplished by private citizens at no cost to local government or taxpayers. And pet owners targeted for enforcement may be forced to surrender their well cared- for animals to local shelters where they, too, are at risk for euthanasia and where taxpayers will have to foot the bill. PET LIMIT LAWS CLOSE THE DOOR TO LOVING HOMES A town council on the East Coast recently expanded its animal control law to include a provision making it illegal Tor any resident to own more than five cats. One resident, a 69-year old woman who cared for homeless neighborhood cats, was threatened with fines for violating the law despite the fact that she had sterilized and vaccinated all the Page 3 of 4 cats. She was given two options by local authorities: turn away the cats who came to her back door looking for food and water; or trap them and turn them over to the animal control facility where they would likely be killed. For someone who very much loved animals, this was no choice at all. Distraught by the threat of legal sanctions, however, she was forced to comply. And in a county neighboring our own, an elderly couple who cared for several sterilized and well-cared for cats at their private residence were threatened with citations and fines because of a pet limit law that allowed for the caring of only four cats. Under threat,the cats had to be relocated to avoid the risk that they would be impounded and killed at the local animal control facility.The cats lost the only home and caregivers they had ever known, and the couple lost their beloved companions. Just as pets already in homes may be threatened by limit laws, homeless pets awaiting the chance for a loving new home are also at risk as potential adopters are discouraged from adopting a stray or visiting the local shelter and saving a life. For much of history, animals were considered mere commodities who pulled our wagons, provided the products for our farms, herded our sheep, and kept our barns free of mice. During the last century, however, socio-economic and moral changes in society at large have produced changes in the status of animals as well. Many animals---dogs and cats in particular—are now overwhelmingly companions instead of servants. In addition, government laws and services have evolved from promoting animals as property to protecting them as cherished pets. At the same time, pets do so much good for the community: people of all ages, but particularly the elderly and the young, enjoy their companionship. For single people, dogs and cats can offer a welcome relief from loneliness. For children, an animal in the home provides warmth and unconditional love, and teaches responsibility and consideration for the needs of another creature. Those who suffer from disease or injury often experience a therapeutic benefit from their presence. For the lonely, a pet can provide an incentive to get up in the morning. Animals can also provide a sense of safety and security,allowing many people freedom they would not otherwise have. While pet ownership may not be a fundamental right, it is unquestionably an integral aspect of our daily life--which cannot be dismissed lightly and should not suffer unwarranted limits. In our view, there is little justification for targeting well-cared for animals and putting them at risk for impoundment and euthanasia. Page 4 of 4 Dogs & Cats Licenses AP. 3.02 Page 1 of 3 . z dahiaus nrndiarcia;c4airtu March '0 2 AN[MAL PE(1PL.E From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2002: : Dog & cat licensing compliance, costs, and effects Regulations of any kind seldom succeed unless a large majority of the people or institutions to be regulated are already voluntarily in compliance or willing-to become compliant with relatively little nudging at the time that the regulations start to be enforced. If more than a small percentage object to a regulation enough to become scofflaws, the enforcement burden becomes overwhelming, and the regulation eventually tends to be ignored or repealed. Data gleaned from the ANIMAL PEOPLE files about dog and cat licensing indicates that it follows the trend. Because compliance with pet licensing tends to be less than a third of the 90% compliance rate that is usually the minimum needed for regulations to be within the reach of effective routine enforcement,there is no demonstrable relationship between the rates of licensing compliance claimed by animal control agencies in eight representative cities whose data ANIMAL PEOPLE examined and their rates of dog and cat killing per 1,000 human residents: Dog/cat licensing rates Killed/1,000 Tucson 57% 42.9 Chicago 25% 18.2 Philadelphia 25% 19.7 Seattle 25% 11.2 San Francisco 150/a 2.6 Salt Lake City 13%9.9 Fort Worth 10% 32.1 Milwaukee 10°/0 10.5 U.S. average 28% 16.8 There is a demonstrable relationship between compliance and the cost of a license.The lowest license fees,on average, are charged in the Northeast, including the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and these states do appear to have the highest rates of licensing compliance.The next lowest fees are charged in the Midwest, with the next highest rates of compliance.The highest fees are charged in the West,whose compliance rate is only two-thirds of the rate in the Northeast. However, contrary to the findings of single-city surveys done mostly in the 1970s and 1980s, before the majority