The URL can be used to link to this page

04/18/1989 - Minutes PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CII , UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, April 18, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Mr. Stoler said the Water Board Director, informed the Council was the only Board that the Coun- that they needed to convene on cil had complete control over in Thursday to take final action on selecting the members. Council- the sale of the IHC revenue bonds. member Bittner said she agreed with Ms. Fonnesbeck that the Board Ms. Gust-Jenson distributed and needed new people. Councilmember reviewed a schedule of events for Godfrey said the Council should the reopening ceremonies for the check and see if the Water Board restored City and County building. had anyone in training for a Board She mentioned that RSVPs were position, and if they didn't to needed as soon as possible in have the Council choose the next order to get tickets for certain person. events. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she had Ms. Gust-Jenson then reviewed written a letter to the Water the agenda. She said Mike Martin Board expressing the Council' s would be addressing the Council concern about the Board membership during citizen' s comments to talk and said she would speak with them about public intoxication in the again. Mr. Stoler asked the downtown area. Council if they wanted to inter- view Mr. Wilson, the reply was Concerning item E-3, reappoint- negative. ment of Charles Wilson to the Metropolitan Water District, Ms. Gust-Jenson asked if the Councilmember Stoler said they Council had any questions about forgot to ask if any of the other agenda items. Ms. Fonnes- Councilmembers wanted to interview beck asked Bill Wright, Planning Mr. Wilson prior to consideration and Zoning, if the rezoning peti- of his reappointment. Council- tions were as cut and dried as member Fonnesbeck said she was they appeared. Mr. Wright said worried that the Council had not the Redwood Road petition ( Item G- put anyone new on the Board for 1) was very straight forward but many years. She said the last there might be some questions time a vacancy came up, the Coun- about the Stringham Avenue peti- cil had to appoint the person the tion ( Item G-2) . The Council de- Water Board had in their training cided to hold their question for program. She said the Water Board the Council meeting. membership had the least turnover of all the City Boards. 89-91 PROCEOPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 18, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Fonnesbeck conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Mr. Holbrook thanked the Council and Commissioner Stewart #1. The invocation was given for their support. He thanked the by Father Joachim Hadzedhais, Mayor for putting his office at Greek Orthodox Church. the disposal of a community prob- lem which needed to be solved and #2. The Council led the said the project brought many Pledge of Allegiance. people with differing backgrounds and beliefs together. He said he #3. Councilmember Godfrey hoped the project would get con- moved and Councilmember Hardman tinued support. seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the #4b. The City Council and regular meeting held Tuesday, Mayor adopted a joint resolution April 11, 1989, which motion car- proclaiming April 28, 1989, as ried, all members voted aye. Arbor Day in Salt Lake City. (M 89-1) Councilmember Stoler read the resolution. #4a. Councilmember Roselyn Kirk presented the "Audrey Nelson Councilmember Godfrey moved Community Development Achievement and Councilmember Hardman seconded Award" to the City Council, Mayor to adopt Resolution 55 of 1989, Palmer DePaulis, Salt Lake County which motion carried, all members Commissioner Mike Stewart, and voted aye except Councilmember representatives of the Shelter the Horrocks who was absent for the Homeless Committee - Steve Hol- vote. brook, Keith McMullin and Patrick (R 89-1) Poulin. She said the plaque was given to Salt Lake City and the Shelter the Homeless Committee. COMMENTS She accepted this award in Wash- ington and said it was a very #1. Mike Martin, business prestigious award which only three owner in downtown Salt Lake City, cities received. said there was a problem on Main Street between 300 and 400 South 89-92 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 because of drunks roaming around. program which appeared to have a He said that last year there were great deal of promise in the south 500 arrests in this area. He said end of downtown. He said they this presented a burden to Salt instituted the juvenile interdic- Lake City, the police force and tion team which was extremely the cost of doing business. He effective since they made 1,000 said he personally paid for police arrests in a three-month period assistance from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 and cut the assault rate downtown p.m. to walk people to their cars by 500. He said the theft rate in the Boston garage. also dropped comparably. He said Cheryl Luke, city prosecutor, the police department had a prior- confirmed Mr. Martin' s comments ity and emphasis in this area and and the downtown merchants' prob- they would continue to work with lem. She said the city had ac- Mr. Martin and the other business- knowledged their needs and was es. working hard to meet them. She said this had been and continued Councilmember Fonnesbeck to be a problem but they had been asked Mr. Martin what else the meeting monthly with downtown city could do. Mr. Martin said he merchants to address the problem had wanted to make the Council and identify solutions. She said aware of the situation so the city the police department had in- would continue to work on the creased the mobility of their problem. He said the police had downtown officers who were now been proactive and the prosecu- using bikes and they were working tor's office was doing a good job. with the county to increase the He said part of the problem was size of the detox facility. She that once people were convicted also said the jail was now accept- there was no room in the jail so ing the city' s public inebriants he was going to talk to the county when they were a danger to them- about the detox center. He said selves or others. the current problem affected the occupancy rate in buildings and Councilmember Hardman asked affected the retail merchants. He if the clubs in the area were said he personally did not believe contributing to the problem. Ms. that 3.2 bars belonged in the Luke said there were two licensed downtown area. bar establishments that at various points in time were handling their Several owners of businesses clientele irresponsibly. She said in this area confirmed the severi- they sent letters indicating that ty of the problem. They said many the bars could lose their licenses times drunks would come into their if they continued to practice stores, would pass out in the business in this way and now they doorways, would taunt and harass seemed to be abiding by the law people entering and leaving the better. She said they had seen business, or might cause damage to improvements since they first the premises. They said this was addressed the issue about three or not good for the image of downtown four months ago. Salt Lake. Jim Jensen, police depart- Mr. Jensen said any support ment, said they had actively the Council could give by way of pushed for panhandling ordinances encouraging the county to support and reiterated that the department the city' s efforts would be help- had recently adopted the bike ful. 89-93 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 Councilmember Bittner asked 25 West. if the Council could get a report (P 88-260) from the police chief or consider ordinance changes to get these #3. RE: Approving the ap- types of bars off main street. pointments of Janet I . Embry, She thought that if they didn' t do Bruce Wycoff, Michael W. Crippen, something positive then they Ariel L. Jepson, and Richard F. wouldn' t solve the problem. Bojanowski as volunteer hearing examiners. John Schuman, chair of the (I 89-12) Planning Commission, said they needed to possibly change the #4. RE: Adopting Ordinance ordinance in order to omit 3.2 14 of 1989 making certain techni- bars from the "C-4" zone and cal changes to the sexually ori- permit only private clubs. ented business ordinance of Chap- Councilmember Stoler said they ter 61 of Title 5 of the Salt Lake couldn' t zone these businesses out City Code. of existence and Councilmember (0 89-9) Fonnesbeck suggested that planning and zoning needed to work on this issue and report back to the NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS Council. #1. RE: The Mayor' s recommen- dations for 15th Year Community CONSENT AGENDA Development Block Grant funding. Council to set a date for a public Councilmember Godfrey moved hearing to be held Tuesday, May 2, and Councilmember Kirk seconded to 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain approve the consent agenda, which public comment concerning CDBG motion carried, all members voted funding. aye. ACTION: Councilmember #1. RE: Adopting Resolution Hardman moved and Councilmember 53 of 1989 authorizing the execu- Horrocks seconded to accept the tion of a grant agreement between Mayor' s recommendations, set the Salt Lake City Corporation and the date for the public hearing, and U.S. Department of Housing and refer this to the Committee of the Urban Development for a $62, 000 Whole, which motion carried, all Emergency Shelter Grant to aug- members voted aye. ment the activities of the Salt Lake Emergency Shelter and Re- DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis source Center and the Housing said the city received 98 CDBG Outreach Rental Program of the proposals totalling over $9 mil- Salt Lake Community Action Program lion. He said the city' s alloca- (C 89-156) tion would be $3, 947,000 and capital planning had identified an #2. RE: Setting a date for a additional $200,000 from cost public hearing to be held Tuesday, savings in previous years ' July 11, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. , to projects so the total allocation obtain public comment concerning for 15th year would be $4, 147, 000. Petition No. 400-596 submitted by The Mayor said the Community Banj Investment requesting Salt Development Advisory Committee Lake City to close the alley (CDAC) had reviewed all the pro- located at approximately 750 South posals and interviewed the appli- 89-94 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 cants and he said he included this administration and $139, 250 (3%) information with his recommenda- was for contingency. In summary tions. he said he was recommending a strong emphasis in housing and He said he was impressed with asked the Council to join him in CDAC and said they had very good addressing long-term housing philosophical viewpoints especial- needs. ly in regards to their support for (T 89-7) housing. He said they had wanted to move away from allocating money #2. RE: An ordinance amend- in large blocks for streets and ing Chapter 16. 60, Salt Lake City public infrastructure and keep the Code, relating to ground transpor- funds in the neighborhoods. He tation at the Airport. said generally CDAC had good recommendations and he followed ACTION: Councilmember some of their thinking but there Godfrey moved and Councilmember were also many projects that Kirk seconded to suspend the rules needed to be finished. and on first reading adopt Ordi- nance 15 of 1989, which motion He said city staff also carried, all members voted aye. evaluated all the proposals, (0 89-10) ranked them by category and considered whether the proposals #3. RE: Reappointing Charles were for on-going projects, what W. Wilson to his second full six the program benefits were, the year term on the Metropolitan type of citizen input that was Water District Board. involved, the economic incentives, the cost benefits, and the consis- ACTION: Councilmember Stoler tency of projects with city-wide moved and Councilmember Bittner policies. He said he applauded the seconded to suspend the rules and city staff for their work. on first reading approve the reappointment, which motion car- He said there were 12 housing ried, all members voted aye. proposals totalling $1, 615,000 (I 89-14) (39% of the total funds) . He said housing ought to be the major #4. RE: An ordinance amending emphasis and neighborhoods were Title 12, Chapter 80 Section concerned about the quality of 070(F) of the Salt Lake City Code, housing as part of the fabric of relating to Riding Rules and the continued existence of safe, Regulations -- Unlawful Acts; and secure, and healthy neighborhoods. an ordinance amending Title 12, He also said there were 11 street, Chapter 12, Section 070 of the sidewalk, and storm drain projects Salt Lake City Code, relating to totalling $1, 172, 000 (28%) ; 5 park skateboards and other toy vehicles projects totalling $278, 000 (7%) ; by adding a subsection C. 2 public building projects total- ling $72,000 ( 2%) ; 10 public ACTION: Councilmember Kirk service projects totalling moved and Councilmember Hardman $351, 000 (8%) ; 5 urban amenities seconded to suspend the rules and programs totalling $38, 100 ( 1%) ; 1 on first reading adopt Ordinance planning project for $65,000 ( 2%) ; 16 of 1989 relating to riding and $2, 150 for the Percent for the rules and regulations, and adopt Arts program. He also said the Ordinance 17 of 1989 relating to remaining $414, 500 ( 10%) was for skateboards and other toy vehi- 89-95 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 Iles, which motion carried, all commercial zoning and also identi- members voted aye. fied urban design criteria which (0 89-11) included a documented need and community support for the develop- ment. She said the need existed PUBLIC HEARINGS since there were only three res- taurants (Arctic Circle, Pizza #1. RE: A public hearing at Hut, and Dominos Pizza) in the 6 :20 p.m. to obtain public comment general area to serve about 25, 000 concerning Petition No. 400-705 people. She said the residents submitted by Scott McNeil of had expressed the need for servic- McNeil Engineering requesting Salt es as proposed and said the Lake City to rezone property community council voted to support located on the southeast corner the proposal on a conceptual basis of 700 North and Redwood Road from with approval based on development "R-2A" to "B-3" classification. of the entire site as presented in their meetings. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember She said the project would be Kirk seconded to close the public located on streets which could hearing, which motion carried, all accommodate increased traffic members voted aye. since 700 North was designated as a minor arterial street and Red- Councilmember Bittner moved wood Road was a state highway. and Councilmember Godfrey seconded She said the transportation de- to adopt Ordinance 18 of 1989, partment would approve all curb which motion carried, all members cuts and UDOT would approve curb voted aye. cuts on Redwood Road. She said the developer would have to pro- DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, vide adequate parking and open planning and zoning, outlined the space, and there should be no area on a map and said a church exception to the required land- abutted the property on the south, scape set backs, buffers, and the Jordan River Parkway was to parking. She mentioned that their the east, 700 North was to the site plan provided the required north and Redwood Road was to the parking but staff had not yet west. She said there had been received a landscaping plan. requests in the past to rezone one or two lots on this corner but She said signage had to be these requests had been denied, limited to pedestrian scale and however, this proposal included the project had to be new con- several properties and dealt with struction only and not conversion development on the entire site. of residential structures to commercial uses. She said the She said the proposed use was operation couldn' t negatively a strip commercial development impact the residential area and with a full service restaurant, said the hours of operation had one or two fast-food restaurants, been discussed with the community a convenience/gas store, and ten council but had not been estab- small retail commercial spaces in lished. She said residential one building running along the properties which would be impacted back line. She said the North- were homes to the north across 700 west Community Master Plan identi- North and the church to the south. fied this area for expansion of 89-96 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 She said the Planning Com- site plan and said he was excited mission recommended approval of about the potential of this the request with the following project. He said they met with stipulations: that the final the community council three times site plan including landscaping, and was satisfied that he could lighting, signage, and traffic perform under the guidelines circulation meet the criteria outlined in ordinance. He ex- identified in the Northwest Commu- pressed his gratitude to the nity Master Plan and the standards planning staff and the community of the Salt Lake City zoning council. He said he felt this ordinance with final site plan project would be doing the commu- approval from the planning direc- nity a service. tor. She said the rezoning would become effective upon approval of Councilmember Kirk asked a building permit within one year about the gas station. Mr. from the date of approval of the Christensen said the gas station City Council. would be under a canopy and said they had been sensitive to the Councilmember Bittner asked community needs. about the pedestrian scale for signage. Mr. Jardine said the Councilmember Fonnesbeck signs would be scaled down in asked how many homes were now on size since this development was the property and Mr. Christensen based on the idea of being commu- said there was a duplex and a nity oriented rather than trying single-family home. He said they to attract traffic travelling would give the residents adequate through the area. She indicated time to relocate. that basically signs would be flat on buildings or would be Bill Eccleston, 1829 Spring- kiosk type signs which would have field, chair of the North Redwood to conform to signage requirements Community Council, said they for B-3 zones. She said she met supported development of the with the developer and explained entire parcel with the stipula- that when he developed the site he tions that had been outlined. would have to comply with the sign Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if ordinance existing at that time. they were satisfied with the traffic flow and he replied yes Councilmember Bittner asked and said the widening of Redwood when the zoning would take effect Road would facilitate the traffic. and Ms. Jardine said after they Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked had obtained a building permit about the loss of housing and Mr. the zoning would take effect on Eccleston said the people living the entire site. She explained there accepted the developer' s that he had one year to obtain a offer. building permit which could be a permit for one structure, but at Kim Anderson, 768 North that time he would be required to Redwood Road, said he was con- construct the building and put in cerned about lighting past 11:00 the full landscaped area and curb, p.m. which would affect the neigh- gutter and sidewalk on 700 North boring condominiums. He also and Redwood Road. expressed concern that this devel- opment would force a commercial Elliott Christensen, McNeil zone on the north side of 700 Engineering, showed the Council a North and said he opposed any 89-97 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 future commercial zoning on that side of the street. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Councilmember Fonnesbeck Hardman seconded to close the asked if the neighborhood could public hearing, which motion look at the building plans before carried, all members voted aye. the permit was granted and Ms. Jardine replied that they could Councilmember Stoler moved but she thought the city had dealt and Councilmember Hardman seconded with the issue that concerned the to adopt Ordinance 19 of 1989 community by requiring the land- rezoning the area from C-1 to R- scaping and curb, gutter and 3A, which motion carried, all sidewalk. Councilmember Fonnes- members voted aye. beck also said she thought Mr. Anderson had a legitimate concern DISCUSSION: John Schuman, about the lighting issue. chair of the Planning Commission, Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she briefly outlined the history of would be satisfied if the develop- the zoning for this area. He said er said he would do a courtesy in October of 1985 the Sugar House call back to the neighborhood. Master Plan was adopted and the Planning Commission had recommend- Councilmember Bittner said ed that this property be zoned she thought there was a need to from C-3 to R-5, which did not look at the zoning on the east occur. In 1986 the City Council side of Redwood Road from about changed the zoning from C-3 to C-1 300 North to 700 North and thought and in 1988 a member of the Coun- it was important to have a compre- cil submitted a petition to rezone hensive idea as to what the city the property from C-i to R-3A. He wanted to have happen to this said as the Planning Commission property. She said she thought reviewed this recent petition it that as the Redwood Road widening was evident that with the railroad was completed there would be tracks going through the property, pressure to make the area commer- rather than a zoning change the cial. She said in the past they master plan needed to be revisited had talked about the possibility in order to consider another of a transitional overlay zone and solution. He asked the Council to she thought the community controls consider this suggestion. built in to that zoning would be effective for this area. She Bill Wright, planning and suggested that if the neighborhood zoning department, outlined the was amenable than perhaps planning area on a map and said the proper- could look at the transitional ty was located between 5th and 6th overlay for that strip of Redwood East and between Wilmington and Road. Stringham Avenues in the Sugar (P 89-92) House Neighborhood. He said the property was currently zoned C-1 #2. RE: A public hearing at and was occupied by commercial 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment structures and businesses with concerning Petition No. 400-662 railroad tracks which bisected the submitted as a legislative action northern portion of the property. to rezone property located between He said the Planning Commission 500 and 600 East and Wilmington reviewed this rezoning petition on and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" three occasions and ultimately to "R-3A" classification. denied it with a four to three 89-98 PROCEEuINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITT, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 vote. He said the minority posi- residential land uses. He said tion of the Planning Commission they would lose the potential for felt the important issue was that medium residential uses if someone if the master plan was to imple- removed an industrial use and ment housing in this area in the replaced it with a new C-1 commer- long term then the city couldn't cial development. "market" the property as commer- cial. He said currently the Councilmember Hardman asked businesses in the area were non- if this was still a target area conforming subsequent to the and Mr. Joyce said yes. zoning change from C-3 to C-1. He Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how said they would retain the noncon- realistic it was to build residen- forming status no matter what tial units in this area. Mr. action the Council took at the Wright said the Planning Commis- meeting. sion also raised this point but the staff responded that if the Everett Joyce, planning and area wasn't in a residential zone zoning department, said this area now then the city effectively was in the middle of the Sugar wasn't marketing it as residen- House target area plan which was tial . He said the street systems adopted in 1974. He said the serving the area were residential- surrounding neighborhood, from ly designed and not designed for 2100 South to I-80 and from 500 to heavy commercial traffic, which 700 East, was basically a low- impacted the quality of the neigh- density residential neighborhood borhood. He said this remnant of and said there were 360 housing C-1 existed only because of the units and a population of 900 in rail line. this area. He said the railroad tracks came from the west, went Councilmember Hardman asked through Fairmont Park and serviced how many housing units were on the Granite Furniture; from 700 East property in question. Mr. Wright to Fairmont Park the tracks cut said there were no housing units through residential areas. in the commercial area but said the area on each side of the He said the target area plan property was zoned R-2. Mr. Joyce allowed for the infusion of feder- said the north properties were al money into the area, and single-family homes and duplexes through block grants the city made and there were triplexes, four- money available to preserve the plexes and single-family homes to homes and had also done sidewalk the south. and street repairs. He said the target area plan and the 1986 Mr. Wright referred to envi- master plan both identified this ronmental concerns regarding the area for preservation and elimina- Wasatch Plaza site and said there tion of high commercial industri- were extensive studies done by the al-type uses. He said to mitigate EPA and the State of Utah Health the existing problems the railroad Division in 1985 which determined tracks needed to be removed and that there were some contaminates the zoning needed to be changed. on the site but they were in the process of remedying the "hot He said the planning staff' s spots" . He said they planned to viewpoint was that a C-1 zone remove the contaminated soil and was not appropriate since the city replace it. wouldn't be able to market future 89-99 IIIP PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 Dianna Smoot, chair of the to be replaced in 4 homes and an Sugar House Community Council, apartment across the street. He said they didn't want this problem mentioned that employees had been in the future, they wanted hous- burning material in an open barrel ing. She envisioned beautifying and at one point the fire got out this area by taking out the tracks of control and they had to call and putting in a bicycle path. the fire department. He said She also said they didn't want to there was also an old underground put anyone out of business but gas tank to the southeast of the wanted to preserve the area for building under the driveway. the future by down zoning it. She said the community council Councilmember Stoler told Mr. accepted this 100%. Daniel he would call the Board of Health again and also said he Alma Edwards, 554 Wilmington, would check to find out if the gas said that his property was within tank had been filled with water. 10 feet of the area in question. He said he was representing many Councilmember Stoler said it citizens and they had fought for 5 was important to rezone because of years to get something done to the possibility of a new business make this area more enjoyable. He that might come in and he reiter- said he opposed the commercial ated that there were many nice, zoning and said because of the well kept homes in the area. He current businesses, there were indicated that they had tried to chemical problems and noise prob- keep the businesses in Sugar House lems. He asked the Council to grouped together and he was con- give consideration to the resi- cerned that if they didn' t rezone dents since they currently suf- the area then they'd eventually fered experiences of discomfort. lose the residential potential plus the homes now in the area Councilmember Fonnesbeck said would become run down. In regard that if the Council changed the to the railroad tracks he indicat- zoning the use wouldn' t change ed that the tracks may not be over night and Mr. Edwards said removed but said the area could be he understood that but it would be landscaped. a step in the right direction. Councilmember Fonnesbeck Willy Eysser, 530 Wilmington, asked what would happen in regard and Harold Luker, 550 Wilmington, to the toxic waste and trash also opposed the current zone and burning. Mr. Wright said there wanted the area down zoned. had been enforcement by the health department, the building and Charles Daniel, 541 String- housing department had sent out ham, said he lived next to Henry' s enforcement officers, and a few Industrial Laundry. He expressed cases had gone before the Board of his concern about the toxic chemi- Adjustment. cals used in this business which were stacked outside on the load- Councilmember Stoler said he ing dock. He said he had contact- had a letter from the state which ed the health department about the indicated that they had given the chemicals but had not heard back Wasatch Plaza area a clean bill of from them. He also said the heavy health and they would clean out vibration from washers and dryers the hot spots. ruined the water system so it had (P 88-346) 89-100 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 #3. RE: A public hearing of franchises and the terms and at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public conditions thereof, which motion comment concerning and consider carried, all members voted aye. adopting an ordinance amending Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code DISCUSSION: Rodger Neve, relating to Cable Communications director of administrative servic- by adding a new chapter 5.21 es, said this issue was discussed providing for the customer service at length over the last several standards of cable franchises; an months and had finally been ordinance amending Title 5 of the brought to a successful conclu- Salt Lake City Code relating to sion. He said this had been a cable communications by adding team effort on the part of the Chapter 5.20A granting a 15 year, city, and the Council and Mayor non-exclusive franchise to TCI had been very supportive as the Cablevision of Utah, Inc. ; and an city negotiated with the cable TV ordinance amending chapter 5.20 of company. He said previously they the Salt Lake City Code relating had a 35-year franchise which was to cable communication; providing passed in 1966 and it was a poor for the granting, renewal and franchise for the city. He said enforcement of franchises and the the cable TV company allowed the terms and conditions thereof. city to redo the existing fran- chise and now the city had the ACTION: Councilmember most modern and well researched Godfrey moved and Councilmember franchise. He said they had good Horrocks seconded to close the cooperation from TCI, the cable TV public hearing, which motion company, and he said the city was carried, all members voted aye. at a point to operate better. Councilmember Godfrey moved Councilmember Stoler asked and Councilmember Kirk seconded to about the schedule of rates and adopt Ordinance 20 of 1989 amend- how they were changed. Mr. Neve ing Title 5 by adding a new Chap- said the city didn' t have control ter 5. 