Loading...
04/07/1987 - Formal Meeting - Minutes • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE. THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting. BRIEFING SESSION Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening' s agenda. She told the Council Members that the staff recommended they uphold the Planning Commission decision on Petition No. 400-500, an appeal of Historical Landmark Case No. 642. She explained that the chain-link fence discussed in the petition was in violation of the Landmark Committee requirements for a historical district. The fence was made of an inappropriate material for the district, was located on City property and exceeded City height requirements. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, told the Council Members that they were only to consider the petition as it related to violations of the guidelines of the Historical Landmark Committee. Bill Wright, city planner, answered questions Council Members had con- cerning Petition No. 400-275 by the Calder Brothers, requesting that the City annex a property located at 3130 South Highland Drive. Mr. Wright explained to the Council that there were three residential properties located within the area to be annexed and if one of the residential property owners protested out of the annexation, all three properties must be excluded in order to meet state annexation requirements. The annexation of the residential properties was all or nothing, there could be no variation. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 87-82 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 7 , 1987, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE. THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall , city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present. Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting and Councilmember Hardwick conducted the meeting. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, March 17 , 1987, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (M 87-1) Special Recognition 1 . The Mayor and City Council presented the March Tourism Ambassador of the Month award to Bill Tatman of Delta Airlines. Mayor DePaulis said Mr. Tatman was district sales manager for Delta Airlines and had helped promote Salt Lake City as a destination point and as the gateway to the west and had also promoted southern Utah and the national parks. The Mayor said through Mr. Tatman' s efforts advance flight reservations for the summer and ski seasons had increased. Mr. Tatman thanked the Mayor and Council on behalf of himself and the other employees at Delta who also pro- moted Salt Lake City. (G 87-7) 2. The City Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution declaring support for Arbor Day, April 24, 1987. Councilmember Godfrey read the resolution. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 32 of 1987 declaring support for Arbor Day, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Steve Schwab, urban forester, introduced members of the Urban Forestry Board who were present. He mentioned that the board had worked hard to look at ways to take care of the City' s trees and encourage the planting of more trees to help beautify and improve the environment of the City. (R 87-1) 87-83 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 PETITIONS Petition 400-249 by Janice Turner/William Bennett RE: An ordinance repealing Ordinance 85 of 1985 and correcting a technical error that was in the property description of that ordinance which vacated an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue. ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 19 of 1987 vacating an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue and repealing Ordinance 85 of 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (P 85-11) DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS AIRPORT AUTHORITY #1 . RE: An interlocal agreement with the United States Government, National Guard Bureau, for an airport joint use agremeent, an agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D, and a striping contract. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Government represented by the National Guard Bureau, United States Property and Fiscal Office for the State of Utah approving a) an airport joint use agreement providing the Utah Air National Guard common use of airport flying facilities; b) an agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D; c) airport striping contract whereby the National Guard Bureau agrees to paint stripe all ramps, runways and taxiways, at their cost, through the year 1991 , which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote. (C 87-160, C 87-161 , C 87-162) CITY COUNCIL #1 . RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-13-1 (13) and Section 51-5-10 of the zoning ordinance allowing the Board of Adjustment to permit an accessory structure to be used as a study, a private noncommercial art studio, a hobby shop, an exercise room, a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool , or for other similar uses, subject to conditions. ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Planning Commission and the City Attorney for recommendation, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (0 87-2) 87-84 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 #2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-33-7 relating to condominium conversions, stating that the Planning Director may require certain conditions when converting housing units to condominium status. ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Planning Commission and the City Attorney for recommendation, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (0 87-4) FINANCE DEPARTMENT #1 . RE: An ordinance amending Exhibit "A" of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation Franchise, Ordinance 8 of 1987, correcting the property description. ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda. (0 87-3) MAYOR'S OFFICE #1 . RE: The reappointment of William A. Lewis and the appointment of Chris Montague and D'Arcy Ann Dixon to the Salt Lake City Arts Council . ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda. ( I 87-14) #2. RE: The reappointment of Marvin Tuddenham to the Public Utilities Advisory Board. ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda. ( I 87-9) PUBLIC UTILITIES #1 . RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for an easement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33-C-1349. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for an easement agreement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33-C-1349 from Parkview Drive and Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote. (C 87-120) 87-85 i PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 PUBLIC WORKS #1 . RE: An interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation and three railroads for railroad protective devices and fabricated crossing surfaces. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 25 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Department of Transportation and three railroads to install railroad protective devices and fabricated crossing sur- faces on 7200 West near 700 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote. (C 87-121 ) #2. RE: Special Improvement District No. 40-R-7 bid opening and bond sale. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 28 of 1987 accepting bids and awarding the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, dated April 1 , 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of 1987 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (Q 85-3) #3. RE: Special Improvement District No. 38-685 bid opening and bond sale. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 30 of 1987 accepting bids and awarding the sale of $141 ,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, dated April 1 , 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 31 of 1987 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $141 ,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (Q 85-1 ) 87-86 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-274 Calder Brothers Annexation RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the reconsideration of Petition 400-274 requesting Salt Lake City to annex property located at 3130 South Highland Drive. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the annexation of all property included in Petition 400-274 and direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance subject to the dedication of property for potential right-of-way expansion, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street, and streetscape improvements, zoning the property "C-1" and the submission of an annexation plat, which motion carried, all members voting aye. DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the purpose of the public hearing was to reconsider the Council ' s action which was taken on July 9, 1985. He said this property was adjoining the present city boundary in the Brickyard area along Highland Drive between Miller and Woodland Avenues. He explained that in 1985 the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended the annexation and the Council approved the annexation excluding one parcel . He said shortly after that the developer could not secure financing and was unable to complete the project and did not complete the annexa- tion. Since then another developer had acquired the property and was interested in constructing a retail development. He referred to the previous action taken by the Council which approved the annexation excluding one of the properties and said according to the state annexation law this created an unincorporated penninsula. He indicated that if the Council approved the annexation they needed to annex all four properties as was originally requested in the petition or needed to exclude all three of the residential properties fronting on Woodland Avenue. He also outlined conditions which needed to be a part of the annexation approval such as dedication of property for rights-of-way and curb, gutter sidewalk, street and streetscape improvements. He said it was recommended that the requirements for the dedication of property for increased public right of way and construction of the street improvements for the three residential properties fronting on Woodland Avenue should be waived until the properties were developed or redeveloped. He said the zoning should be "C-1" and an annexation plat needed to be prepared and submitted to the City. No one from the audience spoke. (P 85-71) 87-87 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 Petition 400-500 by Bernice Culledand Byron Couch RE: A public hearing at 6:35 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the appeal of Historic Landmark Case No. 642 denying the request to retain a fence at 322 North 300 West. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to uphold the decision of the Landmark Committee and of the Planning Commission to deny this appeal . Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to make a substitute motion to table the issue in order to make a determination of any violations of procedure by City staff, which motion failed, Councilmembers Bittner and Stoler voting aye and Councilmembers Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Hardwick, Godfrey, and Kirk voting nay. The original motion was then voted on, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Bittner who voted nay. DISCUSSION: Bil Schwab, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said on November 13, 1986, the Historical Landmark Committee heard the case after a notice for violation was given to the property and they denied the fence; on November 24, 1986, the request was heard by the Board of Adjustment and they denied the height violation; and on January 8, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the appeal . He said no approval permit was issued as required by ordinance, the fence was 8.7 feet on public property and there was no revocable permit, the fence violated height restrictions, and there had been no design or material review of the fence. He said fence compliance was required by the Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission and said requirements could be made by the Board of Adjust- ment and the City Council when reviewing projects, therefore it was not uncommon to require fence stipulations to the zone being considered. He said the ordinance was full of fence requirements. He then showed pictures of the area and said property north was also in violation. He mentioned two other properties in the area of 300 West and 600 North which had both replaced illegal fences in order to comply with the ordinance. He said the City was liable for the fence since it was on City property unless the property owner had a revocable permit with insurance. Henry Whiteside, Historical Landmark Committee, said their standards were reasonable and flexible but they required work done in a historic district to be compatible with the design, material , scale, and character of the neighbor- hood. He said there were indications that the contractor and owner proceeded with the work when they were well informed of the ordinance and after they were issued a stop-work order. He said chain link was not appropriate for a historic district and said the historic district ordinance was to protect the interests of all the people of Salt Lake, to preserve a historical resource and to offer ground rules and an assurance to home owners in the district that money and time spent restoring a structure would be well spent. He asked the Council to uphold the decision to deny the request. 87-88 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 Bruce Shand, attorney on behalf of the petitioner, said this property was on the extreme southwest corner of the Landmark District and was two lots away from West High' s tennis courts which had an 18-foot high chain link fence. He said many properties in this immediate area had chain link fences and he showed a picture. He said one major problem was that no other action was being taken against other property owners which were not in compliance. He expressed his opinion that the area was appropriate for chain link and said many properties in the area historically had chain link. He mentioned that the fence company told the petitioner a permit was not required and the petitioner had called the City and was told a permit was not needed so they proceeded thinking it was exempt. He said the fence cost about $1 ,200 and to rebuild it using wrought iron would cost the petitioner $5,000. He said the building on this property was rented to elderly low-income people who paid $150.00 per month and said if the fence had to be replaced the rents would increase and these renters would probably be unable to afford it. He said this area was a mix of commercial and residential and there was a substantial amount of chain link in the area. He did not think the fence in question affected the aesthetic value of the area and thought they should be granted a variance. He mentioned there were problems in the area and the elderly tenants wanted some security. He said his client was willing to move the fence off City property and asked the Council to overrule the denial . Councilmember Godfrey said that since the Board of Adjustment turned down the request the only way to appeal their decision was through the court system. Councilmember Fonnesbeck added that regardless of what the Council did they could not override the Board of Adjustment. Mayor DePaulis asked Mr. Shand who in the City told his client they did not need a permit and Mr. Shand said his client did not get a name. Paul Maxfield, ACME Fence Co. , said the City did not require a permit for a fence unless it was in a historic district and at the time of this incident his sales people were not aware that this area was in a historic district. He said they also assumed that people knew where their property line was and said the company could not include the cost of a survey in the cost of the fence. He said the owner wanted the fence to be the same height as the fence to the north eventhough the fence company told them it would be in violation of the height restriction. He said he got a letter regarding the stop work order and said the letter was inac- curate; he also got a map outlining the historic district but it was not very well defined. Councilmember Bittner expressed concern about possible misinformation these people received from the City. She also asked if something was being done about other illegal fences. Mr. Schwab indicated yes. He also said the stop work order had been issued on the fence in question and said he had letters to that effect. Councilmember Bittner said she wanted some of the questions cleared up before she made a decision. Councilmember Stoler asked if the owner was notified by the fence company that the fence was in violation. Mr. Maxfield indicated they were notified that the height of the fence was in violation but they wanted it anyway. 87-89 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 Ernest Dixon, 77 "C" Street, said his neighbor was in the same situation and was also appealing the denial of his fence. He told the Council that their decision on this fence would affect other violations. James Allen, 216 5th Avenue, supported the decision to deny the request and said part of the issue was what the Council wanted 3rd West to look like. He said this area was a main entrance into the City. He said the Landmark Committee was sensitive and examined all sides. Pearl Simmons, property owner immediately north, explained that the workers came on a Saturday to install the fence. She said she called her attorney who came and told them to stop installation because they were in violation of the historical district. She said the workers and her attorney talked to Ms. Culley and she indicated she wanted them to put the fence up. Ms. Simmons said they came back on Sunday to finsh the work. She said she felt that Ms. Culley was warned about the violation of this fence. Councilmember Bittner wanted assurance that City procedure had been properly followed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck was concerned too but felt this matter was a separate issue. She said the historic district had been in place for a number of years and this fence was a clear violation of the law. She didn' t feel that the Council had the authority to override the denial . Councilmember Kirk had a question about the stop work order and Mr. Shand said his client had not been served with a stop work order. Mr. Schwab said he had letters confirming that the stop work order had been issued and city procedure was followed. Councilmember Bittner requested copies. Councilmember Mabey ex- pressed concern about information given to the owner when she called the City and he thought perhaps enough questions had not been asked before the owner was given an answer. He suggested that the staff should have a list of written questions they need to ask callers. Councilmember Stoler expressed the same concerns and also expressed concern about the cost to the owner. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, reminded the Council that the issue was whether the decision of the Landmark Committee was proper. He said the law stated that the Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission could decide if fencing material was in character with the historic district. He said the issue of procedure, even though it was important, was not the question before the Council . Roger Cutler, city attorney, explained that if incorrect information was received this would not override the laws and would not stop the City from enforcing the law. Mayor DePaulis said since he did not have the name of an employee who supposedly gave out the misinformation he could not take disciplinary action. (P 87-48) 87-90 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 City Historical Register - Charles James Mullett Home RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the designation of the Charles James Mullett home at 680 Wall Street on the City Historical Register. ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 20 of 1987 designating the Charles James Mullett home at 680 Wall Street as a City landmark site, which motion carried, all members voting aye. DISCUSSION: Bil Schwab, planning and zoning, said this home was in a historic district but the owners wanted it listed site specific. He said the owners had done an excellent job of restoring the home. He showed slides of the home. Sidney Draper, owner, said they loved the history of the community and ex- plained that when they purchased the home he sought architectural advice regarding the restoration and they had received an award of excellence from the Utah Heritage Foundation. He gave a brief history of the house and of Charles James Mullet. He said they had spent a lot of time and money in the house and said they would be honored if it were placed on the register. Councilmember Bittner complimented Mr. Draper. (L 87-2) COMMENTS #1 . Kelvin Staker, 1188 South West Temple, complained about a halfway house at 404 Lafayette Avenue. He said it caused problems in the neighborhood and several businesses had been burglarized. He left a petition with the Council from the businesses and residents. Mayor DePaulis said the City would check into this matter. #2 . Alan Bachman, 66 North 100 East in Provo, on behalf of Perry Shepherd who was the previous owner of the Painted Word, addressed the City' s ordinance regarding prohibition of entertainment after 1 :00 a.m. He said when the Council made laws they were obligated to follow guidelines as set forth in the Constitution. He referred to the 1st Amendment and said art was free speech and helped to mold society. He said when free speech was going to be regulated there had to be a stated legitimate governmental purpose, it had to be drafted to take care of the legitimate purpose, and there had to be documentation that it would rationally relate to taking care of the purpose. He also said the regulation had to be handled uniformly and not arbitrarily. He expressed concern that Salt Lake City' s law was too broad and did not differentiate between the level of sound, amplification, location, and live entertainment. In his opinion, this law was unconstitutionally over broad since it restricted artistic activities along with undesirable forms of entertainment. He gave examples such as if the opera gave a very long performance extending past the curfew. He said the law needed to be drafted with precision in order to take care of the problem which they wanted to eliminate. He said the image 87-91 • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987 of the laws had an effect nationwide on tourism and industry in decisions to locate in a new community. He also said the law was selectively enforced and referred to the background music which was allowed to play in all-night restaurants. He said the legislative body needed to respond to changing conditions and said 1 ,200 people in Salt Lake signed a petition in support of the Painted Word. He asked the Council to define the reason for this law and to draft a law to only take care of the problem. Roger Cutler, city attorney, indicated that perhaps the ordinance could be narrowed. In reference to the 1st Amendment issue he said the law was not regulating content but regulating certain activities. He said the police department had suggested a number of facts as to why they felt strongly about the current ordinance. He said he could give Mr. Bachman' s memo consideration. Mr. Bachman referred to a court case in which a similar ordinance was found void. He said in regard to free speech the test was whether there were less drastic means available to accomplish the government' s purpose. He asked if there were less drastic means in this situation to accomplish the purpose. It was his opinion that the court would not allow this ordinance to stand. Councilmember Hardwick suggested that perhaps the City' s ordinance would have to be tested in court and said there weren't enough votes on the Council to change the ordinance. Mr. Cutler said he thought the law was defendable and indicated that he could provide an opinion to the Council . He said the question the Council had to discuss was the policy issue and give him some direction. Councilmember Godfrey suggested that the Council should consider the legal issues involved. Councilmember Mabey said he had problems with entertainment in his area for three years. Council- member Fonnesbeck suggested that the standards could be better defined so the law would go after the specific problems and said the current law just blanketed the entire situation. Mr. Cutler indicated the police concerns involved other viola- tions which could occur in connection with this issue that required additional staffing to monitor, such as liquor violations. Councilmember Godfrey said he would like an opinion from the attorney' s office regarding the question of constitutionality and Councilmember Bittner asked for a memo from Mr. Cutler. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. CO HATRPERSON Cif Y RECORDER 87-92 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, April 7, 1987 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. 2. Mayor Palmer DePaulis will introduce Karen Suzuki-Hashimoto, Human Resources Manager, to the City Council . B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4a. The Mayor and City Council will present the March Tourism Ambassador of the Month Award to Bill Tatman of Delta Airlines. (G 87-7) 4b. The City Council and Mayor will adopt a joint resolution declaring support for Arbor Day, 24 April 1987. (R 87-1) C. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor. 2. Citizen Comments . 3. Representatives of "Friends of the Painted Word," will address the City Council concerning Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 20-14-11. D. CONSENT: 1. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement , UDOT - Railroad Crossings. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Department of Transportation and three railroads to install railroad protective devices and fabricated crossing surfaces on 7200 West near 700 South. U Adivv4 arv� (C 87-121) /7. b0 Lc5 . 1P r 'e c-f" Juci etc} -P a-O II n;O A. a Oe -f /." a c i Ei 1c `* 5L RA° STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . 2. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement , Salt Lake County Watermain Extension. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for an Easement Agreement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33C- 1349, from Parkview Drive and Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive. (C 87-120) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . D. CONSENT AGENDA it 'd. 3. Affi000,0cALCooperation Agreement, Utah Air National Guard. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Government represented by the National Guard Bureau, United States Property and Fiscal Office for the State of Utah approving a) an airport joint use agreement providing the Utah Air National Guard common t«e of airport flying facilities; b) an agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D; c) airport striping contract whereby the National Guard Bureau agrees to paint stripe all ramps, runways and taxiways, at their cost, through the year 1991 (C 87-160) �o� Us e - U 4 N C— pa1`j_5 4 sn k (C 87-161)87-162) 1p`e ka PFci 5' "'t — 4/0/tc STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 4opt. Y1 E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 1. Petition No. 400-249. Technical Correction. Consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. 400-249 and repealing ordinance No. 85 of 1985. (P 85-11) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend rules and adopt on first reading. 2. Amendment, Ordinance 8 of 1987, Evans and Sutherland Franchise Agreement . Consider adopting an ordinance amending Exhibit "A" of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation Franchise Ordinance No . 8 of 1987, correcting the property description. �/llew c�escr (0 87-3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Consent Agenda. 3. Salt Lake City & Council, Board Appointments and Reappointment . Consider approving the reappointment of William A. Lewis and the appointment of Chris Montague and D'Arcy Ann Dixon to the Salt Lake City Arts Council . (I 87-14) STAFF RECOMMENDATION; r to Ce 's.'ent Agenda. 4. Public Utilities Advisory Board, Reappointment. Consider approving the reappointment of Marvin Tuddenham to the Public Utilities Advisory Board. (I 87-9) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Consent Agenda. E. NEW COUNCIL BUS SS Cont 'd. 5. Sections 51-13-1(13) and 51-5-10, Zoning. ffeti<1 44 Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 51-13-1(13) and Section 51-5- 10 of the zoning ordinance allowing the Board of Adjustment to permit an accessory structure to be used as a study, a private noncommercial art studio, a hobby shop, an exercise room, a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or for other similar uses, subject to conditions. _ 7r4 /4a7ii,C e / . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Planning Commission and City Attorney. 6. Section 51-33-7, Zoning. Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 51-33-7 relating to Condominium Conversions, stating that the Planning Director may require certain conditions when converting housing units to condominium status . (0 87-4) 4e /afI Je X2-e7z, - syeil`ey E—Q �tr- STAFF RE COMMENDATION: . Refer tb m Planning Commission and City Attorney. (a C o tic4''ILI O w DC CDAver gi o .1 -yyLce :ei-f/ one ®r-1i r•-aNcek - F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Special Improvement District No. 40-R--7, Bid Opening. Consider adopting a resolution accepting bids and awarding the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, dated April 1, 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby. (Q 85-3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . 2. Special Improvement District No. 40-R--7,_Bond Sale . Consider adopting a resolution thorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District Concrete BepOlacement No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters. (Q 85-3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . 3. Special Improvement District No. 38-685;, Bid Opening. Consider adopting a resolution accepting bids and awarding the sale of $141,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, dated April 1, 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby. (Q 85-1) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . F. UNFINISHED COUN . BUSINESS Cont'd. 4. Special Improvement District No . 38-685, Bond Sale . Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $141,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; ,and related matters. (Q 85-1) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: - 1. 1 Petition No. 400-274, Calder Brothers Annexation. 1 'p 6:20 p.m. • 1 Obtain public comment concerning the reconsideration Petition No. 400-274 submitted by Cer Brothers requesting the City annex a property located at 3130 South Highaldland Drive. (P 85-71) A / ei #54)11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close hearing. 2. Petition No. 400-500, Culley/Couch appeal of Historic Landmark'Case #642. 6:35 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an appeal by Bernice Culley and Byron Couch of Historic Landmark Case No. 642. � A C .�", - / (P 7-48) lrn 4 / f� 0 ,i__,d,;,,r.o.e._, STAFF, COMMEND ON: Close hearing.• �Ca to 1 I � 'a ik_ 0 AA„ „'67ei, t et a..-b e'?_fy / 4 3. Historical Landmark Case 649. ��"�� 1exicLp��ry� rA , 6:45 p.m. o L.J v'\ o `.,71, '-q' (-- Obtain public comment concerning the designation of the Charles James Mullet 041/1home at 680 Wall Street on the City Historical Register. (L 87-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close hearing . -- - , 7e) 7` H. ADJOURNMENT. DATED April 3, 1987 BYW//, CI,: ER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss . On the 3rd day of April , 1987, 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 325. CITY ECO Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of April, 1987. ,d 1( 1/4/1,;ilAii) Notary blic residing in the State o Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: COUNCIL STAFF rasp PALM ER D ULIS MAYOR *A4 1 1T_�r y a e ` TRONj OFFICE OF THE MAYOR a 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR, SUITE 500"' SALT LAKE.CITY, UTAH 84111 5p5.7704:::`'`: -- March 25, 1987 Chairperson Roselyn Kirk Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Roselyn: The Mayor would like the City Council to join with him and the Urban Forestry Board in declaring support for and giving recognition to Arbor Day, which is April 24, 1987. Both the Mayor and the Urban Forestry Board would like to encourage the citizens of Salt Lake City to make this day special and successful by having them plant trees, shrubs, and other landscape to make our community a better place in which to live. Members of the Urban Forestry Board will be attending the City Council meeting on April 7th to partake in the reading of the Arbor Day resolution. You may wish to call upon Jennifer Harrington, Chairperson of the Urban Forestry Board, to say a few words. I have attached the resolution for your review. Sincerely, 1 LOL EMILIE CHARLES Executive Assistant to the Mayor EC:jf Enc. _ • x y� SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION r L1tUI1 fl w A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL . OF SALT LAKE CITY DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ARBOR DAY WHEREAS, AkboA Da bhoutd mean much more than a him .ee desi nation o time and peace. It �shou d yn g 6 ca,uay with it a des.ine and a punpoze to add beauty and enviunmentat benebi.to to ours city Bands cape by planting and taking cane o 6 .t'tee s; and WHEREAS, in 1987 the "PLANT A LIVING LEGACY" pnognam has been pnocta,imed nationwide .to honors and ciebna,te the Bicentenni.at zigning ob ours United States Conz.t.itutLon in a Living and eas.ti.ng cuzy; and WHEREAS, wet caned bon. t ees, zhn.ubs, 6Qowehs and o.then gneenen.y ane Living hymboPs that ze.tve to commemorate ours hehi.tage white enhancing the butane quality ob ti6e in ouA community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that .the Mayon. ob Satt Lake. City, and elected mernbens o6 the City Council, and appointed membehs o6 the UAban Fones,ticy BoaAd, do hereby necogn%ze .the 24.th day o6 ApitLE, 1987 as: ARBOR DAY in Sa,Pt Lake City, and uAge that it be made a zpeciae occasion by .the people and eitCzenz o6 Salt Lake City bon planting .th.eee and hhvrubs and e.ncounaging continued maintenance .theneo6, t6uus making ours community a beaten peace in which to give. 