of owned dogs and cats in the U.S. were sterilized, charging markedly higher fees to license unaltered animals appears to create a disincentive to licensing more than to encourage more people to get their pets fixed.The lowest differential between the average cost of licensing intact versus altered dogs is in the Northeast, which as well as having the highest rate of licensing compliance also has a shelter killing rate of approximately half the national average. ' The widest differential is in the West, where shelter killing rates range from some of the lowest in the U.S., along the West Coast, to some of the highest, in the Southwest. The next widest differential is in the South,with the lowest licensing compliance and shelter killing rates tending to run between two and three times the U.S. norm. The Midwest, with a relatively low licensing differential and relatively high compliance, has shelter killing rates which mostly cluster http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/02/3/dogscatslicenses302.html 3/31/2006 Dogs & Cats Licenses AP. 3.02 Page 2 of 3 just above the U.S. norms. West Midwest Northeast South Dog licence, intact: $28.21 $11.72$9.72$17.86 Dog license, altered: $10.50 $4.70 $ 4.58 $ 5.93 Dog licensing compliance: 24% 28%32% 10% The dog licensing sample size per region was In the low dozens, rougly proportionate to human population distribution,and appeared to be representative of both urban and rural areas. Cat licensing is still so rare and compliance so low that the data is inherently suspect,coming from only about 25%as many jurisdictions as the dog licensing data. Nonetheless, it seems to follow the same general pattern--except that ANIMAL PEOPLE was unable to identify any jurisdiction in the Southern states which has tried to license cats. West Midwest Northeast South Cat license, intact: • $20.00$9.67$8.20 n/a Cat license, altered; $7.00 $ 7.00$4.60 n/a Cat licensing compliance: 15%2%n/a n/a The oldest regulatory approach to pet overpopulation, directed at preventing public nuisances rather than at preventing animal suffering,was to limit the number of dogs and/or cats per home.This approach has recently been dusted off and pushed again here and there as a purported defense against backyard breeders and animal hoarders. There is no evidence that it has ever worked,or will work, since enforcing pet limits is as difficult as enforcing licensing. However, ANIMAL PEOPLE was able to identify the threshholds at which all but a few dog and cat keepers would comply with pet limits.The table below shows at left the percentages of pet keepers who keep common numbers of animals, and shows at right the percentages of animal control ordinances that set limits at each number. Limits restricting the number of dogs per household to four or fewer, and the number of cats per household to six or fewer,would appear to start out with high enough compliance that effective enforcement might be possible,at least in theory. Dogs/household Limits allow 62%/one 2%/one 25%/two 26%/two 7%/three 35%/three 6%/four+ 20%/four 4%/five http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/02/3/dogscatslicenses302.html 3/31/2006 Dogs & Cats Licenses AP. 3.02 Page 3 of 3 4%/six Cats/household Limits allow 48%/one n/a 28% /two 19%/two 11°i0/three 38%/three 13%/four+ 24%/four 8%/five 5%/six --MC http://www.aninzalpeoplenews.org/02/3/dogscatslieenses302.htrn1 3/31/2006 . Sound Off Results --Petty Laws Page 1 of 3 This page is in an archival section of the web site; the information may be outdated. For current content, please visit UCSF Today at bttp//wv+lw.uccf ed.u/today/ weekly of RCMvES CALENDAR 1st appeared 14 April 2000 CAMPUS NOES CAMPUS EYE Sound Off Results — Petty Laws LIFEt3'YLE(ARTS QUICK LINKS Et ELPIRGSUSIRCES Y Da break readers are SEARCH annoyed by ordinances that OLIO limit the number of pets © ,1 I I. people can keep. "Public nuisance" laws—such as the one proposed in Concord recently and similar ones enacted in a few East Bay communities—are the real nuisance, say the majority of Sound Off Poll Today's respondents. The laws, which put a ceiling on the Headlines number of pets at 3 to 5, stem from complaints about noise, odors and excessive numbers of dogs and cats. In this week's Sound Off Poll, 13 respondents said "no" to limits on the number of pets, 4 favored the idea, and 1 was unsure. The winner of this week's Sound Off drawing is Heather Long. Here's a sampling of some of the comments: On the no side: "Pet owner behavior should be managed. Tickets should be given out to irresponsible owners who don't take care of, and clean up after their pets. Usually, when a dog barks all night, it is lonely and wants to be in the house with the family." "As long as the owner is fiscally and financially responsible and keeps pets in a safe, sanitary environment, it should be their choice . . . For someone with a big heart for animals (two by rescue), I find the problem to be individuals who get a pet, find it to be inconvenient, then abandon it to the wilds or the pound, rather than those who have many pets." "As long as the person is a responsible pet http://www.uesfeclu/daybreak/2000/04/14_soundoffhtml 4/1/2006 Sound,Off Results --Petty Laws Page 2 of 3 owner and has the means to support the care of the pets, has a house large enough to accommodate them, and they aren't causing a public