21 providing for the custom- over rates and Bruce Baird, er service standards of cable attorney' s office, said that under franchises, which motion carried, the 1986 federal cable TV act, the all members voted aye. only cities which could regulate rates were those where the cable Councilmember Godfrey moved communications company was in a and Councilmember Kirk seconded to monopoly position. He said Salt adopt Ordinance 21 of 1989 amend- Lake City could not regulate rates ing Title 5 by adding Chapter or channel position and said the 5.20A granting a 15-year, non- proposed ordinances allowed as exclusive franchise to TCI Cable- much regulation as possible under vision of Utah, which motion federal statute. carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Stoler asked Councilmember Godfrey moved if the cost to the consumer would and Councilmember Kirk seconded to increase to cover the $70, 000 adopt Ordinance 22 of 1989 amend- franchise fee. A representative ing Chapter 5 .20 relating to cable from TCI said the fee was part of communication, providing for the the cost of doing business which granting, renewal and enforcement would be included in the billing. Mr. Baird said Salt Lake City would get a pro rata share of 89-101 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1989 every dollar that the cable compa- No one opposed this issue. ny received. He also said this (0 89-8) would be a 15-year franchise with termination and extension provi- sions. He pointed out that they The meeting adj rued at did three separate ordinances so 8:20 p.m changes could be made more effi- ciently. Councilmember Bittner said COUNCIL HAIR that supposedly 85% of the calls would be answered within three minutes and asked if there was any way to monitor this. Mr. Baird said they had requirements that CI Y E DER the company keep logs and monitor- ing equipment. He said that according to Rodger Neve, the volume of complaints had gone down dramatically since the company voluntarily adopted the standards eight or nine months ago. Councilmember Bittner asked if cable service was available all over the city. Mr. Baird said it wasn' t 100% available yet and Councilmember Kirk asked if they could find out where cable had not yet been installed. Mr. Baird said that the company was required to give the city a plan of expan- sion and update it so the city would know when cable was moving into new areas. He also said there was a provision that if there were enough interested subscribers in an area then the company would be obligated to install cable. A TCI representative said they were basically 99% complete with just one or two small pockets still waiting. He said they were concentrating on getting service to those areas. Councilmember Kirk asked if there was any way to know where those pockets were and the TCI representative said he could get her a map. He also thanked the city staff, adminis- trative services and attorney's office, for their work. 89-102 wok, w ihoi,s , Wet 1I have (Yld SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA i, i c_ Bonds On CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, April 18, 1989 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Suite 300 City Hall, 324 South State. 1. Report of the Executive Director. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4a. Council Member Roselyn Kirk will present the "Audrey Nelson Community Development Achievement Award" to the City Council, Mayor Palmer DePaulis,u0itl and representatives of the Shelter the Homeless Committee. - (o nrn• Sfeoxt }j¢ 4b. The City Council and Mayor will adopt a joint resolution proclaiming April' 28, 1989 as Arbor Day in Salt Lake City. C. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. A A �t 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. - M(Le, 3C✓'f i 17011 l(, In 1-061 CGS . D. CONSENT: 1. Grant Agreement - Emergency Shelter Grant. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of a Grant Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a $62,000 Emergency Shelter Grant to augment the activities of the Salt Lake Emergency Shelter and Resource Center and the Housing Outreach Rental Program of the Salt Lake Community Action Program }��pnl_pe obo (C 89-156) CAP EDr HI)Q? 5-, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 2. Petition No. 400-596 - Banj Investment. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, July 11, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. , to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment requesting Salt Lake City close the alley located at approximately 750 South 750 West. (P 89-260) F\) IPvj clo of" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. I ue s � heorn n 6 0, no- p r >j 1 1 o se f 0-(4Pr D. CONSENT Cor, 3. 3. Hearing Examiners - Appointments. Consider approving the appointment of Janet I. Embry, Bruce Wycoff, Michael W. Crippen, Ariel L. Jepson, and Richard F. Bojanowski as volunteer Hearing Examiners. (I 89-12) U0� STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 7 t l(C r 4. Sexually Oriented Businesses. (i ? pea k Consider adopting an ordinance making certain technical changes to the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance of Chapter 61 of Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Community Development Block Grant Funds. Mayor Palmer DePaulis will present his recommendations for 15th Year Community Development Block Grant Funding. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, May 2, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. , to obtain public comment concerning CDBG funding. (T 89-7) 61(.qa/ t I t f��4- (I k iern(io STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept recommendations, set date, and refer to Committee of the Whole. 2. Ground Transportation. Consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 16.60, Salt Lake City Code, relating to ground transportation at the Airport. (0 89-10) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules, Adopt on First Reading. 3. Metropolitan Water District - Reappointment. fC_()n l(c.,I CUB = Cflhfl • Consider reappointing Charles W. Wilson to his second full six year term on ('P<arrnen, (1 the Metropolitan Water District Board. I (� 1J/ (I 89-14) CUOn(1 l ��•( ) ,rnenn I Lei (� f -tt� b��-L STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Consent. �vl �)� 4. Central Business District - Bicycles. n ^�Z,� IL Consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 12, Chapterl( 80 Section 070(F) tr\O of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Riding Rules and Regulations -- Unlawful Acts; and an ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 12, Section 070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to skateboards and other toy vehicles by adding a subsection C. (0 89-11) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules; Adopt onFirst Reading.` ALb-briG, -- I. :)- Sori i ,t SCE(P ��. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Petition No. 400-705 - McNeil Engineering. 6: 20 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-705 submitted by Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" classification; and consier adopting an ordinance relating thereto. r`(l l,tt. �� W AJ(Sl t 1 (P 89-92) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. t?� r1' . 2. Petition No. 400-662 - Legislative Action. 6: 30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-662 submitted as a legislative action to rezone property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" classification; and consider adopting an ordinance relating thereto. \!1 1 `(P 88-346) r �J✓ (00(j E 0Sf wAA,ri iti wGCrhCSU j() STAFF RECOMMEENDATION: Close Hearing. 3. Cable TV Ordinance. G c(i e e here 11 50 I Tom b 6:40 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Cable Communications by adding a new chapter 5. 21 providing for the customer service standards of cable franchises; an ordinance amending Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to cable communications by adding Chapter 5. 20A granting a 15 year, non-exclusive franchise to TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. ; and an ordinance amending chapter 5. 20 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to cable communication; providing for the granting, renewal and enforcement of franchises and the terms and conditions thereof. (0 89-8) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. • ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TARN AID/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: arid /II, I/4-7 4 . BY: / } %�� _ ) CHIEF- DEPUTY CITY RECORDER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 14th day of April, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within City Hall, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, 5th Floor; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the. Newsroom, Room 336. \i . CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of April, 1989. i -..7P.- .,40110. __, • . " P •lic residi • Ni- State of Utah My Commission Expires: '.,, ,? /- APPROVAL: , G EXECUT DIRECTOR A JOINT RESOLUTION OF.THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF 0(.6,SALT LAKE.CITY, UTAH Resolution No. of 1989 WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Utah has adopted an Act designating the last Friday in April as Arbor Day; and WHEREAS, Utah's pioneer settlers planted and cared for trees because of their usefulness and the beautiful environment they provided; and WHEREAS, Trees are a most valuable resource in our city today, purifying our air and water, helping conserve our soil and energy, and enriching our lives in so many important ways; and WHEREAS, Disease, insects, and pollutants have damaged and continue to threaten our trees, creating the need for reforestation and concerted public action toward ensuring the future of our urban forest; and • WHEREAS, Salt Lake ity has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and is committed to receiving this award in future years to come. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis do hereby proclaim the 28th day of April, 1989, as ARBOR DAY • in Salt Lake City, and urge citizens to become more aware of the importance of trees to the well-being of our City, and to participate in tree planting programs which will help to ensure a green and beautiful Salt lake City in the decades to come. DATED this 18th day of April, 1989. Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis W. M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Florence B. Bittner L. Wayne Horrocks Sydney R. Fonnesbeck Alan G. Hardman V.' S ' T� eP� I'I � ,� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111... ' 535-7902 -' TO: City Council Members rvA FROM: Bob Gore - - Date: April 14, 1989 RE: Execution of a Grant Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for an Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Salt Lake City Corporation has been awarded an Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) in the amount of $62,000 from the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . This ESG is to be disbursed to two homeless provider subgrantees as follows : 1 . The Salt Lake Community Shelter and Resource Center is to receive $57, 000 for maintenance, utilities and renovation. This is in keeping with the purpose of the ESG is to provide assistance to homeless people because the Shelter and Resource Center serves the largest number of homeless in Salt Lake City on a daily basis . This also maintains the City's commitment to the Shelter. 2 . The Salt Lake Community Action Program is to receive $5,000 for its Salt Lake Housing Outreach Rental Program (HORP) for homeless prevention through short-term subsidies toward rent and mortgage payments for families in peril of eviction or foreclosure and to provide security deposits or first month's rent enabling families to secure long-term housing. The State of Utah is providing such assistance to non-entitlement areas throughout the state and requested that we provide some such assistance within the city. Also, this is an activity that falls within ESG guidelines . CONTRACT RU . . 1NG t, ll REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Development Services DATE: 3/31, DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: Bob Gore Execution of Grant Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the SUBJECT: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develo m SIGNATURE: --/f7 ,6— YES NO Number of Executed Documents Required: Insurance Required X Expected Contract Completion Date: 6/90 Insurance Attached X FINANCE COMMENTS: 72-14605' Account Number: ATTORNEY COMMENTS: (Larry Spendlove) RECORDER COMMENTS: returned to on -- (contact or d?pte ) ate SALVIA ! GORPO `=" , Ir DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 March 31 , 1989 TO: Honorable Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor RE: EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT Recommendation: That the Mayor sign the three ( 3 ) attached grant agreements for an Emergency Shelter Grant . Availability of Funds : Salt Lake City Corporation has been awarded an Emergency Shelter Grant in the amount of $62 , 000 from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Discussion: The Emergency Shelter Grant is to be disbursed to two (2) homeless provider subgrantees as follows : 1. The Salt Lake Community Shelter and Resource Center is to receive $57 , 000 for maintenance, utilities and renovation. 2. The Salt Lake Community Action Program is to receive $5 , 000 for its Salt Lake Housing Outreach Rental Program (HORP) for homeless prevention through short-term subsidies toward rent and mortgage payments for families in peril of eviction or foreclosure and to provide security deposits or first month' s rent enabling families to secure long-term housing . Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these agreements. Sincerely, Rosemary DaVis Director SALT' ' ;,7TY GORPO° IO 1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 March 31 , 1989 535-7902 TO: Honorable W. M. "Willie" Stoler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a grant agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Emergency Shelter Grant . Availability of Funds : Salt Lake City Corporation has been awarded an Emergency Shelter Grant in the amount of $62, 000 from the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development. Discussion: The Emergency Shelter Grant is to be disbursed to two ( 2 ) homeless provider subgrantees as follows: 1 . The Salt Lake Community Shelter and Resource Center is to receive $57 , 000 for maintenance, utilities and renovation. 2 . The Salt Lake Community Action Program is to receive $5, 000 for its Salt Lake Housing Outreach Rental Program (HORP) for homeless prevention through short-term subsidies toward rent and mortgage payments for families in peril of eviction or foreclosure and to provide security deposits or first month' s rent enabling families to secure long-term housing. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these agreements . Sincerely, b-j\ Rosemary Davis Director RFSnT,UTTON NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OP A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved a $62 , 000 Emergency Shelter Grant to Salt Lake City Corporation; and WHEREAS, this Emergency Shelter Grant contribute to the alleviation of homelessness in Salt Lake City through augmenting the activities of the Salt Lake Emergency Shelter and Resource Center and the Housing Outreach Rental Program of the Salt Lake Community Action Program; THEREFORE, BE I`I' RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the attached Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement. 2 . Palmer DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said Grant Agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of April, 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER U.S. XPARIhNT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE J1 IAPMENT EMERGENCY SHELIER GRANTS Funding Approval UnderP the &--. ° - ' -- '1`''{ Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act - ` (Public Laws 100-77 and 100-628) ' t,' ; ; 1. Min OF APPLIiEar 2. GRANT N.t Z SALT LAKE CITY, UT S-89-MC-49-0002 3. APPLIOIQT ACMES (Incllxb Street, City, aunty, State, and Zip Orb) 4. DOE CF APPLICATION 02-06-89 ERIE Capital Planning and Programming Division 5. APPLIMIEN REDD 324 South 'ate, Room 240 BY HD 02-13-89 Salt Lake City, UT84111 6. From APPKNAL n Pt DENT O. 7. CE' EMX.ENa SELTER GPFINIS PR' FM FU'I APERDV D a. A rar>t. of E P Ftrds a tartly keened fcr this Appliaert $ 6 2,000 b. Apt of EaP Fires Nba Beirg Approved for this Applicant $ 62,0 00 e. Mart of R3servetian to be Celled (Lire % rrdrus 70) $ -0- 8. SPEL?AL CLTffi11 (a Eck app iaahle t r x ) a. rf Nct Applicable b. II Attachal 9. t»APPi iLAAII'MIMED FU'CENG HAS Bel PiMERIZ D: MAR 0 6 1999 US. 7Etszr CF FIIh'IIT kD UMW IEJELLRENL' BY FOR _ Director, Office of CPD TlIIE \9:\ DUE EID ACCCIIMG UEE QLY B?IIQi ?PG PR1i I A FES AF€P► LDIM3NII'N3 MEM'NJwffit I I , L , , 1 4 . 1. 12 13 14 16 18 23 34 35 1 EFFELITVE F /1 IN1' 2 BRIE NJ 1111111111111 ,Id_ Ll liii ! Revised 1/89 • GRANT AGREEMENT - LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTEE EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM This Grant Agreement is made by and between the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Salt Lake City, 11T , the Grantee. The grant which is the subject of this Agreement is authorized by Subtitle B of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Pub. L.100-77, approved July 22, 1987 (the "Act") and the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act, Pub. L. 100-628, approved November 7, 1988. The grant is also subject to HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 576, as now in effect, and as may be amended from time to time, and the Notice on the 1989 Emergency Shelter Grants Program (54 FR 750; January 9, 1989) which are incorporated as part of this Agreement. Also incorporated as part of this Agreement are the application and the certifications described in the Act and at 24 CFR § 576.51(b) , which must be transmitted to the Secretary pursuant to section 524 of the Act. In reliance upon the application and certifications, the Secretary agrees, upon execution of the Grant Agreement, to provide the Grantee grant funds in the amount provided in the attached HUD Funding Approval form, which constitutes a part of this Agreement. The grant is made subject to any special conditions in the Funding Approval form. The Grantee agrees that failure to obligate grant funds by the 180th day following the grant award by HUD (or such later date as HUD may approve) will result in such funds being deemed "unused", and in their becoming available for reallocation by HUD without further notice to the Grantee, in accordance with the regulation appearing at 24 CFR §576.67. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations in using funds provided under this Grant Agreement and to accept responsibility for ensuring compliance by subrecipient entities to which it makes funding assistance hereunder available. The Grantee further agrees to comply with the provisions of the environmental requirements of 24 CFR Part 58 as applicable under section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 with respect to funds provided under this Grant Agreement. 1 /P • This Grant Agreement is hereby executed by the Parties on the dates set forth below their respective signatures, as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Secretary of Housing and Urban Development By: (Sigiatiire) FOR (Grantee) Director, Office of CPD it e) (Signature) (Date) (Title) (Date) 1 /ii0 smvaiwyfewoRmitcNi DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ,RAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council April 5, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing. on July 11, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment. The petitioners are requesting that the alley located at approximately 750 South 750 West be vacated. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The petition was originally denied because it was first believed that the alley was not public but private but after further checking it has been determined that the alley is public. The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this petition and recommend that the alley be closed and sold to the petitioner for fair market value. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: r ------ _ CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Closing a portion of an alley at approximately 750 South 750 West in Salt Lake City, Utah pursuant to Petition No. 400-596-88 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY AT APPROXIMATELY 750 SOUTH 750 WEST IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-596-88 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as a alley and that closure of said alley will not be adverse to the general public' s interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an alley at approximately 750 South 750 West in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-596-88 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley, with the title remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value and repayment to the City of the cost of a City approved valuation appraisal : Said alley is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 13. 25 RODS EAST AND 5 ;. RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 8, BLOCK 15, PLAT "A" , SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE /dl NORTH 38. 5 FEET; THENCE EAST � ROD; THENCE SOUTH 38. 5 FEET; THENCE WEST 11 ROD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. �> SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above enclosure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- ,t. Copy SALT MIE' ( CORPORATION FINANCE,DEPARTMENT - LANCE R. BATEMAN.CPA Purchasing apd Property Mcinageyyment,D vision PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 324,SOUTH:STATE STFCEET e MAYOR SALT LAKE GTY UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 PROPERTY 535-7133 April 11, 1988 TO: Doug Dansie Planning and Zoning FROM: Eric H. Thorpe . Property Manage RE: PET. 400-596, BANJ INVESTMENT I have reviewed the subject petition and recommend that this alleyway be closed, and that the petitioner be required to purchase the property and reimburse the City for the cost of a market value appraisal. Please contact me at ext. 6308 if you have any questions. EHT/bf cc: G. L. Failner (A) l\n ) 3/4°777) sS p \)/111> Tb /A 1 L' ✓41/ME- • • • ALLEN C. JOHNSON ,, MEMBERSj`,/ PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY,GRbytR SANDRA MARLER SALT LAKE- CITY CORPOIATION LAV�NE—L DDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY RICHARD-- DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICESP. HOWA EX-O FFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH NEILSON IIAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN i1-v TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE-CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN TY BUILDING OFFICIAL PETER VANALSTYNE 535-7757 KATHY WACKER March 3 , 1989 Craig F . Peterson , Director Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City, UT RE: Petition No. 400-596 Banj Investment Dear Craig : Please find attached Petition No. 400-596 requesting SLC vacate an alley between parcels #15 -12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 750 South 250 West . After reviewing the petition, it is recommended that the petition be approved and the alley be sold at market value. Respectfully , Allen CC . ohnson AICP Planning Director ACJ/jn cc : Engineering Fire Property Mgmt . Public Utilities Transportation I � l ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALTT �� -LeeilYT C RP RAT " I THOMAS A. ELLISO N w••TAIL"`eW • SECRETARY LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD E WA RALPH P. -NEILSOLSON 1AYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOL.ATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL PETER VANALSTYNE 535-7757 KATHY WACKER July 13, 1988 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Department of Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition No. 400-596 - Banj Investment Dear Craig: Please find attached Petition No. 400-596 by Banj Investment requesting Salt Lake City vacate an alley between parcels n15-12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 750 South 25 West. After reviewing the petition it was determined that the alley is a private right-of-way, not owned by the city. It is recommended that this petition be filed with no action taken and the petitioner be advised of the private status of the right-of-way. To resolve the issue, the petitioner should research the deeds at the County Recorders office to determine the owners and work with them individually. Respect` 11y, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Acting Planningni Director at tachmrif ACJ:DD cc: Engineering Fire Property Management Public Utilities Transportation EXPANDFI) ONE STOP REVIEW DATE: May 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-596-88 Alley Vacation - between parcels #15-12-233-015 and #15-12-233-006 COMMENTS: Enginccring:No objection. Fire: No objection, would prefer entire alley closed. Planning: No objection. Property management: No objection. Public Utilities: No objection. Transportation: No objection, would prefer entire alley closed. cc: Engineering Fire Property Management Public Utilities Transportation Aa nti_ gave,1rnen Co in p an D. Eric Ensign General Manager 370 East South Temple, Suite 501 ,�rr� r Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SALT' i CITY(C( Telephone (801) 531-0364 Home (801) 943-2123 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RAIL E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777 July 20, 1988 Mr. D. Eric Ensign Banj Investment Company P.O. Box 20 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Dear Mr. Ensign: I have received your request to vacate an alley located between parcels #15-12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 740 South 25 West. After reviewing the petition it was determined that the alley is a private right-of-way, not owned by the city. The City therefore, has no jurisdiction over the right-of-way. To resolve the issue, research would need to be done on the dccd at the County Recorders office to determine the owners and work with them individually. If you have any questions, please contact LuAnn Fawcett of my office. Yours truly, cat CRAIG E.t PEI'ERSCN >�,�' l ITVp�p tiL Director 6 & lf/ • cc: Petition No. 400-596 ,t .(-a �'�6-#. 6. 51t'W 4F- C. . (53 PALMER DEPAULIS "'t' , ( `��.r��i�• o_u 1i.7w► �� .ram e .�.. MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR. SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7704 March 14, 1989 V. M. "Willie" Stoler, Council Chairperson and Members of the City Council 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 -;, Dear. Willie: • t Under Sections 5.02.230 and 5.02.280 of the City Code, hearings to consider suspension, revocation, denial or approval of business licenses may be • conducted by the Mayor or by hearing examiners appointed by the Mayor upon the advice and consent of the City Council . The City Attorney' s office has been requested by the City Licensing Division to assist in arranging for and conducting hearings. The City Attorney's . office has found a need to have independent hearing examiners who are not employees .of the City. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of these hearings and the need for some familiarity with administrative procedures and rules of evidence, members of the Utah State Bar with proper qualifications are best suited to handle this type of assignment. The City Attorney's office advertised in the Utah Bar Journal for volunteer attorneys who would be willing to serve in this capacity, without pay, as a public service. I have received the applications and am recommending the appointment of five individuals. They are: Janet I. Embry, Bruce Wycoff, Michael W. Crippen, Ariel L. Jepson and Richard F. Bojanowski . I am enclosing the resumes of each of these individuals. I have recommended five candidates because there is an advantage to having several hearing examiners appointed so that the hearings can be rotated through them without causing a great burden on any one particular hearing examiner. • -2- If approved, these examiners will serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, / e w Mayor PAD/EC:lc Enclosures • • • • • • • :�=is ROGER F. CUTLER ` 1 A` a V/VI D e rIOO l�\i ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY r+�morr � ��G,IIr111�s...� .► V-a.��.�� r RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, FIFTH FLOOR LARRY V. SPENDLOVE BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR (801) 535-7788 FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS • DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA • RICHARD G. HAMP April 4, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Cindy Gust Jenson, Director Office of the City Council 324 South State Street, Third Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Technical Amendments to SOB Dear Cindy: Accompanying this letter you will find an ordinance making certain minor technical corrections to the City' s Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as suggested by the City Prosecutor' s Office. The first change clarifies a prohibition about sexually oriented business employees committing sex acts to avoid a potential problem caused by a recent ruling in a Provo case. The second change closes a technical contracting loophole concerning legitimate artistic modeling. The third change strengthens the City' s ability to take away out-dash call licenses based on out call employee activities off of the licensed premises. These changes should be made as soon as possible. If you or any member of the Council has any questions please call. Sincar , R. BA D Assistant City Attorney BRB:rc Enclosures �' ri .� SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE i No. of 1989 (Technical amendments to Sexually Oriented Business ordinance Chapter 61 of Title 5 ) AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ORDINANCE OF CHAPTER 61 OF TITLE 5 OF THE SALT LAKE.. CITY CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council believes it appropriate to make certain technical corrections to the Sexually Oriented Business - Ordinance of Chapter 61 of Title 5. NOW, THEREFORE, • Ee it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 5. 61.210(J.) 'be amended to read as follows: 5.61.210 Regulations and unlawful activities. * * * A. * •* * B. * * * C. * * * D. * * * E. * * * F. * * '* G. * * * H. * * * I. * * * J. Allow, offer, commit or agree to any sex act as validly defined by city ordinances or state statute in the presence of a, 'r any customer or patron. K. * * * (777 L. * * * SECTION 2 . That Section 5. 61 . 085 be amended to read as follows: 5 . 61.085 Legitimate artistic modeling. A. The city does not intend to unreasonably or improperly prohibit legitimate modeling which may occur in a state of nudity for purposes protected by the First Amendment or similar state protections . The city does intend to prohibit prostitution and related offenses occurring under the guise of nude modeling. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection K of Section 5 . 61 .210, a licensed outcall employee may appear in a state of nudity before a customer or patron providing that [the] a written contract for such appearance was entered into between the customer or patron and the employee and signed at least twenty- four hours before the nude appearance. All of the other applicable provisions of this chapter shall still apply to such nude appearance. B. * * * SECTION 3 . That Section 5 . 61 .360(A) ( 7 ) be amended to read as follows: 5. 