'ti-r SIGNED THIS day o6 ApAit, 1987. 1'` av, ROSELYN KIRK, Cha,uLpehson PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayon jL: '.. i;.t" "r' + ,1' Vire yrr a l •'� .:i i.is .i; ,_`:.c. ,,.c{�� i a`g"'._;.vi wa£' = a''✓.'u '+°i.1' Ra T"p�,". s - ,�1Fi DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAYOR 535.7775 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 11 , 1987 REFERENCE: Attached is a resolution and a cooperative agreement between the City and the Utah Department of Transportation for construction of railroad cross- ing improvements at Union Pacific and Western Pacific Railroad crossings on 7200 West at approximately 700 South, UDOT Project No. S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement in behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funding will come from the 7200 West Project Budget. DISCUSSION: This agreement will authorize UDOT to install railroad crossing protective gates and signals and a prefabricated crossing surface. The City's estimated share will be $208,849.00. Completion of this crossing improvement combined with completion of additional roadway grading and construction work by the City Streets Division crews will allow the City to open 7200 West to traffic from I-80 to 1300 South. This will meet the committment made by the City in its annexation agreement with Salt Lake County.SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson, Public Works Director FA C) JRA:JH:bk 1�� RESOLUT ION NO. of 19 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THREE RAILROADS WHEREAS, Title 11 , Chapter 13, U. C. A. , 1953 as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint understandings and services ; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes ; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : To install railroad protective devices and -fabricated crossing surface on 7200 West near 700 South. 2 . Palmer A. CePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said 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 , 19 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER cc139 AGREEMENT14 Project Number: S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764 Salt Lake County Authority Nos. 6284 & 6297 Project Name: Railroad Crossings on 7200 West near 700 South. Agreement With: LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND ITS LESSEE, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION. For: INSTALLATION OF RAILROAD PROTECTIVE DEVICES AND PREFABRICATED CROSSING SURFACE. S.P. 1763 and S.P. 176 Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and ` Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. W-9620 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Party of the First Part, hereinafter referred to as the "UDOT", and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Utah, Party of the Second Part, hereinafter referred to as "City", and the LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Utah, and its Lessee, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Utah, and THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, collectively referred to as "Railroad", Party of the Third Part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in conjunction with UDOT's construction of the 7200 West Interchange on Interstate Highway 80, the City, pursuant to agreements with Salt Lake County dated April 9, 1984, and May 2, 1985, copies attached, has developed plans for the extension of 7200 West Street from I-80 southerly across the tracks of the Railroad to a connection with 13th South Street in Salt Lake County, Utah; and WHEREAS, for the benefit and safety of the public using the highway and for the parties of this agreement, highway-railroad protection devices consisting of automatic flashing light signals with gates and 64-foot (64') prefabricated wood highway crossings are proposed to be installed at the locations shown on the drawing marked "Exhibit A" which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City will either by the contract method or with their own forces, construct a bituminous paved roadway surface fifty-five feet (55') wide between the tracks of the Union Pacific and the Western Pacific Railroads and for a distance of one hundred feet (100') beyond each railroad when the Railroad has completed their crossing work as described in this agreement. The City nor their contractor shall work on Railroad's right-of-way until authorized to do so in writing following approval of this agreement by the Railroad; and WHEREAS, the UDOT is willing to handle the work covered by this agreement for the City providing the City will reimburse the UDOT for their administrative, engineering, construction and any other costs that may be encountered. - 1 - 8 S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764; ilt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. THIS AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions whereunder said work shall be performed. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The Railroad hereby grants in perpetuity to the City, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the right to construct, maintain and use public highway grade crossings across the portions of the right-of-way and tracks of the Railroad at the locations shown on said "Exhibit A", hereinafter "premises". The cost of Railroad flagging or watchman service required for the City's construction as described in the 'third whereas' of this agreement shall be handled by and between the City and the Railroad as a matter separate from this agreement. The rights herein granted to the City are subject and subordinate only to the prior and continuing rights and obligations of the Railroad to use and maintain its railroad right-of-way on the premises in the performance of its public duty as a common carrier, and is also subject to the right and power of the Railroad to construct, maintain, use and operate existing or additional railroad tracks, telegraph, telephone, signal or other pole and wire lines, pipelines and other facilities upon, along or across any or all parts of said premises not inconsistent with the City's use of the premises uses for highway purposes, all of which may be freely done at any time or times by Railroad. However, such right shall not hereafter include crossings of or maintenance work within the premises by utilities without prior permission of the City. Said grant is also subject to all presently existing superior rights, (including those in favor of telegraph and telephone companies, lessees of said right-of-way and other, if any,) and the right of renewals and extensions of the same. The City shall not use the Railroad's right-of-way or permit it to be used except for the usual and ordinary purposes of a street or highway, and it is expressly understood and agreed that such purposes shall not be deemed to include the use by the City, or by others, of the Railroad's right-of-way for railroad, street or interurban railway or other rail transportation purposes, or for the construction or maintenance of electric power transmission lines, telephone or telegraph lines, gas, oil or gasoline pipelines; provided, however, that the Railroad may use, or permit others to use its right-of-way for such purposes. - 2 - I S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764; ilt Lake CounLy Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. 2. The Railroad will, upon receiving written authorization from the UDOT, install Railroad protective devices in conformance with the standard drawings and specifications of the Signal Section of the Association of American Railroads and will install prefabricated crossing materials between rails and two feet (2') outside rails at said crossings. 3. The Railroad shall furnish all materials and shall install grade crossing protection devices, wire up equipment, bond the track rails and all necessary work to complete such grade crossing protection installations and improve crossings at an estimated total cost of $189,863 for all of the crossing locations covered by this agreement. Cost of the work to be performed by Railroad is detailed as follows: INSTALL ONE SIXTY-FOUR FOOT (64') PREFABRICATED CROSSING SURFACE, RELAY SEVENTY-EIGHT (78) T.F. THROUGH CROSSING, AND INSTALL TWO (2) AUTOMATIC FLASHING LIGHT AND GATE-TYPE WARNING DEVICES ON THE i WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AT M.P. 774.15, NEAR BUENA VISTA, UTAH. THIS IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF 7200 WEST, BY THE CITY. UTAH DIVISION FEBRUARY 4, 1986 JOB NO. DESCRIPTION LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL Work to be done by the Union Pacific Railroad Company at the expense of the City of Salt Lake. 001 ENGINEERING Engineering $ 2,000 Additives 2,024 Contingencies 200 Equipment Rental $ 300 1.____ 4,224 $ 300 ; 4,524 002 ROAD CROSSING Install 64 foot prefabricated wood crossing $ 2,575 $ 6,628 Additives 2,606 61 Contingencies 257 263 Equipment Rental 600 Freight 150 t______ ' $ 5,438 $ 3,702 $ 9,140 I I - 3 - s 1 `, - 11 S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764: Salt Lake County II Railroad Protective Deg a and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 1 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. `' UTAH DIVISION (Continued) FEBRUARY 4. 1986 1 JOB 1 NO. DESCRIPTION LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL 003 RELAY 78 T.F. OF RAIL AND 0TM THROUGHT CROSSING IInstall Rail & OTM-133 New $ 448 $ 3,031 Install 115/114$ Comp. • Joints - 4 ea. 200 780 a.' Install Cross Ties - 44 ea. 180 868 Work Train Service - Track 303 Field Weld Joints Thru Crossing 699 90 Additives 2,055 151 • Contingencies 203 513 Equipment Rental 800 Freight 50 4,288 $ 6,283 $ 10,871 004 SIGNAL Engineering $ 1,800 Install Warning Devices 10,450 $35,341 Additives 12,399 4,948 Contingencies 1,045 3,534 Equipment Rental 1,150 Personal Expense 4.025 • $29,719 $44,973 $ 74,692 005 REMOVAL s Remove Track & 0TM $ 234 isi; W.T.S. Removal 308 i Additives 549 1 Contingencies 54 1 Equipment Rental $ 200 $ 1,145 $ 200 $ 1,345 TOTALS $44,814 $55,758 $100,572 SALVAGE CREDIT ALLOWED UDOT RAIL - 1150 - 78 T.F. p $1.29 = $101 0TM - 24.18 (I CWT $ $2.40 - 58 • $159 - $ 159 TOTAL $100,413 • - 4 - i ) 1 ,u 4 S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1 ; Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. TOTAL SIGNAL = $74,692 TOTAL SURFACE _ $25,721 INSTALL ONE SIXTY-FOUR FOOT (64') PREFABRICATED CROSSING SURFACE, INSTALL CROSS TIES, SURFACE TRACK AND INSTALL TWO (2) AUTOMATIC FLASHING LIGHT AND GATE-TYPE WARNING DEVICES ON THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AT M.P. 774.15 - NEAR BUENA VISTA, UTAH. THIS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF 7200 WEST BY THE CITY. UTAH DIVISION FEBRUARY 4, 1986 JOB NO. DESCRIPTION LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL Work to be done by the Union Pacific Railroad Company at the joint expense of the State of Utah and City of Salt Lake. 001 ENGINEERING Engineering $ 1,000 Additives 1,012 Contingencies 100 Equipment Rental $ 300 2,112 $ 300 $ 2,412 002 ROAD CROSSING Install 64 foot prefabricated wood crossing $ 2,575 $ 2,628 Install Ties - 44 ea. 180 868 Surface Track Thru Crossing 699 90 Additives 3,496 76 Contingencies 345 359 Equipment Rental 400 7,295 $ 4,571 $ 11,866 003 SIGNAL Engineering $ 1,800 Install Warning Devices 10,450 $35,341 Additives 12,399 4,948 Contingencies 1.045 3,534 Equipment Rental 1,150 Personal Expense 4,025 $29,719 $44,973 $ 74,692 - 5 - 4 S.P. 1763 a'd S.P, 176' • Swat Lake County Railroad Protective De _es and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. UTAH DIVISION (Continued) FEBRUARY 4, 1986 JOB NO. DESCRIPTION LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL 004 REMOVAL Remove Cross Ties - 44 ea. $ 180 Additives 182 Contingencies 18 Equipment Rental $ 100 $ 380 $ 100 $ 480 TOTAL $39,506 $49,944 $ 89,450 SALVAGE CREDIT ALLOWED UDOT - NONE TOTAL SIGNAL - $74,692 TOTAL SURFACE - $14,758 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF RAILROAD FORCE ACCOUNT WORK $189,863 UDOT'S CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES 18,986 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $208,849 Flagging or roadway watchmen service performed for the UDOT and recollectible from the UDOT will be reported on Form 1054, "Labor Report". The above figures are estimates only and subject to fluctuation. In the event of an increase in the cost or amount of material and labor required, the UDOT will be billed for actual construction costs at the current rate effective thereof. 4. Upon execution of this agreement, the City will deliver to the UDOT's Comptroller's Office a check in the amount of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Nine Dollars and No Cents ($208,849) to cover the City's share of the estimated costs for the work covered by this agreement. The UDOT's Comptroller's Office is located at UDOT/DPS Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119. If upon completion of said work, said estimated cost exceed the actual costs, the UDOT will refund the amount of overpayment. If the actual costs exceed - 6 - I S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764 Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devit.es and \ Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. said estimated amount, the City will reimburse the UDOT within thirty days (30) after receipt of billing for the additional costs subject to the provisions of said City and County agreement. Said deposit must be ' advanced to UDOT before UDOT will begin said work. 5. The City may furnish an engineer and inspectors at City's own expense at such time it desires when Railroad is performing the work covered by this agreement. City's Engineer and inspectors shall work with and through the UDOT's Project Engineer and inspectors and shall give no orders directly to the Railroad unless delegated to do so in writing by the UDOT's Project Engineer. 6 . The City shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts of the UDOT pertaining to construction of the work covered by this agreement. Should this audit disclose that the UDOT has been overpaid, the City will bill the UDOT for such overpayment and the UDOT will reimburse the City or advise them of their objection within thirty (30) days. Should this audit disclose that the UDOT has been underpaid, they will be reimbursed by the City upon submission of additional billing by the UDOT to cover the underpayment. 7. The UDOT shall, upon rendition of bills therefore by the Railroad, pay to and reimburse the Railroad for one hundred percent (100%) of the entire amount of all expenses incurred by it in connection with the materials and installation costs incurred. Billing by the Railroad shall be at the rates which are in effect during the construction period of this project. Said itemized bills covering said work shall be submitted by the Railroad within one hundred twenty (120) days following completion of the work to: Office of Construction, UDOT/DPS Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119; Attention: Construction Agreements Supervisor. The UDOT shall reimburse the engineering mutually agreed to by the parties hereto, which is related to the work herein described. 8. The Railroad will notify the UDOT's Project Engineer assigned to this project at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of performing any work covered by this agreement. The UDOT's Project Engineer will notify the City at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of performing any work covered by this agreement. The City will provide written notice to the Office of the Railroad's Superintendent ten (10) days in advance of performing any work (referred to in the 'third whereas' of this agreement) on the premises. If the Railroad experiences emergency work of its own which interrupts work on the project, it will resolve said emergency and notify the Project Engineer's office when work will be resumed on the project. Failure of the Railroad to give proper notification to the UDOT's Project Engineer's office may result in the UDOT's disallowance of reimbursement for that portion of the Railroad's unsupervised work which cannot be reasonably substantiated. - 7 - 1 ft S.P. 1763 and S.P. 13 , Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad N.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. { 9. The UDOT, through its Project Engineer, will keep daily records of the work performed by the Railrod in duplicate on a mutually acceptable form. The daily record shall be signed by the UDOT's Project Engineer and the Railroad's authorized representative. Each party shall be provided a copy of the record. When emergencies require the Railroad's work forces to leave the project, the record shall be resumed when work on the highway project is again commenced. 10. The UDOT and the City shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts of the Railroad pertaining to this project. Should this audit disclose that the Railroad has been underpaid they will be reimbursed by the UDOT upon submission of additional billing to cover the underpayment. Should this audit disclose that the Railroad has been overpaid, they will either reimburse the UDOT or advise them of their objection within thirty (30) days. 11. Upon completion of installation of said grade crossing protection devices, the Railroad, at its sole expense, shall thereafter operate, maintain, repair and keep same in proper working condition, except as hereinafter provided in paragraph 16. If, for public or railroad convenience the rearrangement of the warning signals is necessitated on account of improvements for either railroad or highway, or both, and before rearrangement of said warning signals is undertaken, the expense incidental thereto shall be determined by negotiation, agreement or by competent authority. 12. On the completion of said highway project, the City, at the sole cost and expense of the City, shall maintain and renew or cause to be maintained and renewed the approaches to said grade crossings, provided also that the Railroad shall, at the sole cost and expense of the Railroad, maintain the grade crossing areas between the rails and for a distance of two feet (2') outside of the rails. 13. If hereafter, by agreement, negotiation, or by order of competent authority, such crossing protection devices, collectively or individually, are rendered unnecessary, undesirable or improper by closing of said crossing, by relocation. by separation of grades or by developments or improvement in crossing protection or otherwise, such crossing protection devices shall be removed and reinstalled by the Railroad at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto or returned to the City promptly. Such relocation shall be the subject of renegotiation at a later time by the parties hereto. - 8 - S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764, Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. 14. Crossing devices which are determined by the Railroad and agreed to by the City to be worn out, obsolete, or otherwise in need of major replacement or in the event of accidental damage to such devices, not the fault of the Railroad and not collectible from the party causing the damage, the City will participate to the extent of one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of replacement, thereof; provided, however, any amount so payable to the Railroad by the City shall be subject to the prior approval of the City Public Works Director and the City Council. Replacement of such equipment necessitated by reason of accidental damage shall be made by the Railroad as soon as it becomes practicable to do so regardless of whether the likelihood of collection from the party causing the damage shall have been determined at the time of need for such replacement. 15. Should the City elect to use the contract method when working on the Railroad's right-of-way, their contractor shall be required to provide the Railroad with insurance policies and certificates in the following kind and amount: (a) Workman's Compensation in statutory limits. (b) Contractor's Comprehensive General Liability Insurance in the minimum limits of $1,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person or $2,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident, and $1,000,000 for damage to property in any one accident. (c) Railroad's Protective Liability Insurance naming in one policy, Union Pacific Railroad Company as the insured. Providing: "Coverage for bodily injury, death and property damage related to a combined single limit of $2 million per occurence with an aggregate of $6 million for the term of policy with respect to property damage". Insurance policies shall be written in the name of the Union Pacific Railroad and shall cover the following work: Highway construction on Railroad property between and outside of the tracks of the Union Pacific and Western Pacific Railroads at Railroad Milepost 774.15. (d) The terms "person" or "persons" as herein used shall include employees of the Railroad, as well as other persons, and the term "property" as herein used shall include, as well as other property, property owned by and property in the care, custody or control of the Railroad. - 9 - S.P. 1763 and S.P. 17L , Salt Lake County Railroad Protective Devices and Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and a Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. (e) The insurance hereinbefore specified shall be carried • by the contractor covering all work performed on said project within the limits of the right-of-way of the Railroad. Said insurance shall be carried until all work required under the terms of the contract is satisfactorily completed, as evidenced by formal acceptance by the City. (f) The City will, on future reconstruction or maintenance work, require its contractor working in the area granted by this agreement to furnish insurance as specified herein, or the monetary limits will be those amounts currently in use by the City at the time the work is performed. 16. The Railroad and the City each hereby assumes all responsibility for the work and portion of said public highway to be by it performed, constructed and maintained, and each hereby covenants and agrees that it shall save the other harmless from all damages and claims for damages growing out of its failure to perform the portion of the work, or maintain the portion of said public highway for which it assumes responsibility as set forth above. It is agreed by the parties hereto that the UDOT is only involved in this agreement at the request of the City and as their agent and that the UDOT shall be held harmless from any damages or liability that may arise as the result of the work that will be accomplished under the terms of this agreement, except for its own negligence as provided by law. 17. (a) If, at any time, the Railroad Company shall be required by the City to raise or lower the grade of all or any part of its track or tracks located on any of the crossings, the City shall, at its own expense, at once alter and change, or cause to be altered and changed, the public highway crossing so as to conform with the change of grade. (b) If, at any time, the Railroad shall elect to raise or lower the grade of all or any part of its track or tracks located on any of the crossings, the Railroad Company shall, at its own expense, at once make arrangements with the City to alter and change, or cause to be altered and changed, the public highway crossing so as to conform with the change of grade. (c) If, at any time, the Railroad Company shall be 4 required by UDOT to raise or lower the grade of all or any part of its track or tracks located on any of the crossings, the Railroad shall at once make arrangements with the City to alter and change, or cause to be altered and changed, the public highway crossing so as to conform with the change of grade and 4 the costs of altering and changing the public highway crossing shall be born between the parties as mutually agreed or as may be allocated by UDOT. - 10 - ' S.P. 1763 and S.P. 1764; Sa' ' Lake County i 1 Railroad Protective Devices 3 Prefabricated Crossing Surface on 7200 West near 700 South. Railroad M.P. 774.15 Salt Lake City Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company and Western Pacific Railroad Company. Authority Nos. 6284 and 6297. 18. By "Notice of Intended Action" signed by its Director, the UDOT shall publish notice of the construction covered by this agreement in a newspaper of general circulation with the provisions that written protests may be filed with the UDOT within fifteen (15) days from the date of the last publication of the notice referred to. Said Notice shall identify the project and briefly describe the proposed action by the UDOT. The determination of whether a hearing shall be granted, if requested by a person, firm or corporation, shall be made if it is clear that such person, firm or corporation has a substantial interest and the proposed action may adversely affect said person, firm or corporation and provided further that a reasonable resolution of the problem cannot be arrived at with the UDOT. In any event, such request shall be in writing, shall detail how the proposed agreement adversely affects the applicant for hearing and shall be granted only upon showing of good cause therefor to the "Transportation Commission". If a hearing is granted, it shall be held before the Public Service Commission of Utah and the parties hereto shall cooperate in presenting all matters involved to said Public Service Commission should a hearing be called regarding the construction proposed by this agreement. 19. It is understood and agreed on the part of the parties hereto that, in accordance with governing Federal regulations, no benefit will accrue to the Railroad. 20. All the covenants and agreements herein contained shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. - 11 - LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. "1112�l � 'VV�i^:a DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS SUPERINTENDENT, WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE SUPERINTENDENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS March 10, 1987 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of Watermain Extension No. 33-C-1349 Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Budget Discussion: The City is requiring an easement to construct and thereafter will operate and maintain the pipeline within the right-of-way limits of the County roads. 1 . Please return four (4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to the County for final execution. Submitted by: to, *t o LEROY OOTON, JR. Director Department of Public T. li es :laf Attachments 39-22-1 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1987 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN IN ERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An Easement Agreement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33C-1349, from Parkview Drive and Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said 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 , 1987. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER LVSpp1218 Easement for Pipelines This agreement, made and entered into this day of • 19 _. _.., by and between the COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, State of Utah, hereinafter SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION called the County, First Party, and •....DEPT.,•_OF._PUBLIC UTILITIES.....,_.•, hereinafter called Grantee, Second Party, Witnesseth: WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of obtaining from the County an easement to construct, and thereafter maintain and operate pipelines within the right-of-way limits of County roads and highways within said District and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of .._.Water Supply (Watermain Extension,.33C_1349) and WHEREAS, the County is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, NOB THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPE, INFS,. (Address) Parkview Drive - 3900 South and Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive Length of Cut (feet) 4,100 feet of 8-inch Ductile Iron • Contractors, Owner, Corp. Co. ect. Address Dept. of Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 The pipelines to be installed, the diameter of which shall not exceed (42) forty-two inches, shall consist of ..... 8-inch D.I.P. pip satisfactory to the County in all respects. The location of the pipelines within the roads and highways, on one or both sides shall be as near the right-of-way lines as practicable in accordance with the plans, specifications and maps prepared by Dept. of Public Utilities Engineers and on file in the offices of the parties hereto. The foregoing description of pipeline location is subject to such changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by the County Roads & Bridges Department at the time of construction. Following completion of construction the foregoing numbered detail sheets will be furnished showing distance from right-of-way line to pipeline center lines on all roads and highways where said pipelines are installed. 2. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. • The excavation of trench for said pipelines shall not be commenced by the Grantee until and after notice has been given by the Grantee, to said County Roads and Bridges Department. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by said Department. 3. PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Grantee shall so conduct its construction operation that there shall be a minimum of interference with or interuption of highway traffic. The Grantee shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to hand- ling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safe- guard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the Grantee in constructing said pipelines. 4. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfilling of any trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under or intersecting street or highway shall be thoroughly compacted. Method of compaction shall be subject to review by the Salt Lake County. The Grantee shall be liable for any damage which may result to the pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill. 5. RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. The Grantee, shall replace, at its expense, any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including the gravel base material. This pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the Standard Specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval"of the Roads and Bridges Department of the County, If weather conditions do not permit immediate placing of permanent pavement, a temporary pavement shall be placed until such time as weather conditions are favorable, at which time the temporary pavement shall be removed and replaced with a permanent pavement. If the gravel surface, gravel shoulders, or gravel surfaced approach roads become fouled with clay or other unsuitable material, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be per- mitted to operate on any county hard surfaced street. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which might have been damaged with construction equipment. The County shall have the option of restoring said roadbed to its origi- nal condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the Grantee. 6. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completio❑ of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from with- in the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any_higkway_facilities such as signs, culverts, etc. disturbed or damaged during the progress of the work shall be properly restored to their original condition. 