nuisance, I don't think there should be a limit on the number of pets. There are so many pets in shelters that need homes, it would be unfair to deny them a good home based on a limit law." "We are heading towards a police state, and this is just another intrusion of government into our lives. What's next? We could use these same reasons to limit the number of children people have -- litter, noise and excessive waste." "Responsibility -- not the number of pets -- is the issue. A responsible owner of several pets usually is no burden, however, an irresponsible owner of just one pet can be a nuisance -- so the bottom of my shoe tells me." "It must be a really slow news week." "People who love animals and care for them safely and considerately shouldn't be penalized because someone else is causing a problem. Doesn't Concord have sufficient anti-nuisance laws and public health codes to deal with the offending persons directly?" On the yes side: "To be a responsible pet owner, there has to be some limit to how many pets you can responsibly care for. Setting that number can turn into an emotional issue. There are probably people who can care for 35 cats, or 20 dogs, but they probably don't live inside the city limits. . . . For the majority of us, 3 to 5 pets is all we can honestly take care of. People who 'love' animals so much that they take in every stray they find, and thus expose all the animals to fights and infectious diseases, and then can't afford veterinary care for them all, aren't doing the animals any favors. There are ways to help animals without keeping them all under your own roof. County animal control agencies desperately need donations and volunteers to care for the animals they remove from dangerous or cruel situations, as well as the hundreds of strays they pick up." "Dogs are overly domesticated creatures that http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/2000/04/14 soundoff.html 4/1/2006 Sound Off Results -- Petty Laws Page 3 of 3 • have lost all hygienic skills but one. If humans paused to deposit their wastes on public sidewalks, it would not be tolerated even if we then picked it up and carried it away in little plastic bags. Our cities have evolved far beyond the agrarian environment that dogs require. Also, dogs live to run and jump and bark. Few things are sadder than a dog that spends all of its time cooped up in a San Francisco apartment. On the other hand, cats are noble, serene creatures that enhance any society." Unsure: "In other countries, those 'pets, would just be eaten." The Sound Off Poll editor is taking a break this week. A new Sound Off will appear next week. Prior Sound Off Results DAYBREAK I ARCHIVES I CALENDAR I CAMPUS NOTES. CAMPUS EYE I LIFESTYLE I QUICK LINKS I HELP/RESOURCES I SEARCH Copyright©2000 Regents of the University of California.All rights reserved. Last Updated Tuesday, 15-Mar-2005 09:27:17 PST. New contact address: today_gpubaff.ucsf.edu t. http://www.ucs£edu/daybreak/2000/04/14_soundoff.html 4/1/2006 • ;NAIA. Jogs will be dogs . . . but cats won't Page 1 of 4 410 Ortz .HuxCr w.6eed, dor,(c, lrcat, toarAnt.core tetea, attozar aad/uoecee rfc a ort'd/ About What's NAIA Get .loin NAIA NAJA Newsletter Home NAIA Ne ? Library Invoed NAIA Store Links Search w lv Weblog Sigiia Dogs will be dogs . . . but cats won't By Anna Sadler, NAIA Board Of Directors&Cat Fanciers Association of America Laws being proposed, and in some cases passed, throughout the country are lumping cat and dog issues together, and are no more appropriate than attempting to put that square peg into the round hole. These pets are two different species, with totally different needs, requirements and associated social issues. Some proposals even seek to add into this legal stewpot birds, fish and small mammals such as ferrets and hamsters,as well as potbellied pigs. A proposed ordinance under consideration in the city of Houston,Texas, would effectively cause any citizen who owns and breeds "any animal, fish, reptile or fowl for sale, barter, trade, gift,rental, exhibition or other commercial purpose" in that city to purchase a breeding permit. Thus,the pre- schooler whose mother buys him a pair of guppies (and to our knowledge,veterinary science has not yet perfected a technique for neutering or spaying guppies), would necessarily be subject to the requirement to purchase a permit for$100, and to meet stringent facilities,veterinary care, and records-keeping requirements. For purposes of this article,though, we will limit discussion to laws affecting only dogs and cats . . . and hope that the lawmakers in the city of Houston display more common sense than the proposers of this ordinance. Animal control laws are ordinarily passed to protect the public health and safety of a jurisdiction's citizens, and to protect them from being subjected to undue nuisiance caused by animals. Still other laws are appropriately passed to protect animals from human-caused cruelty, abuse and neglect. While these concepts sound simple and universal,nonetheless,problems arise in wording that includes both cats and dogs in specific provisions. The laws are generally worded to address dogs,with cats thrown in as an afterthought. Begin with the basic differences between the species. Dogs can be confined to yards,while cats can scale and escape the highest fences. Some dogs can threaten public health and