61.360 Violation - License suspension or revocation. A. * * * 1 . * * * 2 . * * * 3 . * * * 4. * * * 5 . * * * •• 6 . * * 9c 7 . On two or more occasions within a twelve-month period, a person or persons committed in or on, or solicited for on the licensed premises, or an outcall employee solicited or committed on or off the premises, an offense which would be grounds for denial of a license for which a conviction has been obtained, and the person or persons were employees, whether or not licensed, of the sexually oriented business at the time the offenses were committed; 8. X X * SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed -by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, .this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp • -3- - - �5'=.w... i'•'.x:""--3:*.r.:.i�.r,' yfsF[:ag�i"�'i`•', �"�"''•f!'?� z:�. •:fie:' •-. s:; °. rt�; '�'•' `.�nm�i:.., - 1 , PALMER DEPAULIS SALT RAKE":OM-CORPORATION MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR, SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7704 April 12, 1989 TO: THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL RE: TRANSMITTAL OF MAYOR'S ANNUAL CDBG RECOMMENDATION AND HOLDING HUD REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL'S PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION FOR 1989-90 CDBG FUNDING Overview: In order for the 15th Year ( 1989-90) Community Development planning process to proceed, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to solicit citizen input on CDBG projects proposed for funding and for the Council to announce its preliminary funding recommendations . Availabilit3 of Funds: The City's CDBG allocation for July 1, 1989 from HUD will be $3,947,000 . In addition to that amount, $200,000 of past year slinnaae moneK is being reprogrammed for purposes of 1989-90 planning. This totals($4,147,000� Discussion: Attached is my recommendation for allocating the $4, 147,000 available for the 15th Year CDBG Program. This recommendation was developed through careful examination of studying both the Community Development Advisory Committee and the staff recommendations . Please consider this document as you prepare your CDBG funding recommendation. A public hearing is required by HUD to obtain citizen input on all proposed CDBG projects . The hearing is scheduled so that citizens' and community organizations' comments can be considered by the Council before making its preliminary recommendations for annual CDBG funding. This recommendation must then be published in a newspaper of general circulation ten days before the Council's final recommendation is made at its regular meeting Tuesday, May 16, 1989 . Recommendation: That on April 18, 1989 the Council set a public hearing for Tuesday, May 2, 1989 to meet HUD CDBG requirements . S94yerely5 Ketsimi4 Palmer DePaulis Mayor PD/SL Salt lake City Community Development Advisory Committee Intents Regarding 15th Year (89-90) CDBG Projects HOUSING CDAC strongly recommends that the City complete development of a housing policy that is responsive to citizen concerns and unmet housing needs . Also, the adoption of a housing conservation code which will allow more flexibility in code compliance is suggested. Redevelopment Rehab Program- Administrative costs should be kept to a minimum. All HUD guidelines re: meeting low/moderate income benefit should be met. We recommend using $200,000 of the funding for grants available to income eligible senior citizens . CDAC requests that additional appropriate information regarding where rehab funds are being spent and condition of houses receiving funds be made available to them. The community perception re: RDA rehab is that the housing most in need of this program is not benefiting from it. CDAC would like the Mayor to review current RDA policies and guidelines related to how the most deteriorated housing may be rehabbed and which rehab items are required i .e. floor coverings and kitchen counters . Neighborhood Housing Services- Up to $20,000 of the $110,000 recommended should be considered for administrative support as this will allow NHS to sell loans back to its secondary market . NHS may be able to increase its revolving loan fund by as much as $150,000 by doing so. Security Lock Program- All funding should be used for locks, doors, etc. and not go for administration. It could be administered by Crime Prevention if they can do it with less admin monies. Staff should look into transferring the program back to Crime Prevention where we feel better coordination would take place. BHS - Boarded/At Risk and Cleaning and Securing Programs- BHS should work with community councils to inform them of the new program and units that are selected. Community Development Corporation (CDC)- This should be a neighborhood oriented program involving community councils . Section 108 Loan Payback- Other funding sources should be sought to fund this . Any profits should come back into the CD program. BLOCK REDESIGNS Argyle-Edmonds- Do not fund if UDOT is widening I-15 . STREETS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS General- In the future all design and construction of street projects should be funded by general funds in the CIP (policy issue) . The Public Utilities Department should continue to pay for any needed water line improvements associated with CDBG funded street or block redesign projects . West Capitol Hill Street Improvements- These streets ( 700 N. , 800 N. ) are developed as residential and should be re-zoned from commercial to residential before any street improvements are constructed. Delay one year. Sidewalks- A written City policy is needed to encourage businesses to repair substandard sidewalks in areas where Community Development funded sidewalk repair is done. We recommend a higher funding level for this project so more of an impact in neighborhoods can be made. A high quality of concrete must be used to insure adequate condition of sidewalks in the future. PARKS General- CDBG funds allocated but not used to acquire or develop park projects should be used for further openspace or parks development. Citizens should be involved in designing parks in their areas . The deferred maintenance occurring with older parks should be stopped and repairs made as needed. Also, new funding sources for parks projects should be sought. Athletic Park- Urban Forestry Management- We are concerned about the way city trees are trimmed, cut and cared for in the city. We recommend that a higher percentage of the funding be used for trimming existing or planting new trees and have allocated an additional $10, 000 for this . Warm Springs Slope Stabilization- Sugarhouse Trail System- The $5, 000 added to funds from the 12th Year Openspace Plan to complete the original study including stream easements should be allocated to Parks so this project can be completed. PUBLIC BUILDINGS Children's Museum- This project, although not applied for this year, should be tied into an overall plan for the area. It is better for this facility to remain at this site rather than being moved downtown as part of the Salt Palace expansion. 2 Marmalade Center- This was recommended to improve the exterior of the building which is becoming a neighborhood eyesore rather than an amenity. Glendale Youth Center- We recommend this be funded with the first $25,000 in slippage available. Northwest Community Health Center- This was not recommended for funding because the State and/or County should be responsible for providing health care facilities and programs . This may not be the best site to adequately serve the City's low-income population. It is also not conveniently accessible by bus . Sugarhouse Community Center-(Post Office Building) This building should be acquired for community use when it becomes available. It should not be torn down for a commercial project. PUBLIC SERVICES Shelters- More County and City general fund or other Federal, State, or private monies must be found to deal with the homeless problem because CDBG funds may not be available in the future. Homelessness should not be accepted as a social condition. The problem must be solved. New Hope Multi-Cultural Center- This funding is allocated for rehab of the building with the hope that the completed facility can house a program to address the crime problem within the Asian community. This program should be coordinated with the existing Crime Prevention program. Salt Lake Boys and Girls Club- CDAC supports operating this facility but only at its current level . URBAN AMENITIES Self Help Grants- SLACC's involvement with this program should continue in the areas of committee member selection and development of program guidelines . The program must be well coordinated with community councils and SLACC as it is implemented. To use all funds, another round of applications could be accepted. West High Improvement District- The area around West High is vulnerable to inappropriate development and should be protected however possible. Could a local improvement district be set up which would also leverage other funds? 3 PLANNING SLACC Staffing- There is a need for SLACC to set its own agenda and have some autonomy from the City which can only be accomplished by separately funded staff . Other cities in the U.S. , use CDBG funds for this purpose. Fairmont, Westminster, and Emerson Master Plans CDAC feels that these neighborhoods, which are limited CD target areas, should have plans developed. This may need to be done by a consultant if the Planning Division cannot accomplish it. This year CDAC has developed some new policies to guide its decisions and actions : 1 . As a general rule, all slippage funds will roll over to the next year. However, CDAC will consider all requests for slippage and may recommend granting of funds on an emergency basis . 2. Funding of contingency requests will be limited to construction cost overruns or emergencies (as defined by CDAC) only. These will be reviewed and granted on a case by case basis . 3 . CDBG funds for street improvements and parks should only be used for neighborhood level services . We feel that it should be the responsibility of the City's general fund to construct community parks and special collector or collector street. We have funded some community level parks this year in order to complete them, but will not recommend them in the future. 4 . Planning Division proposals that are not neighborhood oriented should be funded from general fund. 5 . CDBG funds are intended to benefit lower income people and should not be used to fund projects that benefit the City as a whole. These should be funded by all citizens who benefit. The Community Development Advisory Committee enjoyed being part of the Community Development planning process . The advisory committee supports the CDBG program and its role in revitalizing city neighborhoods . We request adequate clerical help as required by the ordinance formalizing CDAC. We would also like to thank our staff person Stephanie Loker for her time and attention to our committee. <CDPlanning> CDACintents 4 GROUND TRANSPORTATION ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cam Caldwell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend the City Code to allow limousines to pick up prearranged fares, and to make other minor related changes to the Ground Transportation Ordinance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Council approved the Ground Transportation Ordinance proposed by the Airport Director on February 7, 1989. At that time an early draft of the proposed ordinance was sent to the Council by administrative error. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The corrected version of this ordinance is included for your approval in its final form. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we suspend the rules and adopt an amendment to Chapter 16.60 of the Ground Transportation Ordinance. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. `AKF BOARD Elaine B.Weis, Chair PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor Curtis E.Ackerlind,Jr. • J.Alan Blodgett • Don A.Mackey ti LOUIS E. MILLER Eddie P. Mayne • Joseph Rosenblatt A Director of Airports Patrick A. Shea • Thomas K.Welch 0 �d)- A U1 March 29, 1989 W.M. Stoler, Chair and the Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Council Office 324 South State, Third Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Chairman Stoler and Council Members: Recommendation: Adopt the ordinances amending Chapter 16.60 and Section 5.72.100 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to ground transportation at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Fiscal Impact: None Discussion: On January 3, 1989, a public hearing was held in the Salt Lake City Council Chambers and public comment received on the proposed ordinances. Although there was a great deal of discussion concerning ground transportation regulations in general , most of the discussion centered around the broader issues of regulation of commercial ground transportation by the City. The issues addressed in Section 16.60.180 (I) were of specific concern. After receiving the input at the public hearing and after discussions with the Airport Authority Board members on January 16 and 18, it was recommended that the ordinance be rewritten to allow limousine drivers to enter the terminal buildings to meet prearranged fares provided they notify the Airport Director of their activities. Additionally, the ordinances were reviewed by the Airport Authority Board and several changes of an editorial nature were made which clarify the language in the ordinances. Although there were a number of these changes, the substance and content was not affected. On February 7, 1989, the Council approved this ordinance, however, through an administrative error a draft revision of the change was adopted as opposed to the final revision. I am submitting this final revision and request that this be approved by the Council . Respectf` ly submitted, Louis E. Miller Salt Lake City Airport Authority•AMF Box 22084, Salt Lake City,Utah 84122•(801)575-2400•Telefax:(801)575-2679 F �1 a )2 n SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Ground Transportation at the Airport) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16. 60, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION AT THE AIRPORT. WHEREAS, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of travelers arriving and departing at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Said increase has resulted in an increased need for motor vehicle transportation to accommodate said travelers between the airport and other locations within and without Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a variety of types of motor vehicle transportation has expressed to the City an interest in providing such transportation to and from the Airport; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah finds that it is in the public interest to make available to the traveling public at the Salt Lake City International Airport a greater variety of ground transportation and to provide regulations regarding the operations of such ground transportation to ensure that such are conducted in a safe and efficient manner for the public benefit; and to add and amend pertinent sections of the Salt Lake City Code accordingly; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Article II, Chapter 16. 60 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to ground transportation businesses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Article II. Ground Transportation Businesses. 16.60.080 Purpose of Article II provisions. The provision set out in Article II of this chapter are enacted for the purposes of: A. Requiring those persons who conduct business at the airport by providing ground transportation as their sole business or as a part of their business such as, but not limited to, providing courtesy car service, to assist the City in defraying the expense of providing certain facilities and services including, but not limited to, the airport roads, curbs, special parking facilities, traffic control, snow removal, lights, and other related airport facilities and services provided for ground transportation vehicles using the airport, and to create an equitable assessment of fees for its use; and B. Requiring such persons to adhere to certain regulations regarding the operations of ground transportation to ensure that such are conducted in a safe and efficient manner for the public benefit. 16.60.090 Definitions for Article II. The following words and phrases, whenever used in Article II of this chapter, shall be defined as provided in this section, unless a different meaning is specifically or more particularly described. -2- A. "Authorized ground transportation businesses" * * * B. "Automobile" or "station wagon" * * * C. "Bus" * * * D. "Courtesy car" * * * E. "Ground transportation vehicle" * * * F. "Limousine" * * * G. "Minibus" * * * H. "On-demand service" * * * I. "Prearranged service" means transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation business which is contracted for between the business and the [passenger] person to be transported prior to the arrival of the [passenger] person at the Salt Lake City International Airport. J. "Scheduled service" means transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation business [which is provided] on a fixed schedule posted with the Public Service Commission as required by law and a current copy of the schedule [ ] filed with the Airport. K. "Starter" * * * L. "Taxicab" * * * M. "Van" * * * 16.60.095 Businesses authorized to provide ground transportation. -3- It shall be unlawful for any person who conducts business at the airport by providing ground transportation [busincsa] to operate a motor vehicle connected with said business at the airport unless such is an authorized ground transportation business as defined under this Article. 16.60.097 Ground transportation destinations. A. All authorized ground transportation businesses may provide prearranged service or scheduled service to or from the airport. B. Except as provided under Chapter 5.72 for taxicabs, all authorized ground transportation businesses may provide on-demand service between the airport and destinations outside the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. C. Only taxicabs and limousines may provide on-demand service between the airport and points within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. D. [No] Authorized ground transportation businesses shall provide [airy] on-demand service [except] through a starter located at the airport ground transportation booth, with the exception of taxicabs for which a starter is optional. E. [No stater hall be-al-lowed] The use of a starter will not be authorized where transportation of persons, with a driver provided, is incidental to the principal purpose of the business. This restriction includes but is -4- not limited to hotel courtesy cars, off-airport parking concessionaires, and off-airport rental car agencies. 16.60.100 Passenger pickup zones. * * * 16.60.110 Fees and per-trip charges. * * * 16.60.120 Toll booth--Charges required. * * * 16.60.130 Toll booth--Fee payment methods. * * * 16.60.140 Taxicab regulations applicable to airport. * * * 16.60.150 Feeder line for taxis. * * * 16.60.160 Prearranged fares for taxis. * * * 16.60.170 Taxicab stand restrictions. * * * 16.60.180 Ground transportation booths. There are established within the terminal buildings at the airport one or more ground transportation booths for the exclusive use of authorized ground transportation businesses in coordinating travel arrangements for the traveling public. A. Solicitation of persons by authorized ground transportation business at the airport shall be unlawful except at a bona fide ground transportation booth established by the airport director. B. All authorized ground transportation businesses providing on-demand service must provide [and] a starter at the ground transportation booth with the exception of an authorized ground transportation businesses providing limousine service only on a prearranged basis as set forth -5- in subparagraph I below, and taxicabs for which a starter is optional. C. One or more authorized ground transportation businesses may use the same starter. D. Authorized ground transportation businesses providing scheduled service may but are not required to provide a maximum of one starter. E. Representatives of local, state or federal governments may use the ground transportation. booths as rendezvous points. F. No persons other than as indicated in this section and airport personnel shall be allowed to conduct business at any ground transportation booth. G. All starters shall wear identification badges provided by the Airport for each authorized ground transportation business represented while at a ground transportation booth. H. No drivers of ground transportation vehicles shall serve as starters at any time, except that drivers of vehicles providing scheduled service may act as starters for a period of thirty minutes immediately prior to the scheduled departure time of such vehicle. [Driver3 shall not enter any terminal building except to actively ctarter. ] -6- I. Except as stated below, no driver of a ground transportation vehicle shall enter any terminal building except to coordinate transportation needs between a customer and a starter. A limousine driver may enter the terminal only to meet a prearranged fare, provided that prior to entry such driver notifies the Airport Director or his designee of the name, arrival time, airline and flight number of the person such driver intends to meet. Such a driver may meet only that passenger and cannot solicit any other passenger or fare. Any violation of this solicitation restriction by any limousine' driver may result, at the Airport Director's sole option after a hearing, in such driver being barred from any further entry to an airport terminal as a limousine driver or authorized ground transportation business employee. J. No representative of any authorized ground transportation business shall transport baggage or cargo in behalf of a customer to or from the airport without documentation such as baggage claim tickets or transfer documents clearly indicating the authority of such representative to transport such baggage. Said representative shall produce such documentation for inspection upon request by an authorized official of the Airport. 16.60.190. Queueing and parking of ground transportation vehicles. In addition to the feeder line parking facilities and stands established solely for taxicabs as set forth in this Article, there are established parking areas, queueing areas, and a commercial traffic lane for use by authorized ground transportation vehicles [other than taxicabs] . The use of such facilities shall be subject to the following: A. Each authorized user [has] shall have equal access to the parking locations. B. All parking stalls may be used by one authorized business. However, each time a vehicle of another authorized user arrives, the operator with the most vehicles in the parking area must relocate one vehicle to make room for the other user(s) . This procedure shall be followed until all parking spaces are filled. C. The queueing area is designated for use by authorized ground transportation vehicles waiting for their group or party to arrive. Drivers of such vehicles must observe the time limit restrictions posted in such areas. However, drivers must leave the vehicles parked in such a manner as to avoid creating traffic problems. Double parking is prohibited in all areas at all times. Vehicles must be parked parallel to the curb, providing a through lane at all times. D. The areas set aside and designated by signs as the pick up and drop off points for the Airport Authority shuttle parking lot bus are to be used only by the airport -8- shuttle bus; no other vehicles may use this area at any time. E. Drivers must remain with vehicles at all times except as indicated otherwise in this Article. F. All loading or unloading must take place in designated areas. No loading or unloading of passengers shall be conducted in a through lane. 16.60.200 Signs. Signs may be posted at the ground transportation booth which meet the graphic standards of the Airport Authority. The signs are limited to information necessary to coordinate identification of groups. No advertising is allowed. Signs may be posted only when a starter or company representative is present. [ uscd. ] SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -9- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -10- METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY First Interstate Plaza •170 South Main,Suite 650 ( Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 k801)364-5578 „ pH WA W �tT 9' March 27 , 1989 0 6s4tT LAC' mmismommmilimulmic Mr. W. M. "Willie" Stoler Board of Directors Chairman, Salt Lake City Council ' 2501 Fillmore Street Charles W.Wilson,Chairman Salt Lake City, UT 84106 R.Gordon Bader Mayor Palmer A.DePaulis Frederick A.Moreton,Jr. RE: Director Reappointment of Charles W. Wilson C.Ross Anderson _ Dear Mr. Chairman: Please be advised that effective May 15, 1989 , Chairman Wilson'.s term will expire. Mr. Wilson's first appointment to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City Board was on September 2 , 1980, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Walker Kennedy. On May 16 , 1983 , he was reappointed to the Board and has thus served one and one-half terms as a Board member. In addition, he was elected Chairman of the Board on December 20, 1986 . Mr. Wilson has indicated that he would like to continue in his present capacity for an additional term, which is six years in duration. With all of his vast experience and knowledge, he has been a real asset as Board Chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City. In view of the above, I recommend that Mr. Wilson be reappointed to another term. Sincerely, R. Gordon Bader Vice-Chairman NPS/RGB/kb Nick P.Sefakis, General Manager W.Reed Jensen, Controller • ROGER F. CUTLER S1-\ Ir' I", ,'(�i llY(gl RPnRATI.Oi j � ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY .r�.r. . �� ' __ J.r�� s�.L.�.rr RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY LARRY V. SPENDLOVE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, FIFTH FLOOR BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP GLEN A. COOK April 12, 1989 Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis 324 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Amendment of Sections 12. 12.070 and 12.80.070, Salt Lake City Code Dear Mayor: The Prosecutor' s Office and the Police Department requested a change to the prohibition of bicycles in the Central Business District to allow the new police bike patrol. The reason for the request is contained in the attached letter from the City Prosecutor to the City Attorney. I have drafted amendments to Sections 12. 12.070 and 12. 80.070 exempting police officers in the scope and course of their employment from the prohibitions in the ordinances. Very truly yours, ..„7";";g5//iZbo-e,e.,-(A4-s.... GREG R. HAWKINS Assistant City Attorney GRH:rc Attachments F f V E 'J / a �J Y ATTORNY'S CFF;C� DATE.--- - -r — J '3 it SALT. T ��7�+ f I ROGER F. CUTLER '11C'1 Z;eI'!I CORP RATIONi AS TANT ATTORNEYS 4s ara vrnav1 ,owa.a ��CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. •,ONTGOMERY CHERYL D. LUKE PROSECUTORS OFFICE GREG R. .AWKINS LARRY V. 5'- DLOVE CITY PROSECUTOR Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Building STEVEN W. AL RED 451 SOUTH SECOND EAST STREET BRUCE R. BAIR• SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 FRANK M. NAKAMUR, (801) 535-7767 FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTCRS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP • GLEN A. COOK April 5, 1989 Roger F. Cutler, City Attorney 324 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Ordinance revision 12-12-070 Dear Roger: In conjunction with the police departments bicycle program in the CBD area, would you please assign someone to look at providing an ordinance exception to 12-12-070 for police bikes on the sidewalk. The police department feels a specific exception will make their job easier as they feel downtown bike delivery people will challenge police use of the sidewalk when they are not allowed on the sidewalk. Questions concerning this can be directed to Sgt. Don Campbell 596-5114. Sincerely, 11 Cheryl D. Luke, City Prosecutor CDL/mh 18-Sneed. . Mt.. ,ant d Po1icL toPatrolSJ . By Mike Carter 14 . 1; ,=. � Y -...t`*,7 Wt ti 6*, y�:-:•;' ,. Tribune Staff Writer ' -- ,r�,;• ., ..• t^ pa.;.,+. �• -, Salt Lake City Police Department will deploy s * � -`'`'� ;/' ofi—ers on bikes this spring in an effort to suppress =- ' -=s �x s_ .-,wa..� ;- ' `<.. r►• ' `�"- downtown crime- '' Y -=•"'re^ '•:--- =r ;- __•a r.,•.a-� • ..;,;: - lli. Chief Mike Chabries Tuesday approved a trial pro- ni t-r-f"'i';"-. . ,..--:i X�z' j• ,' x"''3"'-: `-- gram that will put up to seven officers on 18-speed IF''e`�: _ ,,.,„`.,,s ., ,,, , �"- `'-`: mountain bikes to respond on calls now being handled - t" -> —�e -1 =:R - .r ,rr. by the city's foot-patrol officers. fir= . ^•-,. - `' 1 3 .5=-to, `�" The program.which has met"great success"in oth- - R '-- 1 y,r J. x o• • _ =, �` � ` */ er cities,will enable officers to`'swoop down"on van -.-•i--- .#. ",-- /- - 4 �. s;: ti ;, e : gals, dope dealers and car prowlers in record re `j;''y .-4,�,--e ��-.„ y►-•.�-- ' sponse times, said patrol Capt. William "Pappy" 4:,- `'.3.` - "�' �r� ° j e"`- , : --, Duncan. The program should greatly increase the , -' - "•,.. �`�� - area an averse foot-patrol officer is able-to cover, � � " ` ` K = `.' g P .� _ s� a zz added Sgt. Don Campbell. i �' � ~,� 1 -`�'+, •._,.;-.; r it •Police also believe the new program will improve rsw. .- .-s , •"'' t-' '7 7t - �a the department's public image by enabling officers to7 s ,; b � meet and mingle with the people they are sworn to -• - = " protect and serve, he said- , - t• ; `,7, ' 73`-:• , i, 1. "We aren't really sure how it's going to work, but r i ' we hope it will enable us to suppress crime by giving 4•4' - ,- - _ ,_ j .fir` y ... • �..3 -. ; ,, t om.our officers a silent and versatile mode of iransporta- ssb...� tion. Capt.Duncan said. .� _ The idea has been met so far with overwhelming ,..,..."-.4: r._ = i*_ --s-.... +t om - -• -- zz .- `-4. - support and a few raised eyebrows of critics who re- 5--dP _'. member other novel transportation ideas dreamed up �.. '.F--'- ,' -�'Z-t ''11` tit ' by police in the past few years. Capt. Duncan doesn't - "`` ,,,a_,;„__ - ' equate the bicycle plan with recent talk of putting - ., - ;,4 "ate ' 's, ' _ . - officers on horseback.the two crashed police helicop- __• ` ".-'"_ -� - •, tern of a decade ago or the short-lived Bud illough- a#I� ter` " by brainchild of flying officers above the city in ultra- -�`* y. - r - 4r _ - 1 light aircraft. "" -mac .' Pohre officers on bicycles has proved its worthiness ••- :. ,try .4. '•. `� •in °.tie and several west coast beach communities -- �- • -' an ,ntinues to be a mainstay of policing in many ,.,,.� -4.:':-- -; --.,i ,. 1-I `' European countries_ Capt. Duncan. himself an avid ' "-: ' rs " ;-.4'*----- -cyclist, came up with the idea after seeing an adver- ; '_;l" • = lisement in a bicycling magazine touting the success e .- -_ �-"`\ 111 of the Seattle program. � ." �,' t= •t E "There's always going to be a skeptic . .. People '�.:., - `' ►t .." don t expect to see cops riding on bicycles." he said. `„i �" - - aft t,`y"t N As much as anything. he said.the mounted officers -- +- ar going to have to overcome the jibes of a few fellow - • ti - - - _ iff,cers who snicker about the skin-tight riding �• 4- ,L - _ t,y ;horts.wonder aloud about"officer needs assistance" L. Y emergency calls for skinned knees and voice concerns .. : } �.- ,4:.. , about where their colleagues are going to mount the .� ° a. . Z.▪ '' - , E_,;" training wheels. w- .:�4,• ""`',ra. - ... -,,.� .