7. MAINTENANCE OF PIPELINES BY GRANTEE. The said pipelines shall at all times be maintained, repaired, renewed and operated by and at the expense of the Grantee in such a manner as shall most suit- ably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approv- al of the County. The County reserves the right, without relieving the Grantee of its obligation hereunder, to reconstruct or to make such repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary in the event the Grantee shall fail so to do, upon notifi- cation by the County, and the Grantee hereby agrees to reimburse the County for the cost of such reconstruction or repairs. B. RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. In the event that any of said highways or portion thereof is so reconstructed at any future date as to location, grade or width so as to require the relocation of the waterline or lines thereon, or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof including service connections, the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof including service connections, the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of the facilities thereof. 9. CROSSING OF PIPELINE IN EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It is expressly' understood and agreed by the parties hereto and as part of the consideration for this agreement that the County shall have the right to cross said pipelines at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the county highway system, provided that the County shall use due care and diligence in the protection of said pipelines in making such crossings. • 10, LIABILITY, Any supervision or control exercised by the County, or on its behalf, shall in no way relieve the Grantee of any duty or responsibility to the general public, nor relieve said Grantee from any liability for loss, damage, or injury to persons or property sustained by reason of the installation, maintenance, repair or removal .of the pipelines and its appurtenances, nor of said Grantee's liability for damage to the highway; and the Grantee shall protect and indemnify and save harmless the • County from any and all damages, claims or injuries that may occur by reason of the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of said pipelines by the Grantee, provided, however, that this agreement shall not constitute an admission of any liability as to any third party or give to any third party any+-greater or further right of cause of action, it being understood and agreed that neither the County nor the Grantee recognized any liability for any acts of negligence whether of ommission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 111 AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED, The Grantee shall not assign this agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the County. 12, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, • All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 13, SUBJECT TO, This easement is subject to the right of the Grantor at all times as the • Grantor deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other county prupose over the area covered by this easement, and when the Grantee's lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any county prupose, the Grantee will remove such lines, structures or appurtenances within a reasonable time after notice to do so by the Grantor and at the expense of the Grantee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Grantee have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE Chairman • Attest: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION County Clerk • By By CITY'RECORDER MAYOR Attest: Secretary • • Description for utility line agreement for Watermain Ext 33C-1349 Parkview , Drive from Mount Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive. 8" D. I..P. from Salt Lake County. DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point approximately 14 feet North and 3 feet East from the centerline intersections of Mount Olympus Way and Parkview Drive according to the official plat of Mount Olympus Park subdivision, a subdivision of part of Section 36 Township 1 South, Range 1 East and part of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian as recorded in the Salt Lake County Recorders Office, running thence Easterly, Southeasterly and Southerly 4, 100 feet more or less to a point approximately 34 feet East and 23 feet North from the centerline intersections of Park Terrace Drive and Parkview Drive. Prepared By R. Eastman Date March 3, 1987 Checked By JJB Typed By R. Eastman Proofread By LAF '• : v p,iC E !✓ ztrs ar BOARD Eddie P. Mayne, Chairman Lel PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor J. Alan Blodgett • William H. Kibbie • Don A. Mackey )' 4 LOUIS E. MILLER Mirvin D. Borthick • Joseph Rosenblatt .7D O Director of Airports Aline W. Skaggs • Elaine B. Weis • Thomas K. Welch 'o �` ORT - March 17, 1987 Roselyn Kirk, Chairperson and Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Hall 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Chairperson Kirk and Council Members: Recommendation: Approve three agreements between the Utah Air National Guard (UANG) and the City for (1) an airport joint use agreement, (2) Taxiway 'D' Rehabilitation, and (3) airfield striping. Fiscal Impact: (1) Joint Use Agreement - The VANS will pay $50,000 annually; (2) Taxiway 'D' Rehabilitation - The UANG will provide labor and materials in an amount equivalent to $475,000.00; (3) Airfield Striping - The UANG will annually provide striping services of an approximate amount of $80,000.00 per year. Discussion: The Utah Air National Guard (LING) currently has two agreements covering its activities at Salt Lake City International Airport. The first agreement, entered into in 1977, provides for joint use of airport facilities. As canpensation for such'use, the UANG pays $21,000.00 annually. This amount was calculated based on the Guard's proportionate use of the airfield based on total activity. In addition, the UANG is painting the airfield annually. The second agreement, entered into in 1968, provides for property privileges and originally was for a 50 year gratuitous term. In 1984, the Airport was contacted by the UANG for an option to lease an additional 55 acres. At that time, the Guard was provided a letter of intent with first right privileges to that additional acreage should it be needed. During the past several months, I have been negotiating with the National Guard Bureau and the Utah Air National Guard regarding their proposal at Salt Lake City International Airport. The 55 acre area would extend the Guard's current north property line to meet the McDonnell Douglas site boundary. Negotiations and lease arrangements for that land agreement are currently pending. To fairly compensate the airport for the Guard's use of the airfield, I have proposed the following three agreements to be entered into to replace that joint use agreement currently in place: Salt Lake City Airport Authority22084, Salt Lake Cit , Utah 84122 801 539-2400 • AMF Box y • ( ) Kirk letter March 18, 1987 Page 2 1) Airport National Guard Bureau Joint Use Agreement a. City's responsibility - The City shall be responsible for the maintenance of jointly used facilities. b. NGB's responsibilities - The NGB shall be responsible for snow and ice removal on its exclusive use areas. c. Payment - The NGB agrees to pay annually $50,000.00 for joint use privileges in quarterly installments of $12,500.00. d. Term - Term shall commence January 1, 1987, and'shall end December 31, 1991. 2) Agreement to Rehabilitate Taxiway 'D' a. Rehabilitation of Taxiway - The NGB agrees to repair Taxiway 'D' in accordance with airport and FAA standards. b. Term - The term of the Taxiway 'D' agreement shall be on completion of the project but no later than December 31, 1988. c. Costs - Costs to be incurred for the project are estimated at $980,000.00. The Guard's portion of that sum will not exceed $475,000.00. 3) Paint Striping Contract a. Description of work - The NGB agrees to provide striping on all taxiways, runways, and parking ramps at Salt Lake City International Airport each year beginning 1987 through 1991. b. Termination - Termination may only occur for cause on the mutual consent of both parties. c. Costs - The annual costs incurred by the NGB shall not exceed $80,000.00. These three agreements were approved by the Airport Authority Board on February 4, 1987. May I therefore respectfully request that the Council approve the Resolution as attached hereto and return the resolution to my attention so that I may proceed with obtaining the Mayor's signature. Respe lly, is E. Miller RESOLUTION NO. OF 1987 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, UNITED STATES PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF UTAH WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C .A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services ; and WHEREAS, the three ( 3 ) attached agreements have been prepared to accomplish said purposes ; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah : 1. It does hereby approve the attached three ( 3 ) agreements generally described as follows : ( a) An airport joint use agreement providing the Utah Air National Guard common use of airport flying facilities, including runways and related facilities. ( b) An agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D, with the guard paying part of the cost . ( c) Airport striping contract whereby the National Guard Bureau agrees to paint stripe all ramps , runways and taxiways, at their cost, through the year 1991. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreements on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of March, 1987. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RE CORDER RIM:rc44 • d -2- CONTRACT ROUTING FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Airport Authority DATE: 2/25/87 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: John Wheat - Director, Finance & Administration SUBJECT: National Guard Bureau - Taxiway 'D' Rehabilitation 7 SIGNATURE: YES 1 NO Number of Executed Documents Required: 4 Insurance Required xx Expected Contract Completion Date: December 31 , 1991 Insurance Attached xx 7S/5.2.. APPROVED FI 5,17;:;7:7171 E DEPAR9FNT FINANCE COMMENTS: ir‘,1 -7;1' 4'22 Account Number: -- -431-4235-5/-6,39,00-/7 E.: .• ATTORNEY COMMENTS: , rr'W4 C!T C IVED ATTCRi\FiS OFF/CE R ;•.!./ • : DATE --5347 RECORDER COMMENTS: returned to on (contact or dept. ) (date) AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and the NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU UNITED STATES PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICE STATE OF UTAH THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 by and between the Salt Lake City Corporation, hereinafter "City," and the United States Government, represented herein by the National Guard Bureau, Departments of the Army and Air Force, acting by and through the United States Property and Fiscal officer for the State of Utah, a contracting officer of the United States of America, hereinafter "NGB" or "Government." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City owns Salt Lake City International Airport, herinafter "Airport," and through City's Airport Authority operates the Airport; and WHEREAS, the United States Government supports the Utah Air National Guard at the UTANG Base on the Salt Lake International Airport; and WHEREAS, TAXIWAY D between the two major runways at the airport is used almost exclusively by Utah Air National Guard aircraft, and taxiway D pavement has deteriorated to where bearing strength will soon not be adequate for larger aircraft; and WHEREAS, the Airport has proposed to repair the pavement on taxiway 0 by overlaying the existing pavement with new asphalt; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the NGB mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I: Location and Description of Work: a. Location: The repairs will be made to taxiway 0 between runways 14 and 34R on the Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah b. Description: The work will consist of a 4 to 11 inch asphalt overlay of the existing pavement with a 1-1/4 inch porous friction course and reconstruction work at the project boundaries to assure vertical alinement ARTICLE II : Responsibility for Completion of Work : The City shall be fully responsible for the satisfactory completion of the repair of taxiway D as specified in the Agreement. This includes adhering to safety codes and regulations which may apply and requiring any project contrac- tors and subcontractors to have Comprehensive General Liability and Builder's Risk Insurance. ARTICLE III : Funding and Payment: a. The NGB has approved the City's Project Budget (Attached) . b. The NGB shall not be liable to reimburse the City for amounts in excess of the participation amount deliniated in the Project Budget. The City shall be responsible to incur all costs in excess of the amount to be provided by NGB and to perform work required to complete the project. c. The NGB will reimburse the City within 30 days of receipt of a state- ment setting forth the costs incurred by the City in furnishing the work under this Agreement. d. The NGB hereby identifies the billing office as: Utah Air National Guard 151st AREFG/AC 765 North 2200 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-2999 ARTICLE IV: Completion Date: It is understood and agreed that the project work described in this Agreement is to be completed by DECEMBER 31, 1988. ARTICLE V: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars: a. This Agreement is subject to the terms, conditions and requirements of 0MB circular A-102 or comparable provision of FAA grant requirements which is specifically incorporated into, and made part of, this Agreement as if such OMB Circular were fully set out herein; b. The allowability of any costs to be reimbursed by the Government to the City shall be determined in accordance with OMB Circular A-87 or comparable provision of FAA grant requirements which is specifically incorporated into, and made part of, this Agreement as if such OMB circualr were fully set out herein; c. All contracts and subcontracts entered into by the City shall be con- sistent with applicable state and local law or regulation and shall be in accor- dance with, and subject to, Attachment 0 to OMB Circular A-102 or comparable provision of FAA grant requirements. Any construction contract entered into pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and other labor standards provisions and regulations as provided in Attachment 0 to OMB Circular A-102 or comparable provision of FAA grant require- ments. d. By entering into this Agreement, the City certifies that it has actual knowledge of the provisions of OMB Circulars A-87 and A-102 or comparable FAA grant requirements and assures NGB that it can meet all the applicable require- ments contained in the OMB Circular or FAA grant requirements. ARTICLE VI : Assurances and Certifications : The City assures and certifies that: 1. The person signing the agreement for the City possesses the legal authority to do so. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) . 3. It will obtain approval from the NGB of the final working drawings and specifications before the project is advertised or placed on the market for bid- ding; that it will construct the project, or cause it to be constructed, to final completion in accordance with the approved plans and specifications; that it will submit to the NGB for approval , changes that alter the costs of the pro- ject, use of space, or function for the project or undertake other activities until the conditions of the construction program have been met. 4. When appropriate, it will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectural engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site to ensure that the completed work conforms with the approved plans and spec- ifications; that it will furnish progress reports and such other information as the NGB may require. 5. It will operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the mini- mum standards as may be required or prescribed by the applicable Federal , State, and local agencies for the maintenance and operation of such facilities. 6. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the NGB that funds have been approved and that the project will be prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. 7. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities during the period of Federal interest. ARTICLE VII: Requirements For the City' s Contracts Funded By This Agreement: a. The City may contract for the work described in the Agreement, provided that the City shall include in all such contracts, clauses implementing the Federal policies outlined below: (1) Contracts other than small purchases shall contain provisions or conditions which will allow for administrative, contratual , or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate. (2) Contracts in excess of $10,000 shall contain suitable provisions for termination by the City including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement. In addition, such contracts shall describe con- ditions under which the contract may be terminated from default as well as con- ditions where the contract may be terminated because of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. (3) Contracts awarded in excess of $10,000 by the City, their contrac- tors or subcontractors shall contain a provision requiring compliance with Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR, Part 60) . I (4) All contracts and subcontracts for construction, maintenance or repair shall include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874) as supplemented in Department of Labor regu- lations (29 CFR, Part 3) . This Act provides that each contractor and sub- contractor shall be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is otherwise entitled. The City shall report all suspected or reported violations to the NGB. (5) Construction, maintenance or repair contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by the City or its contractors or the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 2762 to 1-7) as supplemented by the Department of Labor regulations (29 CRF, Part 5) . Under this Act, contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the minimum wages specified in a wage deter- mination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors shall be required to pay wages not less often than once a week. The city shall place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation and the award of a contract shall be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The City shall report all suspected or reported violations to the NGB. (6) Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the City as contractors and subcontractors in excess of $2,000 for construction, maintenance or repair contracts and in excess mechanics or laborers shall include a provision for compliance with Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Department of Labor regulation (29 CFR, Part 5). Under Section 103 of the Act, each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard workday of 8 hours and a standard workday or workweek or 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard workday or workweek is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1 1/2 times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any calendar day or 40 hours in the workweek. Section 107 of the Act is appli- cable to construction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings, or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to his health and safety as determined under construction safety, and health standards promulgated by Secretary of Labor. These requirements do not apply to purchases or supplies, materials, or articles ordi- narily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. (7) All negotiated contracts (except those awarded by small purchase procedures) awarded by the City shall include a provisions to the effect that the City, the NGB, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representative, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor which are directly pertinent to that spe- cific contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. (8) The City shall require contractors to maintain all required records for 3 years after the final payment under the contract has been made and all other pending matters are closed. 2 (9) Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000 shall contain a provision which requires compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h) ), Section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C1368) , Executive Order 11738, and EPA regulations (40 CFR, Part 15) which prohibit the use under non-exempt Federal contracts, grants or loans of facilites included on the EPA list of violating facilities. The provision shall require reporting of violations to the NGB and to the USEPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement (EM-329) . (10) Contracts shall recognize mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conser- vation plan issued in compliance with the energy Policy and conservation Act (42 U.S.C. & 6201 et seq). b. Contracts shall be entered into by the City in accordance with State law, subject to the approval of the USP&FO. Action by the USPFO under the Payment Provisions of the Agreement constitutes approval as an authorized charge against the Agreement, provided, however that the City shall notify the USPFO reasonably in advance of entering into any contract which exceeds $100,000. Such notification shall include the following; (1) Description of work; (2) Indentification of proposed contractor and description of how selection was made; (3) Proposed contract price; (4) Contract cost or pricing data, if required. ARTICLE VIII: Termination : a. The Government may terminate this Agreement, in whole or part, at any time if the City fails to comply with the terms or conditions of the Agreement. The Government shall provide such notice of termination in writing, stating the reasons for the termination and the effective date thereof. If this Agreement is terminated for cause, the City shall be liable to pay the Government any -� monies received from the Government pursuant to this Agreement; b. This Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual agreement of the Government and the City that continuation of the project will not produce bene- ficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds. c. The government may terminate this Agreement for its convenience at any time; provided, however, that the Government shall reimburse the City for all costs, expenses and damages resulting from such termination for convenience not already reimbursed. ARTICLE IX: Waiver of Claims; The parties waive all claims against the other for compensation for damage or loss of property or personal injury or death arising out of the per- formance of this Agreemnent. Liability for claims by third parties for damage or loss of personal property or personal injury or death shall be determined in accordance with applicable law. ARTICLE X: Amendment: a. Any changes in the work to be furnished under this Agreement shall be formalized by an appropriate written amendment to this Agreement which shall set out in detail the exact nature of the changes. b. No additional funds will be made available for additional work unless reduced to writing and approved by the National Guard Bureau or its designated representatives. ARTICLE XI: Approval : This Agreement and any amendments shall be subject to the approval of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, or his authorized representative, and shall not be binding upon the parties hereto unless and until so approved. The City shall not be required to commence work until such approval is obtained by the NGB and furnished to the City. Accordingly, the City and the Government mutually promise and agree to undertake the project or service covered by this Agreement under the conditions herein provided. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1• NTME DATE - WITNESS TITLE WITNESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY: DATE- NAME APPROVED NGB z):,r;;`t.•p-A,_ RANK Y' USP&FO - UTAH This day of , 19 �, - 41, APPROVED FOR THE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU THIS DAY OF 19 �F � g7 Attachment: Project Budget PROJECT BUDGET The City Airport shall furnish design and inspection services and the funding above the amount to be furnished by the Government to complete the Project, Repair Taxiway D. COST ESTIMATE Description of Work Estimated Cost Bituminous Pavement Overlay 4-11" $364,000.00 Bituminous Pavement Reconstruction 220,000.00 Shoulder Work (Overlay) 130,000.00 Pourous Friction Course 61,000.00 Pavement Marking 3,600.00 Taxiway Edge Lights - Modification 60,000.00 Miscellaneous Utility Modifications 10,000.00 SUB TOTAL $848,600.00 Contingencies at 10% 84,860.00 SUB TOTAL $933,460.00 Engineering and Administration at 5% 46,673.00 TOTAL $980,133.00 It is understood and agreed that the Government participation in the project will be limited to $475,000.00. CONTRACT ROUT I N G FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Airport Authority DATE: 2/25/87 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: John Wheat-Director, Finance & Administration SUBJECT: National Guard Bur u - Airfield Striping Agreement SIGNATURE: //7// YES I NO Number of Executed Documents Required: 4 Insurance Required xx Expected Contract Completion Date: December 31 , 1991 Insurance Attached xx FINANCE COMMENTS: Account Number: 03-900-1790 ATTORNEY COMMENTS: , /t`f7-'1/ Dfri. RECORDER COMMENTS: returned to on (contact or dept. ) (date) AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and the NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU UNITED STATES PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICE STATE OF UTAH THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 by and between the Salt Lake City Corporation, hereinafter "City," and the United States Government, represented herein by the National Guard Bureau, Departments of the Army and Air Force, acting by and through the United States Property and Fiscal officer for the State of Utah, a contracting officer of the __ United States of America, hereinafter "NGB" or "Government." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City owns Salt Lake City International Airport, herinafter "Airport," and through City's Airport Authority operates the Airport; and WHEREAS, the United States Government supports the Utah Air National Guard at the UTANG Base on the Salt Lake International Airport; and WHEREAS, the Airport runways, taxiways and ramps require paint striping on a yearly basis, and the Government has provided the paint striping contract through Air Force Logistics Command at Hill AFB, herinafter AFLC, in past years: and: WHEREAS, the Airport proposes to paint the Airport runways, taxiways, and ramps on a yearly basis using the Government Contract through AFLC: NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the NGB mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I: Location and Description of Work: a. Location: The paint striping will be accomplished on the runways, taxiways and parking ramps at the Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah. b. Description: The work will consist of re-painting and striping on all non exclu- sive taxiways, runways, roadways, and parking ramps at the Airport as designated by the City' s Director of Airports in the years 1987 through 1991. ARTICLE II: Responsibility for Completion of Work: The Utah ANG, as designated by AFLC, shall be fully responsible for the satis- factory completion of the paint striping as specified in the Agreement. This includes adhering to safety codes and regulations which may apply. AFLC, as contract administrator, shall be responsible for requiring any project contrac- tors and subcontractors to have Comprehensive General Liability and Builder's Risk Insurance. ARTICLE III: Funding and Payment: a. The NGB has approved the Project Budget (Attached). b. The NGB shall not be liable to reimburse the City for amounts in excess of the participation amount deliniated in the Project Budget. The City shall be responsible to incur all costs in excess of the amount to be provided by NGB and to perform work required to complete the project. c. The NGB will reimburse AFLC for the government's portion of the work after receipt of a statement setting forth the costs incurred in furnishing the work under this Agreement. d. The City will reimburse AFLC for that portion of the work accomplished at Salt Lake City Airport No. 2 on mutually agreeable terms between the NGB and the City's Director of Airports e. Billings will be from AFLC to the Utah ANG. The Utah ANG will in turn break down the costs between the Government and City as per areas of respon- sibility and provide the City with an invoice to be paid directly to AFLC within 30 days of receipt of said breakdown. ARTICLE IV: Completion Date: It is understood and agreed that the project work described in this Agreement is to be completed by DECEMBER 31, 1991. ARTICLE V: Assurances and Certifications: The City assures and certifies that: 1. The person signing the agreement for the City possesses the legal authority to do so. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) . 3. When appropriate, it will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectural engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site to ensure that the completed work conforms with the approved plans and spec- ifications; that it will furnish progress reports and such other information as the NGB may require. 5. It will operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the mini- mum standards as may be required or prescribed by the applicable Federal , State, and local agencies for the maintenance and operation of such facilities. 6. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities during the period of Federal interest. ARTICLE VI: Termination: a. The Government may terminate this Agreement, in whole or part, at any time if the City fails to comply with the terms or conditions of the Agreement. The Government shall provide such notice of termination in writing, stating the reasons for the termination and the effective date thereof. b. This Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual agreement of the Government and the City that continuation of the project will not produce bene- ficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds. c. This agreement is contingent upon NGB receiving funds in future years. Budgetary restraints may cause the Government to terminate this agreement as funding beyond the current fiscal year is beyond the control of NGB. ARTICLE VII: Waiver of Claims: The parties waive all claims against the other for compensation for damage or loss of property or personal injury or death arising out of the per- ' formance of this Agreemnent. Liability for claims by third parties for damage or loss of personal property or personal injury or death shall be determined in accordance with applicable law. ARTICLE VIII: Amendment: a. Any changes in the work to be furnished under this Agreement shall be formalized by an appropriate written amendment to this Agreement which shall set out in detail the exact nature of the changes. b. No additional funds will be made available for additional work unless reduced to writing and approved by the National Guard Bureau or its designated representatives. ARTICLE IX: Approval : This Agreement and any amendments shall be subject to the approval of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, or his authorized representative, and shall not be binding upon the parties hereto unless and until so approved. The City shall not be required to commence work until such approval is obtained by the NGB and furnished to the City. Accordingly, the City and the Government mutually promise and agree to undertake the project or service covered by this Agreement under the conditions herein provided. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIQN AM DATE WITNESS TITLE WITNESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY: DATE NAME NGB RANK USP&FO - UTAH This day of , 19 . APPROVED FOR THE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU THIS DAY OF , 19 Attachment: Project Budget PROJECT BUDGET 1. The City Airport shall furnish inspection services and the funding above the amount to be furnished by the Government to complete the Project, Paint Striping at Salt Lake Internation Airport. 