Loading...
04/25/1989 - Minutes he-?- Minutes: Committee of the Whole Tuesday, April 25, 1989 5:00 - 6:30 P.M. City Council Conference Room 451 South State Street #325 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 In Attendance: Florence Bittner, Wayne Horrocks, Sydney Fonnesbeck, Tom Godfrey, Roselyn Kirk, W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Lee King, Cam Caldwell, Ed Snow, Christine Richman, James Hall, Press Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director, reviewed the schedule for the opening ceremonies of the City and County Building saying that the historic procession would start at 11 :00 a.m. and that participating Council Members needed to be at the Masonic Temple by 10:30. She said that the Council Members would have an opportunity to make some brief comments at the reception. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that parking on Washington Square would not be available until the first week in June and that the Council and Staff should continue to use the CFS parking terrace until then. She said that all of the packing for the move to the new building needed to be done by Friday afternoon in order for the movers to load the trucks on Saturday morning. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that the Council needed to begin plans for the annual "Thank You Picnic", and that ideas for a location would be needed. The group determined that the picnic would be held in Sugarhouse Park. Mr. Lee King reviewed the schedule for Olympic meetings, saying that RSVP's were needed to determine if agendas needed to be posted. He said that the site selection committee would be in Salt Lake City to discuss the strengths of the Salt Lake sites chosen with the Olympic bid Executive Committee. He also said that Jack Turner was hosting a meeting with the Athletes Advisory Committee at Jeremy Ranch. • Linda Hamilton, Director of Finance, updated the Council on the current revenue forecasts saying that she wanted to tell the Council before they read the news in the newspaper. She said that the tax revenues were up slightly for the year and that the upcoming budget would benefit. 1. Mr. Allen Johnson, Director of Planning and Zoning, briefed the Council on the petition submitted by David DeSantis for an amendment to Section 21 .78. 130 to allow for-profit organization to operate private recreation facilities in residential districts (attachment #1). Mr. Johnson said that Mr. DeSantis wanted to put in a golf instruction course on the property by the Mount Olivett Cemetery. He said that the "non-profit" part of the ordinance gave Mr. DeSantis the problem and has asked that "for- profit" operations to be allowed. Mr. Johnson said that the land use requirements and the impacts on the neighborhood are the same whether the operation is "for-profit," or not. He said that the ordinance as amended was restrictive enough to keep out ti A • operations that would be detrimental to the neighborhoods and that it allowed the City to privatize some recreation facilities. He said that the ordinance was in line with the City policy of allowing private concessions in City parks. Council Member Bittner said that she was worried that tailoring the ordinance • to fit one situation may backfire. She said a skateboard park had been approved for the middle of a residential block and that the Council didn't have any input into the decision. She said that she worried about taking the Council out of the decision making process. Mr. Johnson said that the ordinance defined what could and couldn't be allowed. Ms. Bittner asked if the Board of Adjustment could allow other uses. Mr. Johnson said that the Board couldn't grant a use variance but could deal with the access, parking and related issues for a development. Council Member Tom Godfrey said that the question was whether or not the Council wanted to allow the listed uses into the neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson said that , on most facilities, it was difficult to tell if they were public or private, because the impact was the same for both. Council Member Roselyn Kirk asked if a restaurant would be allowed to open at the facility and said that the Yalecrest Community Council was concerned about the impact a restaurant -might have. Mr. Johnson said that retail outlets that were directly associated with the main use were allowed. He said that the retail outlets could only be open when the facility was being used for its main purpose. He said that if the proposed golf instruction facility closed for the winter, the restaurant would have to close as well. He said that the change in the ordinance would bring some existing facilities into compliance. Mr. Godfrey asked if the passing the ordinance would effect the DeSantis project. He said that it wouldn't, that DeSantis had all the necessary approvals. He said that new projects had trouble competing against existing operations that were not obeying the ordinance and that the ordinance change would make it easier to get investors for new projects. Council Member Wayne Horrocks asked if the ordinance would allow DeSantis to establish a commercial operation. Mr. Johnson said that any developer would have to go through the complete planning and zoning process and follow all existing zoning laws. Ms. Bittner said that, with all the unusual requests that are being submitted, some objectionable operation facility would be allowed in. She asked where pool halls fit in the ordinance. Mr. Johnson said that pool halls were not allowed under the new ordinance. 