`-t. Capt. Duncan said that the idea is popular among ""'' '"`n r ram,•,, s ' ��, "•�*-� 3fficers, several of whom have come and requested ,-< ,d i.;, 3'"` • 4 4 • 'rY-tik7t, . •,, •• consideration for the program_ • j : `.-•� _ '. ` --.. "It's been a real boost for morale,"the captain said t% s_t ,.72.y. _y ` 'Everybody- is excited about doing something differ- ' eSlt.•• --lifter*Stan Pndo by RKJ,E The department also hopes it will solve the increas- Officers Susan Neeley, left. and Steve Olson aren't bobbies. They are S. See B-0,Column 4 Lake City's finest,riding mountain bikes instead of pounding the beat on fo. u+g }rruutem ui sc� . 6L.L.aZ € Ts puc . aid success of trig program cout�,_ breed in aed oun s congest- sult in : Park. with their versatile gearing,speed and agility will en- able officers on downtown patrol to respond much The rogra n m►, more quickly than if they were on foot, the captain P P e n P 1 ce offtders�l some of the stereo- said. ty es often give "The stereotype is that we cruise around in air condi- That raises a slight problem because there is a illy tinned patrol cars with stereos. . . . This should show ordinance that prohibits rising bicycles on city side- teat we're not all a bunch le fat apple stealers." the ty2:i=• rapt.Duncan said the department has asked the cap sin said."«e ve got people in excellent condition." c=• ' attorney arc council to make an exception for the - .`._e officers. :::r. the orc_ram has not cost the city anything" Cc__on bicycles also will be able to cover much more ai wi;c ';1 h .c%cje clesrl Incd. .. to donate�ih�e ^y== tr2•^• thes loot-patrol counterparts.In Settie, bikes-to begin v:lth. �_,. Campbell said arrangements Campbell note:, some officers will log up to Z are being made to grain other bicycles through dont- sties a da}. I tions of dov,•r.toyrn mere:ants. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Riding rules and regulations--Unlawful acts ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 80, SECTION 070.F. OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, RELATING TO RIDING RULES AND REGULATIONS--UNLAWFUL ACTS, AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Title 12, Chapter 80, Section 070.F. of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Riding rules and regula- tions--unlawful acts, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: Sec. 12.80.070 Riding rules and regulations--Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for operators of bicycles: A. * * * B. * * C. * * * D. * * * E. * * * F. To ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the central traffic district, as defined in Section 12. 04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in Schedule 1 of this title, set out in Chapter 12. 104, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, or on any other area where prohibited by signs, provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to police officers in the scope and course of their employment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: GRH:rc -2- D 7 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Skateboards and other toy vehicles ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12, SECTION 070 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, RELATING TO SKATEBOARDS AND OTHER TOY VEHICLES BY ADDING SUBSECTION C. AS FOLLOWS : Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Title 12, Chapter 12, Section 070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Skateboards and other toy vehicles, be, and the same hereby is amended by adding Subsection C. as follows: Sec. 12.12.070 Skateboards and other toy vehicles. A. B. * * * C. The foregoing subsections, A. and B. , shall not apply to police officers acting in the scope and course of their employment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989. Published: . GRH:rc -2- • SALT 4,.� I41Y10CiRPO? ION[ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 15, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-705 - Rezoning 700 North and Redwood Road Reconu endation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 4, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-705 submitted.by Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" classification. • • Availability of Funds: Not applicable Background and Discussion: The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and voted to recommend approval of the request to rezone the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following conditions: 1. The final site place (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval from the Planning Director. 2. The rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. Legislative Document: The City Attorney's Office is preparing the ordinance and will be submitted prior to the public hearing. Submitted by: . A\NL • CRAIG E. /PETERSON - -- - Director' _ lf/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON - • MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR T,'e7�77n'. _ - CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT BAKE CITY CORPORATION: THOMAS A. ELLISON LAV SECRETARY ONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL ..1 C4f•.'Il..0�/ •V-w..-\ 'U .., a '.• EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A •HO RALPH RICH ARP.P.F NEILSO N MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY • Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET; ROOM 200 JOHN M.SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT_ LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE • KATHY WACKER • March 14, 1989 • Craig Peterson, Director - Development Services 324 .S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, Ur 84111 Petition 400-705 =.Rezoning 700 North and Redwood Road Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-705 from"Mr. Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting=Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from R-2A to B-3. . At their regular meeting March 9, 1989,. the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this request to the City Council to rezone from Residential R-2A to Business B-3 the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following stipulations: - the final site plan (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval from the Planning Director; - the rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. A copy of the planning•staff report and supporting documentation is also attached for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Jardine-or myself. Sincerely, Allen C. J hnson, AICP P1 ing irector enc . CC: John Schuman, Chairman; Scott McNeil , Petitioner; file SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of J.989 • (Rezoning property located at the Southeast Corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" pursuant to Petition No. 400-705-88) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. • WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering, No. 400-705-88, the City Council of Salt Lake. City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at the Southeast Corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" is appropriate for the development of the community in that area subject to certain conditions; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows : Sec. 21. 14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-2A" is hereby rezoned Business "B-3" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at a point on the east boundary line of Redwood Road, said point being North 0°15 ' 08" East 404 123 . 75 feet and North 89°59 ' 34" West 41.25 feet from 3' AO ' the South Quarter Corner of Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence North 0° 15 ' 08" East 120.80 feet to the south boundary line of 700 North Street; thence South 87°37 ' 10" East 207 . 95 feet; thence South 89°59 '34" East 119 . 29 feet to a point of curvature; thence Southeasterly along the arc of -a 635. 58 foot radius curve to the right 282.87 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 64°29 ' 34" East 79 . 84 feet; thence South 0°15 '08" West 156. 15 feet; thence North 89°59 '34" West 673.20 feet to the East boundary line of Redwood Road; thence North 0°15 ' 08" East 140.25 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 3. 66 acres. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following condition has been met: Petitioner shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed site improvements upon meeting the site plan criteria of the Salt Lake City Code and the Northwest Community Master Plan Update including, but not limited to, landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be -2- extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the condition has not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: -!7) CITY RECORDER , Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -3- • ' Sidwell Parcel Identification Minter. ,! z # 0 8 - 2 7 - 4 5 3 - 0 0 1, 002, 003, 004, 005, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012 Lt:1 description of property covered in the application: eginning at a point on the east boundary line of Redwood Road, said point being North 0°15'08" ast 123.75 feet and North 89°59'34" West 41.25 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence North 315'08" East 120.80 feet to the south boundary line of 700 North Street; thence South 87°37'10" ast 207.95 feet; thence South 89°59'34" East 119.29 feet to a point of curvature; thence Dutheasterly along the arc of a 635.58 foot radius curve to the right 282.87 feet to a point i tangency; thence South 64°29'34" East 79.84 feet; thence South 0°15'08" West 156.15 feet; hence North 89°59'34" West 673.20 feet to the East boundary line of Redwood Road; thence North °15 '08" East 140.25 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 3.66 acres. Desired Zoning Text Change: : N/A • • Names and mailing-addresses of all abutting and/Or affected property owner: 1, Hardy Enterprises, Inc. address%Bob Hardy, Pres, ,2787 N Hwy 89, Layton 84041 • 2. LaNell H. & Mary E. Case address 1651 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 3Myrtle C Millard, Callister etaladdress 2592 S 50 W, Bountiful UT 84010 4. Alan T & Kelly B Parsons address 225 - 6th Ave, SLC UT 84103 5. Leslie M Petersen address 2543 E 9800 S, Sandy UT 84093 6. Willard J & Mildred Harmon address PO Box 668, Washington UT 84780 7. T & M Maintenance address%Andersen Thavne 1220 E 1100 S. Clearfield 84014 8, Carla G & Mark E Daniels address 1654 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 9Morton R & Virginia H Henderson address 225 N 200 W, SLC UT 84103 10. Carl R & Bonnie J Callister address 1632 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 11. Richard K & Ruth L Lineberryaddress 1616 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 12. Omer R & Norma R Hovey address 1494 S 1000 W, SLC UT 84104 13Donald S & Iona N Whitehead Jrsaddress 814 N Redwood Rd, SLC UT 84116 14. Univac SLC Employees Cr Unioaddress 1715 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 15Rowland H & Margarette C Merriladdress 2729 E 2880 S, SLC UT 84109 • 16. Corp of the Pres Bishop LDS Church 50 E S Temple, 12th Floor, SLC UT 84150-0001 Use additional sheet of paper for more names and addresses. 17. McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV PO Box 105, Norcross, GA 30091 ATTACH ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED AS OUTLINED ON THE FRONT OF THIS FORM. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Suite #200 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 Ph: 535-7757 f 11116 JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONE...CHANGE_ SE CORNER OF 700 NORTH & REDWOOD RD. 1. 700 North and Redwood Road has become a business location by virtue of the opening of I-215. 2. 700 North widening to five lanes has and is occurring to create a cross-community boulevard connection between I-15 and I-215 interchanges . Traffic counts on 700 North have greatly increased in recent weeks . 3. Redwood Road widening to six lanes is finally now a reality, thus making 700 North and Redwood a central hub from a traffic standpoint. 4 . The 4 acres at the- southeast corner of the intersection of 700_ North and Redwood are surrounded by permanent land uses that are agreeable to and not damaged by the proposed zone change .. The adjoining lands will be enhanced by quality development. 5. Current residential zoning on the site has been detrimental, causing existing land uses to continue to deteriorate and run down. All residents have or will soon be vacating this site . A zone change to business use will reverse the downward -trend in property taxes and begin toincrease the tax base . 6. There are few locations where area residents can obtain retail services near their homes . There are also no restaurants . • %;7 . More business and retail opportunities at this location will provide needed noon hour services for employees of UNYSIS, McDonnell Douglas, and the State of Utah, thereby helping to assure the long term satisfaction of these major employers . 8 . Business zoning has already been given on two of the corners at this intersection. 9 . In the future planning work done by the City Planning Staff, a "critical mass" B-3 land use scheme is contemplated for this location as opposed to allowing strip commercial along all of Redwood Road north of North Temple . 10. The applicant and his family have lived in this neighborhood for 40 years and he has 15 years of real estate investment experience . He is committed to converting the property to a quality use that will be of benefit and convenience to the residents and also economically viable for the long term. � ` U (f) • •SALT LAKE CITY P AMTN3 CCMIESSICN STAFF REECRI1 PETITION NO. 400-705 - MCNEIL ENG' mme i - REWE TING REZONING FRDI . RESIDENTIAL R-2A TO BUSINESS B-3 AT .700 NORTH AND RED.CCD RCAD • CNERVION This is a request from Mr. Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering and Mr. Elliott Christensen requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from Residential R-2A to Business B-3. A church abuts the property on the south, the Jordan River Parkway on the east, 700 North on the north and Redwood Road on the west. I \ a .iJLiLd n n n "° /\ 90Q RTH \ AAA ;. m �0 ' n o . O� - Jn 11 /�,-^ n 7r /� A O 0 ••__ r,~, Q �. LCADVILLC AVE Too NORTH- J'�4 , Q I SI�1 I�:244At- n O O RIVERSIDE PARK 7j�. 010! S JE O O '0 'fiDQTNM G• • •=t.� ¢_ 6_00 � N!RF! H � �. . 9 �y�C .+ ° fbil 94CK4AN n A A at 0 ' 0 1 ,r / . ° Nr— I o � �.a. n ,u icHOOI •. BACKQ • In the past there have been similar rezoning'requests to change the residential zoning to commercial zoning which have been denied. However, the previous requests were to rezone only the lot on the corner. This proposal includes several properties which run from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway and deals with the development of the entire site on a comprehensive basis. Surrounding land uses are comprised of: - residential to the north across 700 North and east of Redwood Road with Residential R-2A zoning; • - commercial and residential on the west side of Redwood Road and south of 700 North with Residential R-2A and Business B-3 on the corner; - a commercial shopping center on the northwest corner of Redwood Road and 700 North with Business B-3 zoning; - the Residential R-2A zoning on the east side of Redwood Road extends south from 700 North to within 250 feet of 500 North. .LW.) a � - ANALYSIS The proposed use for the site is a strip commercial development with a full service restaurant, two fast food restaurants, a convenience/gas store, and ten small retail/commercial spaces in one building. MA51'hR PLAN AND ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Northwest Community Master Plan Update identifies this general location for expansion of commercial zoning to provide services on a community scale. The following urban design criteria are identified in the master plan to be considered when evaluating commercial rezoning requests. 1. Documented need for the proposed business project and documented community and neighborhood support. The petitioner states, "There are few locations where area residents can obtain retail services near their homes. There are also no restaurants." Residents attending Conuuunity Council meetings have expressed the need for restaurants and services as proposed by the petitioner. There are only three restaurants, an Arctic Circle, Pizza Hut and Domino's Pizza, to service an approximate population of 25,000 for an area roughly the same as the Northwest Community excluding North Temple which is not neighborhood/community oriented. The petitioners have attended several meetings of the North Redwood Community Council with several different renderings and proposed uses for the site. The Community Council has voted to support the rezoning request and the site plan on a conceptual basis, however, their approval is based on the development of the entire site as presented to them in their meetings. These Community Council meetings have been attended by many of the affected property owners north of 700 North. 2. Project located on a street that can accommodate the additional traffic and removal of excr;sive curb cuts or curb cuts that do not meet traffic engineering safety design standards. According to the Major Street Plan and Official Map 700 North is designated as a minor arterial. Redwood Road is a State Highway and functions as a major arterial. Traffic counts as of November, 1988 are approximately 6,000 (ACT) westerly on 700 North and approximately 10,000 (ACT) northerly on Redwood Road. The City Transportation Engineer must approve all curb cuts and the Utah Department of Transportation must also approve any curb cuts on Redwood Road. 3. The site must provide adequate parking and open space including street trees. The site plan submitted provides required parking, however, staff has not yet received or reviewed a landscaping plan. 4. No exceptions should be granted to required landscaped setbacks, buffers or parking. The site plan submitted meets the required standard for setbacks, buffers and parking. 5. Signage should be limited to a pedestrian scale. A signage plan has not yet been submitted. 6. Commercial expansion should be new construction only, not conversion of residential structures to commercial uSCS. The proposed'use for the site is a strip coituercial development with a full service restaurant, two fast food restaurants, a convenience/gas store, and ten small retail/commercial spaces in one building. All existing structures will be demolished. 7. Projects must not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. Hours of operation and facilities for deliveries should not impact surrounding residents. • Hours of operation have been discussed with the Community Council but none have been established. Residential properties which will be impacted are the homes to the north across 700 North and _-the church abutting the proposed project to the south. Deliveries should not impact surrounding residents - based on the location of the buildings as shown on the site plan. RDCCr 'ICN Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recoiuuend approval of this request to rezone from Residential R-2A to Business B-3 the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following stipulations: - the final site plan (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval•from the Planning Director; - the rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. February, 1989 Janice M. Jardine March 6 , 1989 Janice Jardine Planning & Zoning 325 South State Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Janice.: In the December meeting of the North Redwood Community Council , we were presented with the proposed strip mall plan for the south-east corner of Redwood Road and 7th North . At that meeting those in • attendance voted 20 in favor with 4 abstentions of the total proposal . Another vote reflected community opposition to just the construction of a corner gas station on that site. Building any kind of service station as a stand-alone unit, and especially with a car wash was and is unacceptable according to the vote rendered by the community members present. In our February meeting of the North Redwood Community Council , Elliot Christensen presented an update on the project with proposed tenants. The plan 'again received community support from the - project. The vote was 17 in favor and 1 abstention. — - On March 1st, the Community Council again met and again Mr. Christensen presented a project update . During this meeting Mr. Christensen was asked about hours of operation, signage, traffic flow and other concerns . The community discussed the engineering firms designs and colors for the proposed project. We , the North Redwood Community Council , •would like the City to be aware of our concern that the project be a whole project and not pieced together. We do not want the gas station to be only business on that corner. We feel the community can be better served by construction and completion of the entire project as outlined by Mr. Christensen ' s presentations before the Community Council . Sincerely, _ at L. Tawnia J . Paver Secretary • North Redwood Community Council ref • r r�a12 Klijr% RPORA3'IQ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON •'114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, .•. c 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 7, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-662-88 Legislative Action. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 4, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-662-88 submitted as a legislative Action to rezone property located between 500 arid 600 East and - . Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable • • Discussion and Background: The_Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition and after a series of discussions recommended that the petition be denied. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this .particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. A copy of the minutes from both meetings is attached. The Sugar House Committee Council by Diana Smoot, Chair, has requested an appeal to this decision, therefore, the a public hearing needs to be held and that the property be rezoned to "R-3A" classfication. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: • C CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ • • J:v ^;; SALT- LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1989 (Rezoning property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from • "C-1" to "R-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-662-88 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition- initiated by Willie M. Stoler, No. 400-662-88, the City Council of Salt- Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these - deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: Sec. 21. 14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in :1 Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Commercial "C-1" is hereby rezoned Residential •"R-3A" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Commencing at a point of the east line of 500 East Street, said point being 125 feet north of the northeast corner of Stringham Avenue and 500 East Street and running thence north along the east line of 500 East Street 433. 1 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of Lot 17 of Wilmington Subdivision in Lot 8, Block 43, 10-Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey; thence east along the north line of the Reserve of Wilmington Subdivision 726 feet to the northeast corner of said Reserve, said point being on the west line of 600 East Street; thence south along the west f;�%�.•,.,�-// ��,• t line of 600 East Street 433 . 1 feet, more or less, to a point 125 feet • north of the northwest corner of 2 7- t' i Stringham Avenue and 600 East Street; thence west along a line parallel to the north line of Stringham Avenue 726 feet, said line being ,125 feet north of the north line of Stringham Avenue, to the point of beginning. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of ,• 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on -Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -2- 4::/./ ze' ";./.: 1-/z• --Z% 2-.:Z .1 . „ z., z" ,__ , - ,/, 7. - . ' € :._ /// ,e- / -,47. - / - ...- ,. z/----; -__ --7 J ,i'l 1,1/A-Z. t7;- : e:„, ">,/ . z. 1 ,,•1.f .''',.: .,j ' Z'Z / / .,•,-5- /IL: : ''e-,- -- --•- •;? z,, Y.:!--4-ie74 /14------6 . ›f 1 e i • , 4 L9V/::// * 6 c'2, 4',-e.%(--- • ---' '-'.''/ •`_ 'f-- - ' A/7 . f,. -7 -- 77---; . / ze---/ , / - .7 :._> i _ . ,7 , .... ..' //664(Z : -'' e: ,"7 ./17Za .1/L%7Z--e. Z1 :9 7' • ., .. ----- /7 - - 111)1L-- 77e• -;7 •-t<I'K-eK-D, . 7 7 _.., 7 11117-c"e- - %-,7j67-6 ,E;, • /•.., ..:.!..;: , , / __7k,,": .3 __••_.:.e,._/.„0 :3- ' • f ALLEN C. JOHNSON • i t , MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR • _ _ CINDY CROMEP. LT' i -I' SANDRA MARLER SA •Gar CORPORATION' THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ""- ' •.tiy'I.y° `''^-"L ^ '•... :c-.....:, LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX-O FFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY ,!Planning and Zoning Commission . GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE-CITY,,UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 5Sr- . 57 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER February 24, 1989 • Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 So. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-662 - Rezoning property between 500-600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5". • Dear Craig: • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, 1988 concerning • the rezoning request of Petition No. 400-662, submitted by Council Member Willie M. Stoler. The Planning Commission action was to deny the petition, however the minutes were not approved and the Planning Commission held the petition for reconsideration on the February 9th meeting. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission at it's February 9, 1989 meeting voted to recommend to the City Council to deny Petition No. 400-662. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Everett L. Joyce. Sincere y, • /*/- All- C. J.hnson, AICP Planning 'irector attachments ACJ:elj cc: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman Council Member W. M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven file SALT LAKE CTTY PLANNING AND ZONING CO MiSSICN STAFF m • 4 Petition 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler OVERVIEW The applicant, Willie M. Stoler, is requesting Salt Lake City rezone property located between 500-600 East Street and between Stringham and Wilmington Avenue from Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning classification. Existing zoning surrounding this subject parcel consist of Residential "R-2" properties to the north and south and Commercial "C-1" properties to the east. Property located west of 500 East Street lie outside Salt Lake City's - juristictional boundary, however, it is zoned Business "C" in South Salt Lake. ., 1--„,--1 I I I____„1 \ !,\•.. -N .. k-lik71 I\\\\\�I" \l\\1., ,\\\\\', 1 m LM b ' 5GUTIi STREET ' \t\\l N. % < J // TE . COMNwLTM N •� 6M wt. ti ` ,,� EL E `: — ` SOi5 �}i� wIL MING TON ` IL:A MG TO ry` 1 "JIB'\' 9 LEZ_I .'.'. 'K\---raGE irrail_ ril- Pc slur+IN iv_ w i 4 yTRINGtiaM N vi W W 10 w [1: FAIRMON _—_Y� _ r 3 Q P4 t - TRUMAN I AVEx ° a A�n70 Y a � a � 3 _Iola __-, ORIGGS �� - PARKWAY i f-- BACKSPCUND AND ANALYSIS Petition No. 400-277 of 1985 was filed to implement the recommendations of the Sugar House Community Master Plan by the Sugar House Community Council. A portion of that request included the rezoning of residential and commercial property located between 2100 South and 2700 South between 500 East and 1100 East. The purpose of that proposal was to conform the zoning classifications with the Master Plan policies. The request also included the rezoning of the subject property from Commercial "C-3" to Residential "R-5". On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission supported this request. However, the City Council did not accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and ultimately rezoned the subject property from Commercial "C-3" to Conurcial "C-1" (Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 81 of 1986) . . Existing Land Use The subject property is located in an area of multiple land uses ranging from single family residential to warehouse and commercial activity. The existing land uses along Stringham and Wilmington Avenue consists primarily of single ( - -, family detached homes with clusters of multiple-family residential scattered 4 ; throughout the area. Existing land uses along 500 and 600 East Streets are residential. • Land use in the petitioned area developed into warehouse, office and commercial activity due to immediate access to the Denver & Rio Grande railroad line. Today this railroad line is a spur that terminates at Granite Furniture Warehouse. Existing Land Use Chart Address Property Owner Land Use 1) 2225 S. 500 E. Christiansen Investment Co. Commercial/Warehousing 2) 2233 S. 500 E. Paul V. Wells Pallet Manufacturing 3) 2253 S. 500 E. Boyd K. & Peggy Henrie Commercial Laundry 4) 2262 S. 600 E. Louis R. Racine, et al Boat Warehousing Some of these properties are nonconforming because of the 1985 rezoning frcm "C-3" to "C-1". If this petition is approved all of the properties will be nonconforming and will be allowed to operate under the provisions of Section 21.90 of Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Transportation access to these commercial properties is along 500 East and 600 East Streets. 600 East Street is a residential local stroct.and 500 East Street is a residential collector street. Both streets have a right-of-way of 66 feet. These streets are not designed to carry commercial oriented traffic. In 1986 the State of Utah Division of Environmental Health conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials found on the site at 2225 South 500 East, known as "Wasatch Plaza". The study concluded that the materials had not migrated off-site and mitigations measures were undertaken to correct the on-site problems. Master Plan Considerations The 1986 Sugar House Master Plan identifies the petitioned area as a location desirable for new medium-density housing opportunities. Objectives for housing redevelopment opportunities include housing type diversity and densities, the introduction of public-assisted housing, and to encourage underground parking structures and on-site open space amenities. Specific site redevelopment guidelines as proposed in the Master Plan include the following: Site Characteristics 1) Master Plan designation is medium-density residential 2) Density potential: 8-20 dwelling units per net acre 3) Parcel size: 7.2 acres 4) Potential units: 40-100 units 5) Accessibility: from 500 and 600 East 6) Adjacent land use: low and medium-density residential and neighborhood business center . - Mitigation of Development Constraints 1) Potential. redevelopment program 2) Removal of D&RGW Railroad siding after it is abandoned by existing commercial users 3) Assembly of land parcels 4) Relocation of commercial and industrial businesses 5) Demolition of commercial and industrial structures 6) Rezoning parcel for appropriate residential land use Possible Residential Development 1) Residential planned unit development consisting of townhouses, .. low-rise garden apartments, or cluster housing 2) Provisions for a future bicycle path and pedestrian trail through the site RE MENDATICN The staff recommends approval of Petition 400-662 requesting rezoning from Commercial "C-l" to Residential' "R-5". The staff supports the conservation and preservation of the existing residential neighborhood and supports medium- density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned area. This recommendation is supported by the Master Plan which include specific site redevelopment guidelines as outlined above. • • • ° Gary R. Heintz October 14, 1988 / • - PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 8 council to get together with O.C. Tanner and the property owners as well as the Planning Staff, to try and resolve this matter before the hearing date. "3 Mr. Ellison accepted that suggestion as part of his motion. Ms. Liddle- Gamonal accepted it as part of her second; all voted "Aye." In an unrelated motion, Mr. Ellison moved that the Planning Staff provide a staff report for the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission mccting addressing the necessity of updating the 1974 People's Freeway master plan with respect to developments which have occurred on Main Street in this area, as well as suggesting future land uses to determine whether or not a formal amendment to . this master plan is appropriate. Mr. Ellison also requested a recommendation with respect to down zoning of the property consistent with the 1974 master plan, in his motion. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." • INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler requesting Salt Lake City to rezone _property located between 500 East and 600 East Streets between the rear of the properties fronting along Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. • Mr. Wright stated that. a similar rezoning petition was heard in 1985 as a larger rezoning package, at the time of the completion of the Sugar House Master Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation at that time was to support a zoning change on this parcel from Commercial "C-3" to Residential • . : "R-5." This is, in effect, a resubmittal of that request. The action of the City Council on this matter back in 1985, was to change the zoning on this parcel from a Commercial "C-3" to a Commercial "C-1" zoning. Therefore, many ' of the properties on this site are in a nonconforming status at this time due - to that earlier rezoning. Mr. Heintz presented the staff report recommending approval of this petition. The Planning Staff supports the conservation and preservation of the existing residential neighborhood and supports medium-density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned • area. Mr. Heintz stated that in 1986 the State of Utah, Division of Environmental Health had conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials on the site. The study concluded that hazardous waste materials were present in the ground at the site, but they had not migrated off-site and mitigation measures were undertaken to correct the on-site problems. Mr. Schumann asked if the petitioner wished to speak. Mr. Stoler, the petitioner was not present so Mr. Schumann then opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Brent Wall, an attorney representing Mr. Neil Christiansen, a property owner in the area in question, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Wall stated that this area is clearly not residential property and that his client stands to lose a considerable amount of money with a rezoning. Mr. Wall expressed concern regarding a condemnation, by the city, of these properties. Mr. Neil Christiansen, owner of the property located at 2225 South 500 East, stated that he is opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. es* PC MINUTES 11. December 8, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Christiansen stated that he has gone to considerable extremes and expense, • to maintain a good relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. Christiansen said he felt that if Planning. Commission members were prospective purchasers.of the.._ businesses in this area, they would be concerned about the zoning history of this area going from "C-3" to "C-1" and now a request to "R-5." Mr. Scott Lee, an attorney representing Mr. Paul Wells, a property owner in the neighborhood, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Lee stated that a rezoning to "R-5" would knock out about 75-80% of Mr. Wells' land value. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Wells would not be able to sell this property for a reasonable amount due to the nonconforming status restrictions and the loss of property value if the rezoning occurs. Mr. Johnson stated that the existing businesses are already nonconforming and that the rezoning would not prevent the continuation of the businesses that are currently in operation on this location. Mr. Johnson also informed Mr. Wall that the city had no hidden agenda to acquire these properties • through a condemnation. Mr. Brian Cannon, an attorney.representing Boats, Inc. , on the southeast corner of the properties in question, stated that he feels all that will happen with a rezoning of this area is the granting of lip service to the master plan for the area. Mr. Cannon requested that this petition be denied because his clients are concerned about their ability to sell their property: in the future should the rezoning occur. Mr. Wells the property owner .at 2233 South 500 East had his real estate agent address the Planning Commission. She stated that Mr. Wells would never have purchased this property had he been aware of the master plan intentions for this area. She added that Mr. Wells stands to lose a considerable amount of money if the rezoning occurs, because the land will be worth far less than what he currently owes the bank for it. Mr. Wells stated that he has spoken with the railroad people and they have no intention of going out of business as long as Granite Furniture has a use for their services. Mr. Gene Davis, 865 Parkway Avenue, a representative of.the Sugar House Community Council stated that a unanimous vote took place at the last council meeting to support the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Davis said they are in' favor of this petition being approved. . Mr. Kurt Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated that he and his wife are in favor of denying this petition because they appreciate the businesses in the area and are concerned about rental properties being constructed in place of the businesses, since the existing renters in the area do not keep up the properties. Mr. Brent Wall said it is a strong likelihood that if the rezoning to an "R-5" takes place, an inverse condemnation action may well originate from the property owners because of the inability to make these properties economically viable. • Mrs. Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated .that she is in favor of the petition being denied because she is concerned about an increase in crime in the area if the rezoning is approved and additional rental units are constructed. PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 10 • Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.. - Mr. Wright addressed the issue of the! hazardous waste investigation and stated that an intense investigation took place and that there were findings of contamination of the soil on-site. The conclusions were that the If contamination had not travelled off-site but that on-site workers and neighborhood children may be exposed to this contamination. There is a plan to remove the hot spots of contaminated soil and replace them with "clean" soil. Mr. Nicolatus asked what caused this rezoning issue to be brought before them at this time .and if there is a developer in the background with plans for residential development of this area. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Staff is responding to the petition request and is not aware of a developer in the background. Mr. Wright stated that this is a legislative action from the City Council sponsored by Councilmember Stoler. Mr. Wright added that it has been put on the City Council Agenda as a consent item to refer this issue to the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson added that if the Planning Commission's response is to deny the petition, City .Council will probably still hold their hearing on this matter. A discussion followed wherein the Planning Commission and Planning Staff reviewed the Sugar House Master Plan in regard to the properties in question. Mr. Nicolatus said he felt this issue would be better handled at the time when a developer had actual plans for the area rather than to place restrictions cn the area without development plans. Ms. Cromer said she regretted that the property owners had to go to the expense of hiring attorneys to represent them on this matter and moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for, the following reasons: 1) there does not appear to be any closure of the railroad in the foreseeable future, 2) this parcel has multiple owners and Ms. Cromer stated the only way she can sec amassing it for residential development is by condemnation, which she doesn't feel the rental market warrants, and she sees this action as taking the value of the owners • property, and 3) the contamination that currently exists on-site should preclude this parcel from becoming residential property as a protection to children who might live on this site in the future. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison stated that he disagrees with Ms. Cromer on the issue of taking and Mr. Cannon's comment of giving lip service to the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Ellison stated that the Master Plan for the Sugar House area was not the result of a single meeting, but rather, a result of five years' worth of data collection, research reports, goals and policies. Mr. Ellison stated that under the established law, if rezoning occurs pursuant to a master plan, it is considered valid and not a taking; otherwise it becomes spot zoning. Mr. Ellison added that these same businesses can continue on these properties indefinitely, even with a rezoning. He added that the real issue here is the desire for long range residential use. Otherwise, the master plan needs to be amended to correct the long range residential use statements pertaining to this parcel. / ' pcMINurEs December 8, 1988 Page 11 Ms. Cromer stated that she feels the time frame suggested in the Master Plan is not synchronized-with -the existing economic_conditions. Mr. Ellison expressed his concern about changing the master plan if that is not the intention. Mr. Schumann said he feels one of the critical issues is the future use of the railroad in this area. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Staff had contacted the railroad and the railroad's intent is to service Granite Furniture. Mr. Nicolatus said he feels the Planning Commission is not .abandoning, bisecting, or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan, but he feels the time to rezone for residential use is not now. Ms. -omer amended her motion to include the statement that the Planning Cord sion is,not abandoning, bisecting or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan but that the time for rezoning for residential use is not now. Ms: Liddle-Gamonal accepted the amendment to her second. Mr. Nicolatus requested that Ms. Cromer state in her motion that the Planning Commission is still supporting the Sugar House Master Plan. In a restatement of the motion, Ms. Cromer moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for the following reasons: 1) there does not seem to be any closure of the railroad system in the foreseeable future, 2) the parcels in question are multiply owned and it seems the only way to amass the entire area is through condemnation, which is not warranted at this time, and 3) the contamination :is a concern when considering. the property for residential use with children who will be constantly exposed. Ms. Cromer stated she continues to support the Sugar House Master Plan and the EVENTUAL use of the parcel for residential `uses, but this does not appear to be the time frame for changing the zoning. -Mr. Ellison requested that Ms. Cromer change the wording "condemnation" to "redevelopment." Ms. Cromer agreed. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal seconded the motion. Mr. Neilson stated that he is going to vote in favor of the motion to deny the petition but he does not support the master plan with respect to this particular site. Mr. Becker stated that he is concerned about the setting of a precedent of denying a petition that is completely consistent with the master plan, even though the timing may be terrible, without having reconsidered the master plan. He stated that he feels the first step should be to table the matter at hand and reconsider the master plan. • All voted "Aye" to Ms. Cromer's motion to deny with the exception of - Mr. Ellison who was opposed. Mr. Schumann requested that the Planning Staff reevaluate the Sugar House Master Plan to see if the portion of that plan dealing with the parcel of land ' pertaining to Petition No. 400-662 needs to be opened up for reconsideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Ellison requested that the Planning Staff look at ways to conceptualize the implementation of that master plan around a site like this one in more detail, in order for the Planning Commission to see how everything would go together and determine an appropriate time frame for implementation. \.y • • • PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 5 (-:311 ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee giving conceptual approval to the developer; 2) to table the matter and hold it until the developer makes a presentation to the Planning Commission, possibly through an informal hearing; and 3) to go ahead and let the conceptual approval stand, wait for the final approval of the Historical Landmark Committee and then either ratify or not ratify their actions. Mr. Johnson stated that if they choose to not ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee, the developer may then appeal the case to the Board of Adjustment. He added that the down side of waiting until final approval comes before them, is that the - developer will have spent a lot more money on the project by that time. Mr. Schumann suggested that they could ratify the Historical Landmark Committee's actions subject to an informal hearing. Mr. Schumann then asked if the developer had met with the neighborhood. Councilmember Hardman responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer said she had spoken with many of the neighbors in the area and the opposition to the office tower is overwhelming. Ms. Cromer moved to direct the developer and the architect on the project to . meet with the community councils and that an informal hearing take place after. those meetings. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. Mr. Howa asked if by voting on the motion they were endorsing the Historical Landmark Committee's actions on conceptual approval of the case. Mr. Schumann responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer stated that they were simply holding the matter until the developer has met with the neighborhood. All voted "Aye" on the motion. Reconsider action on Petition NO. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler, requesting property located between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues be rezoned from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. Mr. Schumann stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission previously and that City Council had requested this matter be reheard. Mr. . Johnson stated that the petitioner is requesting the Planning Commission also consider rezoning the area in question from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-3A" or a Residential "R-2A" zone as well as the Residential . "R-5" zone request in the original petition. Mr. Schumann asked how these two additional zoning options would affect the businesses in operation in the area. Mr. Johnson said they are all nonconforming uses and as such, would be allowed to continue as they are now. He said they would also be allowed to sell their businesses to similar uses allowed in that zoning. Mr. Johnson added that the businesses would not, however, be allowed to expand. Mr. Johnson further explained that if a disaster were to occur, they might not be allowed to rebuild, or if the business should become vacant for a period of one year, they would not be allowed to continue those uses as they had before. Mr. Wright stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission in an informal hearing on December 8, 1988 where a motion for denial was passed. At the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, there was a motion and a vote to reconsider this action, proposed by a Planning Commission member who had voted in favor of the motion at the December meeting. • PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 6 Councilmember. Stoler, the petitioner, said he had did not wish to speak to the issue since he had not been present at the previous meeting. Mr. Schumann asked the Planning Commission if they were desirous of opening the discussion to the public since this was.not an informal hearing. The Planning Commission agreed and the discussion was opened for public comment. Mr. Johnson read a letter from Kurt and Charlotte Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, expressing their concern that this matter was once again coming before the Planning Commission without having been resolved. They requested the Planning Commission deny the petition. Their letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Alma Edwards, 554 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition and requested.the Planning Commission vote in favor of it. Mr. Edwards added that the businesses in this area have degraded their living conditions due to noi: , smells and chemical compounds filling the air. Mr. Harold Luker, 550 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition .for the same reasons given by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Schumann pointed out that even if the rezoning is granted, the businesses in the area may still continue to operate as they are currently operating. Mr. Rawlins Young, SLACC Chairman, stated that he believes the rezoning is what the Sugar House Master Plan calls for. He also stated he feels the Planning Commission should vote in favor•of this petition because of the public monies invested in this area. Ms. Diana Smoot, 2592 Elizabeth Street, Chairperson of the SugarHouse Community Council, said she is in favor of this petition because she feels it will upgrade the quality of the neighborhood and it is consistent with the master plan. Mr. Brian Cannon, attorney for Louis Racine, one of the property owners of the area in question, stated that if this rezoning occurs, he will advise his client to consider an action for condemnation because of the loss in property value. Mr. Neil Christianson, 901 East 7800 South, one of the property owners, stated that he is willing to remedy any complaints the neighbors encounter. He said he is opposed to this petition because of the loss in property value he will experience if this rezoning is approved. Mr. Scott Leo, attorney for Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners, stated • that he is opposed to this petition and feels denying the petition is not inconsistent with the master plan. He referred the Planning Commission to Page Four of the SugarHouse Master Plan where it states that the railroad should be removed after it has been abandoned. Mr. Lee pointed out that there is no information available at this time to indicate abandonment of the railroad. Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners stated that he has spoken to the railroad and they have no intention of withdrawing the railroad spur in that area at this time. PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that Utah Transit Authority had expressed interest in the rail in this area in connection with the possibility of the future light- rail system. • Mr. Schumann closed the discussion to the public and opened it up for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Nicolatus said he fails to see why this matter is an issue, at this point in time, since there is no developer in the background. Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-662 for rezoning from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5." Mr. Ellison seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Planning Commission had the option of rezoning to "R-5," "R-3A" or "R--2.A." Mr. Becker said his preference was R-5." Mr. Ellison agrccd. Mr. Neilson said he does not believe down zoning, by itself, is an adequate strategy to implement the master plan, given the use of the railroad. Mr. Ellison said he felt the reasoning behind the down zoning was to discourage further commercial development in the area. Mr. Becker, Mr. Ellison and Mr. Howa voted "Aye;" Mr. Neilson, Mr. Nicolatus and Ms. Cromer voted "Nay;" Mr. Schumann, as chairperson, voted "Nay," causing the motion to fail. Mr. Ellison moved to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Schumann said he felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the SugarHouse Master Plan. Mr. Ellison accepted this as part of his motion; Ms. Cromer accepted it as part of the second. All voted "Aye." Mr. Ellison moved to table this petition until the Master Plan has been reviewed and possibly amended. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye;" Mr. Becker, Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Howa voted "Nay." Mr. Howa said he felt the matter needs to be dealt with• now, without further delay. Mr. Nicolatus moved that a recommendation be sent to the City Council • to deny Petition No. 440-662. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Howa and Mr. Neilson voted "Aye;" Mr. Ellison, Mr. Becker and Ms. Cromer voted "Nay." Mr. Schumann as the Chairperson, voted "Aye." The motion paste. Ms. Cromer said she felt there seemed to be a number of enforcement issues which cannot be handled through down zoning and suggested the appropriate bodies address the violations. Ms. Cromer moved to have enforcement actions • implemented, where appropriate, by the Board of Health, the City Business Licensing Division and any other relevant agencies, for the area between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. All voted "Aye" with the exception of Mr. Ellison who abstained. • LEGISLATIVE ACTION is e`er f - DATE: September 29, 1988 _...._ � SPONSOR: Council Member W. M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: An ordinance rezoning the property located between 500-600 Ea_t Streets and between Str.ingham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1' to a Residential'•"R-5" classification. • - • REFERRED TO: ( 1 ) City Attorney Roger Cutler for preparation of ordinance. (2) Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. • e .• .. - __ _...--� . .—r .. .ter .. .-_ .. �'.._ --"f'T':r.•'P.e ..:.�'•.4"..-._ ....s._... .. .. .:.v.b .'.. .. '— .. •----_-.__.. . ALLEN C. JOHNSON • i MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SA ' 1 r _ GI�'l �0,1:1RPORATI0R1, LAVONE HOMAS A. E•ELLISON ONAL SECRETARY RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT:SERVICES RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHJV M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT_LAKE CITY,'-.UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL - 535-7757 PETER VA,NALSTYNE KATHY WACKER • September 23, 1988 Linda Hamilton, Executive Director Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah - Dear Linda; Councilman Willie Stoler requested information concerning the rezoning of property in the Sugar House Conmlunity, specifically the Commercially zoned area between 500-600 East Streets and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues. _Attached is some specific information that should be submitted with a rezoning petition from him. Mr. Stoler wants to sponsor the rezoning as a legislative request from the City Council to the Planning & Zoning Commission. My understanding is that the Council's policy concerning this type of issue is to place the request on the Council's Consent Agenda for approval by a majority of the Council. Mr. Stoler asked that I convey this request to you. If you have any . questions, please call me. Respectfully submitted; ((Lie ,� William T. Wright AICP Acting Deputy Director Long Range Planning & Urban Design Attachments cc: Craig E. Peterson = • 1 • gt ,_ Tae3e7 0 i_0 g .u., _Lugio.), L_.. ,....., _,.-2 L J Tige iggh11 "ffl" r�c��o c�ffifioa0 oQ ti III IffIfillffigTddl g o �o�ffigT dl M-il WSM :own.... a eo 8Co :G:1F. _ga OS ges o�1°''f a olio o.mo..,a 1-`°mm'oL olro J • @ggo o 4.�oun°o j},�p I ommoma'F o - m o e — �a •` g711. ��F.T o oa '--.3 Sa v a I o' -c o e om� t`7 _• I now l • �, ' v8 I ° Qom�, J_•'— r - e g o�`a o- P. c�ao� — o�s eia .?. :ia DI .c;.-.o„e.vo QO®'Ai , e a ° v°�m o$ - a Iglu?' .e n noon ° ,$ sIli a :s A- r7 Belo! =..e' Ie�A ee I$AP, EBo. !o g= o . !!lr g,,iig `a1.7 L it 11 ` l�q�aa .gi° g.o g; III v�a ;., 1r — Jmi.°c Sew_, voJO°�0� ao E ~1�6o!_m!wmo A °o°u°I9 n2. 1 i 1 Ogri hdl°0 NEI MXIkgffro En ]T14 RMM c a@r�c�� °o ` p Riimmilsrdl 156.0 81 i___..__I Tcggofaffa0 IAORHNVIAai *21.4* - 11 "' ` L ri�l�il�M Timm l 8.9 5 Cam.: �r r iii a0[ EgT@oa0 �Ia(�aW� —6.7. 3 '- L.'= - rW� Milriud l ��all 193.0 100 i s ow°°�oa s _11 ro;r -- 1 d �� ` • ... '''''''1 ''''''''E Ni'LitLfiramsimmt -1 $ :PO e a� '1 • TREE LINED STREETS -z Y d a e =��a $ • NOISE AND VISUAL POLLUTION FROM 1-80 AND 1 a °.!p ° 1 o o RAILROAD. 1 `1 g ti °• ! yn 11 '°s NEGLECTED MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTIES. 'H B 8 e `e d E 4 o'p� 4 — • ii.... e o - 1r • SUBSTANDARD DEVELOPMENT OF ALLEYS. __ r • RESIDENTIAL—COMMERCIAL CONFLICTS. • SIDEWALKS IN STATE OF DISREPAIR. • LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. MEd ui ; policies. . • PROMOTE LAND USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE. • ALLOW FOR URBAN GROWTH WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE AREA. • ENCOURAGE PROPER LOCATION AND SITE DESIGN FOR HOUSING PROJECTS. 0 • ENCOURAGE HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING IN SELECT LOCATIONS. • PRESERVE AND CONSERVE EXISTING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS. proposed land use incompatible land nee 0 \ • EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES ALONGSIDE RESIDENTIAL M MN0 USES LOCATED BETWEEN: 1) WILMINGTON AND STRINGHAM AVENUES/500 AND Mui� ild 175.2 90.8 600 EAST: gM IG� WNMH 7.3 3.8 2) WIL.MINGTON AND SIMPSON AVENUES/600 AND 700 EAST. haLIU[gU0 JII i 1 8.9 4.6 THESE TWO SITES HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS RE- �,�, 1.6 W ��CJLI1 0.8 DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR NEW HOUSING AND MIXED ��0 USES. THE CURRENT USES ARE INCOMPATIBLE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. \ Md 193.0 100 • REDEVELOPMENT OF THE D.& R. G.W. RAIL LINE TO A BIKE PATH. EIBikg @Au] Icoati_ givitc_,a_Ag E..] ff-a Io M examples .— L. _65C01 rffnip .place cntg pd v (N-13 (�yo (4m 111 u 111.101117-11. . 0 0 2. I o J -i ,LED% , w[ Ioa E.,1• ! I i .rr t, . il r d °1 -.: a S •IIaa:urwar i o f 00 li 19 ! 4. o ��alA�rrarrd . .: E. 3 i -.. . - , ...._E G7 . o n _ o 1 - i 3 .0;1 i R flowal.., . ' . - -1 I P t --- 2 lz_ - .-6a,.1• 4i_ , [mei& kiiih�a tou a. - NO DEVELOPMENT i. Housing io"° t "o W - EXISTING HOUSING - Par � I )� TWritffalijiM I:A,w -sue"g C. M 1 GARDENS/PARK `-I b; / • ACQUIRE AND DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT: - WARNOCK AVE/600 EAST STREET SITE • LANDSCAPE NO-ACCESS AREA ALONG I-80 FWY. • DEVELOP IDENTIFIED BIKE PATHS. • INITIATE STREET-TREE PLANTING ON PARKING STRIP. -,, , ---i, ,m_.ff. a _r,_r agre IT , R.I,_,__._ iracile . gi 0 [ir , 1 0 ..[(, 0 0 0 Oi .,- o , .llHIP • HOUSING TYPE: — SINGLE FAMILY 56% a • TOTAL POPULATION:2961 — DUPLEX 32% • AGE 5 AND UNDER:330(11.1%) — MULTI-FAMILY 12% • AGE 65 AND OVER:495 (16.7%) J • 1979 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WAS S12,541 • CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: COMPARED TO S13,211 FOR SALT LAKE CITY. 4 'N • 11%OF THE FAMILIES ARE BELOW POVERTY LEVEL. 60� kil • PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE FROM 1980-2005: Etati GOOD SATIS- MINOR MAJOR DEMOLISH FACTORY REPAIR REPAIR 2,961 to 3,086(4.2%INCREASE) # 361 336 156 16 3 872 oh 41 38 18 2 1 100 .I 1-,—-g. D___.,r_ TE a g gffg— — a • 4.4%VACANCY RATE. • FROM 1960 TO 1980, THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS • PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE GENERALLY IN GOOD CONDI- INCREASED 10.9%. TION. HOWEVER, SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVE- MENTS ARE NEEDED. THESE INCLUDE: • 79%OF HOUSING UNITS ARE GREATER THAN 20 YEARS OLD SUBSTANDARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS • THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE IS 2.37. CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT • 29%OF THE HOUSEHOLDS HAVE CHILDREN. SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT • 27% OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS ARE HEADED BY PERSONS NEW STREET LIGHTS OVER 65 YEARS AND OVER. 0 NEW FIRE HYDRANTS • 1980 MEDIAN VALUE FOR HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBOR- HOOD IS S42,100(COMPARED TO S52,300 FOR ALL OF _e •= L SALT LAKE CITY). �v ' 111 Bjo - • OWNER OCCUPIED: B � � � F� 1 g a 1960 1970 1980 L 1TARGETAREA 67% 55% 50% E o �� 8 g� 0 0 o solos tea„ ° C SUGAR HOUSE 74 /o 69/0 65 /o s ; Milli a SALT LAKE CITY 56% 49% 50%J _ to•� s— - t_ e,e o a a 0 ffba TRUMBETI i 8i. I¢I a s 1 o' alb ..Iv JAI • NO ACREAGE IS DEDICATED TO PARKS. THE TARGET M V .1_.ra AREA IS IDENTIFIED IN THE SUGARHOUSE COMMUNITY I MASTER PLAN AS A PRIORITY AREA TO ACQUIRE AND DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.SINCE LESS THAN • WATER AND SEWER LINES HAVE THE CAPACITY TO L THREE PERCENT OF THE LAND IS VACANT, SELECTION SUPPORT THE ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE SITE IS LIMITED. POTENTIAL J ((�� p ,��/J�� 1f�r ��r7�p� � �,.Q� lf�( ��r7� IlI � 1f�r I�r7� ® �J-i:cr 11- E LIULI ® IJULIaI��IJ�U Q IJOUL �L1�U LILILI CN mNmrr�� CM1 wmTC Cho wff..T cD J PRIVATE ~ ILDRKE2 SECTOR CITY STATE REPLACE DILAPIDATED SIDEWALK. INSTALL NEW FIRE HYDRANTS. INSTALL NEW STREET LIGHTS. INITIATE STREET TREE PLANTING PROGRAM. DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (WARNOCK SITE 1ST PRIORITY). to INSTALL NEW CURB AND GUTTER. IMPLEMENT ZONING CHANGES. INITIATE BLOCK REDESIGNS AT BOTH SITES INDICATED. REDEVELOP NEW HOUSING SITE BETWEEN WILMINGTON/STRINGHAM Q O AVENUES AND 500/600 EAST STREETS. REDEVELOP MIXED USE SITE BETWEEN WILMINGTON/SIMPSON AVENUES 0 0 AND 600/700 EAST STREETS. REMOVE RAILROAD TRACKS; CONVERT TO A BIKE PATH/URBAN TRAIL. Q 0 DEVELOP BIKE PATHS. 0 LANDSCAPE THE NO-ACCESS AREA OF FREEWAY; PROVIDE SOUND ATTENUA- 0 TION BARRIERS AT THE ON/OFF RAMPS. -.JIPROVE HOUSING INFILL ALONG 700 EAST NORTH OF 1-80, INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACCESS ALLEY. 4 l C#Illt a', )11191TONfflfftZ-11 THOUSANDS OF S PER FY " " 1 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 I ed.ITie 20 20 PR0n6cMige f` , l �FL� aid p �� 5 - - `'. [�a OQa lz Fm[1@d o i PLAN DESIGN CONST. igi '> I _ MillraPi i W ' 1\ paFlu 200 4011 • ,.` g-INg 'ilAM 2 2 e A...6: 4 .or 4.. ha �[7 C�d0�Fl 250 +th•..T !11 , NI PC-44,er's ,.1 , . H; ` ' • { Traparklb@ l �x 45 60 T ` 6 40 `— 1,-1 r"-- ., 0a7 0 OG J ItilC c • IMPROVE AND PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING. ��®® �p • PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE NEW HOUSING. hauling re6111a 0 " A PROGRAM SPONSORED BY SALT LAKE CITY PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOUSING REPAIRS." TOO dt • TO REHABILITATE ENOUGH UNITS TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL VISUAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. �r • TO REHABILITATE 60% (100) OF STRUCTURAL UNITS NEEDING MINOR AND MAJOR REPAIR. �[�O�OMM • REHABILITATE UNITS WHICH NEED REPAIR AND ARE PROPERLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. • DO NOT REPAIR OR REHABILITATE WITH PUBLIC FUNDS STRUCTURES WHICH ARE: — BEYOND REPAIR AND SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED, — LOCATED ON NARROW, UNDEDICATED STREETS OR ALLEYS, — LOCATED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. housEnf CSC o C bC _0pu "m" "11" , �2100 SOUTH STREET L • S.LC. WILL MARKET NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES WITH THIS PLAN. i ❑ o ❑"CG°°o° ❑ o 0 0 IH G O • S.LC. MAY ASSIST PRIVATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH LAND COMMONWHAI AVENUE L,„a a ASSEMBLY, DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES AND SITE CLEARANCE. 