2. The Government agrees to participate in funding painting costs for _runways, taxiways, roadways, and parking ramps on the Salt Lake International Airport .to a maximum amount of $80,000 per year, for the years 1987 through 1991, Costs incurred for painting areas at Salt Lake city Airport No. 2 or costs exceeding the maximum government participation of $80,000 shall be paid by the City under the terms which are mutually agreeable and which are pre approved by City's Director of Airports. CONTRACT ROUTING FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Airport Authority DATE: 2/25/87 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: John Wheat - Director, Finance & Administration SUBJECT: National Guard Buryau - Joint Use Agreement SIGNATURE: .vi / YES I NO Number of Executed Documents Required: 4 Insurance Required xx Expected Contract Completion Date: December 31 , 1991 Insurance Attached xx • FINANCE COMMENTS: Account Number: 03-900-1790 ATTORNEY COMMENTS: RECORDER COMMENTS: returned to on (contact or dept. ) (date) AIRPORT JOINT USE AGREEMENT THIS ACEEMENT made and entered into this • day of 19 , by and between the SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, hereinafter "City"; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the Chief, National Guard Bureau, and the STATE OF UTAH, acting by and through its Adjutant General, hereinafter collectively the "Government." WITNESSETH 4d REAS, the City owns and operates the Salt Lake City International • Airport, hereinafter "Airport," located in Salt Lake City, Utah; and WEREAS, the Government requires substantial use of the flying facilities at the Airport for the Air National Guard, as well as for other occasional transient government aircraft; and WHIRFAS, the City is agreeable to such substantial use, in common with other users of the Airport, of the flying facilities by the Government under this agreement; and WaREAS, the Government and the City desire to provide for the delineation of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the flying facilities jointly used, in common with others, at the Airport, and to establish the Government's reasonable share, proportional to such use, of the cost of operating and maintaining such jointly used flying facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, do mutually agree as follows: 1. JOINT USE: Subject'to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Government shall have the use, in common with other users of the airport, present and prospective, of the jointly used flying facilities of the Airport, together with all improvements and facilities pertaining thereto and situated thereon and all future improvements and facilities thereto, as may be added or constructed from time-to-time, and all necessary and convenient rights of ingress and egress to and from such jointly used flying facilities and other Government facilities located on the Airport. Routes for ingress and egress for the Government's employees, agents, customers, and contractors shall not unduly restrict the Government in its operations. 2. DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Agreement, the "jointly used flying facilities" are the runways, taxiways, lighting systems, navigational aids, markings, and appurtenances open to public use and use by the _ government, including all future additions, improvements, and facilities thereto, as may be added or constructed. Land areas used exclusively by the Government are not "jointly used flying facilities," nor are their terminal buildings, hangars, nongovernment parking aprons and ramps, or other areas or structures used exclusively or nonexclusively by the Airport Authority or its lessees, permittees, or licensees for civilian or commercial purposes. 3. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES: The City will be responsible for the following services and functions, to standards in accordance with Paragraph 10 herein: a. Furnishing all personnel, materials, and equipment required in the rendering of the services to be provided under this agreement. b. Performing any and all maintenance of the jointly used flying facilities, including but not limited to: (1) Joint sealing, crack repair, surface repairs, airfield markings, and repair or replacement of damaged sections of airfield pavement; (2) Runway, taxiway, and approach lighting and the regulators and controls therefor: (3) Beacons, obstruction lights, wind indicators, and other navigational aids, (except TACAN) ; (4) Grass cutting and grounds care, drainage, and dust and erosion control of unpaved areas, adjacent to runways and taxiways; (5) Sweeping runways and taxiways; (6) Controlling pests; (7) Removing snow, ice, and other hazards from the runways and taxiways within a reasonable time after such runways and taxiways have been so encumbered. c. Furnishing utilities necessary to operate the jointly used flying facilities. d. Removing disabled civil aircraft as expeditiously as possible subject to the rules and regulations of the National Transportation Safety • Board (NTSB) , in order to minimize the time jointly used flying facilities, or any part thereof, would be closed. 4. GOVERMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: The Government will be responsible for the following: a. Removing disabled government aircraft as expeditiously as possible in order to minimize the time the jointly used flying facilities, or any part thereof, would be closed. b. Removing snow and ice from all ramps, aprons, and taxiways used exclusively by government aircraft. c. Repairing damage to the jointly used flying facilities of the airport to the extent that such damage is caused solely by Air National Guard or Air Force aircraft operations and is in excess of the fair wear and tear resulting from the military use contemplated under this Agreement, provided that federal funds are available for such purpose at the time such repair may be required. 5. FIRE PROTECTION AND CRASH RESCUE: The parties to this Agreement have entered into a separate joint fire protection/crash rescue agreement, dated 15 November 1972, which sets forth each party's responsibilities for provision of fire protection and crash rescue services. _ 6. PAYMENTS: • a. In consideration of and for the faithful.performance of this Agreement, and subject to availability of Federal appropriations, the Government shall pay to the City or its designee, as its proportionate share of the cost of operating and maintaining the jointly used flying facilities, the following: (1) An amount each year of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) payable in equal quarterly installments of Twelve.'Ihousand Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500.00) each. b. Payments for the period set our in this Agreement above shall be made upon submission of appropriate bills to the government; provided, however, that if during the term of this Agreement, sufficient federal funds are not available through the annual congressional appropriations at the beginning of any fiscal year to carry out the provisions of this Agreement, the Government will so notify the City in writing. c. Bills for the payments provided hereunder shall be directed to: Utah Air National Guard 151st AREFG/AC 765 North 2200 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-2999 d. Payments to be made to the City under this Agreement shall be made by check payable to Salt Lake City Corporation. e. Either party may request renegotiation if either party, at the request or with formal concurrence of the other, provides services not . contemplated by this Agreement, or reduces or ceases services it undertakes tb provide under this Agreement. 7. READS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT: The City agrees to keep records and books of account, showing the actual cost to it of all items of labor, materials, equipment, supplies, services, and other expenditures made in fulfilling the obligations of this Agreement, and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of his/her duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after final payment, have access at all time to such records and books of account, or to any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of any of the City's contractors or subcontractors engaged in. the performance of and involving transactions related to this Agreement. The City further agrees that representatives of the Air Force Audit Agency or any other designated representative of the government shall have the same right of access to such records, books of account, documents and paper as is available to the Comptroller General. 8. TERM: This Agreement shall be effective for a term of five years beginning January 1, 1987 and ending December 31, 1991. 9. TERMINATION: (1) The Government by giving written notice to the City may terminate the right of the City to proceed under this Agreement if it is found, after notice and hearing by the Secretary of the Air Force or his/her duly authorized representative, that gratuities in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise, were offered or given by the City or nay agent or representative of the City to any officer or enployee of the Government with a view toward securing this Agreement or securing favorable_ treatment with respect to the awarding or amending, or the making of any determinations with respect to the performing of such agreement, provided that the existence of the facts upon which the Secretary of the Air Force or his/her duly authorized representative makes such findings shall be an issue and may be reviewed in any competent court. (2) In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided in subparagraph (1) above, the Government shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the City as it could pursue in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City and in addition to any other damages to which it may be entitled by law, the Government shall be entitled to exemplary damages in an amount (as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force or his/her duly authorized representative) which shall be not less than three nor more than ten times the costs incurred by the City in providing any such gratuities to any such officer or employee. (3) The rights and remedies of the Government provided in this Paragraph 9.b. shall not be exclusive and are in addition to nay other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 10. AIRFIELD MANAGEMENT: The City agrees that maintenance of the flying facilities of the airport shall, at all times, be in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for the operation of a _ commercial airport and operation of jet aircraft. 11. GOVERMENT RESERVED RIGHTS: The Government reserves the right, at its sole cost and expense, to: a. .Provide and maintain military airfield markings, required solely for military aircraft operations which are not in conflict with FAA standards. b. Install, operate, and maintain in the jointly used flying facilities of the airport any and all equipment, necessary for the safe and efficient operation of military aircraft, including, but not limited to, Arresting Systems, and NAVAIDS. 12. MAJOR REPAIRS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION: Major repair projects and/or new construction projects required for the jointly used flying facilities of the Airport are not included under this Agreement, and any Government contribution to such projects shall be the subject of separate negotiations and written agreement between the City and the Government at such time as the work is required. Any Government participation in the costs of such repair and/or construction projects is subject to the availability of federal funds for such purpose at the time the work is required. 13. NOTICES: No notice, order, direction, determination requirement, consent or approval under this Agreement shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and addressed as provided herein. a. Written communication to the City shall be addressed as follows: Director of Airports Salt Lake City Airport Authority ANC' Box 22084 Salt Lake City, Utah 84122 b. Written communications to the Government shall be in duplicate with copies to the United States of America and the State of Utah addressed respectively as follows: (1) To the United States of America National Guard Bureau NGB/DE Pentagon, Room 1D637 Washington, DC 20310-2500 (2) To the State of Utah Adjutant General 1543 Sunnyside Avenue P.O. Box 8000 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108-0900- 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS: a. The City shall comply with all federal, state, and lonal laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the activities conducted under this Agreement. b. • Except as otherwise provided here, neither party shall be liable for damages to property or injuries to persons arising fran acts of the other in the use of the airport facilities or occurring as a consequence of the performance of responsibilities under this Agreement. c. No member or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. d. The City shall neither transfer not assign this Agreement without written consent of the government, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. e. The failure of either party to insist, in any one or more_ instances, upon the strict performance of any of the terns, conditions, convenants, or provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the right to the future performance of any such terms, conditions, convenants, or provisions. No provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by either party unless such waiver be in writing signed by such party. f. This written instrument embodies the entire financial arrangement of the parties regarding the use of the jointly used flying facilities of the Airport by the Government, and there are no understandings or agreements, verbal or otherwise, between the parties in regard thereto except as expressly set forth herein. Specifically, no landing fees or other fees not provided in this Agreement will be assessed by the State against the Government in the use of the jointly used flying facilities of the Airport. g. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by mutual agreement of the parties in writing and signed by each of the.parties hereto. h. This Agreement is executed in three (3) counterparts each of which is deemed an original of equal dignity with the other and which is deemed one and the same instrument as the other. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date set forth below with their respective signatures. • DATED: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: DATED: STATE OF UTAH By: • DATED: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU By: STATE OF UTAH ss County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1987, personally appeared before me PALMER A. DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Recorder , respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same . NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : STATE OF UTAH ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1987, personally appeared before me and who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the and of THE STATE OF UTAH, and said persons duly acknowledged to me that the foregoing instrument was executed by the STATE OF UTAH. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : STATE OF UTAH ss . County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1987, personally appeared before me and who , being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chief and of THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and said persons duly acknowledged to me that the foregoing instrument was executed by the THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : RLM:rc44 She `ON Mt efi PIE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council March 25, 1987 Re: Technical error in the legal description of an ordinance to vacate an alley between 7th East and 8th East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue. Recommendation: That the City Council place the discussion of this technical error on the agenda for April 7, 1987. The City Attorney's Office recommends that the matter need not be set for a public hearing since a hearing was held when the original ordinance was adopted. Funding: Not applicable. Background and Discussion: The alley was vacated in 1985. However, there was a technical error in the legal description. The attached ordinance simply corrects that technical error. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance which is attached for your consideration. Submitted by: CRAIG E./ PETERSON Director j d/ ASS ST ROGER F. CUTLER AIR WE OH N RAYI LA MONTGOMERY CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL D. LUKE LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE, FIFTH FLOOR LARRY N. SPENDLOVE STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (801) 535-7788 - FRANK M. NAKAMURA ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS JOHN N. SPIKES DONALD L. GEORGE March 4, 1`]'87 ARTHUR L. KEESLER, JR. CECELIA M. ESPENOZA Craig Peterson Development Services 324 South State, Second Floor Salt Lake City , Utah Dear Craig : Attached please find an Ordinance providing for the vacation of an alley between 7th East and 8th East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue . This alley was vacated in 1985 however it has recently come to our attention that there was a technical error in the legal description. Accordingly , this Ordinance simply corrects that technical error. It is the opinion of this office that the matter need not be set for public hearing . If you have any questions in this matter please feel free to contact me . Best personal regards , STEVEN W. ALLRED SWA :cc139 Enclosure SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1985 (Vacating an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue Salt Lake City , Utah, pursuant to Petition No . 400-249 AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALI,FY LOCATED BETWEEN 700 EAST AND 800 EAST AND LOGAN AVENUE AND BRYAN AVENUE, IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-249 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 85 OF 1985. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City , Utah: SECTION 1. That the alley located between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue in Salt Lake City , Utah, be , and the same hereby is, VACATED and declared no longer to be public property for use as a street, avenue , alley or pedestrian way. SECTION 2. Said alley is more particularly described as follows : Commencing at a point 6. 5 feet East of the northeast corner of Lot 25 Perkin' s 4th Addition , a subdivision of Block 15 Five Acre Plat "A" Big Field Survey and running ;i4 thence North 10. 0 feet to the center line of the alley; thence West along the center line of said alley 68. 94 feet ; thence N 45°10 '20" W 21. 39 feet to a point on the „A west line of Lot 112 Marlborough Place Subdivision; thence S 4 °35 '10" W 25. 09 feet to the northwest corner Lot 27 Perkin' s 4th Addition; thence East 86. 25 feet to the point of beginning . RESERVATIONS. Said vacation is expressly made : SUBJECT TO all existing rights of way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on, in under or over the confines of the above-described real property. ALSO SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of obtaining , maintaining , altering , replacing , repairing , remov- ing or rerouting said utilities and all of them, including the City' s water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is subject to any existing rights of way or easement of private third parties . SECTION 3. Ordinance No . 85 of 1985 is hereby repealed . SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City , Utah, this day of , 1985. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor' s Action : MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER cm117 -2- CONTRACT ROUTING FORM ri, REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: FINANCE Dr�PAiTiI DATE: Purchasing and Property Management 3/12/87 1 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: Garth Coles, Real Property Agent SUBJECT' ORDINANCE AMENDING EXHIBIT "A" OF THE EVANS & mr AND COMPUTER OORPORATION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 1987 SIGNATURE: NI/idAtliG. L. Fanner • YES :Or Number of Executed Two (2) Documents Required: Insurance Required Expected Contract Completion Date: NA Insurance Attached APPROVED MAN RTME FINANCE COMMENTS: Account Number: ATTORNEY COMMENTS: seM • RECORDER COMMENTS: returned to on (contact or dept. ) (date) MI MC GUI glifittalingi FINANCE DEPARTMENT LANCE R. BATEMAN, CPA Purchasing and Property Management'Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET' MAYOR 5TH FLOOR SALT LAKE ,tn'— OTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 PROPERTY 535-7133 March 16, 1987 TO: SALT LAKE CITY CCXJNCIL RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING EXHIBIT "A" OF THE EVANS & SC.T HERLAND CCt 1PtJI'ER CORPORATION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 1987 REXMv1E )ATICN: Inasmuch as this amendment has been prepared and approved by the City Attorney's office, I therefore recommend that the City Council enact the subject Ordinance, substituting a correct legal description for the one originally exhibited. AVAILABILITY OF FUNE6: Not applicable DISCUSSICN: Since the enactment of Franchise Ordinance No. 8 of 1987, it has been brought to my attention that the centerline description, provided by Evans & Sutherland and titled Exhibit "A", was faulty. Hence, in order to correct this error, a new legal description was prepared by the City Surveyor's Office which accurately describes the centerline of the right of way granted to Evans & Sutherland. LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT: Attached, for the Council's review and approval are two originals and sixteen (16) copies of the referenced Ordinance which will amend Exhibit "A" of Franchise Ordinance No. 8 of 1987. REVENUE: Not applicable caNTAcr PERSCN: If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this Ordinance, please direct them to Garth Coles, Real Property Agent, at 535-6447. Submitted by: 7/ � iva , 1-its R. Bateman Director of Finance LRB/tC/jg SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1987 (Amending Exhibit "A" of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation Franchise Ordinance No . 8 of 1987 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 1987, BY AMENDING AN ENGINEERING ERROR IN THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT "A" . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah : SECTION 1. That Franchise Ordinance No. 8 of 1987, relating to a franchise. for Evans and Sutherland Corporation, be, and the same hereby is , amended as follows : Exhibit "A" of said ordinance, bearing revision date October 6, 1987 is hereby deleted , and the new attached Exhibit "A" , bearing a revision date of February 18, 1987 is hereby substituted therefor . 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 , 1987. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER S(GI1 lsko Cr}y r'1�!ornoy'a cx-r61 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed . MAYOR ATTEST : CITY RECORDER RIM :rc44 A nvED -2- Fi 4CE Ec MEIVT EXHIBIT "A" EVANS AND SUTHERLAND LEGAL DESCRIPTION Revised 2/18/8 7 A RIGHT, UNDER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING AN UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION DUCT LINE, SAID RIGHT OF USE LIMIT BEING 10 FEET PERPENDICULARLY DISTANT WIDE AT ALL POINTS FROM THE CENTER LINE OF EASEMENT, REFERENCE PLAT, SALT LAKE CITY DEDICATION PLAT FOR KOMAS DRIVE AND WAKARA WAY STREET ON FILE IN THE SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE VAULT #22950, HEREIN CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : Beginning at a point on curve, a 70 foot radius curve of the north right of way line of the intersection of Blackhawk Way and Komas Drive, radial line bears N. 04 °00 '00" W. , said point being North 55. 030 feet, and West 3, 847. 552 feet from the southeast corner of Section 3, T. 1S. , R. 1E. , of the S. L.B . & M . ; thence S. 04°00 ' 00" E. 96. 00 feet; thence S. 49°00 ' 00" E. 130. 00 feet to the end of easement . • Party . ':+_ Notes t"•l3 1`-• ,N _Weather _ tt. _L_ Project No. •_ . _ __ - . Flii. _ . .• _• .._ Pg • - - SALT LAKE CITY checked Date . . ) .411=111111k.11111. . . • • i jeuc WORKS • • • / 1 _t� , , Oj ,� J J 10 Id / • \ j �' ' t 1 •` • t D• >. co>t S. o 3, T•+-3 r1.0 2., . 1- E :•. `UN,DL-ilL `jLAN' C.Q MP'WN 1(r AT-iVN • (` b_( .7 ;. N. 0 y a 4—� o . r Gow-1S Ca/c a(a-t ee/ /era tr+-. o 4 c . Suyuey data SIscw w ai. • o 74h t /r(O Mi 45 ,aY I v e a ` '• k/AA'A2A svAV 5 rvec 74 ded,cal.oK, • �r \ '? �.�� Q Li1�JQ 1 PIIf Iy IG. .. ....10‘ �`i�~~ / cd4r ,....„ G S 44095 i pauy/� s• �u/yer , • [IOUGi.�tS S. s�s Su// 44.Xe C,'�y so Y v Cy et y 1 k RIULGEil 1 z ' 4C9S 4„+ 1. s• 'v Form i2 PALMER DEPAULISo,g_i a_ wily 1? OS1 MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR, SUITE 500 March 17 1987 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7704 Roselyn Kirk, Chairperson, and Members of the Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street Room 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Roselyn: I am transmitting herewith recommendations for board appointments which I would appreciate the Council to advise and consent upon: SALT LAKE CITY ARTS COUNCIL William A. Lewis, to be reappointed for term extending through 10/00/89. Chris Montague, to be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Dolly Plumb for a term extending through 10/00/88. D'Arcy Ann Dixon, to be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Kathleen Perrin for a term extending through 10/00/87. PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY BOARD Marvin Tuddenham, to be reappointed for a term extending through 12/31/90. I would appreciate your consideration of these appointments and ask that they be placed on the Council 's agenda at the earliest opportunity. If I can provide you with any further information, please don't hesitate to call . Sincerely, Mayor PD:ec enclosures LEGISLATIVE ACTION DATE: April 7, 1987 SPONSOR: Councilmember Earl Hardwick, District 4 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: An _ordinance amending Section 51-13-1 (13) and Section 51-510 of the zoning ordinance. The change allows the Board of Adjustment to permit an accessory structure to be used as a study, a private noncommercial art studio, a hobby shop, an exercise room, a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool , or for other similar uses , subject to conditions. REFERRED TO: (1 ) Planning Commission for a recommendation. (2) Assistant City Attorney Bruce Baird for finalization of the ordinance. _.....______...._._.-• -_•--..,.r_ _.,...z-a,n..r _. . r•a. ...h.}.'Er+t-.,-:.T:'.^. .__v•-.':r_` M1__::�^."wi;r - .>a'a.j. "';^'-.t".i.,'If �y'+0.^�.:�1�'[b r.r-. , ..e Ss';-:, .°a ,.......N F SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1987 (Amending Sections 51-13-1 (13) and 51-5-10 to pr ov id e for conditional uses in accessory buildings) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 51-13-1 (13) AND 51-5-10 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USES IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS . WHEREAS the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission concerning the subject of conditional uses in accessory buildings and believes the following amendments to be appropriate ; THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City , Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Sections 51-13-1 (13 ) and 51-5-10. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 51-13-1 (13) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as ,amended , relating to Accessory buildings , be , and the same hereby is, amended as follows : Sec . 51-13-1 (13) . One story accessory buildings totaling not over seven hundred and twenty (720 ) square feet in area used for garage space, household storage, -f-abeve grerti d berth fa-Herlt sheitet.s-1 or other activities strictly accessory to the T e , dwelling and containing no special wiring or plumbing or other facilities making possible conversion to living or commercial use . In addition, covered patios open on at least three sides shall be permitted for patio purposes only either attached to an accessory building or as a detached struture or attached to the rear of the home. If attached to the rear of the home at least a fifteen foot open unoccupied area must be maintained between the patio roof line and the rear property line. All such accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard and not less than sixty feet farm the front lot line , thirty feet for a corner lot on the side street, four feet in rear of the main building and fifteen feet fran any dwelling on an adjacent lot ; and the total covered area cannot exceed fifty percent of the rear yard area. In an accessory building on the same lot as the main dwelling structure , the Board of Adjustment may permit as a conditional use a study, private noncommercial art studio, hobby shop, exercise room , a dressing roan adjacent to a swimming pool , or other similar uses , provided in all cases the following conditions are complied with: 1 . That the height of the accessory structure shall not be greater than one story not to exceed eleven feet plus a roof having a pitch no greater than four feet of vertical height for every twelve feet of horizontal distance. -2- (T„ 2 . That if the accessory building is located within ten feet of a property line that no windows be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. 3. That if the accessory building is detached it must be located in the rear yard as outlined in Sec . 51-13-1 (13) . 4 . That the total covered area for accessory buildings cannot exceed fifty percent of the rear yard area. 5. At no time can the accessory building be converted to living quarters or ccmmercial use . 6. There may be imposed such other conditions as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Adjustment to protect the character of the neighboring properties and the residential district. SECTION 2. That Section 51-5-10 relating to maximum height of accessory buildings be , and the same hereby is , amended as follows : Sec . 51-5-10. Maximum height of accessory buildings . No building which is an accessory to a one-family, two-family , three-family or four-family dwelling in a residential "R-1 " , "R- 2" , or "R-4" district shall be erected to a height greater than one story not to exceed eleven feet-E; w thi to the square, plus a roof having a pitch no greater than 4 feet of vertical height for every 12 feet of horizontal distance. -3- SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City , Utah, this day of , 1987. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB :rc41 -4- LEGISLATIVE ACTION . .,r, G1 L� • DATE: April 7, 1987 SPONSOR: Councilmember Sydney R. Fonnesbeck, District 3 Councilmember Earl Hardwick, District 4 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: An ordinance amending Section 51-33-7 relating to Condominium Conversions. The amendment states that the Planning Director may require that as a condition for conversion of housing units to condominium status, that the project be brought into full conformity with the zoning ordinances. This change gives the City explicit control over condo conversions as they relate to zoning. Heretofore the condo conversion ordinance only has been explicit as it relates to building codes. This amendment will allow for the upgrading of parking, when necessary, and will allow for other improvements to be required when a building is converted. RE=ERRED TO: (1) Planning Commission for a recommendation. (2) Assistant City Attorney Bruce Baird for finalization of the ordinance. p xi SALT TAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1987 (Condaninium conversion and nonconforming uses) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 51-33-7, REVISED ORDINANCES OF SALT TAKE CITY, UTAH, 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND NONCONFORMING USES. WHEREAS the City Council of Salt Lake City , Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission concerning the status of nonconforming uses at the time a building is converted to a condominium and believes the following amendments to the ordinances to be appropriate ; THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah , hereby • adopts the following amendment to Sections 51-33-7. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah : SECTION 1. That Section 51-33-7 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City , Utah, 1965, as amended , relating to condominium conversions and nonconforming uses , be , and the same hereby is, amended as follows : Sec . 51-33-7. Preliminary review by Planning Director. The Planning Director shall review the application and related documents to determine whether the project conforms to applicable requirements of the Condominium Ownership Act of 1975, applicable zoning ordinances of the district in which the condominium project is located , the status or extent of nonconforming rights , applicable conditions on the use or building imposed by ordinances, Board of Adjustment variance , conditional uses , and/or prior approval of a planned unit, clustered , or group development. If the Planning Director finds there are violations of applicable zoning ordinances or requirements, he may recommend denial of the condominium project until such violations have been corrected or requirements have been completed , or he may recommend preliminary approval subject to the condition the violations be corrected , completed or bonded prior to final approval . Notwithstanding any _prior variance , the Planning Director may require that all variances, conditional uses , and any other deviations from applicable zoning ordinances and • requirements be brought fully up to the standards required by the applicable zoning ordinances and requirements. Any decision of the Planning Director requiring correction of prior variances, conditional uses or nonconforming uses may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication . _ Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1987. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER B RB :rc41 -2- Salt Lake City, Utah April 7 , 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held at the temporary offices of the City Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 7, 1987 , at the hour of 6 : 00 o' clock p.m. , at which meeting there was present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Roselyn N. Kirk Chairperson Florence Bittner Councilmember Grant Mabey Councilmember Tom Godfrey Councilmember Earl F. Hardwick Councilmember W. M. "Willie" Stoler Councilmember Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Councilmember Also present : Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent : After the meeting had been duly called to order , and the minutes of the preceding meeting approved, the Chairperson stated that the meeting was called for the purpose, among other things, of considering bids received for the purchase of $114 ,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 ( the "Bonds" ) of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 (the "District" ) . The City Council was then advised that pursuant to public notice, sealed bids had been received earlier in the day in the Office of the City Recorder . Prior to the meeting of the City Council the bids were examined to determine compliance with the Notice of Sale. On reopening of the bids, the qualifying bids are determined to be as follows : Name of Bidder Net Interest Cost Premium First Security Bank of Utah $20,772. 77 6 . 038596 Prudential Bache Capital Funding 21,443 . 00 6 . 2334 Shearson Lehman Brothers 23,610 . 00 6. 863372 Boettcher & Company, Inc. 26,820 . 00 7 .796512 After due deliberation, it was determined that the bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, was the best and most advantageous bid submitted for the purchase of said Bonds, whereupon the following Resolution was introduced in written form by Councilmember was fully discussed and pursuant to motion made by Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember , was adopted by the following vote: -2- AYE: Roselyn N. Kirk Florence Bittner Grant Mabey Tom Godfrey Earl F. Hardwick W. M. "Willie" Stoler Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck NAY: The Resolution was thereupon signed by the Chairperson in open meeting and is as follows: RESOLUTION NO. OF 1987 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE SALE OF $114,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CONCRETE REPLACEMENT NO. 40-R-7, DATED APRIL 1 , 1987, FIXING THE INTEREST RATES TO BE BORNE THEREBY. WHEREAS, sealed bids have been received for the purchase of $114, 000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 , for Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District , Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 ; and WHEREAS, the bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, has been determined to be the best and most advantageous bid for the purchase of said Bonds , said bid being in full as follows: -3- (Attach Copy of Bid) -4- BID FORM SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake County, Utah $114,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CONCRETE REPLACEMENT NO. 40—R-7 V k; Salt Lake City Corporation Director of Finance Office, 5th Floor 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Honorable Mayor and City Council : For $114,000 Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement, No. 40—R-7 Bonds of Salt Lake City, dated April 1 , 1987, in denominations of $1 ,000 and $5,000 and maturing serially on April 1 , 1988 through April 1 , 1992; in the amounts shown herein, with interest payable April 1 , 1988, and -T. annually thereafter on the first day of April of each year at the rate or rates specified herein until said Bonds are paid, we will pay $ 27.23 plus accrued interest, to the date of delivery of said Bonds to us . The schedule of maturities, coupon rate or rates, total interest to maturity, the net interest cost, and the net effective interest rate upon which this bid is based, with interest computed from April 1 , 1987 to the maturity date of the Bonds are as follows: Maturity Date April 1 Amount Coupon 4�- 1988 $22,000 7.25 % 1989 . . . . 23,000 7.00 1990 . . . . 23,000 c 50 f4 1991 . . . . 23,000 5_75 1992 . . . . 23,000 6 00 Total Interest to Maturity $ 20,800.00 Less Premium $ 27.23 Net Interest Cost $ 20,772.77 Net Effective Interest Rate 6.038596 % This bid is submitted in accordance with and subject to all provisions contained in the OFFICIAL NOTICE OF BOND SALE of these Bonds which by this reference is made a part hereof. A cashier' s or certified good faith check in the sum of $2,280, drawn upon an incorporated bank or trust company and payable to the order of the Salt Lake City Corporation is enclosed to be retained by said City Council and applied on the purchase price of these Bonds if we are the successful bidder, otherwise to be returned to us. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of April , 1987. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. 717..4 t( Mark S. Cluff Accepted for and on behalf of the City Council of Salt Lake City this 7th, day of April , 1987. Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder Good faith check # returned and receipt thereof acknowledged this 7th day of April , 1987. For bidders convenience the following information is provided. Principal Bond Cumulative Year Amount Year Bond Years 1988 . . . $ 22,000 22 22 1989 . . . 23,000 46 68 1990 . . . 23,000 69 137 1991 . . . 23,000 92 229 1992 . . . 23.000 115 344 Totals . . ;114..0Q0 ,344 Bond Years 344.000 Average Life 3.018 years CASHIER'S CHECK First 31.1/1240 Security site �'�,'' utan No. 0 5 5 6 7 9 Bank of Utah NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 320 April 1987 PAY Office No. DATE ^J TO THE OF ***Salt Lake City Corporation*** $ *2.280.00* ORDER h u of tA.,a . 1 s'rs. p F.� 3; For Good Faith Check First Security egt��- Bank of Utah,_ N.A. AUTHORIZ D SIGNATURE 11605567911' 1: L 240000 L 21:060 0 ? SOO 1 2Ili /our.num.,Ism r.r EX-2 Rev.10.8A 7 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council, it is in the best interest of the Municipality that the bid be accepted and sale of the Bonds to First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, be confirmed: NOW, THEREFORE, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows : Section 1 . The bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the purchase of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District , Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7, which qualifying bid is set out in full in the preamble hereto, is hereby accepted, it being hereby found, determined and declared, after public advertisement for bids for the purchase of said Bonds , that said bid is the best and most advantageous bid received and that the Bonds, when issued at the interest rates stated in the bid, will bear interest at the lowest rate now obtainable. Section 2. The Bonds shall be delivered to the purchaser as soon as possible after the adoption of this Resolution, upon payment in full therefor by the purchaser . -5- Section 3. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are to the extent of such conflict hereby repealed and that this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. Since the interest imposed by the Assessment Ordinance of January 13, 1987 , to accrue on unpaid assessment installments is the net effective rate of the Bonds, it is herein determined that the rate of interest to be paid on unpaid assessments is 6 . 038596% per annum until due . Thereafter , all delinquent payments shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent ( 18%) per annum. ADOPTED and approved this 7th day of April, 1987 . Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -6- Other business not pertinent to the foregoing appears in the minutes of the meeting. Upon motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned. Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -7- STATE OF UTAH ) ss . COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Kathryn Marshall, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full , true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at its regular meeting held on the 7th day of April, 1987 , insofar as the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 and the adoption of Resolution No. as the same appear of record in my office. I further certify that there is on file in my office a permanent record of the foregoing resolutions for Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the official seal of said Municipality this 7th day of April, 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -8- STATE OF UTAH ) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE : ss WITH OPEN MEETING LAW COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Kathryn Marshall, the duly qualified City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify: (a) that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(1) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, public notice of the 1987 Annual Meeting Schedule of the City Council of Salt Lake City (the "Council" ) was given, specifying the date, time and place of the regular meetings of the Council scheduled to be held during the year 1987 , by causing a Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule for the Council to be posted on January 2, 1987, at the temporary office of the Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah; said Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during regular office hours at 324 South State Street until the date hereof; and causing a copy of the Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule to be provided on January 2, 1987 , to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent ; (b) that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6( 2 ) , Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, public notice of the regular meeting of the Council on April 7 , 1987 , was given by specifying in a Notice of Regular Meeting -9- the agenda, date, time and place of the April 7 , 1987 Council Meeting and by causing the Notice of Regular Meeting to be posted at the temporary office of the Council at 324 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 3rd day of April, 1987 , a date not less than 24 hours prior to the date and time of the April 7 , 1987 regular meeting; said Notice of Regular Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours at 324 South State Street until the date and time of the April 7 , 1987 regular Council meeting ; and causing a copy of the Notice of Regular Meeting to be provided on April 3 , 1987 , to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April, 1987 . City Recorder [ S E A L ] -10- EXHIBIT "A" Notice of Meeting -11- Salt Lake City, Utah April 7, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held at the temporary offices of the City Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 7, 1987 , at the hour of 6 : 00 o ' clock p.m. , at which meeting there was present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Roselyn N. Kirk Chairperson Florence Bittner Councilmember Grant Mabey Councilmember Tom Godfrey Councilmember Earl F. Hardwick Councilmember W. M. "Willie" Stoler Councilmember Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Councilmember Also present : Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent : After the meeting had been duly called to order and the minutes of the preceding meeting read and approved, and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the City Council a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this April 7 , 1987 meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "A" . Councilmember then introduced and moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. of 1987 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $114, 000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 (THE "BONDS" ) OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CONCRETE REPLACEMENT NO. 40-R-7 , FIXING THE INTEREST RATES TO BE BORNE THEREBY, PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF BOND AND INTEREST RATES, MATURITY AND DENOMINATION OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF A GUARANTY FUND AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah ( the "Issuer" ) , has heretofore adopted proceedings for the construction of improvements in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 (the "District" ) , and has adopted and approved the Ordinance of the District confirming the assessment roll for such improvements on the 13th day of January, 1987 ; and WHEREAS, notice of assessments to property owners in the District has been published in accordance with the requirements of the laws of the State of Utah and the ordinances of the Issuer, and notice of assessment has been mailed by the City Treasurer to all the owners of property assessed in the District; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the improvements was $414, 644. 70 , of which the Issuer ' s portion was $176,932 .70 ; that during the fifteen-day period following the effective date of the Ordinance levying the assessment, property owners in the District have paid or have committed to pay $137, 712 . 00 on the principal of their assessments, leaving an amount to be paid through the issuance of bonds or from funds provided by the Issuer of $114, 000 ; -2- WHEREAS, of , has submitted its offer to purchase the Bonds upon the terms and conditions as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer to accept the offer of of , and it has awarded the sale of the Bonds to of .• NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: -3- ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY 1. 01 Definitions . As used in this Bond Resolution, unless the context shall otherwise require, the following terms shall have the following meanings : "Act" means the Utah Municipal Improvement District Act, Chapter 16, Title 10 , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 , as amended. "Bondholder" or "Holder" means the registered owner of any Bond as shown in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar for such purpose. "Bond Registrar" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as bond registrar and agent for the transfer , exchange and authentication of the Bonds . Pursuant to Section 2. 05 hereof the initial Bond Registrar is Zions First National Bank of Utah, One South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or its successors . "Bond Resolution" means this Resolution of the Issuer adopted on April 7 , 1987 , authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds . "Bonds" means the $114 ,000 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 , of the Issuer authorized by this Bond Resolution. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. "District" means the Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District , Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 . "Government Obligations" means direct obligations of the United States of America, or other securities, the principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America . "Guaranty Fund" means the Special Improvement Guaranty Fund established by the Issuer created pursuant to Section 10-16-31 of the Act to secure timely payment of all special assessment bonds issued by the Issuer pursuant to the Act. -4- "Issuer" means Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. "Paying Agent" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as paying agent with respect to the Bonds . Pursuant to Section 2.05 hereof the initial Paying Agent is Zions First National Bank, One South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 or its successors or assigns . "Person" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, trusts , public bodies and other entities. "Purchaser" means of "Qualified Investments" means any of the following: ( i ) demand deposits and time certificates of deposit of federally insured depositories of the State of Utah, ( ii ) Government Obligations, or ( iii ) repurchase agreements with any federally insured bank or savings and loan association in the State of Utah, acting as principal or agent, for securities of the United States of America or other evidences of indebtedness of like quality. "Record Date" means in the case of each interest payment date, the Bond Registrar ' s close of business on the fifteenth day immediately preceding such interest payment date. "Special Improvement Bonds" means bonds issued by the Issuer pursuant to the Act, and as defined in Section 10-16-3 ( 5) of the Act. "Special Improvement Districts" means districts created within the Issuer pursuant to the Act and as defined in Section 10-16-3 ( 3) of the Act . The terms "hereby, " "hereof, " "hereto, " "herein, " "hereunder , " and any similar terms as used in this Bond Resolution, refer to this Bond Resolution. 1. 02 Authority for Bond Resolution. This Bond Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act . -5- ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION, TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS 2.01 Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount Designation and Series . In accordance with and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established in this Bond Resolution, a series of Special Assessment Bonds of the Issuer is hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $114,000 . Such series of bonds shall be designated "Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 , Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 . " The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form only, without coupons . 2.02 Purpose. The Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued for the purpose of (a) reimbursing the Issuer for costs advanced in the construction of improvements acquired, constructed for and/or installed within the District, including related interest costs and administrative costs, (b) retiring any outstanding interim warrants , and (c) paying issuance expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. 2.03 Bond Details. The Bonds will fall due on April 1, in the following years and amounts : Maturity Amount (April 1) 1988 22,000 1989 23,000 1990 23,000 1991 23,000 1992 23,000 TOTAL 114,000 The Bonds shall bear interest payable on April 1, 1988 and annually thereafter on April 1 of each year by check or draft mailed to the registered owners of record of the Bonds . Each Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenticated, unless (a) any Bond is authenticated before the first interest payment date following the initial delivery of Bonds, in which case it shall bear interest from April 1, 1987 , or (b) any Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear interest from such interest payment date; provided that if at the time of -6- authentication of any Bond, interest is in default, such Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid. The Bonds shall bear interest on overdue principal at the aforesaid respective rates. 2. 04 Denominations and Numbers . Subject to the provisions of Section 4. 01 hereof, the Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of $1, 000 or $5,000 , or any integral multiples thereof, not exceeding the amount of each maturity. The Bonds shall be numbered with the letter prefix "R" and shall be numbered from one (1) consecutively upwards in order of issuance. 2. 05 Paying Agent and Bond Registrar . The Issuer may remove any Paying Agent and any Bond Registrar , and appoint a successor or successors thereto. The Issuer shall submit to the Paying Agent or Bond Registrar , as the case may be, a notice of such removal at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such removal, and shall specify the date on which such removal shall take effect. Such removal shall take effect on the date that each successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by the Bond Resolution by executing and delivering to the Issuer a written acceptance thereof . The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, at the respective dates of payment thereof , is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts . Principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable when due to the Holder of each Bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent. Payment of interest on each Bond shall be made to the person which, as of the Record Date, is the Holder of the Bond and shall be made by check or draft mailed to the Person which, as of the Record Date, is the Holder of the Bond, at the address of such Holder as it appears on the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such Holder on or prior to the Record Date. 2. 06 No Prior Redemption. The Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. -7- 2 . 07 Sale and Delivery of Bonds . The sale of the Bonds to of , at the price of $114 , 000 in accordance with the terms of the bid submitted by the Purchaser on April 7 , 1987 is hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed. The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser as soon as they may be legally issued, upon receipt by the Director for Finance for the Issuer of the agreed purchase price therefor . 2 . 08 Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer by the Mayor of the Issuer and attested by the City Recorder of the Issuer ( the signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder being either manual and/or by facsimile) and the corporate seal of the Issuer or a facsimile thereof shall be impressed or imprinted thereon. The use of such facsimile signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder and such facsimile of the seal of the Issuer on the Bonds are hereby authorized, approved and adopted by the Issuer as the authorized and authentic execution, attestation and sealing of the Bonds by said officials. The Bonds shall then be delivered to the Bond Registrar for manual authentication by it . The Certificate of Authentication shall be substantially in the form provided in Section 5. 01 hereof. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication, manually executed by the Bond Registrar , shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Bond Resolution, and such certificate of the Bond Registrar shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so certified have been duly registered and delivered under , and are entitled to the benefits of , this Bond Resolution and that the Holder thereof is entitled to the benefits of this Bond Resolution. The Certificate of Authentication of the Bond Registrar on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by it if (a) such Bond is signed by an authorized officer of the Bond Registrar , but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the Certificate of Authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder or that all of the Bonds hereunder be certified as registered by the same Bond Registrar , and (b) the date of authentication of the Bond is inserted in the place provided therefor on the Certificate of Authentication. 2 . 09 Further Authority. The Mayor and the City Recorder of the Issuer and other officers of the Issuer are, and each of them is , hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates , documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale, registration and delivery of the Bonds. -8- ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF BONDS; BOND REGISTRAR 3 .01 Transfer of Bonds . (a) Any Bond, may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar pursuant to Section 3 . 03 hereof, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Bond Registrar , duly executed. No transfer shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar . The Issuer , the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of , or on account of , the principal or redemption price thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever . (b) Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer , the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new fully registered Bond or Bonds of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations duly executed by the Issuer , for a like aggregate principal amount . The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondholder requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer . With respect to each Bond, no such transfer shall be required to be made ( i) after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date, or ( ii ) after the Record Date with respect to any redemption of such Bond. 3. 02 Exchange of Bonds. Bonds may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully registered Bonds of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate of other authorized denominations . The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondholder requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. With respect to each Bond, no such exchange shall be required to be made ( i ) after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date, or (ii ) after the Record Date with respect to any redemption of such Bond. -9- 3 . 03 Bond Registration Books . This Bond Resolution shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15, Utah Code Annotated 1953 . The Bond Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept, at its principal office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the Issuer ; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Bond Registrar shall, under such reasonable regulations -as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said books, Bonds as herein provided. 3 . 04 List of Bondholders. The Bond Registrar shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of the Holders of all Bonds and upon any transfer shall add the name and address of the new Bondholder and eliminate the name and address of the transferor Bondholders. 3 . 05 Duties of Bond Registrar . If requested by the Bond Registrar , the Mayor and City Recorder of the Issuer are authorized to execute the Bond Registrar ' s standard form of agreement between the Issuer and the Bond Registrar with respect to the compensation, obligations and duties of the Bond Registrar hereunder which may include the following: (a) to act as bond registrar , authenticating agent, paying agent , and transfer agent as provided herein; (b) to maintain a list of Bondholders as set forth herein and to furnish such list to the Issuer upon request, but otherwise to keep such list confidential; (c) to cancel and/or destroy Bonds which have been paid at maturity or upon earlier redemption or submitted for exchange or transfer ; (d) to furnish the Issuer at least annually a certificate with respect to Bonds canceled and/or destroyed; and (e) to furnish the Issuer at least annually an audit confirmation of Bonds paid, Bonds outstanding and payments made with respect to interest on the Bonds . -10- ARTICLE IV COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS 4. 01 Covenants of Issuer . All covenants , statements, representations and agreements contained in the Bonds, and all recitals and representations in this Bond Resolution are hereby considered and understood and it is hereby resolved that all said covenants , statements, representations and agreements of the Mayor and City Recorder , are the covenants, statements, representations and agreements of the Issuer . 4. 02 Ratification of Prior Proceedings . All the proceedings heretofore taken and adopted for the creation of the District and for the construction of improvements therein and the assessment of a part of the cost of constructing such improvements on and against the private properties in the District shall be and the same are hereby ratified, approved, and confirmed. No assessment will exceed the benefit to be derived from the improvements by the piece of property assessed, and no parcel of property will bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of the improvements to be made. 4 . 03 Levy and Collection of Assessments . The City Treasurer shall be and is hereby authorized and empowered, and it shall be his/her duty to receive and collect all assessments levied to pay the cost of said improvements of the District , the installments thereon, the interest thereon, and the penalties accrued, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the whole of the unpaid principal, interest and penalties accrued which become due and payable immediately because of the failure to pay any installment whether of principal or interest, when due, and to pay and disburse such payments to the person or persons lawfully entitled to receive the same in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah and all the ordinances and resolutions of the Issuer heretofore or to be hereafter adopted. All moneys constituting the payment of principal and interest shall be placed in a regular fund to be designated "Special Assessment Fund of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 ( "Special Assessment Fund" ) , and shall be used for the purpose of paying the principal of and the interest on the Bonds of the District and for no other purpose whatsoever , and as security for such payment, said fund is hereby pledged. -11- 4 . 04 Investment of Funds. Moneys deposited in the Special Assessment Fund and Guaranty Fund may be invested in Qualified Investments, provided, however , that any moneys remaining in the Special Assessment Fund for more than twelve (12) months may be so invested only upon the City Treasurer obtaining an opinion of nationally recognized municipal bond counsel to the effect that such investment will not adversely affect the exclusion from federal income taxes of interest on and of the Bonds, all in accordance with Sections 103 through 150 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder . 4. 05 Guaranty Fund. The provisions of Section 6 of the Assessment Ordinance adopted and approved by the Issuer , on the 13th day of January, 1987 , in reference to the Guaranty Fund is hereby readopted and the Issuer agrees with the holder of the Bonds herein authorized that it will, until the payment of the Bonds in full and the interest thereon has been paid, provide amounts to be transferred to the Guaranty Fund equal each year to such amount as a tax levy of . 0002 on all property within the Issuer will produce until the Guaranty Fund is equal to not less than forty percent ( 40% ) of the amount of all outstanding Improvement Bonds of all Special Improvement Districts of the Issuer issued prior to March 30 , 1981 , and twenty-five percent (25% ) of the amount of all outstanding Improvement Bonds of all Special Improvement Districts of the Issuer issued on or after March 30, 1981, and thereafter , the Issuer will transfer to such fund such amounts at least yearly as may be required to maintain or replenish such Fund to such percentage. The Guaranty Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from other municipal funds and shall be used and applied only as. provided by the laws of the State of Utah. 4. 06 Insufficiencies in Assessment Fund. Should there be insufficient money in the Special Assessment Fund to pay all of the interest falling due at one time and the principal amount thereof due, the interest and principal shall be paid from the Guaranty Fund to the extent that there is sufficient money in the Guaranty Fund for this purpose, and the Bonds are payable exclusively from the regular assessments levied for said purpose and the Guaranty Fund. 4 . 07 Lien of Assessment. The assessments, any interest accruing on the assessments and the penalties and costs of collection of the assessment shall continue to constitute and are hereby declared to be a lien against the properties upon which the assessment is levied within the District from and after January 13, 1987, the date on which the ordinance levying the regular assessments became effective, which lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic' s or materialman' s lien, or other encumbrance, and -12- shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes . Such lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest, penalties, and costs thereon are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a general property tax, regular tax, other assessment, or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the county, or a sheriff ' s certificate of sale or deed. 4 . 08 Deposit of Funds . The Funds hereinabove referred to shall be kept separate and apart from each other and from any other funds of the Issuer and shall, from time to time as they are accumulated, be deposited in such bank or banks as are designated as depositories of public monies for funds of the Issuer under the depository laws of the State of Utah for the deposit of public funds. 4 . 