2. Ed Johnson, Assistant Chief of Police, and Frank Florence, Chief Fire Deputy, briefed the Council on the proposed budget for the Central Dispatch/E911 Internal Service Fund (attachment #2) . Chief Johnson said that the Dispatch/E911 budget was separate from the regular budget because it was funded by a telephone surcharge established by the State Legislature. He said that $4148,000 had accrued form this surcharge during the planning stage of the E911 System. He said that the money was used to purchase the equipment to implement the system, and that future money from the surcharge would fund the staffing of the system. He said the current surcharge was $0.38, but that the surcharge would be adjusted as the real cost of running the system was established. He said that 10.3 positions would be required to staff the system 24 hours a day, and that they were unsure of the volume of calls that the system would be handling. He said that they estimate taking 30-50% of the public safety calls through the E911 system. He said that the old system routed calls to the County dispatcher who would transfer the call to the appropriate jurisdiction. The new system would automatically route the calls to the local jurisdiction. He said that the new system should be on-line by May 15, 1989. Chief Johnson said that personnel costs were 57% of the budget and that they had redirected some of the dispatchers from the Fire and Police dispatch, who were made redundant by the new system. Chief Florence said that only charges that were directly related to the E911 System could be charged to the E911 fund. He said that it was expected that the first year would see a liberal reading of allowable costs until the system is settled. He said that the equipment had a 10 year depreciation schedule and that AT & T guaranteed the equipment for 7 years. He passed out a legal opinion from the County Attorney's office concerning how the E911 Fund could be used (attachment #4) . He said that because the system was integrated valley-wide, replacements and upgrades would need to be made in a timely manner, and that the budget needed to be structured to take care of those expenses. Council Member Bittner asked about the staffing levels and the location of the dispatch center. Chief Florence said that the center would be in the Public Safety Building and that 10 positions would be shifted from the general fund to the E911 Fund. Mr. Caldwell said that the General Fund will get an additional burden by losing some of the economy of scale, and dispatching contracts by establishing local E911 Systems. He said that the money on personnel costs will be a wash. Chief Florence said that the operating costs were hard to determine for a new system and that it would take some time to establish all of the costs. Council Member Godfrey asked if the time between going on line in May and the start of the fiscal year in July, was enough time to determine those costs. Chief Florence said that it would take longer, because other cities would be leaving Salt Lake's dispatch system and new dispatchers would be starting and so the long term costs would be difficult to determine. Mr. Godfrey asked how positions would be cut after the budget is set. Chief Florence said that they would lose positions by attrition. Council Member W.M. "Willie" Stoler asked about the mechanics of the system. Chief Florence said that overflow calls would go to the regular dispatchers with priority over other calls. Mr. Stoler asked if the E911 was still for emergencies only. Chief Florence said that it was and that a public education effort was needed to help people use the system correctly. He said that dispatchers often get multiple calls for the same incident and that the system allows the dispatcher to take multiple calls and determine.if they are separate incidences or the same one. Mr. Cam Caldwell reviewed his staff analysis (attachment #3) of the budget and said that his recommendations are process oriented and geared to tracking the costs and savings of the new programs. Council Member Kirk asked how a "mini- audit" would be conducted. Mr. Caldwell said that it could be done by Council staff to determine if staffing levels were appropriate. Council Member Sydney Fonnesbeck said that she was very uncomfortable having Council staff judging the Fire Department's ability to do their job. She said that the Fire Department was doing a great job and that the Council had no reason to doubt their ability to use their money well. Chief Florence said that if an audit was needed, that he would like to see an outside consultant come in to do the audit. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she would be more comfortable with that. Mr. Caldwell said that $141 ,301 could be transferred from contingency to the Debt Service Shrinking Fund. Chief Florence said that he would be more comfortable with it left in the contingency fund for the first year because of the problems that may arise in a new program. Mr. Stoler said that he would also like to see it left in contingency. W. M. "Willie" S o er, Chair ATTEST: 011:1Zri 1 Cit Re ; ser • • • • S rAMY'@ RP 0 IO-N OFFLCE. OF;THE CITY :COUNCIL ,r3.::' :'SUITE`3OO..CITY HALL . • . .•324 SOUTH STATE STREET : t> •SALT LAKE-CITY,-UTAH-841`-fl. Tentative Agenda SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF WHOLE MEETING. DATE: Tuesday, April 25, 1989 TIME: PLACE: City Council Conference Room Suite 300, City Hall • 324 South State Street The City Council will receive a briefing on Petition No. 400-708, submitted by David DeSantis, requesting that the City amend Section 21.78. 130 to allow for- profit organizations to operate private recreation facilities in residential districts. The City Council will discuss the proposed Fsical Year 1989/90 Central Dispatch/E911 Internal Service Fund budget. Note: The District 1 Meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Newman Elementary School, 1269 North Colorado Street. S1'. ' _ J allelLI IN 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 April 3, 1989 • • Re: Petition No. 400-708-89 submitted by David DeSantis Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 2, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-708-89 submitted by David DeSantis. The petitioner has requested that Salt Lake City Corporation amend section 21.78.130 to allow for-profit organizations to operate private recreation facilities in a residential district. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved this petition with the following conditions: MANDATORY CRI'1IA: • 1. The area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities together with off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facility and still maintain a landscaped 30' front yard, 10' side yard and 25' rear yard. 2. That all drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. APPROVAL CRITFRIA: 1 . Whether the proposed recreation area is of such size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. • 1 • 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. PROHIBITIONS: 1. No accessory uses such as retail and food services be authorized to operate exclusively or as a part of any Private Recreation Facility unless such use has been independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to place whatever additional conditions or restrictions it may deem necessary to protect the character of the residential district, and to insure the proper development and maintain of such residential area including the plans for the disposition or reuse of the property if the recreation area is not maintained in the manner agreed upon or is abandoned by the developer. The Planning Commission also discussed and approved changing the approval authority for granting conditional uses for recreational facilities in residential zones from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the proposed ordinance. Submitted by: / • CRAIG E. EI'.E SON Director lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21.78.130 Dealing with Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Pursuant to Petition No. 400-708-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.78.130, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, DEALING WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-708-89. WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings before its own body- and before the Planning and Zoning Commission and believes it appropriate to amend the provisions of Section 21.78. 130, Salt Lake City Code, dealing with recreational uses in residential districts as conditional uses; NOW, THEREFORE,. the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 21 . 78.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21 .78. 130 , Salt Lake City Code, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That Section 21. 78. 130 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 21.78. 130 Recreational facilities in residential districts. A. Recreational facilities as conditional use. Where not otherwise authorized by this title, and when in its opinion the best interest of the community will be served • thereby, the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit, as a conditional use, the use of the land in a residential district 11 y ?,is,�.J e ''y • for recreational purposes, subject to the following conditions and procedures: B. Definition. "Recreational uses" , for the purpose of this section, shall be defined to mean a structure or developed open space designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities, including paths and playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses and golf training facilities, nature exhibits and similar uses. "Recreational uses" shall not include commercial spa or aerobic clubs, all terrain or recreational vehicle parks, amusement parks, waterslides, skateboard parks or similar uses. C. Application. Applications for conditional uses under this section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such applica- tions shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in subsection E. below. The application shall also require the payment of a one hundred dollar ($100.00) processing fee which includes the cost of mailing any and all required notices. D. Notice and hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on applications for conditional uses under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be given to residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use. -2- E. Approval criteria. In considering the petition for conditional use the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine from the criteria below whether the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development pattern for the area in question in conformity with the city master plan for that area. The factors and criteria to be considered include: 1. Whether the proposed recreation area is of such size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the . adopted master plan for the area. 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. F. Design requirements. Before the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant the proposed conditional use it must find that the following mandatory criteria have been met: 1. That the area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities, together with all required off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facilities while still maintaining required landscaped thirty foot front yards, ten foot side yards and twenty five foot rear yards. -3- • 2. That all drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. G. Additional design elements. Subject, to the provisions of this section, if the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the conditional use is appropriate for the site, the Commission may, in addition, require any or all of the design criteria specified below which are determined to be reasonably necessary to minimize any negative esthetic, economic or planning impacts associated with the conditional use: 1. An opaque masking structure or fence of a material in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to screen the proposed use from neighboring uses. 2. Such other conditions reasonably necessary to ensure compatibility bf uses within the district in conformance with adopted master plans and policies and the protection of property values. H. Prohibited accessory uses. Accessory uses on the property such as retail sales and food services shall not be permitted except as such uses have been specifically approved by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. Any such accessory use shall be solely for the benefit and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. -4- • •I . Security. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct the conditional use, adequate financial security shall be posted in a .form acceptable to the city to ensure completion of the proposed and required landscape improvements. 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: .:,o .•J y.,�•� CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -5- ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR ,y'�, ,Try }T,r�1, ( RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER mkt� . W. IT�Y,�G�V�R1 O Il�V ; THOMAS A ELL SON CINDY CROMER SECRETARY .►s DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RICHARO J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535.7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE March 23, 1989 KATHY WACKER Craig Peterson Director of Development Services Building Dear Craig, Attached herewith is Petition 400-708 by David Desantis. The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City amend section 21. 