safety by being overly aggressive or biting, and can be viewed as a nuisance when they bark excessively or, if allowed to roam, when they strew trash. Cats protecting their territory often engage in loud battles, and leave pawprints on freshly-washed cars,but rarely destroy property. Both species become a nuisance when they defacate on other peoples'property or on public property. Both can be infected with the deadly rabies virus. The most common law for pets is one requiring vaccination to protect the pet and the people it will come into contact with from rabies. Cats are generally thought of as a more common vector for this disease because unsupervised roaming is more likely to bring them into contact with the wild animals such as raccoons and coyotes that commonly carry the virus. However, incidence in the entire country in cats is very low-288 in 1995,the last published U.S. report- despite thousands being tested each year(more than 2000 cats tested for rabies in California alone.) Certainly, because rabies is so deadly, it is appropriate that vaccination be required for any animal that is allowed out of doors. Unfortunately for cat owners, though,recent veterinary findings have linked vaccine-site sarcomas,possibly caused by the adjuvants commonly used,to the rabies vaccines, and a significant number of cats http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/catsdogs.htm 4/1/2006 NAIA Dogs will be dogs . . . but cats won't Page 2 of 4 display an allergic sensitivity to the vaccine.Because of these possibilities, many cat owners are reluctant to have their cats vaccinated, and even if their cats are kept exclusively indoors, the owners are law breakers. In association with the rabies vaccine requirements, most jurisdictions require that the animals wear tags indicating proof of compliance. Collars and tags are commonly worn by pet dogs, but again cat owners are loathe to comply. Because cats scale fences and trees, their owners reason, collars are likely to get hung up, and the cats can choke to death. This fear is, for the most part,unfounded,yet it persists. Cat owners will frequently use specially-designed break-away colors to avoid this hazard,but the most frequent result is that the collars do break away,and the tags are lost. The next most common laws involve licensing of pet animals. Dog licensing is nearly universal, and an increasing number of jurisdictions are now advocating cat licensing as well. This licensing is purportedly intended to a) encourage compliance with rabies vaccination and b) identify lost animals so that they can be returned to their owners. An erroneous secondary argument has evolved that pits dog owners against cat owners, and makes the claim that "for many years dog owners have paid,through licenses, for animal control services,and it is now time for cat owners to pay their fair share." This argument quickly loses its validity when the law is viewed as it actually is- an unpopular tax on pet ownership. Recent studies show a near-universal less than 30 percent compliance rate in dog licensing,with cat licensing compliance a dismal one percent or less,except in jurisdictions that employ costly and unpopular aggressive canvassing programs,where compliance then is never reported higher than 14 percent. Additionally, in most jurisdictions,any funds generated by licensing goes,not to animal control services,but into the general fund.Animal control services should,more appropriately, be viewed in the same manner as other public services such as police and fire protection,because the entire population benefits,and as such should be funded by a broad-based taxation of all the citizens. People who have been victims of crime are not the only taxpayers to pay for police protection. Licensing actually fails in its primary stated purpose,and discourages compliance with rabies vaccination laws. People on low or fixed income may not have their pets vaccinated for fear of fines if they are identified, and still others who may have more pets than their city allows under numbers limits, fear that their pets will be confiscated. People who feed "neighborhood" cats will not claim ownership of those cats when license fees and fines are added to the cost of vaccinations. Again, cats and dogs are different. Reclaim by owners of cats from most shelters is abysmal, and could be greatly improved by some sort of identification.Because of the cat's nature to wander, often their owners are not overly concerned if their pet is gone for a day or two,and by the time the owner begins to worry and search, likely the cat has already been euthanized or adopted to another family. Widespread, voluntary identification that is not tied to license fees could reunite many thousands of lost cats with their families. Both vaccination and licensing laws again fail to consider a basic difference between dogs and cats. Dogs are almost exclusively owned pets.Nearly half of all cats are unowned. They may be fully feral (many generations of unowned cats that reproduce in the streets and alleys), or "loosely owned"cats that benefit from the kindness of people who are willing to put out plates of food but who will not claim ownership or responsibility. These cat feeders may well respond to stringent enforcement of vaccination and licensing laws by denying the cats the simple kindness they have been receiving. On