09 Default in Payment of Assessments. Default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest of the assessments levied pursuant to the Assessment Ordinance adopted by the Issuer on January 13, 1987 when due shall cause the whole of the unpaid principal or interest to become due and payable immediately and the whole amount of the unpaid principal shall thereafter draw interest at the rate of 15% per annum until paid. The Issuer covenants and agrees that it will proceed with due diligence to place in operation the procedure necessary to provide for a tax sale of all delinquent property in accordance with the ordinances of the Issuer or in the manner provided by Chapter 10 , Title 59 (Utah Code Annotated) for the sale of property for delinquent ' general property taxes as provided in Section 10-16-24 of the Utah Code Annotated. The Issuer may also provide for the summary sale of any property assessed after a delinquency shall have occurred in the payment of any assessment or part or installment of it. The sale shall be in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgage liens or trust deeds, except that if at the sale no person or entity shall bid and pay the Issuer the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the Issuer for these amounts . The Issuer shall be permitted to bid at the sale . The proceeds from the sale of any property sold will be placed in the Special Assessment Fund. The remedies provided in this section for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the Issuer of the use of any other method or means and that the -13- proceeds from the sale of any property sold will be placed in the Special Assessment Fund hereinabove referred to. 4 . 10 Bonds in Registered Form. The Issuer recognizes that Section 149 (a) of the Code requires the Bonds to be issued and to remain in fully registered form in order that interest thereon is exempt from federal income taxation under laws in force at the time the Bonds are delivered. In this connection, the Issuer agrees that it will not take any action to permit the Bonds to be issued in, or converted into, bearer or coupon form. 4 . 11 Tax Covenants . (a ) The Mayor and City Recorder of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated or proposed thereunder , including Sections 1.103-13, 1 . 103-14, 1 . 103-15 and 1 .103-15AT of the Income Tax Regulations ( 26 CFR Part 1 ) as the same presently exist , or may from time to time hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised. The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds that no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the Issuer which may be deemed to be gross proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148 ( f ) ( 6 ) (B) of the Code and applicable regulations (proposed or promulgated) which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds , would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Bonds with the requirements of Sections 103 through 150 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder . The Issuer further represents and covenants that no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Issuer have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning 31 days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending 31 days following the delivery of the Bonds . (b) The Issuer hereby covenants and agrees to rebate to the United States of America the excess of ( i ) the amount earned from the investment of that portion of the Guaranty Fund which is allocable to the Bonds in the manner hereinafter described (the "Allocable Portion" ) , over ( ii ) the amount which would have been earned had such Allocable Portion been invested at a rate equal to the yield on the Bonds, together with any income attributable to the investment of such excess, at the times and in the manner -14- prescribed in Section 148 ( f) of the Code . For this purpose, the "Allocable Portion" of the Guaranty Fund which is attributable from time to time to the Bonds means (unless the Issuer receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel otherwise ) the highest of that amount of the Guaranty Fund which ( i ) equals 25% of the original face amount of the Bonds, ( ii ) bears the same proportion to the Guaranty Fund that the outstanding amount of Bonds bears to the total outstanding amount of all of the Issuer ' s Special Improvement Bonds, or ( iii ) bears the same proportion to the Guaranty Fund that the original face amount of the Bonds bears to the total original face amount of all of the Issuer ' s outstanding Special Improvement Bonds. ( c ) The Issuer further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the Bondholders that the Issuer ( i ) will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation, ( ii ) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner , any action, which omission would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation, and ( iii ) will, to the extent possible, comply with any other requirements of federal tax law applicable to the Bonds in order to preserve the exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the Bonds. 4 . 12 Nondesignation of Bonds. The Issuer has not designated the Bonds, and the Bonds are not qualified, as qualified tax-exempt obligations under Section 265 (b) ( 3 ) of the Code, relating to the deductability of a financial institution ' s interest expenses allocable to tax-exempt interest. -15- ARTICLE V FORM OF BONDS 5 . 01 Form of Bonds. Each fully registered Bond shall be, respectively, in substantially the following form, with such insertions or variations as to any redemption or amortization provisions and such other insertions or omissions, endorsements and variations as may be required: -16- [FORM OF BOND] Registered Registered UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CONCRETE REPLACEMENT NO. 40-R-7 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND SERIES 1987 Number R- $ ORIGINAL INTEREST MATURITY ISSUE RATE: DATE: DATE: CUSIP: April 1, 1987 Registered Owner : Principal Amount : DOLLARS Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah ( the "Issuer" ) , a duly organized and existing political subdivision of the State of Utah, acknowledges itself indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date identified above, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the Principal Amount identified above, and to pay the Registered Owner hereof interest on the balance of said Principal Amount from time to time remaining unpaid specified below at the interest rate per annum (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months ) identified above ( the "Interest Rate" ) , payable on April 1, 1988, and thereafter in each year on the 1st day of April , until payment in full of said Principal Amount . This Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenticated, unless (a) this Bond is authenticated before the first interest payment date following the initial -17- delivery of Bonds, in which case it shall bear interest from April 1, 1987 , or (b) this Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear interest from such interest payment date; provided that if at the time of authentication of any Bond interest is in default, such Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid. This Bond shall bear interest on overdue principal at the Interest Rate. Principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond shall be payable at the principal office of Zions First National Bank Salt Lake City, Utah, as Paying Agent , in any coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts; and payment of the annual interest hereon shall be made to the Registered Owner hereof and shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the person who is the Registered Owner of record as of the Bond Registrar ' s close of business on the fifteenth day immediately preceding each interest payment date at the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on the registration books kept by the hereinafter defined Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar as provided in the hereinafter defined Bond Resolution. This Bond is one of the Special Assessment Bonds of the Issuer (the "Bonds" ) limited to the aggregate principal amount of $114,000 issued under and by virtue of the Utah Municipal Improvement District Act, Utah Code Annotated, Sections 10-16-1, et seq. 1953, as amended (the "Act" ) , and under and pursuant to a resolution of the Issuer adopted on April 7, 1987 (the "Bond Resolution" ) , for the purpose of (a) reimbursing the Issuer for costs advanced in the construction of improvements acquired, constructed for and/or installed within the District, including related interest costs and administrative costs, (b) retiring any outstanding interim warrants, and (c) paying issuance expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds . Zions First National Bank of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah is the initial bond registrar and paying agent with respect to the Bonds. Said bond registrar and paying agent , together with any successor bond registrar or paying agent , respectively, is referred to herein as the "Bond Registrar" and the "Paying Agent . " Payment of this Bond and the interest thereon shall be made from, and as security for such payment there is pledged the Special Assessment Fund of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7 ( the "District" ) , containing the receipts derived by the Issuer from the regular assessments -18- levied upon the property included in the District by the Assessment Ordinance adopted by the Issuer which ordinance became effective on January 13, 1987, for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing improvements on certain streets within the District consisting of removal and reconstruction of deteriorated curb and gutter , sidewalk, driveways and recessed parking; construction of minor drainage facilities and wheelchair ramps, where needed; removal of illegal driveways and replacement in the place thereof of topsoil and sod; removal of deteriorated asphalt drives and replacement with concrete and other utility improvements and miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner in the District under, by virtue of, and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and certain ordinances and resolutions of the Issuer duly passed and made law thereof prior to the issuance hereof . It is hereby certified that a Special Improvement Guaranty Fund has been created by ordinance as authorized by Utah statutes, and the Issuer agrees that at all times during the life of this Bond and until payment thereof in full , said fund shall be at all times maintained as therein required. This Bond is not a general obligation of the Issuer but is payable exclusively out of said Special Assessment Fund and said Special Improvement Guaranty Fund. The Issuer shall not be held liable for the payment of this Bond, except to the extent of the Funds created and received by said regular assessments and to the extent of its Special Improvement Guaranty Fund; but the Issuer shall be held responsible for the lawful levy of all regular assessments, for the creation and maintenance of the Special Improvement Guaranty Fund as provided by law, and for faithful accounting, collection, settlement, and payment of the assessments and for the monies of said fund. The special assessments made and levied to defray said cost, with accruing interest thereon, and the cost of collection of the assessments • constitute a lien upon and against the property upon which such assessments were made and levied from and after January 13, 1987, the date upon which the ordinance levying such assessments became effective, which lien is superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic ' s or materialman' s lien, or other encumbrance. Said lien is equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes and shall continue until the assessments and interest thereon are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a general property tax, regular tax, other assessment, or the issuance of an auditor ' s deed. -19- This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond Resolution, only upon the books of the Issuer kept for that purpose at the principal office of the Bond Registrar , by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Registered Owner or such duly authorized attorney, and thereupon the Issuer shall issue in the name of the transferee a new registered Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations of the same ' aggregate principal amount, series, designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Bond, all as provided in the Bond Resolution and upon the payment of the charges therein prescribed. No transfer of this Bond shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar . The Issuer , the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name this Bond is registered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal or redemption price hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever , and neither the Issuer , nor the Bond Registrar nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Bonds are issuable solely in the form of registered Bonds without coupons in the denomination of $1 , 000 or $5,000 or any integral multiples thereof . The Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. Except as otherwise provided herein and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, words and phrases used herein shall have the same meanings as such words and phrases in the Bond Resolution. This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of the Act and all other laws applicable thereto . It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the Constitution or statutes of the State of Utah and by the Act and the Bond Resolution to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to or in connection with the issuance of this Bond exist , have happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds, together with all other indebtedness of the Issuer, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by said Constitution and statutes, and that the aggregate amount of special assessment bonds of the Issuer for the District, -20- including this Bond, does not exceed the amount authorized by law nor the special assessment levied to cover the cost of improvements in the District, and that all of said special assessment has been lawfully levied. This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Bond Registrar . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, has caused this Bond to be signed in its name and on its behalf by its Mayor and attested by its City Recorder (the signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder being by facsimile or manual signature) , and has caused the facsimile of its corporate seal to be printed hereon, and said officials by the execution hereof to adopt as and for their own proper signatures ' their facsimile signatures appearing on each of the Bonds . (Do Not Sign) Mayor ATTEST: (Do Not Sign) City Recorder [ S E A L ] -21- CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Bond Resolution and is one of the Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 , of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, as Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer Date of Authentication: The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations . TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian (Cust ) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list . -22- ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto / Insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee (Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to register the transfer of said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises . Dated: Signature: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular , without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever . SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member firm of the New York Stock Exchange or a commercial bank or trust company. -23- ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS 6 . 01 Ratification. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the Issuer and its officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. 6. 02 Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Bond Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Bond Resolution shall , for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Bond Resolution. 6 . 03 Conflict. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof heretofore adopted or passed which are in conflict with any of the provisions of this Bond Resolution are, to the extent of such conflict , hereby repealed. 6 . 04 Captions . The table of contents or headings herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Bond Resolution. 6. 05 Effective Date. This Bond Resolution shall take effect immediately. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of April, 1987 . Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder [ S E A L ] -24- After due consideration of said resolution by the City Council, Councilmember moved to adopt the resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember and the same was put to a vote and was unanimously carried by the affirmative vote of all members present, the vote being as follows : AYE: Roselyn N. Kirk Florence Bittner Grant Mabey Tom Godfrey Earl F. Hardwick W. M. "Willie" Stoler Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck NAY: None -25- (Other business not pertinent to the foregoing appears in the minutes of the meeting. ) The meeting was then adjourned. Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -26- STATE OF UTAH ) . ss . COUNTY OF UTAH ) I, Kathryn Marshall, the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify according to the records of said City in my official possession that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on April 7, 1987, including a resolution adopted at said meeting as said minutes and resolution are officially of record in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of said City this day of April , 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -27- EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Kathryn Marshall , the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah ( the "City" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4- 6( 2) , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four ( 24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the April 7 , 1987, public meeting held by the City as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be posted at the City ' s temporary offices on April 3, 1987 , at least twenty-four ( 24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be delivered to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent on April 3 , 1987 , at least twenty-four ( 24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. -28- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this day of April, 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -29- SCHEDULE "A" [Notice of Meeting] -30- Salt Lake City, Utah April 7, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held at the temporary offices of the City Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 7 , 1987, at the hour of 6 :00 o' clock p.m. , at which meeting there was present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Roselyn N. Kirk Chairperson Florence Bittner Councilmember Grant Mabey Councilmember Tom Godfrey Councilmember Earl F. Hardwick Councilmember W. M. "Willie" Stoler Councilmember Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Councilmember Also present : Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order , and the minutes of the preceding meeting approved, the Chairperson stated that the meeting was called for the purpose, among other things , of considering bids received for the purchase of $141 , 000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 (the "Bonds" ) of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 ( the "District" ) . The City Council was then advised that pursuant to public notice, sealed bids had been received earlier in the day in the Office of the City Recorder . Prior to the meeting of the City Council the bids were examined to determine compliance with the Notice of Sale. On reopening of the bids, the qualifying bids are determined to be as follows : Name of Bidder Net Interest Cost Premium First Security Bank of Utah $50 ,967 . 56 6 . 534303% Prudential Bache Capital Funding 52, 579 . 50 6 .74096 Shearson Lehman Brothers 54 ,425 . 00 6 .977564 Boettcher & Company, Inc. 61,780 . 00 7 .920513 After due deliberation, it was determined that the bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, was the best and most advantageous bid submitted for the purchase of said Bonds, whereupon the following Resolution was introduced in written form by Councilmember was fully discussed and pursuant to motion made by Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember , was adopted by the following vote: -2- AYE: Roselyn N. Kirk Florence Bittner Grant Mabey Tom Godfrey Earl F. Hardwick W. M. "Willie" Stoler Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck NAY: The Resolution was thereupon signed by the Chairperson in open meeting and is as follows: RESOLUTION NO. OF 1987 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE SALE OF $141 , 000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 FOR SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CURB AND GUTTER NO. 38-685 DATED APRIL 1, 1987, FIXING THE INTEREST RATES TO BE BORNE THEREBY. WHEREAS, sealed bids have been received for the purchase of $141, 000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987, for Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District , Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 ; and WHEREAS , the bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, has been determined to be the best and most advantageous bid for the purchase of said Bonds, said bid being in full as follows : -3- (Attach Copy of Bid) -4- BID FORM SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake County, Utah $141 ,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CURB AND GUTTER NO. 38-685 if Salt Lake City Corporation Director of Finance Office, 5th Floor 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Honorable Mayor and City Council : For $141 ,000 Special Improvement District, Curb & Gutter No. 38-685 Bonds of Salt Lake City, dated April 1 , 1987, in denominations of $1 ,000 and $5,000 and maturing serially on April 1 , 1988 through April 1 , 1997; in the amounts shown herein, with interest payable April 1 , 1988, and annually thereafter on the firstApril of each� day of year at the rate or rates specified herein until said Bonds are paid, we will pay $ 2 44 plus accrued interest, to the date of delivery of said Bonds to us. ' The schedule of maturities, coupon rate or rates, total interest to maturity, the net interest cost, and the net effective interest rate upon which this bid is based, with interest computed from April 1 , 1987 to the maturity date of the Bonds are as follows: Maturity Date April 1 AM21113.1 Coupon 1988 . . . . $14,000 7.75 X 1989 14,000 7.75 1990 . . . . 14,000 7.00 1991 . . . . 14,000 6.00 1992 . . . . 14,000 6.00 1993 . . . . 14,000 6.20 1994 . . . . 14,000 6.35 1995 . . . . 14,000 _6 50 1996 . . . . 14,000 6 65 1997 . . . . 15,000 6.7c Total Interest to Maturity $ 50,970 00 Less Premium $ 2 44 Net Interest Cost $ 50,967.56 6.534303 Net Effective Interest Rate % This bid is submitted in accordance with and subject to all provisions contained in the OFFICIAL NOTICE OF BOND- SALE of these Bonds which by this reference is made a part hereof. A cashier' s or certified good faith check in the sum of $2,820, drawn upon an incorporated bank or trust company and payable to the order of the Salt Lake City Corporation is enclosed to be retained by said City Council and applied on the purchase price of these Bonds if we are the successful bidder, otherwise to be returned to us. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of April , 1987. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. 72 ?4JF Mark S. Cluff Accepted for and on behalf of the City Council of Salt Lake City this 7th day of April , 1987. Mayor r ATTEST: City Recorder Good faith check # returned and receipt thereof acknowledged this 7th day of April , 1987. For bidders convenience the following information is provided. Principal Bond Cumulative Year Amount Year Bond Years 1988 . . . $14,000 14 14 1989 . . . 14,000 28 42 1990 . . . 14,000 42 84 1991 . . . 14,000 56 140 1992 . . . 14,000 70 210 1993 . . . 14,000 84 294 1994 . . . 14,000 98 392 1995 . . . 14,000 112 504 1996 . . 14,000 126 630 1997 . . . 15.000 150 780 Totals . . $141,000 �Q Bond Years 780.000 Average Life 5.532 years 1 s5 CASHIER'S CHECK First 31-1/1240 Security Salt Lake City, Utah No. 0 5 5 6 8 0 Bank ( of Utah NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Office No. 320 DATE April 7, 1987 PAYTO THE V��� ORDER OF ***Salt Lake City Corporation*** $ *2,820.00* • For Good Faith Check First Security Bank `lee.et ige---;?:nX� of Utah, N.A. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE lop 5 568011' I: L 40000 L 21:060 0 7 500 L — EX-2 Rev.10•84 7Y WHEREAS, . in the opinion of the City Council, it is in the best interest of the Municipality that the bid be accepted and sale of the Bonds to First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, be confirmed: NOW, THEREFORE, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: Section 1 . The bid of First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the purchase of $141,000 Special Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 , which qualifying bid is set out in full in the preamble hereto, is hereby accepted, it being hereby found, determined and declared, after public advertisement for bids for the purchase of said Bonds, that said bid is the best and most advantageous bid received and that the Bonds, when issued at the interest rates stated in the bid, will bear interest at the lowest rate now obtainable. Section 2 . The Bonds shall be delivered to the purchaser as soon as possible after the adoption of this Resolution, upon payment in full therefor by the purchaser . -5- Section 3 . All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are to the extent of such conflict hereby repealed and that this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. Since the interest imposed by the Assessment Ordinance of January 13, 1987 , to accrue on unpaid assessment installments is the net effective rate of the Bonds , it is herein determined that the rate of interest to be paid on unpaid assessments is 6 . 534303% per annum until due. Thereafter , all delinquent payments shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent ( 18%) per annum. ADOPTED and approved this 7th day of April, 1987 . Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -6- Other business not pertinent to the foregoing appears in the minutes of the meeting. Upon motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned. Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -7- STATE OF UTAH . ss . COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at its regular meeting held on the 7th day of April, 1987, insofar as the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 and the adoption of Resolution No. as the same appear of record in my office. I further certify that there is on file in my office a permanent record of the foregoing resolutions for Special Improvement District Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the official seal of said Municipality this 7th day of April, 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -8- STATE OF UTAH ) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE : ss WITH OPEN MEETING LAW COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly qualified City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify: (a) that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(1 ) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, public notice of the 1987 Annual Meeting Schedule of the City Council of Salt Lake City (the "Council" ) was given, specifying the date, time and place of the regular meetings of the Council scheduled to be held during the year 1987 , by causing a Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule for the Council to be posted on January 2, 1987, at the temporary office of the Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah; said Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during regular office hours at 324 South State Street until the date hereof; and causing a copy of the Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule to be provided on January 2, 1987 , to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent ; (b) that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6 ( 2) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, public notice of the regular meeting of the Council on April 7 , 1987, was given by specifying in a Notice of Regular Meeting -9- the agenda, date, time and place of the April 7 , 1987 Council Meeting and by causing the Notice of Regular Meeting to be posted at the temporary office of the Council at 324 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 3rd day of April, 1987 , a date not less than 24 hours prior to the date and time of the April 7, 1987 regular meeting; said Notice of Regular Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours at 324 South State Street until the date and time of the April 7 , 1987 regular Council meeting; and causing a copy of the Notice of Regular Meeting to be provided on April 3, 1987 , to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April, 1987 . City Recorder [ S E A L ] -10- EXHIBIT "A" Notice of Meeting -11- Salt Lake City, Utah April 7, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held at the temporary offices of the City Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 7 , 1987, at the hour of 6 : 00 o' clock p.m. , at which meeting there was present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Roselyn N. Kirk Chairperson Florence Bittner Councilmember Grant Mabey Councilmember Tom Godfrey Councilmember Earl F. Hardwick Councilmember W. M. "Willie" Stoler Councilmember Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Councilmember Also present : Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent : After the meeting had been duly called to order and the minutes of the preceding meeting read and approved, and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the City Council a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this April 7 , 1987 meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "A" . Councilmember then introduced and moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. of 1987 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $141, 000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987 (THE "BONDS" ) OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CURB AND GUTTER NO. 38-685, FIXING THE INTEREST RATES TO BE BORNE THEREBY, PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF BOND AND INTEREST RATES, MATURITY AND DENOMINATION OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF A GUARANTY FUND AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Issuer" ) , has heretofore adopted proceedings for the construction of improvements in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 ( the "District" ) , and has adopted and approved the Ordinance of the District confirming the assessment roll for such improvements on the 13th day of January, 1987 ; and WHEREAS, notice of assessments to property owners in the District has been published in accordance with the requirements of the laws of the State of Utah and the ordinances of the Issuer, and notice of assessment has been mailed by the City Treasurer to all the owners of property assessed in the District ; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the improvements was $2, 686,118 . 08, of which the Issuer ' s portion was $2, 442, 059 . 49 ; that during the fifteen-day period following the effective date of the Ordinance levying the assessment, property owners in the District have paid or have committed to pay $103, 058. 59 on the principal of their assessments, leaving an amount to be paid through the issuance of bonds or from funds provided by the Issuer of $141, 000 ; -2- WHEREAS, of , has submitted its offer to purchase the Bonds upon the terms and conditions as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer to accept the offer of of , and it has awarded the sale of the Bonds to of • NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: -3- ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY 1.01 Definitions. As used in this Bond Resolution, unless the context shall otherwise require, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Act" means the Utah Municipal Improvement District Act, Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. "Bondholder" or "Holder" means the registered owner of any Bond as shown in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar for such purpose. "Bond Registrar" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as bond registrar and agent for the transfer , exchange and authentication of the Bonds. Pursuant to Section 2 . 