78. 130 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regulating the location and operation of private recreation facilities in residential zones'. Presently, the Board of Adjustment may authorize as a Conditional Use the operation of a private recreation facility in a residential zone. In order to qualify for this provision in the zoning ordinance, the ownership of the facility must fall into one of two categories. Either the facility must be owned by the residents of the subdivision in which it is located or be owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation. The petitioner has requested that the city modify this portion of the zoning ordinance to allow for-profit organizations to operate private recreation facilities in a residential district. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on March 9, 1989 and recommends approval of Petition 400-708 by deleting paragraphs "a" and e through h of section 21. 78. 130. The Planning Commission also discussed and approved changing the approval authority for granting conditional uses for recreational facilities in residential zones from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommends that section 21. 78. 130 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City be amended to include the following conditions: Mandatory Criteria: 1. The area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities together with off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facility and still Craig Peterson March 23, 1989 Page -2- maintain a landscaped 30 ' front yard, 10 ' side yard and 25 ' rear yard. 2. That all drainage and water retention plans must be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. That all required landscaped setbacks must be installed and their maintenance guaranteed by the installation of a sprinkling system. Otovio Cendik-tcma Criteria: 4. The proposed recreation area must be of such size and shape and so located so as not to cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and be in keeping with the design of the neighborhood in which the recreation area is to be situated. 5. That the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 6. The petitioner has demonstrated that all adverse traffic impacts can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning J0Wy Commission. ( This must be verified by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer ). 7. The proposed facility does not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of: lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or any other objectionable operating characteristic. —`_ \ ieIN) 8. That where the city may deem appropriate, the petitioner 6r must erect and maintain a 6 ' fence. ( Type and material must 11 be approved by the Planning Commission) . Prohibitions: 9. No accessory uses such as retail and food services be authorized to operate exclusively or as a part of any Private Recreation Facility unless such use has been independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to place whatever additional conditions or restrictions it may deem necessary to protect the character of the residential district, _/ and to insure the proper development and maintenance of such a residential area including the plans for the disposition or reuse • r ; Craig Peterson •• March 23, 1989 Page -3- of the property if the recreation area is not maintained in the manner agreed upon or is abandoned by the developers. The Planning Commission would recommend that the City Council consider setting a date for a public hearing to receive input regarding this proposed ordinance change. Respectfully, hfr , Allen C. Johnson AICP Planning Director • ACJ: CAS Attachments ,APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT r;. To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 i • Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City Utah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance.. By amending Section 21.78.130(A) (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: N/A fran a classification to a classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change . in zoning. 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. • .6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE INFORMATIdN, IN DETAIL, MUST AC ANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PETITION TO BE PROPERLY BY THE PLANNING CCMMISSION. Signature of the applicant Address 2210 Sunnybrook Way Salt Lake City, Utah Telephone Number 277-3027 Zip Code 84124 FILL OUP REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. Date Receipt No. n - j(p Amount $ wino * The office of planning and zoning has indicated that a credit is available for the amount already paid by the applicant in connection with its prior conditional MT. OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION 1 342 EAST 5TH SOUTH r--;-, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 January 20, 1989 Mr . Alan Johnson Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mr. Johnson, As you know I have petitioned the Planning Commission and the City Council to ammend the section of the zoning ordinance dealing with allowing a for profit entity operating a private recreation facility in a residential zone. Because of the importance and benefit of nurturing , newly seeded grass in the Spring, I am requesting that the petition be put in front of the Planning Commission on the next available slot ( Feb_ 9 ) so that if a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission is granted a decision from the City Council will be expedited . Also, I would like to inform you that a Mr. Kennley Brunsdale will act as my agent in this case. Sinc rly, a1//4- 4r David DeSantis F , ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR .ZONING AMENDMENT 1 . Reason why the present zoning is not proper for the area. Applicant has already been granted a conditional use permit for the development of the proposed Golf Center on the Mount Olivet Cemetery land in Salt Lake City; how- ever, the permit is subject to the restrictions in zoning ordinance 21 . 78 . 130 (A) which precludes development of the center by a for-profit organization. The nature of the pro- posed project and benefit it would provide to the community, will be difficult to realize if the status of the developer is unattractive to capital resources . The applicant has been unable thus far to secure caitalization as a non-profit organization. • 2 . Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. The office of planning and zoning as previously concluded that the proposed Golf Center compliments the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will serve recreational and esthetic interests of the community. 3 . Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. (See the attached Development Plan. ) . • 4 . Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning . The subject lands constitute the expansion area for the Mount Olivet Cemetery. The lands are not antici- pated to be needed for at least 25 years . Currently, the property is a vacant lot which is costly to maintain within fire safety codes and often unattractive. The Golf Center plan provides for the development of vegetation, shrubbery, trees and other esthetics which will serve intended purposes of the Golf Center, as well as long term objectives of the Mount Olivet Cemetery. 5 . . Indication of support for rezoning from all effected property owners . The applicant has undertaken to communicate with residents in the surrounding neighborhood and is aware of no objection to the proposed Golf Center development. The Mount Olivet Cemetery Trustees support and are enthusiastic about the Golf Center. 6 . Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning ,commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. (The attached includes conceptual drawings of the proposed Golf Center) . -2- SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-708 By David DeSantis OVERVIEW • The petitioner is requesting that the city. modify the text of the zoning ordinance by deleting portions of section 21. 78. 130. This section states that any private recreation facility operating in a residential zone must be owned by the residents of the subdivision in which it is located or operate as a nonprofit corporation. The petitioner is requesting that the city modify the text of the zoning ordinance to allow "for profit" corporations to 'operate private recreation facilities in a residential zones as a conditional use. The petitioner has received conditional use approval from the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment to operate a golf training facility as a nonprofit corporation at approximately .1519 East Sunnyside Avenue which is directly West of the National Guard Armory. BACKGROUND ,The present wording for this section of the zoning ordinance first appeared as a text amendment on September 1, 1959. Reasons for it 's adoption stem from concerns that were expressed regarding the commercialization of parks and open spaces by the sale of concessions and other goods to patrons of recreational facilities. ANALYSIS The question of whether of not the operator of a private recreation facility is a nonprofit corporation would be difficult to research and enforce. The State of Utah Department of Business Regulation has indicated that there are several types of nonprofit corporations that may be licensed. There does not seem to be any correlation between the city's desires to regulate the operations of private recreation facilities and the requirement of licensing as a nonprofit corporation. The zoning ordinance is not specific as to what type of nonprofit corporation must be licensed to operate a private recreation facility in a residential zone: The staff feels that- the more important question to be answered is whether or not the land use is appropriate for theadjoining neighborhood and the city as a whole. It is this portion of the zoning ordinance that required the city to zone• Raging Waters Commercial C-3A to allow the recreational use that is operated by a private Company. The Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment authorized the approval of a Conditional Use for a Private Recreation Facility in the form of a "Golf Training" facility in this residential zone. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment have determined that this type of land use would be appropriate for this neighborhood as an interim use until Mount Olivet Cemetery needs the land. The activities that would cause the most concern on the site are the operation of the concessions that would be incidental to the functions of a golf training facility. These functions are currently being practiced in city parks and golf courses with apparent success. The petitioner has submitted operating guidelines to the staff as part of the request to change the text of •the ordinance. This business plan is attached to the staff report. Cemetery officials indicate that the petitioner must still successfully negotiate an agreement with the Federal Government to ascertain whether a golf facility is a suitable interim use of a future cemetery. Only after this is completed do cemetery officials offer their support of the petitioners proposal. • RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Petition 400-708 by deleting paragraphs "a" and e through h of section 21. 78. 130 and adding the additional conditions listed below: . In order to receive approval for a Private Recreation Facility ' in a residential zone the petitioner must demonstratethat: 1. That the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 2. The petitioner has demonstrated that all adverse traffic impacts can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. ( This must be verified by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer ) . • 3. The proposed facility does not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of: lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or any other objectionable operating characteristic. 4. That all drainage and water retention plans must be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 5. That where the city may deem appropriate, the petitioner must erect and maintain a 6 ' fence. ( Type and material must be approved by the Planning Commission). 6. That all required landscaped setbacks must be installed and their maintenance guaranteed by the installation of a sprinkling system. 