the other hand, innovative.city education/voucher programs, such as one instituted in San Jose, California,to encourage people to assume responsibility for these heretofore unowned cats are proving successful beyond even the cities'expectations. New trap-test-vaccinate-alter-return-maintain programs are proving very successful in many jurisdictions, and are promoted by national organizations such as Alley Cat Allies in Mt. Ranier, Maryland. In these programs,humane organizations identify colonies of feral cats and "caretakers" who promise to provide the basics of food and water. The cats are trapped,tested for the fatal viral diseases, vaccinated(including rabies), sterilized, and then released http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/catsdogs.htm 4/1/2006 �NATA. Dogs will be dogs . . . but cats won't Page 3 of 4 back into their controlled colonies. The colonies then do not suffer the population explosions that create a nuisiance for citizens as well as suffering on the part of the cats that overpopulate their"habitat" carrying capacity in food, water and shelter. The cats can then continue to fulfill their centuries-old public service job of controlling rodent populations in the stabilized colonies. Contrast this reasonable approach to the methods of population control of eradication by trap-and-kill that is neither humane nor effective. The growing prevalence of"cat leash laws" also fail to address the feral and unowned cat populations,and can lead to over-aggressive enforcement and trap-and-kill methods. While pet cats being kept indoors, safe from the dangers of urban life, is a laudable goal, it is one better accomplished by emphasizing the benefits to the cat and its owner. Another common law in cities and counties across the US that should be revisited is the one of establishing numbers limits.No animal law is more artibrary or discriminatory. Under these laws, dog owners are more subject to being "caught" in non-compliance than are cat owners,particularly those whose cats are kept exclusively indoors. The State of Pennsylvania, in a landmark high court decision, Commonwealth v. Creighton, abolished such numbers limits in that state as unconstitutional. The court explained that such an ordinance reached beyond the power granted to the borough to prohibit a nuisiance, absent any indication why more than the five cats or dogs allowed might constitute a nuisiance or a risk to the public health, safety and welfare. The court added, "Even legitimate legislative goals (controlling nuisiances) cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achieved." Reasonable people can easily see how one barking dog kept outdoors can be more of a nuisiance than even 10 small dogs or cats kept exclusively indoors,or how a cat allowed out to roam can be more of a nuisiance than a well-behaved dog confined to its home or yard.Yet numbers limits continue to remain in force because it is easier for cities to enforce than a law that would require proof of nuisiance or health code violation. These ordinances are the most abused of all animal control laws, and used for harassment by feuding neighbors or families. Finally,there is the wave of new laws designed purportedly to "reduce pet overpopulation" that began with the infamous San Mateo County,California, ordinance that mandated that all dogs and cats be neutered or spayed unless a breeding permit was purchased. These laws,with numerous variations on the original theme, are still being introduced in cities and counties across the US,backed by inaccurate and inflated "shelter kill" statistics, despite the wealth of current studies that show that the numbers of animals born currently bears little relation to the numbers killed in shelters.Euthanasia nationwide has dropped by 75 percent in the last 10 years,thanks to widespread education as to the benefits of neutering and spaying pets and the advent of low-cost programs and clinics to provide sterilization, as well as innovative approaches to increase adoptions. Euthanasia of dogs has fallen more dramatically than that of cats because of the large numbers of cats that are unowned or feral,with no owner to assume responsibility for the sterilization, and the hapless feral cat that is trapped is far less likely to be considered adoptable. The truly successful programs such as the ones in effect in the city of San Francisco that have virtually eliminated euthanasia of all adoptable and treable/rehabilitable animals, address the real social issues of animals, and the root causes of animals dying in shelters. Again, these breeding regulation laws are being written to encompass both dogs and cats, despite totally diverse physical,husbandry and social concerns. To enumerate only a few: • Cat breeders must of necessity keep larger numbers because the lack of effective vaccination protocols against several deadly viruses means they must be self-contained, and limits use of any outside stud service agreements; • Mother Nature demands that cats be bred more often than dogs, the failure to do so carrying consequences that mean the loss of reproductive capability. This brief article cannot address the many other animal issues that are being addressed.