115, °�o oo Qaooao o o Li o• S.LC. WILL PROMOTE FINANCING INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS. 1M AVENUE o ` h THESE MAY INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS (I.R.B.'S) URBAN I C °a°:J-000:CEo DDT CD]MO 0 p000 Ilouoaaao o ^fnmR rrwfa;m DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANTS(U D A G'S), LAND WRITEDOWN, ETC. _ I18 0000000000000 PAR 0 �1 , I JSIMPSO*b Mini- HOUSINGN 0.1- AVENUE W • THERE ARE TWO POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES AND SEVERAL INFILL SITES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I I ❑ 0 ❑Park o .. p C❑; I t o qSit! • REDEVELOPMENT SITE GUIDELINES: 13 r ?` ° C fplNfiHAM AVt NIIt '-' C- — DEVELOP INTO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT I ❑ B w =° DEVELOPMENTS. o v I 9 o I — PROVIDE SHORT-TERM SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ❑ � L o G Cx C a=C F" I — PROVIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS(LONG-TERM). _I ❑a — REMOVE D& R G.W. RAIL LINE; CONVERT INTO BIKE PATH. — ° :17-2 5:1 O;,L'0 Onc.CG32O a _ ffl • FIRST PRIORITY(SHORT-TERM) • SECOND PRIORITY(LONG-TERM) i I I I a w l • DEVELOP 7.2 GROSS ACRES AT • DEVELOP AS A MIXED-USE RESI- DENSITY OF 8-20 UNITS PER NET DENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT. ACRE:40-100 NEW UNITS TOTAL. • DEVELOP A MINI-PARK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. J J L pil IV a 7 ..\\,, p ❑ 0 0 , 31° 'Duoa0o❑omo❑° Ili -- r l$ Oa oo.0 cbmil0 ouoi I 1, §po'. =. '� a 5 a I I, yy o❑ ❑ ��❑ a ,i.';. 1[' 1 F 1 f 1t' M e 0 oo�m00,0 e _. - - WO❑00000mto§ 1 -. �.—3=. C Pr—, c' 011lllillb t .... S r°7-}^ Iff Ilijoo1Q o io g UiU W1ooani.o 0 0 / i ...Do upm o ❑..0 `o •a- o 000o o°f-o Q o o i o a °Ip o �` !° 8r` / f 11 a T[ ei o 'A 71 L7 ��❑ Lav �❑❑❑Oopm o aTea .1 a v n o❑, o .i ❑r 1U m13❑ C�o�o�o n ❑0 0 d 0 o ❑ - p o❑ o�(R'U pm pm U'4 EI n QC'' ''%. 7,40g1.. ?3 i • o v o:: i o po ❑o ❑ ❑ o v O a a o�:�5 v v [71 / \ 2 °''''''''ll'i`P. a v.—. — i ....ji<;141-.114 ,..1 j o o ❑ lLI 'nnn 14 '. ' Y- 11------, ❑ t:.i,_ , 0 0 ❑ ,' oW 00o do 1 o ,, ^'I o b„ 0 5 0 ❑ e ❑ ❑To 0 0000 o ❑ a o 1 8' •g oo °oo O o'o Q a o ; o o,I o q k ..o :; g g a o ❑ o 0000 0` IN I J t o a' I,E 1 0 0 0-I g ❑ g ° 1 8 . ❑°O o % Ir tg WAR [7 ol� ❑ o L 70`2 L is '• • o0 B g o p 0.•0 q o ❑i❑ o I(� , • 1 r�� a _p ..011-o000�0 L aomu mu U t o❑❑0 a. if.o❑_o ,�❑ o lr� �S *'-""+III J �.....�a.� 000❑moo❑p .1 I I n— v.p I : 11_,. [iii M El S al i-e.) 11 J In 0' 111Thti F prepared by the salt lake city planning commission LiTtiV14: a Mcgaam itilwm mpudg,Thi: The Salt Lake City Three Year Community Development Plan, ®Pill Rt j TM 1982-1985,identified neighborhoods to"target"or"concentrate' ;^ - ' Federal block grant funds for capital improvements. Criteria for target area selection includes: The Sugar House Target Area developed as agricultural tracts • strong residential components; within a few years after the settlement of Salt Lake Valley.For 40 • identifiable deterioration in public or private years this area remained sparsely settled and primarily farmland_ properties; In 1902,the target area became part of the incorporated town of • area of manageable size; Forest Dale. Increasing costs and demand for municipal services • area where CDBG"seed"money will be an impetus resulted in disincorporatian in 1912 followed by annexation to Salt for continued improvement; Lake City. • neighorhood identity with recognizable boundaries. By 1950 eighty percent of the area's existing housing stock was The Sugar House Target Area was designated in 1982 to provide built, mostly single family.World War II brought about a need for capital improvements to public and private properties.The Target multiple family housing in Salt Lake City.In 1942 the majority of the Area Plan identifies the existing character and conditions, lists target area was zoned "R-4"allowing for three and four-family obtainable goals, determines a land use plan, and recommends dwellings. Previous zoning allowed only one and two family programs and actions necessary to implement the plan. dwellings. This plan shall be used by citizens,city officials and developers to Forest Dale retained its identity as a residential community until guide neighborhood improvements and new development to the the early 1960's. Construction of Interstate 80 and an expanded desired goal.The neighborhood will not be targeted indefinitely. 700 East Street divided the area into small neighborhoods_ Targetingof the neighborhood will be considered successful when the following criteria have been met + . . I.. . • when the neighborhood is accepted as a viable, , t4 revitalized area; r4, ; '`gym4. et, • private investment activityis evident; ' �� • basic infrastructure is improved;and, - _as 1, • identified goals of the Target Area Plan are 1chieved. -- - - T -3.0Th a _....., ,,,,we c_,...„, riIie _„,iis .fr nA i \ �oce dd��uj r -? lo��umg PdlolSo qmff2712 _l�1 0 l:J r L J P140dd Nd L___l [ gClOH Ill amillimuli qi. muli r ' . ondkra cower l bold poi 40 J I 1 L oo��dPouoll hmti opA 11 J 15lfdP It,. 0 • STREET' 1 0 ❑GCl0❑❑o❑ ❑00 0 r-f lion oIll5m c si NNhRdN.1W7:1\C�:\I� 9 ❑ 0 halugaimdtit Pr IL), 013 puce Liman;El El, f fitni o n r g ❑ ❑ 1000 DODoo0o 0 DZ N❑ ,,L 51 a 51\'17C 1N 1 ll' ❑6000000000 B ou❑eoCm DEN I ■ ■ 0 171..11.1e1KM11,l.D1 i.._..J Pogmdiom itg nr norfai it o 000maouDU6on o P,».Lu.1nP1.WAVm'ul 41341111011 Iffir LI I , Pelt a ©o�3dd.M4d Pd- 1 .T 'T-- I Qr..`1 bold poo �,. .-�o;.; ;—_-,...w ;: W ci ❑ _ AIMOMp©d�4 �u[td 'I `.� ac�ga�g xD [iii • V IMPS•N r A L. y 1:3o n 01 *o o r❑ lo��o�g PdddndOop= r..—1 MN ei (5agi.Oa p 0�❑C1❑QQa4❑ o o •w J ©d�14400d MirilN 9. o ❑pp�apooa D p a ■ , t j ° 0 _o o 1 o o 17 71 b0ool r.. po[ �i d O r M! 1b fl o o o p, o -''lc n L„. Poddgic]p j_i'J oPoUNoflMPtil `i 2 ❑ 0 d o fir 10 F3 lub110Poc�t� H 000❑ a 0 op DUE, : i r�% Li ,:a 4i 1:1 0000 00000 p sri+�� gE_ e : o ' ..��;." COD o C❑❑❑00❑ ❑ p 4 , . g _ � n ng — -'I ICE IN � sn17NIN:tMEro.a.la., ,s 1 u• i❑ p r o ' 0 EL I- D p ❑❑ ❑ . L= a ❑ Off. - Tr� I ❑ ( o : o �l'� I d ❑ ❑ ❑ O " o ilk❑ ;i onof o 0 0 ❑ I0 al n❑❑❑ EI OOD ' o pl1- �I a O ii❑ =D: c r NO ; , F •■•11a....0 mom ❑ 0 _Q❑ 0 w I. o $lo dim' J,❑ ot0 ' <0 ,1s . p❑noo❑ou- O o try s -1mN:u1M40111 ❑ o .13 d,Poo Sj ❑ ❑ o ooafl❑D❑ A �•-' —_ ■', p o o °I o a ❑ 0 1,1 ••CU❑0a t o ! Co .I • ❑ a of o ❑ o❑ o 11 o o .• I I❑ o ❑ /Jo 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑Doi, . ogo ti 1i 0, O❑❑aI o O t1:oPi a [7 fl N:reycl o o7.O .b I ❑] - plo i cm 0 ❑rg o o-„Y ■ o ❑ b ' Cl ❑❑❑❑ 0m '1 o it ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ al y p ❑ p ❑ tj ,_- io ;� ❑; o o❑ o on❑ a; Q o 0 4❑' o° ❑ 1 2700 • SOUTH STREET L If I 0.7 . i iiiiiiiiiiiii � 9 J J q enl c rariam.. ram tam�2I—®n"Il° — — l This plan was adopted by the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 26, 1984, and recommended to the Salt Lake City Council for their adoption. The Salt Lake City Council unanimously adopted the Sugar House Target Area Plan on Tuesday, July 17, 1984 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS: MAYOR: MAYOR'S OFFICE 535-7704 Ted L. Wilson CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 535-7600 CITY COUNCIL "NEED"LINE 535-6333 Ronald J. Whitehead, District 1 Grant Mabey, District 2 PLANNING AND ZONING 535-7757 Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck, District 3 BUILDING AND HOUSING 535-7751 Earl Hardwick, District 4 Zoning Enforcement Alice Shearer, District 5 Code Enforcement lone M. Davis, District 6 Building Inspector Edward W. Parker, District 7 Operation Paintbrush PLANNING COMMISSION: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 328-3211 Peter J. VanAlstyne, Chairman Housing Rehabilitation Program Thomas Ellison Redevelopment Herman J. Hogensen Lorna Lee ENGINEERING 535-7775 Robert Lewis Sidewalk, Curbs and Gutters George Nicolatus HOUSING AUTHORITY 486-3901 John M. Schumann F. Keith Stepan CAPITAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 535-7955 Kathy Wacker Community Development I. J. Wagner PARKS AND RECREATION 972-6714 PARTICIPATING CITY STAFF: OTHER ORGANIZATIONS: Vernon F. Jorgensen, AICP, Planning Director ASSIST, INC. 355-7085 Allen C. Johnson, AICP, Deputy Planning Director William T. Wright, Project Director, Planner II SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL Everett Joyce,AICP, Planner II Mark Vlasic, Planner I Doug Dansie, Planner I Gregg Selby, AICP, Planner II ,[A• Dennis Varney, Planning Aide I yn Lisa Irene Stocking, Secretary I , , , t Funding for this plan was provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program. • , Graphics design and layout by -. Mark Vlasic & Doug Dansie. (_23 STAFF RECOMMEENDATION Proposed Ordinances for Administration of Cable Television April 14, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Adopt three ordinances governing Cable Television Franchise Agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order to provide quality cable television services to City residents a need exists to revise, update, and improve the current Cable Television Franchise Ordinance. The current ordinance does not give the City the power to address many of the problems pertaining to customer service complaints nor is the City receiving the full amount of franchise tax that it should. During the past year TCI Cablevision of Utah and Salt Lake City negotiated a set of three ordinances that address these issues: a Master Franchise Ordinance to apply to all cable franchises granted by the City, a Customer Service Ordinance, and a nonexclusive Franchise Grant. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Master Franchise Ordinance will more clearly define gross revenues and raise franchise fees from 2% to 5%, increasing franchise fees received by the City from $100,000 to $170,000. It adds a Government Access Channel and a Community Access Channel. • It creates requirements to extend service to areas where there are a sufficient number of subscribers. It adds reporting requirements so that the City can exercise a more forceful oversight role. It provides for the auditing of franchise fee calculations and adds penalties for franchise fee underpayment. The Customer Service Standards Ordinance sets new customer service standards to include answering 85% of all calls within three minutes, requires 95% of all installations be completed within 15 days, requires that 95% of repair appointments be met, and provides monetary penalties for standards violations. The Franchise Grant Ordinance grants a 15 year, nonexclusive franchise to TCI Cablevision of Utah. The ordinances do not attempt to regulate the decency of material aired on cable TV. The City Attorney's office feels that such regulation would pose serious First Amendment problems. The ordinances as proposed, pose no great problems for TCI Cablevision at this time. They have indicated to staff that they do not intend to oppose the ordinances and have already begun implementing many of the service requirements. There is a public hearing scheduled for April 18. If no serious public opposition is encountered, you could pass the ordinances at the conclusion of the public hearing. In the event that Council members have questions or concerns, or serious opposition is expressed during the public hearing, we have scheduled time during Committee of the Whole on April 20 for discussion with final action tentatively scheduled for May 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If no opposition is. expressed at the public hearing, adopt three separate ordinances. The first ordinance providing for the granting, renewal, and enforcement of franchises; sec- 1d, �2s: bushing • service standards; and the third, granting TCI Cablevision of Utah a 15 year nonexclusive franchise. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we close this public hearing. I move that we amend Chapter 5. 20 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to cable communication, providing for the granting, renewal, and enforcement of franchises and the terms and conditions thereof. I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code by adding a new chapter 5. 21 providing for customer service standards of cable franchises. I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code by adding chapter 5. 20A, granting a 15 year nonexclusive franchise to TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: Citizens or groups who would oppose cable television in general and who would like the City to regulate the decency of material aired on cable TV. CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE BRIEF CITY COUNCIL PROBLEM: the need to revise, update, and improve Salt Lake City' s Cable Television Franchise Ordinance in order to provide for better cable television service for the City and its residents. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION: Adopt the new Cable Television Franchise ordinances. BACKGROUND Failings of Current Ordinance *** Frequently customers had to wait on hold for five minutes or longer to report problems or order service. The current franchise does not give the City the power to address this problem. *** Some customers prepaid for cable subscriptions only to have to wait months to be connected. The current franchise does not give the City the power to address this problem. *** Many residents desiring cable service were unable to obtain it because their area had not been wired, and were given no indication of when the area would be wired. The current franchise does not give the City the power to address this problem. *** The current franchise holder pays the a franchise fee of 2% of gross revenues. The franchise does not define what constitutes gross revenues, and does not state the methods the City can use to determine if the payments are correct. *** Community Television of Utah was given a nonexclusive franchise, yet the current franchise contains no provisions or guides for granting other franchises. The current franchise is silent on many other issues. The current franchise holder has shown good faith in declining to exploit these areas, but there is no guarantee future franchise holders will do the same. Brief History *** A 35-year franchise agreement was approved in 1966. *** The City received numerous customer service complaints prompting the Council, in 1984, to express concern about the franchise agreement. Page 1 *** City notified Community Television of Utah in 1986 that it would like to renegotiate the franchise agreement. Community Television did not see a need for negotiation. *** In December 1986, Community Television of Utah notified the City that it was transferring its franchise to TCI . The City Attorney' s Office indicated that this could be considered a breach of the Franchise because the transfer of assignment had been effectuated before the letter was written and performed without the consent of the City Council . TCI and the City began negotiations to resolve this and the other issues of concern. *** After bargaining, TCI and the City were unable to agree on the placement and type of customer service standards in the Franchise Agreement. Negotiations were broken off, but TCI and the City agreed to meet monthly to review and discuss TCI ' s customer service, installation, and repair performance. *** From August 1987 to August 1988, the City met monthly with TCI representatives to discuss telephone and service performance. A general improvement was seen, but not enough to alleviate the need for service standards in a franchise ordinance. *** The City decided that the best way to resolve the issues would be to draft and pass cable television ordinances to unilaterally resolve the disputed issues. *** The City sent a copy of the cable television ordinances to TCI, giving them 30 days to comment before the ordinances would be passed into law. *** TCI responded to the ordinances by returning full force to the negotiating table. *** TCI and the City were able to resolve their differences on customer service and other issues and come to agreement on a set of cable television ordinances. *** TCI and the City have continued to meet monthly to discuss telephone and service performance. TCI has begun to implement the customer service standards found in the new ordinances. The City has seen corresponding reduction in complaints. ORDINANCES TCI and the City negotiated a set of three ordinances - a Master Franchise Ordinance to apply to all cable franchises granted by the City, a Customer Service Ordinance, and a nonexclusive Franchise Grant. The ordinances will do the following: Page 2 Master Franchise Ordinance: *** Define gross revenues for franchise fee calculation as all those revenues received by the Franchisee or an affiliate derived from operation within City limits. *** Raise Franchise Fee from 2% to 5% of gross revenues. This should increase Franchise Fees by $100, 000 to about $170, 000 per year. *** Add a Government Access Channel and a Community Access Channel. *** Create requirements to extend service where there are a sufficient number of subscribers or where individuals are willing to help pay the cost of extension. *** Add reporting requirements, requiring the reporting of financial statements, compliance with FCC regulations, and documentation of Franchise Fee calculations. *** Provide for the auditing of Franchise Fee calculation and payments. *** Add penalties for Franchise Fee underpayment. Customer Service Standards Ordinance: *** Set customer service standards including: * Requiring that 85% of calls be answered within three minutes (with provisions for increasing the percentage if necessary) . * Requiring that 95% of installations be completed within 15 days. * Requiring that 95% of repair appointments be met. *** Provide monetary penalties for standard violations. Franchise Grant: *** Grant a 15 year, nonexclusive franchise to TCI, Cablevision of Utah. Page 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE STANDARDS ORDINANCE) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO CABLE COMMUNICATIONS BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5. 21 PROVIDING FOR THE CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS OF CABLE FRANCHISES . WHEREAS, the City, in the exercise of its police power and other regulatory authority and in compliance with federal regulatory limitations, believes it to be in the best interests to provide that any franchise cable television operation comply with certain customer service standards; and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated proposed customer service standards with TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. , a prospective franchisee; and WHEREAS, the City believes such standards to be in the best interest of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Chapter 5. 21 be enacted into the Salt Lake City Code as follows: Sec. 5.21.010. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate in the public interest, the service standards of Cable Communication Systems within the City, in order to ensure that the service provided to Subscribers within the City by cable television companies is reasonably sufficient to meet community needs. Sec. 5.21.020. SHORT TITLE. This Ordinance shall constitute the "Cable Television Service Standards Ordinance" of the City of Salt Lake and may be referred to as such. Sec. 5.21.030. DEFINITION OF TERMS. For the purposes of this Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words, abbreviations and derivations shall have the following meaning. Terms not defined in this ordinance shall have the meaning defined in the Master Cable Communication Ordinance . When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense shall include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. (A) "Cable Service" means ( 1 ) the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming or other programming services, and (2 ) any subscriber interaction required for the selection of such video programming or other programming service. (B) "Abandoned Calls" means telephone calls that are connected to the Grantee' s general information number but the caller hangs up without being attended by a representative of the Grantee or a device capable of problem resolution (e.g. placing a service request, placing a work order, directing call to appropriate personnel, etc. ) . "Abandoned -2- Calls" shall in no event be deemed to include calls in which the caller hangs up within forty- five ( 45 ) seconds of making the call. Sec. 5.21.040. REQUIREMENTS. (A) Grantee shall maintain an office in the City where complaints and requests for repairs or adjustments may be received at any time. The current local telephone number( s) for the office and complaint service shall be listed in telephone directories distributed in Grantee' s Service Area. (B) Grantee shall maintain a written record or "log" of system failures and customer complaints describing the date and nature of the failure or complaint, and the date and nature of the action taken by Grantee. These records shall be kept at Grantee ' s local office for a period of three ( 3 ) years and shall be available for inspection by the City during regular business hours. Sec. 5.21.050. SYSTEM SERVICE STANDARDS. (A) Grantee shall limit System failures to a minimum time duration by locating and commencing repair promptly. Grantee will generally respond to Subscriber outages by the next business day. In the event of a major system outage, however, such as where a majority of Subscribers are without a picture in twenty-five percent ( 25%) or more of the Service Area, Grantee will respond to such -3- outages within twenty-four ( 24 ) hours after occurrence, irrespective of holidays or nonbusiness hours. (B) Grantee shall render efficient service making system repairs promptly, and interrupting service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Planned interruptions, insofar as possible, shall be preceded by twenty-four ( 24 ) hours notice to Subscribers and shall occur during periods of minimum viewership. Sec. 5.21.060. SUBSCRIBER SERVICE STANDARDS. (A) All calls to the general information number shall be answered by an operator or a device identifying the Grantee. (B) Subject to Section 5. 21 .090 hereof, eighty-five percent ( 85%) of all Customer calls shall be attended within three minutes by a representative of the Grantee or a device capable of problem resolution. (C) The rate of abandoned calls shall be less than fifteen percent ( 15%) . (D) Ninety-five percent ( 95%) of all Customer installations shall be completed within fifteen ( 15 ) working days (unless the Customer requests a later date) . -4- (E) Ninety-five percent (95%) of all repair and installation appointments shall be met by Grantee on the appointed date and within the appointed four-hour block of time, unless satisfactory arrangements are otherwise made with the Subscriber. An appointment shall be considered to have been met by Grantee if the Subscriber fails to be present to allow Grantee access during the appointed block of time and Grantee confirms such absence by calling the Subscriber' s home telephone. The Grantee shall provide the information required to monitor these standards to the Franchise Authority on a monthly basis. The Grantee shall be excused for not achieving these standards during periods when conditions exist which are outside of its reasonable ability to control, or when there are System interruptions, outages, or other activities designed to maintain or improve cable service or the system. The Grantee shall notify the Franchise Authority in advance of any maintenance or improvement activity which Grantee claims will make attainment of the standards impracticable. Sec. 5.21.070. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. (A) In the event the Grantee violates one or more material terms, conditions or provisions of this -5- Ordinance, including but not limited to, Sections 5 and 6 hereof, the City shall give the Grantee written notice detailing the nature of the alleged noncompliance. For violations of Section 5. 21.060, the Grantee shall have fifteen ( 15 ) business days to cure the default, or if the default cannot be cured within fifteen ( 15 ) business days, to initiate reasonable steps to remedy the default and notify the City of the steps being taken and the projected date that they will be completed. If the Grantee disputes the assertion of noncompliance, it must notify the City in writing within five ( 5 ) business days of the original notice, stating that it disagrees with the assertion of noncompliance, giving with particularity the reasons for disagreement. ( B) The Mayor or the Mayor' s designee shall hear Grantee' s dispute at an executive hearing to be held in a timely manner. (C) Upon a determination by the Mayor or the Mayor' s designee that a violation exists, Grantee shall have ten ( 10) business days to cure the default or to take reasonable steps to remedy the default if it cannot be cured within ten ( 10 ) business days . (D) In the event that Grantee fails to respond to the notice described in Section 5.21 .070(A) , or in the -6- event that the default is not remedied within the time required, the City may, without further notice and in addition to any other applicable remedies, implement and collect the daily fine pursuant to Section 5 . 21.080. Sec. 5.21.080. ENFORCEMENT. (A) For violation of a term of this Ordinance, subject to the provisions of Section 5.21 . 070 hereof, the Grantee shall pay two hundred fifty dollars ( 250 ) per day, or part thereof, for the first day that such violation continues from and after implementation of the daily fines, pursuant to Section 5 . 21 . O7O(D) . The fine shall increase weekly by an additional $250 per day to a maximum of $1, 000 per day. Grantee shall pay the fine or penalty directly or by notifying the City to draw down the security deposit held by the City pursuant to the Cable Communication Ordinance. If the Grantee fails to pay the penalty or notify the City to draw down on the security deposit within seven ( 7 ) days of notification of the implementation of daily fines, the City may proceed immediately to draw down on the security deposit. (B) Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall preclude the exercise of any other right or remedy of the City available at law or equity. -7- Sec. 5.21.090. THREE-YEAR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION. (A) Every three (3 ) years after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City and Grantee shall undertake a survey within the Service Area of cable subscribers designed to measure cable subscriber satisfaction of the customer service practices of the Grantee. Such survey shall be at Grantee' s sole expense, in a form mutually acceptable to the City and Grantee. (B) In the event that the survey demonstrates that the customer service practices set forth in Section 5 . 21.060(B) hereof are insufficient to meet the reasonable community needs in light of the anticipated costs thereof, then the percentage set forth in Section 5 .21 . 060(B ) relating to the attending of customer calls shall automatically be deemed to increase by an amount sufficient to meet such community needs. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that such percentage increase shall be three percent (3%) for each three (3 ) year review period. In no event will the percentage in Section 5. 21.060(B) be greater than ninety-five percent ( 95%) . (C) Nothing in this Ordinance shall limit the City' s and the Grantee' s ability to reduce the percentage set forth in Section 5. 21.060(B ) except that no -8- reduction may be allowed below the eighty-five percent ( 85%) initial standard. If, based upon the survey results, a decrease in such percentage is demonstrated to be sufficient to meet the community needs, upon a request of Grantee, the City shall not unreasonably refuse to reduce such percentage. Sec. 5.21.010. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (A) Preemption. If any federal or state body or agency shall preempt and supersede or preclude the jurisdiction of the Franchise Authority, the jurisdiction of the Franchise Authority shall cease while such jurisdiction is preempted, superseded or precluded. (B) Severability. If any section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof is for any reason determined to be illegal, invalid, superseded by other authority or unconstitutional by any court of common jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory authority having jurisdiction thereof, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof, all of which -9- will remain in full force and effect for the term of the Franchise or any renewal or renewals thereof. (C) Franchise Authority Rules. The Mayor may adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained in this and other applicable ordinances, such additional regulations as it may find necessary in the exercise of the police power. Any such additional regulations shall be reasonably designed to meet the purposes of this ordinance and shall be adopted only after notice and comment are provided. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER L./ -10- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -11- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE GRANT - TCI) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE SALT LAKE CODE RELATING TO CABLE COMMUNICATIONS BY ADDING CHAPTER 5. 20A GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO TCI CABLEVISION OF UTAH, INC. WHEREAS, the City has entered into negotiations with TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. concerning granting TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. a nonexclusive cable television franchise for Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that TCI has the financial, technical and legal capability to enter into such a franchise with the City; and WHEREAS, the City believes the entry of such a franchise with TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. is in the best interests of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Chapter 5.20A is hereby enacted to read as follows: Sec. 5.20A.010. GRANT. Having determined that the financial, legal, and technical ability of TCI Cablevision of Utah, Inc. ( "TCI of Utah" ) is reasonably sufficient to provide cable television to the community, TCI of Utah is hereby granted a non-exclusive Franchise which authorizes TCI of Utah to construct, operate, and maintain a Cable Communications System according to the requirements and privileges contained in the Master Cable Communication Ordinance, the Cable Television Service Standards Ordinance and other related ordinances of the City which are included by reference as they may be amended from time to time. Sec. 5.20A.020. TERM. The TCI of Utah Franchise shall be for a term of fifteen ( 15 ) years from the effective date of this ordinance unless lawfully terminated or extended pursuant to the Cable Communication Ordinance or other related ordinances of the City. Sec. 5.20A.030. CONTRACT. The City and TCI of Utah may enter into a Franchise agreement mutually agreeable to the parties in lieu of TCI ' s being subject to this Ordinance, the Cable Communication Ordinance and the Cable Television Service Standards Ordinance. Sec. 5.20A.040. SERVICES. The initial service offerings of TCI of Utah and rates related thereto are attached as Schedule 1 . Nothing contained in this Franchise grant shall be deemed to preclude TCI of Utah from adding, deleting, modifying or otherwise offering or changing any of its services, channel locations, levels of service, or rates relating thereto throughout the term of the Franchise. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -" Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -3- • SCHEDULE 1 (BASIC RATES AND CHARGES ) A. BASIC CABLE SERVICE $16.50/month SHALL INITIALLY INCLUDE: Channel Programming 1. 2 KUTV (NBC) 2. 3 TNT 3. 4 KTVX (ABC) 4 . 5 KSL (CBS ) 5. 7 KUED 6 . 8 American Movie Classics 7. 9 CNN 8. 11 KBYU 9 . 12 ESPN 10 . 13 KSTU 11 . 14 KXIV 12 . 15 LOCAL GEN/UTAH SPORTS CHANNEL 13 . 16 CBN 14 . 17 The Nashville Network 15 . 18 MTV 16 . 19 WGN 17 . 22 WTBS 18 . 23 NICKELODEON 19 . 24 Arts & Entertainment 20 . 25 USA 21 . 26 The Discovery Channel 22 . 27 The Weather Channel 23 . 28 CNN II 24 . 29 CNBC 25 . 30 KOOG 26 . • 31 Lifetime 27 . 32 CVN 28 . 33 EWTN/VISN 29 . 34 CSPAN 30 . 36 ED.ACC B. PREMIUM PAY SERVICE CHANNELS SHALL INITIALLY INCLUDE: Channel Programming Cost/Month 1. 21 The Movie Channel $11 . 95 2 . 6 HBO $11 . 95 3 . 10 The Disney Channel $10 . 95 4 . 20 Showtime $11 . 95 Installation Rate - $20 . 00 Average two week wait for installation. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (MASTER CABLE COMMUNICATION ORDINANCE) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5. 20 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO CABLE COMMUNICATION; PROVIDING FOR THE GRANTING, RENEWAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF FRANCHISES AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. WHEREAS, time and technological changes have made it necessary for the City to revise its Ordinances regulating cable television in compliance with federal law; and WHEREAS, the City has worked closely to negotiate changes in the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with potential cable franchisees; and WHEREAS, the City believes the following Ordinance to be in compliance with federal regulatory guidelines for cable television and in the best interests of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That existing Chaper 5 . 20. 010, et seq. , attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby repealed. SECTION 2 . That Chapter 5. 20.010, et seq. , be reenacted as follows: Sec. 5.20.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate in the public interest the operation of cable communications systems and their use of the public rights- of-way by establishing procedures for granting and terminating franchises, by prescribing rights and duties of operators and users of cable communication systems, and by providing generally for cable communications services to the citizens of the City of Salt Lake. Sec 5.20.020 SHORT TITLE. This Ordinance shall constitute the "Cable Communication Ordinance" of the City of Salt Lake and may be referred to as such. Sec. 5.20.030 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS. For the purposes of this Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words, abbreviations and derivations shall have the following meaning. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense shall include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. (A) "Access Channel" means a channel designated and maintained by a cable communications system for programming not originated or procured by the system, including, but not limited to, the local government, the educational, and public access channels. (B ) "Affiliate" means a wholly owned entity which owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership with the Grantee. -2- ( C) "Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. (D) "Cable Communication System" or "System" means a system employing antennae, microwave, wires, wave- guides, coaxial cables or other conductors, equipment, or facilities designed, constructed, or used for the purpose of: ( 1 ) collecting and amplifying local and distant broadcast, television, or radio signals and distributing and transmitting such signals; ( 2 ) transmitting original cablecast programming not received through television broadcast signals; (3 ) transmitting television pictures, film and video tape programs not received through broadcast television signals, whether or not encoded or processed to permit reception by only selected receivers; and (4 ) transmitting and receiving all other signals - digital, voice, or audiovisual . (E) "City" means the City of Salt Lake, or the lawful successor, transferee or assignee thereof . (F) "FCC" means Federal Communications Commission, or its successor. (G) "Franchise" means and includes any authorization granted hereunder in terms of franchise, -3- privilege, permit, license, or otherwise to construct, operate and maintain a Cable Communication System within all or a specified area of the City for the purpose of offering cable services or other services to Subscribers. Any such authorization, in whatever form granted, shall not supersede the requirement to obtain any other license or permit required for the privilege of transacting and carrying on a business within the City as required by other ordinances and laws of this City. (H) "Grantee" means any person, firm, or corporation granted a Franchise by the City. ( I ) "Gross Revenues. " ( 1 ) "Gross Revenues" means all revenues, as determined according to generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, derived directly or indirectly by the Grantee, arising from or attributable to operation of the Cable Communication System in the Service Area, including but not limited to: ( a) revenue from all charges for services provided to Subscribers of entertainment and non-entertainment services ( including leased access fees ) ; -4- (b) revenue from all charges for the insertion of commercial advertisements upon the Cable Communication System in the Service Area; (c ) revenue from all charges for the leased use of studios in the Service Area; (d ) revenue from all charges for the installation, connection and reinstatement of equipment necessary for the utilization of the Cable Communication System and the provision of subscriber and other services in the Service Area; and ( e) Grantee' s pro rata portion of any revenues on a subscriber base basis derived from any other person or source arising from or attributable to Grantee' s operation of the Cable Communication System in the Service Area, to which the City is authorized to apply a franchise fee under federal, state or local law as it may exist from time to time during the term of the Franchise. ( J) "Public Way" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, highway, -5- freeway, bridge, land path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, way, lane, public way, drive, circle or other public right-of-way including public utility easements, dedicated utility strips or rights-of-way dedicated for compatible uses, and any temporary or permanent fixtures or improvements located thereon now or hereafter held by the City. Public Way shall also mean any easement now or hereafter held by the City within the Service Area for the purpose of public travel, or for utility or public services use dedicated for compatible uses. Public Way shall include other easements or rights-of-way as shall within their proper use and meaning entitle the City and the Grantee with the City' s approval use for the purposes of installing or transmitting Grantee' s cable services or other service over poles, wires, cables, conductors, ducts, conduits, vaults, manholes, amplifiers, compliances, attachments and other property as may be ordinarily necessary and pertinent to the System. (K) "Service Area" means the present municipal boundaries of the City, and shall include any additions thereto by annexation or other legal means. -6- ( L) "Subscriber" or "Customer" means any person or entity lawfully receiving for consideration, direct or indirect, any service of the Grantee ' s cable communications system. Sec. 5.20.040 REQUIREMENT FOR FRANCHISE. Subject to applicable federal, state and local law, it shall be unlawful for any person to install, construct, operate or maintain a cable communications system on streets or the Public Way within all or any part of the City without first obtaining a Franchise under the terms and provisions of this Ordinance. Sec. 5.20.050 CONDITIONS OF STREET OCCUPANCY. All transmission and distribution structures, poles, other lines, and equipment installed or erected by the Grantee pursuant to the terms hereof shall be located so as to cause a minimum of interference with the proper use of Public Ways. All cables, wires and other equipment shall be installed, where possible, parallel with electric and telephone lines. Sec. 5.20.060 RESTORATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. If during the course of the Grantee' s construction, operation, or maintenance of the cable communications system there occurs a disturbance of any Public Way, the Grantee shall, at its expense, replace and restore such Public Way to a condition comparable to the condition of the Public Way existing immediately prior to such disturbance. -7- Sec. 5.20.070 RELOCATION. (A) Upon receipt of reasonable advance notice, the Grantee shall, at its own expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in the Public Way, or remove from the Public Way, any property of the Grantee when lawfully required by the City by reason of traffic conditions; public safety; street abandonment; freeway and street construction; change or establishment of street grade; installation of sewers, drains, or gas or water pipes; or any other type of structures or improvements by the City; but, the Grantee shall in all cases, have the right of abandonment of its property. (B) The Grantee shall, on the request of any person holding a building moving permit issued by the City, temporarily raise or lower its wires to permit the moving of such building, provided: ( 1 ) the expense of such temporary raising and lowering of wires is paid by said person, including, if required by the Grantee, making such payment in advance; and ( 2) the Grantee is given not less than seven ( 7 ) business days advance written notice to arrange for such temporary wire changes. Sec. 5.20.080. TRIMMING OF TREES AND SHRUBBERY. The Grantee shall have the authority to trim trees or other -8- natural growth overhanging any part of its Cable Communications System in the Service Area so as to prevent branches from coming in contact with Grantee ' s wires, cables, or other equipment. Grantee shall reasonably compensate the City or property owner for any damages caused by such trimming, or shall, in its sole discretion and at its own expense, reasonably replace all trees or shrubs damaged as a result of any construction of the system undertaken by Grantee. The provisions of this section do not supercede the requirements of the Urban Forestry Ordinance. Sec. 5.20.090. FRANCHISE AUTHORITY USE OF GRANTEE ' S POLES AND CONDUITS. Subject to any applicable state or federal regulations or tariffs, the City shall, after giving written notice, have the right to make use of any poles or conduits controlled or maintained by or for use of the Grantee, that are located in any Public Way. Such use by the City shall not interfere with current or future use by the Grantee. Further, to the extent not expressly precluded by law, the City agrees to indemnify the Grantee from any damages arising from or attributable to such use. Sec. 5.20.100. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. (A) Construction, installation and maintenance of the cable communications system shall be performed in an orderly manner. -9- (B) Grantee shall install and maintain its wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in accordance with applicable safety codes or technical requirements, including, but not limited to, National Electrical Safety Code (National Bureau of Standards ) ; National Electrical Code (National Bureau of Fire Underwriters) ; and applicable FCC or other federal, state or local regulations, and in such manner that they will not interfere with any installations of the City or any public utility. All lines, equipment and connections in, over, under, and upon the streets and private property within the City, wherever situated or located, shall at all times be kept and maintained in a safe and suitable condition and in good order and repair. All installations shall be made so as not to impair the fire integrity of any building . The cable communications system shall not endanger nor interfere with the safety of persons or property in the Service Area. Sec. 5.20. 110. AERIAL AND UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION. (A) In those portions of the Service Area where the transmission or distribution facilities of the public utilities providing telephone and electric services are underground, the Grantee likewise shall construct, operate and maintain its -10- transmission and distribution facilities underground (except for ground-mounted appurtenances such as subscriber taps, line extenders, system passive devices, amplifier, power supplies, pedestals, etc. ) provided that the underground facilities are capable of receiving the equipment without technical degradation of the cable communications system' s signal quality. In those parts of the Service Area where the transmission or distribution facilities of the public utilities are both aerial and underground, Grantee shall have the sole discretion to construct, operate and maintain all of its transmission and distribution facilities, or any part thereof, aerially or underground. (B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section, in the event that all of the transmission or distribution facilities of the public utilities providing telephone communications and electric services in a given area are to be placed underground, upon 90 days notice Grantee shall be required to place all of its transmission and distribution facilities underground in the given area concurrent with placement by the utilities, and thereafter construct or operate and maintain all of its -11- transmission and distribution facilities underground in the given area. Sec. 5.20. 120. EXTENSION OF SERVICE. (A) Authorization. Grantee is hereby authorized to extend the cable communications system throughout the Service Area. (B) Expansion Plan. Grantee shall file with the City each year with its annual report a five ( 5 ) year expansion plan indicating Grantee' s present plan for construction, rebuilding, or overbuilding the Service Area, including target dates for completion. The expansion plan will be submitted in a format mutually acceptable to the Grantee and the City. (C) Requirements. ( 1 ) Whenever Grantee shall receive a request for service from at least fifteen or more Subscribers within 1320 cable bearing strand feet (one-quarter cable mile) of its trunk cable, it shall extend its cable communications system to such Subscribers at its normal connection fee; provided that such extension is technically feasible, will not adversely affect the operation of the Cable Communications System, and Grantee is able to reasonably obtain all easements which are -12- necessary to extend service relating thereto. The extension of services shall be completed within 60 days of the date of request. ( 2 ) No Subscriber shall be refused service arbitrarily. However, for unusual circumstances, such as a Subscriber' s request to locate his cable drop underground, existence of more than one hundred fifty ( 150 ) feet of distance from distribution cable to connection of Service to Subscribers, or a density of less than fifteen ( 15 ) Subscribers per 1320 cable bearing strand feet of trunk or distribution cable, cable service or other service may be made available on the basis of a capital contribution in aid of construction, including cost of material, labor and easements. For the purpose of determining the amount of capital contribution in aid of construction to be borne by Grantee and Subscribers in the area in which Cable Service may be expanded, Grantee will contribute an amount equal to the construction and other costs, multiplied by a fraction whose numerator equals the actual number of potential Subscribers per 1320 -13- cable-bearing strand feet of its trunks or distribution cable, and whose denominator equals fifteen ( 15 ) Subscribers. The remainder of the construction and other costs will be charged to the potential subscribers when or if they subscribe on a pro rata basis. Grantee may require that the payment of the capital contribution in aid of construction borne by such potential Subscribers be paid in advance. The Subscriber shall be given a written estimate of such payment prior to the beginning of construction, and shall in no event be required to pay more than five percent ( 5% ) over this estimate. In lieu of directly charging for construction costs, Grantee may implement alternative pricing structures for services rendered which reflect disproportionate construction and related costs incidental to serving low density or other capital intensive areas . Sec. 5.20. 130. SERVICES TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS. (A) The Grantee shall provide upon demand and without charge a minimum of one ( 1 ) outlet of basic service to each governmental office building, fire station, police station, and public school -14- building within the service area where the drop line from the feeder cable to said buildings or premises is less than 150 cable feet, and to the City/County building at 400 South and State Streets. The Grantee shall provide one ( 1 ) outlet of basic service to each governmental office building, fire station, police station, and public school building within the service area where the drop line from the feeder cable to said buildings or premises exceeds 150 cable feet upon receipt of payment for the incremental cost of such drop line in excess of 150 cable feet. The City has the right to request additional outlets in any given building for which the City shall pay the incremental cost of installation, as well as the cost of any equipment necessary to ensure such distribution does not adversely affect the Grantee ' s Cable Communication System. These outlets shall not be used to distribute or sell cable services in or throughout such buildings; nor shall such outlets be located in common or public areas open to the public. (B) Users of such outlets shall hold Grantee harmless from any and all liability or claims arising out of their use of such outlets, including, but not limited to, those arising from copyright liability. -15- Sec. 5.20.140. EMERGENCY OVERRIDE. In the case that the Mayor or the Mayor' s designee declares a state of emergency or disaster, the Grantee shall, upon request of the City, make available to the City a system audio override through which emergency information and instructions may be given during the emergency or disaster period. Sec. 5.20. 150 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. Any cable communications system permitted to be installed and operated hereunder: (A) shall have a minimum capacity of twenty ( 20 ) channels; (B) shall be operationally capable of relaying to subscriber drops ( i.e. terminals) those television or radio broadcast signals for the carriage of which the Grantee is now or hereafter required by the Federal Communications Commission; (C) future construction shall have, if technically practicable, the capacity for nonvoice return communication such that (a) return communications are capable of being received and processed both at the head-end for the Service Area in which the communication originates and at a main head-end for the Service Area served by the Grantee; (b) at the option of the Subscriber, no return signals will be communicated; and (c) the system will include technical safeguards calculated to deter -16- interception of return communications by third parties; (D) shall distribute in color television signals which it receives in color; ( E) shall provide at least one ( 1 ) Access Channel for the City of Salt Lake, and at least one ( 1 ) Access Channel for educational and public use. All Access Channels shall be carried throughout the Service Area and shall be made available to subscribers without charge; and (F) shall provide, to the extent technically practicable, a microwave receiver and the necessary connections to receive transmissions from the City for the government access channels and transmit those signals over the Cable Communication System. Sec. 5.20. 160. EDUCATIONAL AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES. On reimbursement of actual cost for installation and periodic maintenance, the Grantee shall provide a return link, if technically practicable, permitting transmission of originated program material between (a) each public building within the Service Area designated by the City and each state-accredited public or private educational institution located within the Service Area that requests such installation; and (b) the head-end of the Grantee. -17- Sec. 5.20. 170. COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES. (A) The Grantee shall provide for or accommodate public access programming. (B) The purpose of the public access channel is to provide a channel through which citizens of civic organizations, cultural and arts organizations can promote and encourage programming that will be of benefit to the community within Service Area. (C) Access channel assignments shall be made by the Grantee in consultation with the City and shall be uniform throughout the City. Sec. 5.20. 180. COMPATIBILITY AND INTERCONNECTION. All Cable Communication Systems franchised hereunder shall, insofar as technically and economically feasible, be compatible with and able to tie into all other systems within and adjacent to the City. Sec. 5.20.190. FRANCHISE FEE. (A) Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise fee equal to 5% of the Gross Revenues received by the Grantee from the operation of the Cable Communication System. Franchise fee payments due to the City under this section shall be computed quarterly. For the purpose of the Franchise fee payment computation, the applicable accounting period shall be a calendar year, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City and Grantee. -18- (B) The quarterly Franchise fee payments shall be due and payable ninety (90) days after the close of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report from a representative of Grantee showing the basis for the computation and a written statement signed under penalty of perjury by an officer of the Grantee, which identifies in detail the sources and amounts of Gross Revenues received by the Grantee during the quarter for which payment is made. No acceptance of any payment shall not be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this permit. (C) Any Franchise Fees which remain unpaid after the dates specified in Subsection (B) above shall be delinquent and shall thereafter accrue interest at 18% per year until paid. (D) The Grantee shall, upon reasonable notice from the City, make available to the City or its designated representatives full billing records for confidential inspection and audit. If the results of the audit show an underpayment of greater than five ( 5 ) percent, the Grantee will pay all costs -19- associated with the audit in addition to any other amounts owed as shown by the audit. If the results of the audit show an underpayment of greater than ten ( 10) percent, the Grantee will pay the cost of the audit plus fifty ( 50) percent of the total error as penalty in addition to any amount owed as shown by the audit. If the results of the audit show an underpayment of less than five ( 5 ) percent or an overpayment, City shall pays its own costs associated with the audit. (E) In the event the results of the audit are disputed, the City may elect to arbitrate the dispute or take any other appropriate action. In the event the City elects to arbitrate, the City and the Grantee shall each select an independent auditor at their own cost. The two auditors will agree upon the results of the audit. If the two independent auditors cannot agree upon the results of the audit, a third auditor will be selected by the two independent auditors to make a final determination. The determination of the third independent auditor will be final. (F) The period of limitation for recovery of any Franchise fee payable hereunder shall be five ( 5 ) years from the date on which payment by the Grantee is due. Unless within five ( 5 ) years from -20- and after said payment due date, the City initiates a lawsuit for recovery of such Franchise fees in a court of competent jurisdiction, such recovery shall be barred, and the City shall be estopped from asserting any claims whatsoever against the Grantee relating to any such alleged deficiencies. (G) If Grantee challenges the right of the City to collect the Franchise fee provided by this Ordinance, any relief requested by Grantee and awarded to it by virtue of such challenge shall be prospective only from and after the date of the filing of the initial pleading seeking such relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. Grantee shall waive any and all claims or rights to collect back from the City or obtain credit therefor against future payment obligations, any amounts collected by the City prior to the filing of the initial pleading seeking such relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event Grantee' s challenge to any Franchise fee payments should result in an initial judgment in its favor, Grantee shall continue to make all Franchise fee payments pending an appeal by the City to a court of last resort. In the event the court of last resort determines that the City is not entitled to -21- collect any or all of the Franchise fee, the City shall refund to Grantee all payments made subsequent to the filing of the initial action by Grantee, together with interest on such moneys determined by the actual rate of return on the average of all investments of City during the period for which such funds were paid after the judgment. Sec. 5.20.200. RATES AND CHARGES. The City does not intend to regulate the rates for the provision of cable service and other service except to the extent permitted pursuant to applicable federal, state and local law, and expressly provided herein. From time to time, Grantee may change its rates and charges including, but not limited to, the implementation of additional charges and rates; provided that Grantee give thirty (30 ) days notice to the City. Sec. 5.20.210. RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE. (A) Proceedings undertaken by the City relating to renewal of the Grantee' s Franchise shall be governed by and comply with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Act ( as such existed as of the effective date of the Cable Act ) , unless the procedures and substantive protections set forth therein shall be deemed to be preempted and superseded by the provisions of any subsequent provision of federal or state law. -22- (B) In addition to the procedures set forth in said Section 626( a) , the City shall notify Grantee of its preliminary assessments regarding the identity of future cable-related community needs and interests, as well as the past performance of Grantee under the then current Franchise term. The preliminary assessment shall be provided to the Grantee prior to the time that the four ( 4 ) month period referred to in Subsection (c) of Section 626 is considered to begin. (C) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this section, at any time during the term of the then current Franchise, while affording the public appropriate notice and opportunity to comment, the City and Grantee may agree to undertake and finalize negotiations regarding renewal of the then current Franchise and the City may grant a renewal thereof. The terms set forth in this section shall be construed to be consistent with the express provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Act. Sec. 5.20.220. CONDITIONS OF SALE. (A) In the event the Franchise is lawfully revoked by the City, Grantee shall be given 6 months to transfer its cable system to a qualified third party. During the period before sale the Grantee -23- may continue to operate pursuant to the terms of its prior Franchise and, without limitation, continue to receive all revenues derived from or related thereto subject to payment of the required Franchise fees. (B) If the City either acquires ownership of the cable communications system or by its actions effects a transfer of ownership of the cable system, the acquisition or transfer shall be at a fair market value, determined on the basis of the cable system valued as a going concern, but with no value allocated to the Franchise itself. (C) Without waiving or establishing the City' s right to proceed by condemnation the City may agree to have the fair market value determined by two cable television experts, one chosen by the Grantee and one chosen by the City. If these experts cannot agree, the disagreement will be resolved through pendulum arbitration by an arbitrator chosen by the two experts. Sec. 5.20.230. TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE. Grantee' s right, title, or interest in the Franchise shall not be sold, transferred, assigned or otherwise encumbered without the prior consent of the City except for a transfer in trust, by mortgage, by other hypothecation, or by assignment of any rights, title, or interest of Grantee in the -24- Franchise or Cable Communication System in order to secure indebtedness; provided, however, that without consent and upon notice which shall be no less than thirty (30 ) days, Grantee may sell, transfer or assign its right, title and interest in the Franchise to an Affiliate. Sec. 5.20.240. COMPLIANCE WITH FCC REGULATIONS. Grantee shall comply with all FCC requirements and regulations. Sec. 5.20.250. BOOKS AND RECORDS. The City may review such of the Grantee' s books and records as are reasonably necessary to monitor compliance with the terms hereof. Such records shall include, but shall not be limited to any public records required to be kept by the Grantee pursuant to the rules and regulations of the FCC. To the extent allowable by law the City will treat any information disclosed by the Grantee on a confidential basis, and to only disclose it to employees, representatives, and agents thereof who have a need to know; or in order to enforce the provisions hereof. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Grantee shall not be required to disclose information which it reasonably deems to be confidential or proprietary in nature, except to the extent required by law. Sec. 5.20.260. PERIODIC REVIEW. Beginning on a date established by the City and then annually thereafter, the City may on its own initiative, and shall at the request of -25- the Grantee, schedule a public meeting for the purpose of identifying the cable-related community needs and interests, and reviewing the performance of the Grantee under the Franchise. The City shall notify Grantee of the time and place of such meeting and provide the Grantee with an opportunity to be heard. The public shall be afforded appropriate notice and opportunity for comment. Within four ( 4 ) months of such meeting, the City shall provide Grantee with a written copy of its findings. Sec. 5.20.270. REPORTING REQUIREMENT. At a minimum the Grantee shall provide the City annually the following information: (A) a report of the previous year' s performance on the Expansion Plan required by Section 5 . 29 . 