7. That all accessory uses such as retail and food services be independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. Cristian A. Schulz City Planner II March 1, 1989 CENTRAL FIRE DISPATCH Internal Service Fund In the past, the Salt Lake City Fire Department has operated one Internal Service Fund, the Central Fire Dispatch. That program covered fire dispatch throughout Salt Lake Valley, with a couple of exceptions (South Salt Lake and West Jordan) . Salt Lake City made a sizeable contribution ($325,702) from its General Fund to pay for its portion of the cost. ` Salt Lake City will no longer dispatch for other governmental entities in FY 89-90 because they have, in many cases, established their own dispatching centers or joined with two or three other entities to form a dispatching center. As a result, the Fire Department dispatching program, Central Fire Dispatch, will no longer operate as an Internal Service Fund. The Fire Department will use the money formerly paid to Central Fire Dispatch to support a dispatch program in the General Fund. Discussion of the dispatching program, therefore, will not take place prior to the presentation of the Mayor's Recommended General Fund Budget in May. It will be included in the Fire Department's presentation on May 25, 1989. - • E - 9 1 1 DISPATCH CENTER SPEC I A L REVENUE FUND 11111111 OVERVIEW In the 1986 General Session of the Utah State Legislature, H.B. No. 10 was passed allowing for the establishment of 911 Emergency Telephone Systems by counties, cities, towns and special service districts and allowing for funding of those systems through a telephone surcharge (please see section 69-2-1 et .seq of the Utah Code Annotated) . Upon passage of this measure, the Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners adopted a measure providing for a surcharge of $0.38 on every telephone bill in the County, the monies of which would fund the 911 system, which was at that time operated by the County. The Salt Lake County Council of Governments also took this matter under advisement, desiring to establish an enhanced 911 system (which would show addresses). The FY 89- 90 budget is $448,000, which includes this enhanced system as a Special Revenue Fund operated by the Fire Department and completely funded by the telephone surcharge-. CHANGES IN SERVICE LEVELS Because FY 89-90 marks the first in which this function is operating, all cost centers and categories show a 100 percent change (from -0- in FY 88-89 to a positive figure in FY 89-90). PROPOSED STAFFING CHANGES The staff needed for this function will be transferred from the dispatch function because it is anticipated that they will no longer be needed in that function. A full discussion of dispatch will take place on May 25, 1989, when the Council discusses the Fire Department 's general fund budget. POLICY ISSUES Because this is a completely new service not provided by the City in previous years, the major policy issue to be discussed is its implementation. The desired goals are providing the service efficiently, uninterrupted service, and smooth coordination with dispatching. It is recommended that 10.33 personnel be used. Of that number 9.0 are dispatcher positions, 1 .0 is an Information Systems Supervisor position (which will function as a dispatcher position) , and 0.33 is a Senior Technician. The total dollars spent on personnel costs will be $255,342, or 57 percent of the fund total. These people are expected to handle between 30 and 50 percent of the calls currently received throughout the County. These call takers will be staffing two consoles on an ongoing, 24-hour basis. Any overflow is expected to be handled by complaint takers on duty. OTHER CHARGES AND SERVICES The only cost center in this category is #2559 (Contingency) for $41,301 or 11 percent of the fund total. This money has been set aside and no expenditures are predicted for it for two reasons. The first is prudence: with no operating history, the probability of an unforeseen expenditure is much greater, and money will be needed to cover such an expenditure. If such an expenditure does not arise, this money will go to the fund balance to deal with long-term needs. The second reason is practicality: because the Salt Lake County Boar1 of Commissioners sets the surcharge rate, all the City can do is accept the revenue, even though a defined use or expenditure is not foreseen. This second rationale is expected to change because the measure passed by the legislature allows the "governing authority of any public agency providing 911 emergency telephone service" to levy an annual rate. In the future (when an expenditure history is available), the City Council will be called upon to levy this rate. REVENUE Revenue will be derived from a telephone surcharge of $0.38 on all telephone lines within the City. The anticipated revenue is $448,000. This surcharge, currently set by the Salt Lake County Board of County Commissioners, will be set by the Salt Lake City Council in the future. The measure passed by the Legislature allows the "governing authority of any public agency providing 911 emergency telephone service" to levy an annual rate (please see sections 69-2-3 and 69-2-4 of the Utah Code Annotated). In the future (when an expenditure history is available), the City Council will be called upon to levy this rate. TRAVEL/TRAINING BUDGET No discussion is needed on this subject because the budget contains no funds for travel/training. H 111111111 E-911 Dispatch Center Special Revenue Fund Executive Summary Prepared by Cam Caldwell * The E-911 Dispatch Center Special Revenue Fund budget is limited to the E-911 call answering program. The remainder of the Dispatch Center budget will be presented to the City Council as part of the Fire Department budget in May. * The E-911 system is expected to go on-line May 15th County-wide. Training will take approximately one day. The City has E-911 call answering ability at twelve console locations. * The E-911 staffing complement is proposed in the budget at ten staff, including an Information Systems Supervisor who will function as a dispatcher, to answer calls round-the-clock. Council staff propose that a mini-audit be conducted after the E- 911 system is implemented and prior to June 13th. The purpose of that mini-audit would be to determine whether less than ten E-911 staff are required. * Inasmuch as E-911 funding can pay for a relatively broad variety of directly related E-911 services, a reduction in the staffing of • E-911 dispatchers would be able to be used to reduce the General Fund costs of dispatching in the amount of about $26,252 per position not filled. * Council may wish to modify the proposed budget to reduce the Contingency