- either appropriately or not - by local,state and federal laws.Local animal control agencies and humane enforcement agencies must be given http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/catsdogs.htm 4/1/2006 ;1•1AIN Dogs will be dogs . . . but cats won't Page 4 of 4 the tools with which to accomplish their jobs, but all too often when laws are being considered and even passed, the lawmakers are lacking in the vital input that can only be provided by those people most knowledgeable about the specific needs and requirements of their animals.One size does not fit all in animal law, and species differences must be recognized. Only by fanciers participation in grass roots political action groups dedicated to animal issues, and by sharing of information about just such differences discussed in this article, can reasonable and enforceable laws be enacted. . . and unreasonable and restrictive laws be blocked or overturned. Participation in civic boards and commissions, such as animal shelter advisory boards can he both a public service and a guarantee of a rational voice for animal welfare. About What's NAIA Get Join NAIA NAIA Newsletter Home Links Search NAIA New? Library Involved NAIA Store WeblQg Sign-up Website design and all text are copyright 2005 by NAIA unless otherwise noted. Reproduction by any means,electronic or mechanical,is forbidden unless written request is submitted and approved. Contact the National Animal Interest Alliance at naia(anaiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/catsdogs.htm 4/1/2006 Christine Bostwick City Of Perris Senior Animal Control Officer 1015 South G Street Perris, CA 92570 951/657-4134 Office 951/943-1871 Fax Our city, population of approximately 45,000, recently changed our limit of cats per household. It was 10 cats per household and was recently reduced to 4 cats per household. Our dog limit has always been 4 per household. Along with this new ordinance we have a"Grandfather"clause, so those with more than 4 cats prior to the new limit do not have to find homes for their cats. We also, introduced a new ordinance that would allow citizens to double the amount of animals per household (8 dogs/8 cats). The citizen would have to go before the Community Development Department and apply for a minor development plan review permit. Part of that stipulation is that the citizen must have one (1) acre of property within a R-20,00 or R-10,000 (Agriculture or light agriculture) and their contiguous neighbors all must have a minimum of one-half(1/2) acre of land. The response has been mostly positive. The only negative complaints were people thinking we should lessen the number of dogs per household. Jim Weverka Animal Control Chief 3140 N Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68510 Phone 402-441-7900 Fax 402-441-8626 Attached are our cat ordinance, animals generally, and definition chapters. I have not heard anything that governments are eliminating limits. It is probably more a situation of cat individuals wanting this. I know Alley Cats has a policy of wanting to eliminate limits, impounding of cats, and licensing requirements on cats. From what I'm hearing feral cats are becoming a bigger problem in cities. The problem I see with TNVR is it encourages non members of the TNVR to be backyard feeders without spaying/neutering. Their approach additionally, the TNVR educational methods do not encourage working with governments, but rather do your own thing. TNVR is really just a one tool of many approaches to solving cat problems. We did add a permit system for individuals allowing more cats, Cattery (for breeders) and Multi-cat Household (all spayed/neutered). Our ordinance allows only a person to have only one unaltered cat other with a 5 cat limit. Otherwise, they have to obtain a Cattery permit. The limit on the permit holders is 15. I did not like the rescue permit situation as they individuals can have 5 rescue cats in addition to the 15 maximum. The cat people got their way with a council member, who changed the ordinance at the last minute. My experience has been that certain cat people tend to be the most vocal at Council Meetings. Aco Gina Manski Northbrook Police 1401 Landwehr Northbrook, IL. 60062 847-564-2060 manski@northbrook.il.us I am the Animal Control Officer for Northbrook Illinois. We have a limit of 3 dogs, cats or any combination there of. However, we also offer a"hobbyists" permit for someone with more than three. They must fill out an application and have their property inspected. All animals must be vaccinated. I am trying to push thru a spay/neuter requirement. If approved they will get the permit. If they receive 3 nuisance violations (at large, barking, bite etc.) within a 12 month period, the permit is automatically revoked. If you have any questions please contact me. Cherie, ACO—Woodland Park Colorado Woodland Park Colorado has a limit of 3 dogs and no regulations on cats. Teller County has 6 dog limit and no regulations on cats. Dogs over the limit require a conditional use permit. Command Sergeant Kevin M. Kilgore NACA Board Member Chief of Animal Control • P. O. Box 470 Hanover, Virginia 23069 Office: 804 365-6485 Fax : 804 365-6488 We are a medium sized municipal government jurisdiction with around 100,000 residents next to Richmond, Virginia. We only limit the number of adult dogs per household to five in residential areas. We have no other limits and I would say our call load is about the same as our neighboring jurisdictions that are larger with more restrictions on