120, including, but not limited to, service begun or discontinued during that year and a new 5 year plan; (B) a financial summary, including a statement of income, revenues, and aggregate operating expenses, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and certified by Grantee ' s Chief Financial Officer; (C) a list of the Grantee' s officers, members of its Board of Directors and other principals; (D) a written report regarding the FCC proof of performance tests for the system; -26- ( E) a current map or set of maps drawn to scale showing all equipment installed and in place, or when the time comes that the City shall have operational a computerized geographical information system, Grantee shall update cable system data on a monthly basis. ; and ( F) a description of all petitions, applications, communications and reports submitted by the Grantee to any state or federal entity in respect to any matters affecting cable television system ' s operations authorized by the Franchise. Copies shall be provided to City upon request. Sec. 5.20.280. INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION, BONDS OR OTHER SURETY. (A) Grantee shall maintain in full force and effect, at its own cost and expense, during the term of the Franchise, general comprehensive liability insurance in the amount of $250, 000 for bodily injuries, ( including accidental death) to any one person, and subject to the same limit for each person in amount not less than $500, 000 on account of any one occurrence, and Property Damage Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $100, 000 resulting from any one occurrence. Said insurance shall designate the City as a named additional named insured. Such insurance shall be -27- non-cancellable except upon sixty ( 60 ) days prior written notice to the City. In the event that potential liability for the City is increased by any change in the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, Grantee shall modify the required insurance amounts accordingly upon thirty (30) days notice from the City. (B) The Grantee shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, and defend the City, its officers, boards, and employees, from and against any liability for damages and for any liability or claims resulting from property damage or bodily injury, ( including accidental death) , which arise out of the Grantee' s construction, operation, or maintenance of its Cable Communication System, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney' s fees and costs during third party litigation. This provision will not apply in the event of a value dispute on sale, or to damages which arise from the City' s sole negligence. Sec. 5.20.290. SECURITY FUND. (A) Within thirty (30 ) days after the effective date of a franchise grant, Grantee shall deposit into a bank account established by the City the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ( $25, 000 ) as security for its faithful performance on all provisions of -28- this Ordinance and the Cable Television Services Standards Ordinance; its compliance with all orders, permits and directions of the City; and its payment of any claim, lien or tax due the City which arises by reason of construction, operation or maintenance of the System. Interest accrued on this deposit shall be rebated to the Grantee at the end of each calendar year. Grantee shall not use this security fund as security for any other purpose. (B) No funds shall be drawn from the security fund without providing the Grantee the opportunity to cure the default as provided in Sections 5 . 20. 300 through 5. 20.330 below or other applicable cure provisions. (C) Within thirty ( 30) days of notice that any amount has been withdrawn from the security fund, Grantee shall deposit a sum sufficient to restore the security fund to the original amount. (D) In lieu of the security fund set forth in this Section 5. 20. 290, the City and Grantee may agree that a guarantee from an entity and in a form acceptable to the City may be sufficient to satisfy Grantee' s obligations hereunder. Sec. 5.20.300. NOTICE OF VIOLATION. In the event that the City believes that the Grantee has not complied -29- with the terms of the Franchise or this Ordinance, it shall notify Grantee of the nature of the alleged noncompliance. Sec. 5.20.310. GRANTEE'S RIGHT TO CURE OR RESPOND. Grantee shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice described in Section 5.20.300 to (a ) respond to the City contesting the assertion of noncompliance, or (b) to cure such default or, in the event that, by the nature of default, such default cannot be cured within the thirty (30 ) day period, initiate reasonable steps to remedy such default and notify the City of the steps being taken and the projected date that they will be completed. Sec. 5.20.320. PUBLIC HEARING. In the event that Grantee fails to respond to the notice described in Section 5 . 20 . 300 pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 5. 20.310, or in the event that the alleged default is not remedied within sixty ( 60 ) days after the Grantee is notified of the alleged default pursuant to Section 5. 20.300, the City shall schedule a public hearing to investigate the default. Such public hearing shall be held by the Mayor or his or her designee at a time which is no less than five ( 5 ) business days therefrom. The City shall notify the Grantee of the time and place of such meeting and provide the Grantee with an opportunity to be heard. Sec. 5.20.330. VIOLATION OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED SECTIONS. The notice, cure and public hearing provisions of Sections 5.20.300, 5.20.310 and 5. 20. 320 shall not be -30- applicable to any violations of Sections 5 . 20. 100, 5 . 20. 140, 5 .20. 280 or other violations which may immediately affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. In the event of such violations the City may demand the Grantee immediately cure the violation. The City may enforce such a cure requirement by any or all applicable remedies at law or equity. Sec. 5.20.340. ENFORCEMENT. (A) Subject to Sections 5.20.290 through 5 . 20. 330 and applicable federal and state law, in the event the City determines that Grantee has failed to substantially comply with any material provision of the Franchise, the City may: ( 1 ) foreclose on all or any part of any security provided under this Ordinance or other related ordinances, if any, including, without limitation, any bonds or other surety; provided, however, the foreclosure shall only be in such a manner and in such amount as the City reasonably determines is necessary to remedy the default; (2 ) commence an action at law for monetary damages or seek other equitable relief; ( 3 ) subject to applicable federal, state and local law, in the case of a substantial default of Sections 5 . 20. 100, 5. 20. 110, -31- 5 .20. 140, 5.20.240, or subsection 5. 20. 120.0 of the Franchise Agreement, revoke the Franchise Agreement; or (4 ) seek specific performance of any provision, which reasonably lends itself to such remedy, as an alternative to damages. ( 5 ) exercise any right or remedy available at law or in equity. ( 6 ) impose penalties pursuant to Section 5. 20.350 hereof. (B) The Grantee shall not be relieved of any of its obligations to comply promptly with any provision of the Franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance. Sec. 5.20.350. FINES AND PENALTIES. (A) Subject to Sections 5.20. 290 and 5. 20.330 above, the City may impose a civil penalty on the Grantee up to the following amounts per day or part thereof that the following violations occur or continue: 1. Two Hundred Dollars ( $200 ) for any failure to complete system construction in accordance with Grantee' s construction obligations contained in the Cable Communication Ordinance or Franchise grant. -32- 2. One Hundred Dollars ( $100 ) for any failure to provide data, documents, reports or information to the City during a System review, as detailed in Section 5. 20. 260 hereof. 3. Seventy-Five Dollars ( $75 ) for any failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Ordinance for which a damage is not otherwise specifically provided in the Master Cable Communication Ordinance or Franchise grant. Each violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate damage can be imposed. Sec. 5.20.360. UNAUTHORIZED RECEPTION. In addition to those criminal and civil remedies provided by state and federal law, it shall be a Class B misdemeanor for any person, firm, or corporation to create or make use of any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any part of the Cable Communication System without the express consent of Grantee. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to tamper with, remove or injure any property, equipment or part of the Cable System or any means of receiving cable service or other services provided thereto. Sec. 5.20.370. NOTICE OF WORK IN RIGHT-OF-WAY. Grantee shall notify the Franchise Authority and take -33- reasonable steps to notify the residents in any area where regularly scheduled work involving excavation of the right- of-way is to be performed at least fourteen ( 14) days before the work is to be performed. This notification shall not be required in the event of emergency repair work or work that is confined to a single site and which will be completed in one day. Sec. 5.20.380. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (A) Preemption. If any federal or state body or agency shall preempt and supersede or preclude the jurisdiction of the City, the jurisdiction of the City shall cease while such jurisdiction is preempted, superseded or precluded. (B ) Actions of the City. In any action by the City or representative thereof mandated or permitted under the terms hereof, such party shall act in a reasonable, expeditious and timely manner. Furthermore, in any instance where approval or consent is required under the terms hereof, such approval or consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. (C) Severability. If any section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof is for any reason determined to be illegal, invalid, superseded by other authority or unconstitutional by any court of common jurisdiction or by any -34- state or federal regulatory authority having jurisdiction thereof, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof, all of which will remain in full force and effect for the term of the Franchise or any renewal or renewals thereof. (D) City Rules. The Mayor may adopt, in addition to the provisions contained in this and other applicable ordinances including, but not limited to Chapters 5.20A and 5.21, such additional regulations as it may find necessary in the exercise of the police power, including rules and requirements for customer service, provided that such regulations do not materially conflict or interfere with Grantee' s rights granted herein. Any such additional regulations shall be reasonably designed to meet the purposes of this Ordinance and shall be adopted only after notice and comment are provided. (E) Force Majeure. The Grantee shall not be held in default or noncompliance with the provisions of the Ordinance, nor suffer any enforcement or penalty relating thereto, where such noncompliance -35- or alleged defaults are caused by strikes, acts of God, power outages, or other events beyond its reasonable ability to control. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect upon its first date of publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -36- 14: ippor-f heuzjill. 4i aclYkxoc NAlzi { . 1w e sued. �USALT iecL (�eb � ' s'°'I" """" E CIiY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 1 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 HOUSING 0001 Redevelopment To bring housing units in CD -15 $1,000,000 $700,000 $650,000 Housing Rehab eligible areas up to code. $700,000-14 $803,000-13 $824,000-12 0002 HOUSING 0002 ASSIST - Emergency To provide grants to income -15 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 Home Repair & Com. eligible people for urgently $200,000-14 Design Assistance needed home repairs. $200,000-13 $192,500-12 13 HOUSING 0003 NHS Revolving Loan To rehab houses, commercial -15 $140,000 $110,000 $90,000 Fund properties, and problem $75,000-14 properties in the NHS West- $90,000-13 side target area. $90,000-12 0004 HOUSING 0004 NHS Security Lock To provide dead bolt locks and -15 $47,000 $47,000 $30,000 Services other security measures for $30,000-14 income eligible residents. $33,000-13 $33,000-12 0005 HOUSING 0005 BHS Operation Paint To provide technical assist- -15 $55,000 $55,000 $40,000 Brush ance & paint for low-income $35,000-14 home owners. $39,000-13 $39,000-12 0006 HOUSING 0006 BHS Cleaning & To improve deteriorated vacant -15 $20,000 $20.000 $20.000 Securing properties by boarding, trim- $20,000-14 ming vegetation, demolishing - unsafe accessory bldgs. Lien - placed on property. - 0007 HOUSING 0007 BHS Boarded/At Risk Repair and maintenance of -15 $200,000 $100.000 $75.000 Building Assistance housing and other structures - Program in CDBG target areas. - 0008 HOUSING 0008 Non Profit Bldg. Construction and remodeling -15 $21,000 $0 $0 Permit Fund fees for non profit housing\ ,,..., - assistance programs benefiting - low income residents. NOT j - ELIGIBLE per HUD. _ V, vp,t� SALT UUCt cliY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 2 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0009 HOUSING 0009 Neighborhood To fund 1/3 of an attorney to -15 $13,500 $13,500 $7.000 Attorney Program file civil suits against $5,000-14 property owners who have $9.000-13 abandoned and deteriorated - properties. - 0010 HOUSING 0010 Low-Income Housing Maintenance & repairs for -15 $36,300 $20,000 $13,000 ,,v Maintenance - CSC elderly and handicapped people - who are income eligible. - 0011 HOUSING 0011 Mixed Use Housing/ 4500 Sq. Ft. of vacant ware- -15 $88.000 $88,000 $0 '� Artspace house space into additional $100.000-11 low-moderate income housing $225,000-08 within the Artspace Pierpont - Project. - 0012 HOUSING 0012 Community To develop a non-profit -15 $150.000 $150,000 $150,000 Development Corp. housing program & provide - funding to initiate programs - to meet current housing needs. - 0013 HOUSING 0013 Section 108 loan To pay back the $1.825 million -15 $300,000 $0 $300.000 Canterbury Apts. Sec. 108 Loan obtained for - acquisition of the Canterbury - Apts. located at 1357 North - Morton Drive. $300,000 per - year for 6 years incl. park. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $2,310,800 $1,543,500 $1,615.000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 3 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 BLOCK REDESIGN 0001 Markea Ave. Design Planning for improvements in- -15 $10,000 $0 $0 250 So.. 800 E. cluding curb, gutter, and - sidewalk. - 0002 BLOCK REDESIGN 0002 West Court Design Same as above. -15 $10,000 $0 $0 835 E., 300 So. - 0003 BLOCK REDESIGN 0003 Laker Court Design Same as above. -15 $10,000 $0 $0 820 E., 300 So. - 0004 BLOCK REDESIGN 0004 Reeves Terrace Same as above. -15 $7,500 $0 $0 Design - 760 E., 340 So. - 0005 BLOCK REDESIGN 0005 Linden Ave. Design Same as above. -15 $7,500 $0 $0 800 E., 340 So. _ 0006 BLOCK REDESIGN 0006 Pennsylvania/Iowa To construct street & drain- -15 $263,000 $0 $0 Place Const. age improvements. $10,000-13 0007 BLOCK REDESIGN 0007 Chase Ave. Design Planning. -15 $10,000 $0 $0 200-300 South & - 1000-1100 East - 0008 BLOCK REDESIGN 0008 Menlo Ave. Design Planning. -15 $10,000 $0 $0 840 E., 200 So. - 0009 BLOCK REDESIGN 0009 Argyle - Edmonds To construct planned street -15 $146,000 Construction improvements. -12 $0 $85,000 300 No., 640 W. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $474.000 $85,000 SALT LAKE C1TY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 4 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 STREETS 0001 1000 W.(N-S Temple) To construct street improve- -15 $60,000 $0 $60,000 Design & Construct ments to consist of curb & - Euclid Area gutter, sidewalk replacement and pavement tie in. - 0002 STREETS 0002 W. Cap Hill Street Improvements to consist of -15 $350,000 $0 $0 Improvements street pavement, curb and gut- 700 and 800 No. ter on the south side of 800 - No. and both sides of 700 No., - 300 to 400 West. - 0003 STREETS 0003 East Central Streets To construct improvements in- -15 $525,000 $0 $480,000 500 So., 700-900 E. cluding curb, gutter & $525,000-14 reducing street crown. - 0004 STREETS 0004 Median Island Rehab To inventory and assess condi- -15 $370,000 $0 $25,000 Design & Const. tion of all medians, then - 600 E., 600-900 So. prepare implementation plan. - 0005 STREETS 0005 Learned Ave. Improv. Construct imp. to include -15 $90,000 $0 $0 Citizens Congress pavement, sidewalk, curb & - gutter & storm drain pipe. - 0006 STREETS 0006 100 So. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, -15 $45,000 $0 $0 (750-1000 W.) Design drainage design. - Citizens Congress - J007 STREETS 0007 100 So. Construction of above. -15 $720,000 $0 $0 (750-1000 W.) Const. - Citizens Congress - 0008 STREETS 0008 600 W. Improvements Imp. to include curb, gutter, -15 $100.000 $0 $0 No. of 500 No. drainage system & covering for - Citizens Congress hazardous open ditch. - 0009 STREETS 0009 Future CD Eligible Funding for planning & design -15 $50,000 $0 $15,000 Streets - Design of eligible streets/block - redesigns to be constructed in - future. - SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 5 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0010 STREETS 0010 Denver St. Improve- To design curb & gutter East -15 $100,000 $0 $5,000 ments side & 30% of West side. - 440 E., 500-600 So. - 0011 STREETS 0011 Edison St. Improve- Curb, gutter & sidewalk -15 $100,000 $0 $0 ments Improvements. - 800 - 900 So. - 1012 STREETS 0012 Learned Ave & 100 To design curb, gutter & -15 $30,000 $0 $0 So. Design drainage improvements. - Engineering - 0013 STREETS 0013 Lake St Design Design of street imp. to in- -15 $8,000 $0 $8.000 800-900 So. dude pavement, sidewalk & - curb & gutter. - 0014 STREETS 0014 Roberts & Warnock Construction of imp. to in- -15 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 2400 So., 500 East dude curb & gutter and street - pavement tie-ins. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $2,583,000 $35,000 $628,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 6 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 SIDEWALKS 0001 Target Area Replace- Replacement of cracked & dis- -15 $200,000 $350,000 $200,000 ment placed sidewalk-100% CD funded $200,000-14 in target areas & other CD $200,000-13 eligible areas. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $200,000 $350,000 $200,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 7 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 STORM DRAINAGE 0001 Guadlupe/Jackson Installation of drainage sys. -15 $150,000 $0 $0 Neighborhood Drain- from 500 No. & 600 N. to I-15. - age System - 0002 STORM DRAINAGE 0002 Guadalupe/Jackson Covering for open ditch (500 -15 $150,000 $9,000 $9,000 Ditch Covering H.. 200-530 No.) - 103 STORM DRAINAGE 0003 N.E. Central Storm Construct storm drainage imp. -15 $380,000 $250,000 $250,000 Drain to decrease existing flood - So. Temple, M to 0 problems in N.E. central area. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $680,000 $259,000 $259,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 8 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr COAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PARKS 0001 Jordan Park Irriga- Install automatic sprinkler -15 $95,000 $95,000 $95.000 tion system in Jordan Park. $20,000-14 900 W., 1000 So. 5300,000-12 $18,000-11 $50,000-10 0002 PARKS 0002 Jordan Park-Restroom Reconstruct So. restroom & re- -15 $90,000 $0 $0 construct new roof on existing - picnic shelter. - 0003 PARKS 0003 Reservoir Park Replace dangerous playground -15 $90,000 $0 $O Playground/automatic & define sand area to reduce $90,000-12 irrigation maintenance costs. Automatic - irrigation system for more - effective use of water. - 0004 PARKS 0004 Fairmont Park Imp.- To design & renovate restrooms -15 $123,000 $123,000 $10,000 install automatic irrigation $200,000-10 systems, new playground & $10,000-09 artesion well in So.E. corner $155,000-06 of park. - 0005 PARKS 0005 Jackson Park Make landscape imp. around ex- -15 $15,500 $0 $0 Tennis Courts/Land- isting tennis courts. - scape Improvements - 0006 PARKS 0006 Poplar Grove Park Automatic irrigation system. -15 $73,000 $73,000 $73,000 Irrigation Phase II $100,000-13 1050 W., 800 SO. - 0007 PARKS 0007 Athletic Park- Continuation of current proj. -15 $50,000 $0 $50.000 Phase II Sidewalk replacement on East $90.000-14 side of pk., playground, and $10,000-13 trees on North side of park & - buffer, & tree planting on - West. - 0008 PARKS 0008 Urban Forestry Mgmt. To assess, trim, replant, & -15 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 spray diseased or infested $50,000-14 trees in CD target areas. $50,000-13 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM • Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 9 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUN TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0009 PARKS 0009 Glendale Mini-Park To acquire land for a neigh- -15 $131,500 $0 $0 WS Comm. Council borhood park, plan & develop - Craig Standing park - 1239 Glendale Dr. - 0010 PARKS 0010 Westside Neighbor- Plan for park in Glendale -15 $5,000 $0 $0 hood Park Design area. - Glenda Gaudig - '01i PARKS 0011 Warm Springs North Clean up the North gateway -15 $20,000 $20,000 $0 Clean-up Cap. Hill into the City. - 0012 PARKS 0012 Nibley Neighborhood To acquire land and create -15 $100,000 $8,000 $0 Park SH park. 2876 So. 900 E. - 0013 PARKS 0013 Westpointe Park To develop 9 acre neighborhood -15 $480,000 $0 $0 N. Redwood park in expanding area of SLC. - 1900 W., 1400 No. - 0014 PARKS 0014 Sugar House - To utilize City owned property -15 $5,000 $5,000 $0 Fairmont Urban Trail for a class I urban trail. $5,000-12 TOTALS FOR CLASS $1,328,000 $384,000 $278,000 SALT LAKE L17Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FuR PAGE 10 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0001 Marmalade Hill To construct exterior imp. to -15 $46,700 $47,000 $47,000 Center Renovation dome & painting. $9,000-10 $150,000-07 $60,000-06 0002 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0002 N.N. Community To construct new medical -15 $250,000 $0 $0 Health Center facility for low-income - residents at NW Multi-Purpose - Center. - 0003 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0003 So. Central Com- To support operation of pool -15 $110,000 $0 $0 munity Center & Pool at So. High & space for - Community Council. - 0004 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0004 Glendale Youth Ctr. To pay for planning and -15 $25,000 $0 $25,000 (PAL) architectural studies for - renovation of the old PAL bldg - to provide a multi-use - recreation facility for the - youth of West side community. - 0005 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0005 Sugarhouse Community To acquire the post office -15 $300,000 $0 $0 Center bldg. being vacated to use as - community facility. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $731,700 $47,000 $72,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 11 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PUBLIC SERVICES 0001 Work Activity Center To help pay off the existing -15 $25,000 $25,000 $0 Acquisition mortgage for this facility at $35,000-13 1275 W. 2320 So. - 0002 PUBLIC SERVICES 0002 Alliance House To continue to renovate -15 $63,000 $37,800 $11,000 Renovation-Phase II facility to bring up to code. $30,000-14 1724 So. Main St. - `003 PUBLIC SERVICES 0003 Housing Outreach To continue assisting families -15 $35,500 $35,500 $35,500 Rental Program in obtaining safe, affordable $29,000-14 (HORP) housing and increase the $29,000-13 number of low cost apts. $26,500-12 available. - 0004 PUBLIC SERVICES 0004 Westside Food Pantry Operational support for this -15 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 55 No. Redwood Rd. program which provides food & $24,000-14 social services to people in $24,000-13 emergency situations. $21,700-12 0005 PUBLIC SERVICES 0005 Crisis Nursery To renovate children's group -15 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Renovation - Family therapy room and install new - Support Center lower level furnance. - 2020 So. Lake St. - 0006 PUBLIC SERVICES 0006 Crime Prevention To fund the civilian crime -15 $77,000 $77,000 $81,000 prevention unit to work with $70.000-14 neighborhoods and educate $74,000-13 people on crime prevention $76,000-12 matters. $156,000-11 $135,000-10 $128,000-09 0007 PUBLIC SERVICES 0007 Operation of Exist. To fund Taveler's Aid to -15 $30.000 $30,000 $25,000 Women's Shelter operate the women's shelter. $25,000-14 100 So., 800 W. -13 $10,500-12 0008 PUBLIC SERVICES 0008 Operation New Men/ To fund Traveler's Aid to -15 $58,000 $38,500 $58,000 Family Shelter operate the Men's/Family $38,500-14 210 So. Rio Grande shelter. $36,000-13 $21.000-12 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 12 COBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL $21,000-11 0009 PUBLIC SERVICES 0009 Capitol West Boys & To provide a recreation and -15 $50,000 $28,500 $28,500 Girls Club counseling program for high $28,500-14 300 No.,600 W. risk poverty youth in the Guad $36,000-12 /Jackson area. $21,000-09 $210,000-06 $20,000-04 010 PUBLIC SERVICES 0010 New Hope Multi- Funding to help rehab this -15 $16,000 $16,000 $16.000 Cultural Center bldg. used as a community $11,900-14 Rehab. center for Asians. $10,000-13 1102 W. 400 No. - 0011 PUBLIC SERVICES 0011 1st Step House Phase II renovation to include -15 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 750 W. 400 No. bringing bathrooms to code $40.000-13 and interior remodeling for - this alcohol treatment center. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $450,500 $384,300 $351,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 13 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT HUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 URBAN AMENITIES 0001 Neighborhood Docu- Funding for typing of doc- -15 $3,000 $3,000 $0 mentaries umentaries. - 0002 URBAN AMENITIES 0002 Neighborhood Self- Up to $1800 grants for neigh- -15 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 Help grants borhood based projects such $25,000-14 as fairs, newsletters, clean- up, tree-planting. - J03 URBAN AMENITIES 0003 Bike Path To develop a No.- So. bicyle -15 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 commuting route. - 200 W., 800 So. - 300 No. - 0004 URBAN AMENITIES 0004 Bike Path To develop an east-west -15 $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 bicycle commuting route. - 300 No., 200-1200 W. - 0005 URBAN AMENITIES 0005 Bike Path To complete east-west bicycle -15 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 commuting route. - 800 So., 800-1000 W. - 0006 URBAN AMENITIES 0006 W. High Improvement To purchase land in W. High -15 $25,000 $25,000 $0 Program District for positive impact in area. - 0007 URBAN AMENITIES 0007 600 N. & Center St. To adjust sidewalk and plant -15 $6,000 $0 $0 Berm & Tree Planting more trees. - 0008 URBAN AMENITIES 0008 Living Traditions To support Folk Arts Program, -15 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Festival (Washington which will bring cultural - Square) activity and vitality to the - heart of the City. - 0009 URBAN AMENITIES 0009 Athlete's Dock To construct a facility that -15 $50,000 $0 $0 houses bicycles, provides - showers as well as locker - space for people who commute - to work on bicycles. - SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 14 COBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0010 URBAN AMENITIES 0010 Kimball-Driggs Traffic diverters on Driggs -15 $15,000 $15,000 $0 "Woonerf" Ave. at Highland Dr., 2300 So. - 0011 URBAN AMENITIES 0011 Hollywood Ave Traffic diverters at 1950 So., -15 $30,000 $30,000 $0 Entrance 900 & 1100 E. - '12 URBAN AMENITIES 0012 Great Salt Lake To establish nightlife by the -15 $50,000 $0 $0 Revitalization Great Salt Lake. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $227,100 $106,100 $38,100 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 15 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PLANNING 0001 Development of New 2 year project to revise and -15 $115,000 $0 $0 Zoning Ordinance rewrite Zoning Ordinance - )002 PLANNING 0002 Downtown Plan To complete the implementation -15 $65.000 $65,000 $65,000 Strategies strategy for revitalizing $60,000-12 Downtown Salt Lake City. - '03 PLANNING 0003 Parking Inventory & Overall parking policy & plan -15 $50,000 $0 $0 Needs Assessment for Downtown Salt Lake City. - 0004 PLANNING 0004 SLACC Staffing For office space & staff to -15 $60,000 $60,000 $0 support the Salt Lake Assoc.of Community Councils. - 0005 PLANNING 0005 Fairmont Master To complete a neighborhood -15 $10,000 $15,000 $0 Plan level plan for the area 700 E. - to McClelland, 2100 S. - I-80. - 0006 PLANNING 0006 Westminster Neigh- To complete a neighborhood -15 $10,000 $15,000 $0 borhood Master Plan level plan for the area 700- - 1300 E.. 1700-2100 So. - 0007 PLANNING 0007 Emerson Master Plan To complete a neighborhood -15 $10,000 $15,000 $0 level plan for the area 700- - 1300 E., 1300-1700 So. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $320,000 $170,000 $65,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/B9 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 16 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 ADMINISTRATION 0001 Capital Planning Funding for CDBG functions -15 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 necessary to administer the $210,000-14 grant. - 0002 ADMINISTRATION 0002 Finance Funding for CDBG functions -15 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 necessary to administer the $30,000-14 grant. - '003 ADMINISTRATION 0003 Community Affairs Funding for CDBG functions -15 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 necessary to administer the $45,000-14 grant. - 0004 ADMINISTRATION 0004 Attorney Funding for CDBG functions -15 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 necessary to administer the $42,000-14 grant. - 0005 ADMINISTRATION 0005 Planning Funding for CDBG functions -15 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 necessary to administer the $55,000-14 grant. - 0006 ADMINISTRATION 0006 Environmental Funding for CDBG functions -15 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Assessments necessary to administer the $7,500-14 grant. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $414,500 $414,500 $414,500 r ;ti SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 17 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PERCENT FOR ART 0001 Jordan Park To provide decorative pavement -15 $950 $950 $950 900 West, 1000 So. railings, sculptures, foun- - tains, and other works of art - for certain CDBG funded - capital improvement projects. - 0002 PERCENT FOR ART 0002 Poplar Grove Park Same as above. -15 $730 $730 $730 800 So., 1000 West - 0003 PERCENT FOR ART 0003 Fairmont Park Same as above. -15 $1,230 $1,230 $0 900 East, 2400 So. - 0004 PERCENT FOR ART 0004 Marmalade Center Same as above. -15 $470 $470 $470 500 North, 150 West - TOTALS FOR CLASS $3,380 $3,380 $2,150 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM . Date 04/12/89 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 18 CDBG 15TH YEAR (1989-90) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Mount Yr CDAC MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 CONTINGENCY 0001 Contingency The amount set aside to cover -15 $158,000 $150,220 $139,250 anticipated cost overruns or $182,200-14 emergency needs. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $158,000 $150,220 $139,250 TOTALS FOR REPORT $9,880,980 $3,847,000 $4,147,000