Fund by $41 ,301 and increase the Debt Service Sinking Fund by that same amount . As an option to this, Council may wish to increase the Administrative Service fee and charge this revenue fund for the E-911 office space or other eligible overhead expense. -1- t • E-911 Dispatch Center Special Revenue Fund Staff Analysis Overview The E-911 Dispatch Center Special Revenue Fund contains funding only for the E-911 portion of the joint Police/Fire Dispatch Center. Based upon a telephone surcharge of $.38 per telephone line for all telephone lines within the City, the anticipated revenue to fund the E-911- system will be $448,000. The staffing complement is 10.33 FTE's. It is expected that this complement of staff will come from existing dispatching personnel in the Police and Fire Departments. These staff currently are required by our existing dispatch system to provide dispatch services for Salt Lake City and other police and fire agencies in other communities. The E-911 dispatchers will handle 90 to 250 calls per day, or froth 30 to 50 percent of all E-911 calls currently received throughout Salt Lake County. The ten E-911 dispatchers, including the Information Systems Supervisor, will staff two consoles on a round-the-clock basis. ` Service Level The 911 program has been provided for Salt Lake since 1986 when the Utah State Legislature passed a law permitting the establishment of 911 systems and allowing for their funding through a telephone surcharge. Salt Lake County has provided the existing 911 phone answering system. They screen and transfer calls to the respective police and fire agencies in the County. The 911 headquarters is a modest sized room with three telephone consoles and is physically located immediately adjacent to the Metropolitan Hall of Justice. Currently the Salt Lake City joint dispatch facility has six call taking consoles and a supervisor's console which are equipped with the E-911 address and phone number enhancement. In addition, the five Fire Department consoles have backup capacity to answer E-911 calls and immediately identify the address and phone number of the calling party. Two of the six call taking consoles will be used for E-911 staff. Training of E-911 staff is expected to begin early in May and will take about one day per trainee. The new E-911 system will go into service May 15. On Friday morning I toured the City Dispatch Center and the County 911 Dispatch Center to generally familiarize myself with the systems. The City's system is comparatively sophisticated with its new police equipment and is a far more appealing place to work than either the County facility or the old Police Dispatch Center. -2- Based upon an admittedly. limited observation of the activity level of the County Dispatch Center, and conversations with the Police and Fire dispatch staff, my intuitive response is that there are cost savings possible with the E-911 system and ten staff are not necessary around-the-clock. The Police call takers and the Fire Dispatchers both have backup capability to handle the relatively small E-911 call volume. Budget Analysis The following is a general summary of the respective line item categories of this budget. Personal Services - About 58.6% of the budget is for Salaries and Benefits. The fringe benefits are 31 .2% of salary. Other Material & Supplies - A total of $68,000, or 15.2% of the budget is for Operating and Maintenance Supplies. These supplies consist of a multitude of general supplies which are undefined at this time. Charges & Services - Communications . equipment maintenance contracts make up $36,000 of the $41 , 301 budgeted for Communications Equipment. This expense equates to 9.2% of the total budget. An additional $5,301 is budgeted for maintaining other communication: related equipment. Contingencies are budgeted at $43, 178, or 9.6% of the total budget. An additional $8,000 is budgeted for Administrative Service fees. Debt Service - A 'Debt Service Sinking Fund in the amount of $25,000 has been established. This funding assumes a ten year • sinking fund which would result in a future value amount of about $353,000 at the end of the ten years, assuming a 7.5% interest rate. The $25,000 sinking fund contribution is 5.6% of the total budget. Policy Issues At this point the City's dispatch services for other public safety agencies will end June 30. The $369,693 which has been derived from other agencies will not be available to help pay for the City's police and fire communications systems. However, the $448,000 in E-911 money can be used for any "directly related E-911 expense," a label which has been interpreted by the County Attorney's Office to be extremely broad. Council may wish the staff to conduct a mini-audit of the dispatch center to confirm whether or not E-911 call processing can be handled without the full staffing proposed by the administration. The net impact would be to reduce the cost to the General Fund by $26,252 for each of the ten positions not filled. Council may also wish to assign the Contingency Amount to its Debt Service sinking fund or increase the amount charged to this fund for eligible overhead expenses. Increasing the amount budgeted for the Sinking Fund would enable the City to be in a better position to replace or upgrade E-911 equipment in -3- ten years without having to markedly increase the per phone line cost which is assessed to fund E-911 . Increasing the amount charged to eligible overhead expense would enable the City to reduce the General Fund budget by that same amount. Staff Recommendation 1) Approve the E-911 Internal Service Fund budget in the amount of $448,000. 2) Conduct a mini-audit of the dispatch center to determine the ability of the existing staff to process E-911 calls. 3) Determine the need for staffing of the E-911 function between May 15 and June 13 (the scheduled date for the adoption of the final budget by the Council). 