pet ownership. I would think the big issue is not the number of pets, but how the household takes care of them and then those laws pertaining to what you can enforce and use as tool to control those pets. David Pietarila [rebcav67@yahoo.com] Laguna Beach Animal Control Laguna Beach, California Though I work for a rather small city, we do place a higher limit on pets than the surrounding agencies. We limit to a maximum of 4 dogs and 4 cats. Technically speaking, the number of pets you have is dictated by the size of you lot however we give a lot of leeway on that one, 4 Chihuahua's in an apartment is a lot different than 4 great Danes. Should a person want more than 4, then we require them to apply for a kennel/ cattery permit at which time we do a little investigation of the area to see if it is appropriate. We also send out a letter to everyone within 300 feet of their home to see if they object. James E. Rog #531 Animal Control Officer Elgin Police Department 151 Douglas Elgin IL 60120 847-289-2529 - Office I work for the City Of Elgin Illinois . . . with a population of over 100k residents. We currently have an ordinance for dogs stating that a resident can only have 3 dogs for a single family dwelling and 2 per residence for a multi-family dwelling. Dennis Weist City of Clovis Animal Control Clovis, N.M. In the city of Clovis, N.M. we have a limit of four animal two dogs two cats, three dogs one cat, etc.. If they would like more than four at one residence they have to apply at our animal shelter for a multi-permit. Before getting the multi-permit approve we go out with a checklist and check living conditions, sanitation, food storage. If approve for multi-permit the have to get all pets spayed or neutered. Then we do monthly checks to make sure the checklist is being followed. Steve Stronk Orland Park II, Police Dept. A.0 Our limit is 3 dogs and 3 cats per house hold unless it's a bitch with pups. then residents can keep pups until 4 months old. As you well know its hard to enforce that law unless you get a complaint about that address. As far as microchip, spay and neutering we don't have that on the books but when residents get their yearly village tags they are cut a break on fees. Earle D. Wagner, NACA Certified, Code Enforcement Supervisor Winslow Animal Care Facility 548 Barrigan Rd., Winslow, Arizona 86047 Tel: Work(928)289-3232 For the record our City Code (under P&Z) says 5 total per household. Any combination of cats and dogs is what is understood. Personally and professionally, I cannot see it going any higher. Why? Just how much attention can one family give to more than that number?Also, who will be responsible? Generally its the lady of the house and she already has her hands full and don't give me that bull about the kids picking up after the dog or emptying the litter box. Yeah, right!! And... (in my opinion) more than 5 only brings about a collector mentality and you sure don't want to contribute to the "bunny hugging"collector and his or her want for more pets 'cause they are "saving them". Christy Grimmett Webb City Animal Control Officer I am the Animal Control Officer for the City of Webb City Missouri. Our population is around sixteen thousand and a few years ago we increased the number of household animals to three cats and three dogs (six total). We have not had an increase in animal calls and we only require rabies vacc and city tag. Hope this helps. Ledy VanKavage, Esq. Sr. Director of Legal Training & Legislation National Outreach ASPCA PO Box 313 Maryville, IL 62062 618-345-8086 Many cities now are just using the nuisance laws regarding pets and doing away with the pet limit laws. The reason is that some responsible owners can have a lot of animals and take good care of them, some irresponsible owners with just 1 animal can make a neighborhood unlivable. The law is usually used in neighborhood disputes and is enforced rather arbitrarily. It can also encourage people not to register their pets. You could just ask your city attorney to beef up your nuisance provisions. 2.1 Laws That Limit or Prohibit Pets The ASPCA is opposed to laws that prohibit a person from having a companion animal, except in cases where the person has been convicted of cruelty to animals, animal fighting, or other crimes involving mistreatment of animals. The ASPCA is opposed to laws that impose limits on the number or size of pets an individual may keep. The ASPCA supports rental and leasing contracts that permit tenants or apartment owners to have pets. If you need any help drafting an ordinance let us know. Barbara Murdach Ellington Animal Control Ellington, CT I work for the Town of Ellington, CT. It is a small rural town and we have no pet limits on dogs or cats. Residents in town can own as many dogs or cats as they want. We have never had a need to restrict the numbers. We enforce the licensing laws, roaming laws and nuisance laws and that seems to keep most things in check. We find that the people with larger numbers of dogs are the least likely to be the offenders of roaming or nuisance violations. Also, there are no restrictions on obtaining a kennel license. That is for a "Hobby" kennel not commercial. We find that people with kennel licenses are usually the best dog owners and most responsible. Just for your info, our licensing fee for spayed/neutered dogs is $8.00 and for unspayed/unneutered it is $19.00. Most of the dogs on our license list are spayed and neutered. We are currently doing our Door to Door survey searching for unlicensed dogs. We try to do this yearly, hitting different streets each year. Our town probably would not compare to Salt Lake City, but I thought I would share the info with you anyhow. Ms. Colin A. Berry The Humane Society of the United States Northern Rockies Regional Office Phone 303-678-9002; Fax 303-678-9007 NACA actually forwarded your question to us at The Humane Society of the United State's Northern Rockies Regional Office. We serve 8 states including Utah. First, great question! Here's an article that may be of interest: http://www.americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_legal_pet_limits/index.html Second, I think that if you change your current pet limit, you may want to look at ways to protect yourself from its future exploitation-especially if you are going to lift the limit entirely. What I mean by this is that if you lift the limit entirely, you may find that you have a more difficult time getting search warrants for cruelty/neglect cases because you can no longer fall back on the pet limit law. So, you may want to consider writing an animal hoarding law, which would provide some cushion once you raise that pet limit number. Illinois is the first state to have one, but it could easily be made into a city ordinance: http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/pubs/illinoislaw.pdf. Montana also has a similar law that increases penalties for 10 or more animals being abused/neglected. As far as statistics on the number of complaints, I don't have that. I'm not sure I've ever seen numbers like that-although they would be both helpful and interesting. As far as other cities who have dealt with this...I would contact Animal Control in San Jose, CA. I don't know if they actually did it or not, but several years ago they were considering raising the number of animals that people could have. Other communities, like Billings, MT, have a pet limit where you have to apply for a permit if you wish to house additional animals. The permit requires a fee and an annual inspection. So these may be other option for you. Eva Turner ACO City of Hibbing We increased our numbers to 4 dogs and 4 cats per residence. This was done 2 1/2 years ago. We are a city of 18,000 in northern Minnesota with a large rural area. We have not seen any increase in problems, we do not have any restrictions to have that number other than rabies vaccinations and licensing. Cats are not required to be licensed. It seems that is doesn't matter the number of animals you have (hoarders not included)either you are a responsible pet owner or not. Hope this helps Brian Rushton Sr. Animal Control Officer City of Germantown 7700 Southern Ave Germantown TN 38138 (901) 757-7358 Currently in Germantown TN we don't have limits on the number of pets that can be owned by an individual and as you can imagine we are having some problems with this policy. We are researching ways to limit private pet ownership, what ordinances work and what don't. What happens if we pass an ordinance that limits the number of cats and dogs to three animals per household and someone already owns twenty five cats? Keep me informed about what you find out we may be able to use some of your information. Deb Campbell Animal Care & Control San Francisco We do have a pet limit in San Francisco. We allow four animals per household, with a maximum of three of any one kind. For example, you could have three cats and one dog. Hope this information helps. Donna Yeldell City of Hope, Police Dept.Office of Animal Control P. O. Box 13461603 West 3rd St. Hope, AR 71802-1346870-722-2545 When we wrote a new animal control ordinance for our city we felt our city board would not want to remove the limit law, so we added a kennel license for anyone who owned more then 4 dogs (which was our limit at the time). We waved individual license fees for class B kennel owners, but they have to submit to inspection to obtain and maintain their annual license. We did this because we have never enforced the 4 dog limit when the owner was a responsible pet owner, but we did enforce the law when the owner was not responsible. The class B kennel license gives responsible owners with more than 4 dogs a way to keep their pets. I personally do not live in the city of Hope, but in a small community outside of town. When our community decided to adopt the city of Hope's animal control ordinance I fought to get the limit law removed. Why? Because I own 10 dogs and I'm never will own only 4. I'm a dog lover and I work at an animal shelter! Need I say more? I hope this helps. Vickie Lubrin License Manager Animal Control Services Snohomish County Auditors Office 3000 Rockefeller Ave Everett, WA 98201 I would be concerned that lifting the limit could lead to animal collecting or hoarding. Though we do not limit the number of cats, we do have limits of 4 dogs or more require a kennel license. Private kennels which are usually the hobby breeder kennels may have up to 10 dogs. Susan Feingold Executive Director Fulton Animal Services 860 Marietta Blvd Atlanta, GA 30318 (404) 794-0358 Our pet limit laws have not changed. There is a limit of 3 dogs without a special permit and up to 10 dogs with a special permit. There is a limit of 10 cats.