4) Modify the proposed budget to reduce the Contingency Fund by $41 ,301 and increase the Debt Service Sinking Fund by that same amount. As an option to this, Council may wish to increase the Administrative Service fee and charge this revenue fund for the E-911 office space or other eligible overhead expense. -4- Q . ,.' x • ti I or THE OFFICE OF el . ,, SALT LAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY DAVID E.YOCOM COUNTY ATTORNEY WALTER R.ELLETT.CHIEF DIW(T Y JI h]CE IVISION, - WILLIAM R HYDE,CHIEF nEPIrry CIVIL IIVISION DONALD SAWAYA.CHIEF DEPUTY GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION June 21, 1988 • Chief Larry C. Hinman Salt Lake County Divisions of Fire, Paramedic and Emergency Services #51 West 3900 South, Suite A Murray, Utah 84107 QUESTION: To what extent may the 911 emergency telephone service surcharge be used to fund the Public Safety Answering - Points (PSAPs) which will house and operate the E911 system in Salt Lake County? Dear Chief Hinman: The Fire Department has requested an opinion from this office to determine to what extent the 911 emergency telephone surcharge currently levied on telephone lines within the county may be used to fund construction, to purchase and maintain equipment, and to pay salaries relating to the establishment and operation of Public Safety Answering Points in the county. It is currently proposed by Salt Lake County and a majority of the municipalities located therein that two PSAPs be established and maintained within the county. Salt Lake City shall establish and operate* one PSAP; the other shall be known as , and operated by, Valley Communications Center (VCC) . VCC is a separate legal entity created pursuant - to an interlocal agreement entered into by the cities of Midvale, Murray, Sandy, South Jordan, West Jordan, West Valley and by Salt Lake County. It is contemplated that each PSAP will provide E911 services ; dispatch services for police, fire and medical ; public safety recordkeeping services ; and other related services as requested. 2001 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84 1 90-1 200 t° • Chief Larry C. Hinman June 21, 1988 Page 2 The Enhanced 911 system will allow operators to receive and view on a computer screen the address and telephone number from which an emergency telephone call is made. Once a determination has been made by a 911 operator that the call is for police, fire or medical assistance, the operator may stay on -the -line-- and assist in a- "team dispatch" of_ the call or the operator may transfer the call, together with the information contained on . the screen to a dispatcher for the appropriate response. In order to provide such services, certain technical equipment is being purchased which will make it possible to receive the Enhanced 911 information and which will make it possible to provide more efficient dispatch and recordkeeping services. The issue of the use of funds has arisen due to the overlap or shared use of the facilities, equipment and personnel in providing the-differentservices-outlined above. In 1986 the legislature enacted the emergency telephone service law, Section 69-2-1, et seq. , U.C.A. This act authorized local governments which provide 911 services to impose a telephone surcharge on each telephone line not to exceed 50 cents per month to provide said service. The current rate established in Salt Lake County is 38 cents per telephone line. The law provides that these funds are to be used only for 911 emergency telephone services . Section 69-2-5(4) provides in relevant part : All monies in the emergency telephone service fund shall be expended by the public agency to pay the cost of establishing, installing, maintaining, and operating a 911 emergency telephone system or integrating a 911 system into an established public safety dispatch center, including contracting with the providers of local exchange telephone service and vendors of appropriate terminal equipment as necessary to implement the 911 emergency telephone service. Revenues derived for the funding of 911 emergency telephone service may only be used for that portion of costs relating to the operation of the 911 emergency telephone system when such a system is integrated with any public safety dispatch system. (Emphasis added . ) Chief Larry C. Hinman June 21, 1988 Page 3 Based upon the foregoing statute, it is the opinion of this office that the current surcharge fund for the 911 emergency telephone system may be used only for expenditures relating to the 91.1 emergency system. To the extent necessary. these funds can be used for the purchase of equipment, payment of salaries, and the construction _ or ._alteration . of facilities in order to establish an E911 system or integrate such a system with a public safety dispatch system. Inasmuch as the PSAPs contemplated in Salt Lake County will also provide additional services, including dispatch and recordkeeping services, the funds from the telephone surcharge fund must be based upon the proportion of E911 services attributable to the PSAP as distinguished from the dispatch and other remaining services provided ' at the centers. It is not the role of this office to render an opinion regarding the propriety of each individual item or expenditure from the 911 fund . However, a few guidelines may be established regarding the use' of such funds based upon the provisions of the above cited statute. For instance, facilities and equipment necessary to provide E911 services are clearly eligible to be purchased from the fund . This would include ANI-ALI equipment. telephone lines necessary to receive E911 calls and to provide "ring down" capabilities from the 911 operators to the Sheriff ' s Department and to the other PSAP. Lines , stations, equipment and personnel over and above that which is necessary to provide essential E911 services or equipment and personnel used primarily for dispatch and recordkeeping services should be funded from other sources . A general formula should be devised .by those contributing to the center in order to determine what percentage of the operating costs should be attributable to the E911 fund . It may not be possible to accurately determine the proper allocation until the center has been -in operation for a reasonable length of time. On the other hand, it may also be appropriate and sufficient to merely allocate a percentage of the operating costs based upon the different types of services rendered at the center; e . g. , one-third the operating costs be attributable to each of the services rendered ; e.g. , E911 dispatch and recordkeeping or some variation of those percentages . One factor which may be considered in deriving such a formula would be to determine the percentage of time a 911 operator is required to spend on an emergency call from the time the call is received until the dispatch is completed and the call terminated .