05 hereof the initial Bond Registrar is Zions First National Bank of Utah, One South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or its successors. "Bond Resolution" means this Resolution of the Issuer adopted on April 7 , 1987, authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds. "Bonds" means the $141,000 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 , of the Issuer authorized by this Bond Resolution. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended . "District" means the Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685. "Government Obligations" means direct obligations of the United States of America, or other securities, the principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America . "Guaranty Fund" means the Special Improvement Guaranty Fund established by the Issuer created pursuant to Section 10-16-31 of the Act to secure timely payment of all special assessment bonds issued by the Issuer pursuant to the Act. -4- "Issuer" means Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. "Paying Agent" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as paying agent with respect to the Bonds . Pursuant to Section 2. 05 hereof the initial Paying Agent is Zions First National Bank , One South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 or its successors or assigns . "Person" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations , corporations, trusts, public bodies and other entities . "Purchaser" means of "Qualified Investments" means any of the following: ( i ) demand deposits and time certificates of deposit of federally insured depositories of the State of Utah, ( ii ) Government Obligations, or ( iii ) repurchase agreements with any federally insured bank or savings and loan association in the State of Utah, acting as principal or agent, for securities of the United States of America or other evidences of indebtedness of like quality. "Record Date" means in the case of each interest payment date, the Bond Registrar ' s close of business on the fifteenth day immediately preceding such interest payment date. "Special Improvement Bonds" means bonds issued by the Issuer pursuant to the Act, and as defined in Section 10-16-3( 5) of the Act. "Special Improvement Districts" means districts created within the Issuer pursuant to the Act and as defined in Section 10-16-3 ( 3) of the Act. The terms "hereby, " "hereof, " "hereto, " "herein, " "hereunder , " and any similar terms as used in this Bond Resolution, refer to this Bond Resolution. 1 . 02 Authority for Bond Resolution. This Bond Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. -5- ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION, TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS 2. 01 Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount Designation and Series. In accordance with and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established in this Bond Resolution, a series of Special Assessment Bonds of the Issuer is hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $141, 000 . Such series of bonds shall be designated "Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 , Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 . " The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form only, without coupons. 2 . 02 Purpose. The Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued for the purpose of (a) reimbursing the Issuer for costs advanced in the construction of improvements acquired, constructed for and/or installed within the District , including related interest costs and administrative costs, (b) retiring any outstanding interim warrants, and ( c) paying issuance expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. 2 .03 Bond Details. The Bonds will fall due on April 1, in the following years and amounts: Maturity Amount (April 1 ) 1988 14,000 1989 14 ,000 1990 14, 000 1991 14, 000 1992 14,000 1993 14 , 000 1994 14,000 1995 14 ,000 1996 14,000 1997 15,000 TOTAL 141, 000 The Bonds shall bear interest payable on April 1 , 1988 and annually thereafter on April 1 of each year by check or draft mailed to the registered owners of record of the Bonds. Each Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenticated, unless (a) any Bond is authenticated before the first -6- interest payment date following the initial delivery of Bonds, in which case it shall bear interest from April 1, 1987 , or (b) any Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear interest from such interest payment date; provided that if at the time of authentication of any Bond, interest is in default, such Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid. The Bonds shall bear interest on overdue principal at the aforesaid respective rates. 2. 04 Denominations and Numbers . Subject to the provisions of Section 4. 01 hereof, the Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of $1,000 or $5,000 , or any integral multiples thereof, not exceeding the amount of each maturity. The Bonds shall be numbered with the letter prefix "R" and shall be numbered from one (1) consecutively upwards in order of issuance. 2. 05 Paving Agent and Bond Registrar. The Issuer may remove any Paying Agent and any Bond Registrar, and appoint a successor or successors thereto. The Issuer shall submit to the Paying Agent or Bond Registrar , as the case may be, a notice of such removal at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such removal, and shall specify the date on which such removal shall take effect . Such removal shall take effect on the date that each successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by the Bond Resolution by executing and delivering to the Issuer a written acceptance thereof . The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, at the respective dates of payment thereof, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. Principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable when due to the Holder of each Bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent . Payment of interest on each Bond shall be made to the person which, as of the Record Date, is the Holder of the Bond and shall be made by check or draft mailed to the Person which, as of the Record Date, is the Holder of the Bond, at the address of such Holder as it appears on the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar , or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such Holder on or prior to the Record Date. 2. 06 Optional Redemption and Redemption Price. The Bonds maturing after April 1, 1994 are callable for redemption at the option of the City Council on April 1, 1994 or on any interest payment date thereafter prior to maturity, in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturity upon not -7- less than thirty ( 30 ) days prior to notice, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption and a premium of one per cent ( 1% ) of the principal amount of each bond so called for redemption prior to maturity. 2. 07 Sale and Delivery of Bonds . The sale of the Bonds to of , at the price of $141 , 000 in accordance with the terms of the bid submitted by the Purchaser on April 7, 1987 is hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed. The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser as soon as they may be legally issued, upon receipt by the Director for Finance for the Issuer of the agreed purchase price therefor . 2. 08 Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer by the Mayor of the Issuer and attested by the City Recorder of the Issuer (the signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder being either manual and/or by facsimile) and the corporate seal of the Issuer or a facsimile thereof shall be impressed or imprinted thereon. The use of such facsimile signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder and such facsimile of the seal of the Issuer on the Bonds are hereby authorized, approved and adopted by the Issuer as the authorized and authentic execution, attestation and sealing of the Bonds by said officials. The Bonds shall then be delivered to the Bond Registrar for manual authentication by it. The Certificate of Authentication shall be substantially in the form provided in Section 5. 01 hereof. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication, manually executed by the Bond Registrar , shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Bond Resolution, and such certificate of the Bond Registrar shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so certified have been duly registered and delivered under , and are entitled to the benefits of , this Bond Resolution and that the Holder thereof is entitled to the benefits of this Bond Resolution. The Certificate of Authentication of the Bond Registrar on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by it if (a) such Bond is signed by an authorized officer of the Bond Registrar , but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the Certificate of Authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder or that all of the Bonds hereunder be certified as registered by the same Bond Registrar , and (b) the date of authentication of the Bond is inserted in the place provided therefor on the Certificate of Authentication. 2. 09 Further Authority. The Mayor and the City Recorder of the Issuer and other officers of the Issuer are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all -8- such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale, registration and delivery of the Bonds. -9- ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF BONDS; BOND REGISTRAR 3 . 01 Transfer of Bonds. (a) Any Bond, may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar pursuant to Section 3 . 03 hereof, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Bond Registrar , duly executed. No transfer shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar . The Issuer , the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal or redemption price thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever . (b) Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer, the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new fully registered Bond or Bonds of the same series , designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations duly executed by the Issuer , for a like aggregate principal amount . The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondholder requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer . With respect to each Bond, no such transfer shall be required to be made ( i ) after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date, or ( ii) after the Record Date with respect to any redemption of such Bond. 3 . 02 Exchange of Bonds . Bonds may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully registered Bonds of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate of other authorized denominations. The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondholder requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. With respect to each Bond, no such exchange shall be required to be made ( i ) after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date, or ( ii ) after the Record Date with respect to any redemption of such Bond. -10- 3 . 03 Bond Registration Books. This Bond Resolution shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 , Utah Code Annotated 1953 . The Bond Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept, at its principal office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the Issuer ; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Bond Registrar shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said books, Bonds as herein provided. 3 . 04 List of Bondholders. The Bond Registrar shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of the Holders of all Bonds and upon any transfer shall add the name and address of the new Bondholder and eliminate the name and address of the transferor Bondholders. 3.05 Duties of Bond Registrar . If requested by the Bond Registrar , the Mayor and City Recorder of the Issuer are authorized to execute the Bond Registrar ' s standard form of agreement between the Issuer and the Bond Registrar with respect to the compensation, obligations and duties of the Bond Registrar hereunder which may include the following: (a) to act as bond registrar , authenticating agent, paying agent, and transfer agent as provided herein; (b) to maintain a list of Bondholders as set forth herein and to furnish such list to the Issuer upon request, but otherwise to keep such list confidential; (c) to cancel and/or destroy Bonds which have been paid at maturity or upon earlier redemption or submitted for exchange or transfer ; (d) to furnish the Issuer at least annually a certificate with respect to Bonds canceled and/or destroyed; and (e) to furnish the Issuer at least annually an audit confirmation of Bonds paid, Bonds outstanding and payments made with respect to interest on the Bonds . -11- ARTICLE IV COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS 4 . 01 Covenants of Issuer . All covenants, statements, representations and agreements contained in the Bonds , and all recitals and representations in this Bond Resolution are hereby considered and understood and it is hereby resolved that all said covenants, statements , representations and agreements of the Mayor and City Recorder , are the covenants, statements, representations and agreements of the Issuer . 4 . 02 Ratification of Prior Proceedings. All the proceedings heretofore taken and adopted for the creation of the District and for the construction of improvements therein and the assessment of a part of the cost of constructing such improvements on and against the private properties in the District shall be and the same are hereby ratified, approved, and confirmed. No assessment will exceed the benefit to be derived from the improvements by the piece of property assessed, and no parcel of property will bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of the improvements to be made. 4. 03 Levy and Collection of Assessments. The City Treasurer shall be and is hereby authorized and empowered, and it shall be his/her duty to receive and collect all assessments levied to pay the cost of said improvements of the District , the installments thereon, the interest thereon, and the penalties accrued, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the whole of the unpaid principal , interest and penalties accrued which become due and payable immediately because of the failure to pay any installment whether of principal or interest , when due, and to pay and disburse such payments to the person or persons lawfully entitled to receive the same in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah and all the ordinances and resolutions of the Issuer heretofore or to be hereafter adopted. All moneys constituting the payment of principal and interest shall be placed in a regular fund to be designated "Special Assessment Fund of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 ( "Special Assessment Fund" ) , and shall be used for the purpose of paying the principal of and the interest on the Bonds of the District and for no other purpose whatsoever , and as security for such payment , said fund is hereby pledged. -12- 4 . 04 Investment of Funds . Moneys deposited in the Special Assessment Fund and Guaranty Fund may be invested in Qualified Investments , provided, however , that any moneys remaining in the Special Assessment Fund for more than twelve ( 12) months may be so invested only upon the City Treasurer obtaining an opinion of nationally recognized municipal bond counsel to the effect that such investment will not adversely affect the exclusion from federal income taxes of interest on and of the Bonds, all in accordance with Sections 103 through 150 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder . 4 . 05 Guaranty Fund. The provisions of Section 6 of the Assessment Ordinance adopted and approved by the Issuer , on the 13th day of January, 1987, in reference to the Guaranty Fund is hereby readopted and the Issuer agrees with the holder of the Bonds herein authorized that it will, until the payment of the Bonds in full and the interest thereon has been paid, provide amounts to be transferred to the Guaranty Fund equal each year to such amount as a tax levy of .0002 on all property within the Issuer will produce until the Guaranty Fund is equal to not less than forty percent ( 40% ) of the amount of all outstanding Improvement Bonds of all Special Improvement Districts of the Issuer issued prior to March 30 , 1981 , and twenty-five percent ( 25%) of the amount of all outstanding Improvement Bonds of all Special Improvement Districts of the Issuer issued on or after March 30 , 1981, and thereafter , the Issuer will transfer to such fund such amounts at least yearly as may be required to maintain or replenish such Fund to such percentage. The Guaranty Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from other municipal funds and shall be used and applied only as provided by the laws of the State of Utah. 4 . 06 Insufficiencies in Assessment Fund. Should there be insufficient money in the Special Assessment Fund to pay all of the interest falling due at one time and the principal amount thereof due, the interest and principal shall be paid from the Guaranty Fund to the extent that there is sufficient money in the Guaranty Fund for this purpose, and the Bonds are payable exclusively from the regular assessments levied for said purpose and the Guaranty Fund. 4 . 07 Lien of Assessment . The assessments, any interest accruing on the assessments and the penalties and costs of collection of the assessment shall continue to constitute and are hereby declared to be a lien against the properties upon which the assessment is levied within the District from and after January 13, 1987, the date on which the ordinance levying the regular assessments became effective, which lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic ' s or materialman' s lien, or other encumbrance, and -13- • shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes. Such lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest , penalties , and costs thereon are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a general property tax, regular tax, other assessment , or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the county, or a sheriff ' s certificate of sale or deed. 4 . 08 Deposit of Funds. The Funds hereinabove referred to shall be kept separate and apart from each other and from any other funds of the Issuer and shall, from time to time as they are accumulated, be deposited in such bank or banks as are designated as depositories of public monies for funds of the Issuer under the depository laws of the State of Utah for the deposit of public funds . 4 . 09 Default in Payment of Assessments . Default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest of the assessments levied pursuant to the Assessment Ordinance adopted by the Issuer on January 13, 1987 when due shall cause the whole of the unpaid principal or interest to become due and payable immediately and the whole amount of the unpaid principal shall thereafter draw interest at the rate of 15% per annum until paid. The Issuer covenants and agrees that it will proceed with due diligence to place in operation the procedure necessary to provide for a tax sale of all delinquent property in accordance with the ordinances of the Issuer or in the manner provided by Chapter 10 , Title 59 (Utah Code Annotated) for the sale of property for delinquent general property taxes as provided in Section 10-16-24 of the Utah Code Annotated. The Issuer may also provide for the summary sale of any property assessed after a delinquency shall have occurred in the payment of any assessment or part or installment of it . The sale shall be in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgage liens or trust deeds , except that if at the sale no person or entity shall bid and pay the Issuer the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the Issuer for these amounts . The Issuer shall be permitted to bid at the sale . The proceeds from the sale of any property sold will be placed in the Special Assessment Fund. The remedies provided in this section for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the Issuer of the use of any other method or means and that the -14- proceeds from the sale of any property sold will be placed in the Special Assessment Fund hereinabove referred to. 4 . 10 Bonds in Registered Form. The Issuer recognizes that Section 149 (a) of the Code requires the Bonds to be issued and to remain in fully registered form in order that interest thereon is exempt from federal income taxation under laws in force at the time the Bonds are delivered. In this connection, the Issuer agrees that it will not take any action to permit the Bonds to be issued in, or converted into, bearer or coupon form. 4. 11 Tax Covenants. (a) The Mayor and City Recorder of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as shall be necessary to establish that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated or proposed thereunder , including Sections 1 . 103-13, 1 .103-14, 1. 103-15 and 1. 103-15AT of the Income Tax Regulations ( 26 CFR Part 1) as the same presently exist, or may from time to time hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised. The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the Bondholders and the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds that no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds , or any funds or accounts of the Issuer which may be deemed to be gross proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148( f) ( 6) (B) of the Code and applicable regulations (proposed or promulgated) which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Bonds with the requirements of Sections 103 through 150 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder . The Issuer further represents and covenants that no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Issuer have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning 31 days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending 31 days following the delivery of the Bonds . (b) The Issuer hereby covenants and agrees to rebate to the United States of America the excess of ( i ) the amount earned from the investment of that portion of the Guaranty Fund which is allocable to the Bonds in the manner hereinafter described (the "Allocable Portion" ) , over ( ii ) the amount which would have been earned had such Allocable Portion been invested at a rate equal to the yield on the Bonds, together with any income attributable to the investment of such excess, at the times and in the manner -15- prescribed in Section 148( f ) of the Code. For this purpose, the "Allocable Portion" of the Guaranty Fund which is attributable from time to time to the Bonds means (unless the Issuer receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel otherwise) the highest of that amount of the Guaranty Fund which ( i ) equals 25% of the original face amount of the Bonds, ( ii ) bears the same proportion to the Guaranty Fund that the outstanding amount of Bonds bears to the total outstanding amount of all of the Issuer ' s Special Improvement Bonds, or ( iii ) bears the same proportion to the Guaranty Fund that the original face amount of the Bonds bears to the total original face amount of all of the Issuer ' s outstanding Special Improvement Bonds. ( c) The Issuer further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the Bondholders that the Issuer ( i ) will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation, ( ii ) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner , any action, which omission would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation, and ( iii ) will, to the extent possible, comply with any other requirements of federal tax law applicable to the Bonds in order to preserve the exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the Bonds 4 . 12 Nondesiqnation of Bonds. The Issuer has not designated the Bonds, and the Bonds are not qualified, as qualified tax-exempt obligations under Section 265 (b) ( 3) of the Code, relating to the deductability of a financial institution ' s interest expenses allocable to tax-exempt interest . -16- ARTICLE V FORM OF BONDS 5 . 01 Form of Bonds . Each fully registered Bond shall be, respectively, in substantially the following form, with such insertions or variations as to any redemption or amortization provisions and such other insertions or omissions, endorsements and variations as may be required: -17- [FORM OF BOND] Registered Registered UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CURB AND GUTTER NO. 38-685 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND SERIES 1987 Number R- $ ORIGINAL INTEREST MATURITY ISSUE RATE: DATE: DATE: CUSIP: April 1, 1987 Registered Owner : Principal Amount : DOLLARS Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer" ) , a duly organized and existing political subdivision of the State of Utah, acknowledges itself indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date identified above, upon presentation and surrender hereof , the Principal Amount identified above, and to pay the Registered Owner hereof interest on the balance of said Principal Amount from time to time remaining unpaid specified below at the interest rate per annum (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months) identified above ( the "Interest Rate" ) , payable on April 1, 1988 , and thereafter in each year on the 1st day of April , until payment in full of said Principal Amount . This Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenticated, unless (a) this Bond is authenticated before the first interest payment date following the initial -18- delivery of Bonds, in which case it shall bear interest from April 1, 1987 , or (b) this Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear interest from such interest payment date; provided that if at the time of authentication of any Bond interest is in default, such Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid. This Bond shall bear interest on overdue principal at the Interest Rate. Principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond shall be payable at the principal office of Zions First National Bank Salt Lake City, Utah, as Paying Agent , in any coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts; and payment of the annual interest hereon shall be made to the Registered Owner hereof and shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the person who is the Registered Owner of record as of the Bond Registrar ' s close of business on the fifteenth day immediately preceding each interest payment date at the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on the registration books kept by the hereinafter defined Bond Registrar , or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar as provided in the hereinafter defined Bond Resolution. This Bond is one of the Special Assessment Bonds of the Issuer ( the "Bonds" ) limited to the aggregate principal amount of $141 , 000 issued under and by virtue of the Utah Municipal Improvement District Act, Utah Code Annotated, Sections 10-16-1, et seq. 1953, as amended (the "Act" ) , and under and pursuant to a resolution of the Issuer adopted on April 7, 1987 ( the "Bond Resolution" ) , for the purpose of (a) reimbursing the Issuer for costs advanced in the construction of improvements acquired, constructed for and/or installed within the District, including related interest costs and administrative costs, (b) retiring any outstanding interim warrants, and (c) paying issuance expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. Zions First National Bank of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah is the initial bond registrar and paying agent with respect to the Bonds. Said bond registrar and paying agent, together with any successor bond registrar or paying agent, respectively, is referred to herein as the "Bond Registrar" and the "Paying Agent . " Payment of this Bond and the interest thereon shall be made from, and as security for such payment there is pledged the Special Assessment Fund of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685 ( the "District" ) , containing the receipts derived by the Issuer from the regular assessments levied upon the -19- property included in the District by the Assessment Ordinance adopted by the Issuer which ordinance became effective on January 13 , 1987 , for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing improvements on certain streets within the District consisting of paving with bituminous surface course placed on gravel base; construction of a draining system, curb and gutter , sidewalk where it does not now exist ; removal of all existing non-conforming improvements in the way of new improvements, construction of driveways from the new curb and gutter to the edge of sidewalks and miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner in the District under, by virtue of , and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and certain ordinances and resolutions of the Issuer duly passed and made law thereof prior to the issuance hereof. It is hereby certified that a Special Improvement Guaranty Fund has been created by ordinance as authorized by Utah statutes, and the Issuer agrees that at all times during the life of this Bond and until payment thereof in full, said fund shall be at all times maintained as therein required. This Bond is not a general obligation of the Issuer but is payable exclusively out of said Special Assessment Fund and said Special Improvement Guaranty Fund. The Issuer shall not be held liable for the payment of this Bond, except to the extent of the Funds created and received by said regular assessments and to the extent of its Special Improvement Guaranty Fund; but the Issuer shall be held responsible for the lawful levy of all regular assessments, for the creation and maintenance of the Special Improvement Guaranty Fund as provided by law, and for faithful accounting, collection, settlement , and payment of the assessments and for the monies of said fund. The special assessments made and levied to defray said cost, with accruing interest thereon, and the cost of collection of the assessments constitute a lien upon and against the property upon which such assessments were made and levied from and after January 13, 1987 , the date upon which the ordinance levying such assessments became effective, which lien is superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic ' s or materialman' s lien, or other encumbrance. Said lien is equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes and shall continue until the assessments and interest thereon are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a general property tax, regular tax, other assessment, or the issuance of an auditor ' s deed. -20- This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond Resolution, only upon the books of the Issuer kept for that purpose at the principal office of the Bond Registrar , by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Registered Owner or such duly authorized attorney, and thereupon the Issuer shall issue in the name of the transferee a new registered Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations of the same aggregate principal amount, series, designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Bond, all as provided in the Bond Resolution and upon the payment of the charges therein prescribed. No transfer of this Bond shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar . The Issuer , the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name this Bond is registered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of , or on account of, the principal or redemption price hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever , and neither the Issuer, nor the Bond Registrar nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Bonds are issuable solely in the form of registered Bonds without coupons in the denomination of $1 , 000 or $5 , 000 or any integral multiples thereof . The Bonds maturing after April 1, 1994 are callable for redemption at the option of the City Council on April 1, 1994 or on any interest payment date thereafter prior to maturity, in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturity upon not less than thirty ( 30 ) days prior to notice, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption and a premium of one per cent (1% ) of the principal amount of each bond so called for redemption prior to maturity. Except as otherwise provided herein and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, words and phrases used herein shall have the same meanings as such words and phrases in the Bond Resolution. This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of the Act and all other laws applicable thereto. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the Constitution or statutes of the State of Utah and by the Act and the Bond Resolution to -21- exist , to have happened or to have been performed precedent to or in connection with the issuance of this Bond exist , have happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds , together with all other indebtedness of the Issuer , is within every debt and other limit prescribed by said Constitution and statutes, and that the aggregate amount of special assessment bonds of the Issuer for the District , including this Bond, does not exceed the amount authorized by law nor the special assessment levied to cover the cost of improvements in the District, and that all of said special assessment has been lawfully levied. This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Bond Registrar . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, has caused this Bond to be signed in its name and on its behalf by its Mayor and attested by its City Recorder ( the signatures of said Mayor and City Recorder being by facsimile or manual signature) , and has caused the facsimile of its corporate seal to be printed hereon, and said officials by the execution hereof to adopt as and for their own proper signatures their facsimile signatures appearing on each of the Bonds. (Do Not Sign) Mayor ATTEST: (Do Not Sign) City Recorder [ S E A L ] -22- CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Bond Resolution and is one of the Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 , of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, as Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer Date of Authentication: * * * * * * The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations . TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act ( State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list . -23- ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto Insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee (Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to register the transfer of said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular , without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever . SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member firm of the New York Stock Exchange or a commercial bank or trust company. • -24- ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS 6 . 01 Ratification. All proceedings , resolutions and actions of the Issuer and its officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. 6 . 02 Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Bond Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Bond Resolution shall , for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Bond Resolution. 6 . 03 Conflict. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof heretofore adopted or passed which are in conflict with any of the provisions of this Bond Resolution are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. 6 . 04 Captions . The table of contents or headings herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Bond Resolution. 6 . 05 Effective Date. This Bond Resolution shall take effect immediately. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of April, 1987 . • Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder [ S E A L ] -25- • After due consideration of said resolution by the City Council, Councilmember moved to adopt the resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember and the same was put to a vote and was unanimously carried by the affirmative vote of all members present, the vote being as follows : AYE: Roselyn N. Kirk Florence Bittner Grant Mabey Tom Godfrey Earl F. Hardwick W. M. "Willie" Stoler Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck NAY: None -26- (Other business not pertinent to the foregoing appears in the minutes of the meeting . ) The meeting was then adjourned. Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) -27- STATE OF UTAH ) . ss . COUNTY OF UTAH I , Kathryn Marshall , the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify according to the records of said City in my official possession that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on April 7 , 1987 , including a resolution adopted at said meeting as said minutes and resolution are officially of record in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of said City this day of April, 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -28- EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , Kathryn Marshall, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief , that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4- 6 ( 2 ) , Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four ( 24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the April 7 , 1987 , public meeting held by the City as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be posted at the City ' s temporary offices on April 3 , 1987, at least twenty-four ( 24 ) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be delivered to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the Municipality or to a local media correspondent on April 3, 1987 , at least twenty-four ( 24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. -29- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this day of April, 1987 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) -30- SCHEDULE "A" [Notice of Meeting] -31- STAFF RECOMMENDATION // Petition No. 400-274-85, Calder Brothers Annexation STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Christine Richman ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The petitioner is asking that you petition four parcels of land located adjacent to the Brickyard Plaza on which they are planning to develop a 22,000 square foot retail center. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The petition was originally submitted by Calder Brothers acting on behalf of Creative Inns . At that time, early 1985 the petitioners were planning to construct a 73 room hotel on the property. The Council held the annexation hearing and decided at that time to annex three of the four parcels of property. The Council approved the annexation subject to a number of conditions, one of which was to supply the City with the Annexation Plat Map. This condition was never satisfied and the annexation was never finalized. Creative Inns failed to secure necessary financing and the redevelopment plan fell through. Calder Brothers has now asked that the Petition by reconsidered and the annexation finalized as Highline Enterprises has expressed an interest in developing the property. When the original petition was adopted, the Council excluded one of the four parcels. Subsequent to that action, the City Attorney has issued an opinion that , according to state statute, the exclusion of that one parcel creates a peninsula of unincorporated area which is not permitted within state law. Additionally, the original recommendation of the Planning Commission has been amended to increase the amount of property to be dedicated, by the petitioner to Salt Lake City, along Woodland Avenue from fifteen to twenty-eight feet in order to expand the potential right-of-way. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the opinion of staff, that due to the Council 's prior decision and an interest by the private sector to develop the area, you approve the annexation of all of the property included in the Petition. This recommendation entails the annexation of the parcel originally excluded from the annexation. I am recommending you annex the entire property based upon the opinion from the City Attorney. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we close this hearing concerning Petition No. 400-274, Calder Brothers Annexation. I move that we approve the annexation of all property included in Petition No . 400-274 and direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance subject to the dedication of property for potential right-of-way expansion, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street , and streetscape improvements, zoning the property C-1 and the submission of an annexation plat . ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET; ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 To: Salt Lake City Council April 2, 1987 Re: Petition 400-274 submitted by Creative Inns on behalf of Calder Brothers Recommendation: At the conclusion of the Public Hearing on Tuesday April 9, 1987 at 6:20 pm, that the City Council approve the annexation of all the property included in Petition 400-274 (2.75 acres) and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion: Please refer to the attached letter dated February 11, 1987 explaining the history of this petition. The current developer, Highline Enterprises, is proposing to develop a 22,000 square foot retail center on the site at 3130 South Highland Drive. The Planning Commission has recommended that the property be annexed subject to the following conditions: 1. Fifteen (15) feet of the petitioner's property along Miller Avenue be dedicated to Salt Lake City to expand the potential right-of-way to fifty (50) feet; 2. Twenty-eight (28) feet of the petitioner's property along Woodland Avenue be dedicated to Salt Lake City to expand the potential right- of-way to fifty-six (56) feet; 3. The curb, gutter, sidewalk and street improvements be constructed and the parking strips be landscaped and sprinkled along Highland Drive, Miller Avenue, and Woodland Avenue according to the Salt Lake City Engineering specifications and paid for entirely by the developer of the site; 4. The streetscape improvements on Miller Avenue shall align with the existing improvements west of the petitioner's property; Salt Lake City Council April 2, 1987 Page 2 5. The property be zoned Commercial "C-1"; and, 6. An annexation plat be prepared by a registered Professional Engineer or Surveyor at the developer's expense and submitted to the City meeting all City standards for such a document. The requirement for dedication of property for increased public right-of-way and construction of streetscape improvements for the three residential properties on Woodland Avenue should be waived until such time as the property is developed or redeveloped. Respect ully submitted, Allen C. Johnson Deputy Directc# ACJ:WTW attach. ME7:ate � Two.-ac A. ei. _ on Vernon F. Jorgensen _ - y _ - Ai t ice Fannin? Director . ' s.%: La%ne Lic'- e-r'-cnai Mildred G. Snicer e, � ' ' `R I;O:4j Ralph P. Neilson SALE' e�Qo;C T�� 01 t George Vic la:us SecretarLi .�. W _.�.� a� Willic- ?rice Frc-Of icio Me.": ers: DEPARTMENTtOF DEVELOPMENT:SERVICES John Sc7-,.:47:arn Mayor o* Scat Lake Cs;:' PLANNING:AND%ZONING COM'4ISS:ION F. Keith Steffan Cit. Engineer Peter 7cr_'ls- re _ 324 So. _State Street, Room;.200 P City Traffic c Engineer Kathy �%a.:%er Ci:y Building^C;, ic.al Salt -Lake CitrgrUtah 84111 I. J. Wagner February 11, 1987 Salt Lake City Council 324 South State St. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Council Members; In January 1985 Salt Lake City received Petition 400-274, submitted by Creative Inns, Inc. on behalf of Calder Brothers, requesting annexation of property located at 3130 South Highland Drive. The petitioner was - ----anticipating-redeveloping the site and annexation law required the developer to request annexation to Salt Lake City. Petition 400-274 and the accompanying Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval forwarded to the City Council in June 1985. The City Council held a public hearing on July 9, 1985 and approved the annexation excluding one of the four properties and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Prior to finalizing the ordinance, the petitioner needed to supply the city with the Annexation Plat Map. Subsequently, the anticipated development proposal failed to secure. the necessary financing and the redevelopment of the site was placed on hold. The petitioner did not follow through with the plat map and the annexation ordinance was not finalized. Presently, another owner of the property, Highline Enterprises, is proposing a commercial development and the annexation ordinance is being finalized. It came to the attention of the staff, that the action of the City Council on July 9, 1985 to exclude one property from the annexation petition does not comply with the state annexation law. Specifically, the exclusion of that one parcel creates a peninsula of unincorporated area, which is rot permitted within state annexation law. Bruce Baird, of the City Attorney's office, has reviewed this case and recommends that the City Council re-advertise a public hearing for this annexation and reconsider the action. The Planning Commission and staff recommended a comprehensive annexation including all four parcels in that block. That recommendation still stands. Petition 400-274 February 11, 1987 Page 2 Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission recommendation and minutes, the staff report, and the Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment. The legal description is the same as advertised earlier. The proposed new development is a 22,000 square foot retail center. A fifteen foot landscaped setback will be provided on the three fronting streets. Property will be dedicated to the city for the widening of Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue and all necessary infrastructure improvements will be constructed by the developer at his expense. The Planning Department recommends that a new hearing be scheduled by the City Council to reconsider Petition 400-274 for annexation to Salt Lake City. Respectfully, Allen C. J on Deputy Director of Development Services ACJ:WI'W attad ments � - �. 7 ( C'n' RECORDcR MIN ;, SALT' SLAKE'CITY(CORPORATION. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETEERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111, 535-7777 . To: Salt Lake City Council June 4, 1985 Re: Petition No. 400-274 submitted by Creative Inns on behalf of Calder Brothers Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to officially accept the annexation request of Creative Inns for consideration. The petitioners are requesting annexation of 2.75 acres of land in the Brickyard Area. We further recommend that the City Council set a public hearing on July 9, 1985 at 488- p.m. to discuss said annexation request. i5 Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion: It is the intent of Calder Brothers, through Creative Inns, to construct a 73 unit hotel on part of this property. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that the property be annexed subject to the following conditions: 1 . Fifteen feet of the petitioner's property along Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue be dedicated to Salt Lake City to expand the right-of-way to fifty feet; 2. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements be constructed and the parking strip be landscaped and sprinkled along Highland Drive, Woodland Avenue, and Miller Avenue according to the Salt Lake City Engineering specifications and paid for entirely by the Developer; 3. The streetscape improvements on Miller Avenue should align with the existing improvements west of the petitioner's property; 4. The property be zoned Commercial "C-1"; 5. The existing off-premise sign for "Utah Firstbank" be permanently removed from the petitioner's property; and 6. An annexation plat be prepared by a registered Professional Engineer or Surveyor meeting all City standards for such a document. rah; ,N'Ii kir ;;T: t'f.i ‘._ 4, :.;.:..,:,.. ,......... The requirement for dedication of property and construction of streetscape improvements for the three residential properties should be waived until such time as the property is developed or redeveloped. Submitted by: _ r J I - \\)_) ‘\. _ CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ MEMBERS: VERNON F. JORGENSEN - THOMAS A. ELLISON PLANNING DIRECTOR C A HERMALORNA LEE N J. .HOGENSENPLANNINGMILDRED G. SNIDER SALT,�` {• \J onlyGORPORATION� ROBERT LEWIS SECRETARY GEORGE NICOLATUS Ex-OFFIGIO MEMBERS: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOHN M. SCHUMANN MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY 414 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING F. KEITH STEPAN CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PETER J. VANALYSTYNE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER 535-7757 KATHY WACKER CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL I. J. WAGNER LaVone Liddle-Gamonal April 16, 1985 Honorable Ted L Wilson Salt Lake City Mayor 300 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mayor Wilson: Returned herewith is Petition No. 400-274-85 by Creative Inns, Inc requesting the annexation of property at 3130 South Highland Drive for the purposes of developing the site. The property is contiguous to the city boundary between Richmond Street and Highland Drive and between Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue. The petitioner's architect began the development review process with Salt Lake County in December 1984 to develop an all-suite hotel with 73 units. Through the review process the City Planning Department recommended that the parcel should be annexed to Salt Lake City for comprehensive municipal services. The County agrees with this recommendation and has encouraged the developer to annex to Salt Lake City. The developer is continuing his application for building permits with the County with the agreement to meet all• the city site development standards required for approval of this petition. On February 14, 1985 the Planning Commission discussed the petition and recommended approval of this annexation subject to the staff recommendations. These conditions include: 1. The petitioner be encouraged to expand the annexation petition to include three additional parcels of property west of the petitioner's property along Woodland Ave to complete the annexation of the entire block; 2. Fifteen feet of the petitioner's property along Miller Ave and Woodland Ave be dedicated to Salt Lake City to expand the public right-of-way to fifty feet; Letter to Mayor Wilson Page 2 3. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements be constructed and the parking strip be landscaped and sprinkled along Highland Drive, Woodland Ave, and Miller Ave according to Salt Lake City Engineering specifications and paid for entirely by the developer; 4. The streetscape improvements on Miller Ave should align with the existing improvements west of the petitioner's property; 5. The property be zoned Commercial "C-1"; 6. The existing off-premise sign for "Utah FirstBank" be permanently removed from the petitioner's property; 7. An annexation plat be prepared by a registered Professional Engineer or Surveyor meeting all city standards for such a document. The current owner is Calder Brothers Company and the developer is Creative Inns Inc. , represented by Mr. Rick Miles. In accordance with the first condition, Mr. Rick Miles has pursued the annexation of the three additional parcels. Ms. Constance Bohen, owner of two of the three parcels has joined the annexation petition. The remaining parcel (containing a residential four-plex) is owned by Mr. Lee Christensen and he does not desire to annex to Salt Lake City. Complying with the annexation laws, the City can annex all four parcels since the annexation petition contains the signatures of more than 50% of the property owners representing more than one-third of the assessed value of the property. Therefore, the total property represented by this petition is now 2.75 acres. The petition has been reviewed by the Planning Department and a majority of property owners have signed the petition and the signed ownership represents over 90% of the assessed valuation. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the required public hearing be held and that the city approve this annexation petition with the aforementioned conditions. The requirement for dedication of property and construction of streetscape improvements for the three residential properties should be waived until such time as the property is developed or redeveloped. Respectfully, Vernon F. Jorgenseri (_ Planning Director C VFJ:WTW attch. MEMBERS: VERNON F. JORGENSEN /_...TT__ ( THOMAS A. ELLISON PLANNING DIRECTOR SALT' t�, 1 U1; tY(GORP,-0 ;IONI HERMAN J. HOGENSEN l� 1 LORNA LEE MILDRED G. SNIDER ���� y,„•�� .,,i,,,r��y,���,�„y,v ROBERT LEWIS SECRETARY GEORGE NICOLATUS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOHN M. SCHUMANN Ex•oFFlcto MEMBERS: 414 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY F. KEITH STEPAN CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PETER J. VANALYSTYNE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER 535.7757 KATHY WACKER CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL I. J. WAGNER LaVone Liddle-Gamonal April 18 , 1985 Honorable Ted L. Wilson Salt Lake City Mayor 300 City County Building Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mayor Wilson : Attached herewith is the Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 5-A for the Brickyard Area. This Annexation Policy Amendment has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1978 . In harmony with the intent of this Act , Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The area covered by this amendment is a part of Area 5 Brickyard Area defined in that declaration. This report updates and amends the Master Annexation Policy Declaration with respect to the area petitioned for annexation in Petition No. 400-274-85 . It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this Amendment be adopted by the Salt Lake City Council . Respectfully, (/ -LAC 2 <. � : p c .s.c L✓ Vernon F. Jorgensen � Planning Director / ."C(-- VF3 :WTW attch. *Field trip - 4 p.m. AGENDA FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING to be held at 414 City & County Bldg. February 14, 1985 5 p.m. 5 :15 p.m. - hearing - KALL Radio's appeal of the Historic Landmark denial of their case, No. 442 (see below) 6:00 p.m. - Informal hearing on Petition No. 400-271-85 by MHT Archtects (see below) 1. Approval and ratification of minutes. Consent Calendar: *2. Board of Adjustment Cases : a . Case No. 9809 by PSC Properties for a planned unit develop- ment at approximately 1700 South 1600 West in a C-2 District. b. Case No. 9812 by Mountain Bell on behalf of Salt Lake City for a public utility at 1386 North Redwood Road in an R-2 District. 3. Petition No-. 400 276 85 by 'ITC Holdings requesting Salt Lake City Sue e t. Petitions: 4. Petition No. 400-269-85 by Benchmark, Inc. requesting that property located at 2350 - 2600 South and 2900 - 3000 East be rezoned from R-1 and R-7 to an R-2A classification. SET DATE FOR HEARING. *5. Petition No. 400-271-85 by MHZ.Architec.ts, Inc. requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the Salt Lake County Complex block at 2100 South State Street from an R-6 to a Commercial C-3A classification. *6. Petition No. 400-274-85 by Creative Inns, Inc. requesting Salt Lake City to annex property located at 3130 Highland Drive into the City. 7 . Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 1-D *8. Petition No. 400-281-85 by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Filtrol Corp. and Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. requesting Salt Lake City to annex property located between 2650 West and 7400 West and between North Temple and 2100 South Street. Other Business: *9. Appeal of the Historic Landmark Committee' s decision on Case No. 442 by KALL Radio 10. Eleventh Year Community Development Block Program P.C. February 14, 1985 Page 4 old and were moved from the old station to the new when it was constructed ; therefore, they are under the "Grandfather Clause". Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Williams why it was felt they needed three signs when the ordinance states presently that only one shall be allowed in the Historic District. Mr. Williams stated that there are seven businesses located in the current KALL radio location. Mr. Whiteside stated that KALL has been aware for six years that the signage they put up was not in conformity with the ordinance and has done nothing to conform. The Landmark Committee has scheduled and rescheduled meetings and has informed them that the Architectural Sub-Committee is available to meet with them at their convenience. However, there has been no interest shown by the applicant to comply. Mr. VanAlstyne asked Mr. Williams if the current signage that exists on the building is what KALL intends to have for the long term with respect to the South Temple Historic District and what is trying to be accomplished. Mr. Williams stated that this is not what they intend to keep but it is what they feel is acceptable at this time. Mrs. Wacker made the motion that the Planning Commission uphold the Historic Landmark 's decision of denial and that KALL radio comply with the decision of the Landmark Committee ; also, the applicant be informed .that they have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council if they so desire. Mrs. Liddle-Gamonal seconded, with all voting "Aye" , except Mr. Nicolataus and Mr. Lewis who voted "No". (Mr. Ellison disqualified himself because of a conflict of interest). PETITIONS Petition No. 400-269-85 by Benchmark , Inc. Requesting that property located at 2350 - 2600 South and 2900 - 3000 East be rezoned from "R-1" and "R-7" to an "R-2A" classification. SET DATE FOR HEARING. Mr. Jorgensen stated that this is a request to change the zoning from Residential "R-1" (F-1) and "R-7" to Residential "R-2A" to allow approximately one-half of the previously approved Benchmark single-family Residential Planned Unit Development Condominium project consisting of a mixture of single-family, duplex, and triplex residential units on commonly owned land using the existing dedicated streets and also some new private driveways. Mr. Wagner made the motion that the hearing date be set for MARCH 14, 1985. Mr. Nicolatus seconded, with all voting "Aye". Petition No. 400-274-85 by Creative Inns, Inc. and Calder Brothers Company Requesting annexation into Salt Lake City 2.23 acres of property located at 3130 South Highland Drive for the purpose of developing the site. Creative Inns, Inc. is the developer and Calder Brothers Company is the current property owner. Mr. Jorgensen stated, at the present time the City limits P.C. February 14, 1985 Page 5 jog between Richmond Street and Highland Drive and between Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue. Because this parcel is contiguous to an existing City boundary and since the proposed development requires the use of City . services such as culinary water, sanitary sewer, streets and storm drains , police and fire protection, etc. , the property should be annexed into Salt Lake City. The objective is to improve the neighobrhood convenience commercial strip along Highland Drive with landscaped building setbacks , proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter and sidewalk. The proposed development is an all -suite hotel consisting of one bedroom units and 30 two bedroom units with kitchens and living space. The preliminary plan is designed to meet the requirements of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for the Commercial "C-1" zone. The property is currently zoned "C-3" under Salt Lake City County jurisdiction. Mr. Jorgensen read a letter from Mr. Gene Davis of the Sugar House Community Council . The letter stated that the Council approved of the annexation but had some concerns regarding maintaining the residential feel of this neighborhood ; however, the Sugar House Master Plan would support this annexation. Mr. Wagner asked what other type of use could be put in this zoning. Mr. Jorgensen stated that any type of commercial use could be present with a setback and landscaping although it is not currently required by the County in this area. PETITION NO. 400-274-85 RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE PETITIONER BE ENCOURAGED TO EXPAND THE ANNEXATION PETITION TO INCLUDE THREE (3) ADDITIONAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY WEST OF THE PETITIONER 'S PROPERTY ALONG WOODLAND AVENUE TO COMPLETE THE ANNEXATION OF THE ENTIRE BLOCK ; 2) FIFTEEN ( 15) FEET OF THE PETITIONER 'S PROPERTY ALONG MILLER AVENUE AND • WOODLAND AVENUE BE DEDICATED TO SALT LAKE CITY TO EXPAND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FIFTY (50) FEET ; 3) THE CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE PARKING STRIP BE LANDSCAPED AND SPRINKLED ALONG HIGHLAND DRIVE, WOODLAND AVENUE AND MILLER AVENUE ACCORDING TO SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS PAID FOR ENTIRELY BY THE DEVELOPER ; 4) THE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON MILLER AVENUE ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WEST OF THE PETITIONER 'S PROPERTY ; 5) THE PROPERTY BE ZONED COMMERCIAL "C-1" ; 6) THE EXISTING OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR UTAH FIRST BANK BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER 'S PROPERTY ; AND 7) AN ANNEXATION PLAT BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR MEETING ALL CITY STANDARDS FOR SUCH A DOCUMENT. The petitioner 's request for annexation has been circulated to City departments as required by City policy. Favorable recommendations have been received from Fire, Public Works, Public Utilities and Finance Departments. P.C. rebruary 14, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Nicolatus made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this annexation subject to the afore mentioned recommendations of the Planning Staff. Mr. Wagner seconded, with all voting "Aye". Master Plan Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 1-D Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the subject property and showed where it is located in the Northwest Quadrant and that it is part of Salt Lake City 's projected growth area. Annexation of this area would correct a long standing boundary problem and allow more logical development through City-controlled public service extension. He showed the Commission the current boundaries of Salt Lake City in this area and pointed out the peninsula that had come about. In addition , he stated there are some individuals who would like to develop the land on either side. Therefore, this Master Plan has been prepared to update and amend the Master Annexation Policy Declaration with respect to this area. The area includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City 's western boundary within census tracts 1003.02 and 139.01. The area is situated between North Temple Street and 2100 South Streets, and 2650 West and 7200 West Streets. The annexation would basically complete the Westside Master Plan area and will eliminate the peninsula of unincorporated land projecting into the City, and square off the City 's boundary on the west. It will allow for effective planning and development of the Northwest Quadrant , the City 's only remaining major growth area. It is desired at this time that this amendment be adopted and that approval be given to annex this area. Mr. Jorgensen stated that currently the only type of uses that can go in are uses that do not require sewage or water facilities. Mr. Wagner asked who would pay for the sewage and water installation. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the developer would pay for this service through a refunding process. All the surrounding sewage and water lines are designed to go through this property at the present time. Mr. Wagner asked about the streets in the area. Mr. Jorgensen stated that in the Major Street Plan a street system for this area is included. Mr. Wagner made the motion that the Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 1-D be adopted. Mr. Nicolatus seconded, with all voting "Aye". Mr. Nicolatus made the motion that Petition 400-281-85 be approved and the property be annexed subject to the recommendations of Staff as follows. Mr. Lewis seconded , with all voting "Aye" . 1. THAT THE AREA BE ZONED AGRICULTURAL "A-1" AND INDUSTRIAL "M-1A" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO THE PETITION. 2. THAT PETITONERS ARE AWARE THAT PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE PHASED WESTWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT MASTER PLAN AND THAT NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE POSSILBE UNTIL ADEQUATE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ANNEXED AREA. INFORMAL HEARING MHT Architects, Inc. requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the Salt Lake County Complex block at 2100 South State Street from an "R-6" to a Commercial "C-3A" classification. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION NO. 400-274-85 OVERVIEW The petitioner, Creative Inns, Inc. and Calder Brothers Company, is requesting annexation into Salt Lake City 2.23 acres of property located at 3130 South Highland Drive for the purpuse of developing the site. Creative Inns, Inc. is the developer and Calder Brothers Company is the current property owner. BACKGROUND The subject property is contiguous to the existing city boundary between Richmond Street and Highland Drive and between Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue (see map) . The petitioner's architect began the development review process with Salt Lake County in December, 1984 with an application for a conditional use permit to develop a motel with 73 units. As a part of the review process, Salt Lake City Planning Department recommended to the County that this parcel should be annexed to Salt Lake City for comprehensive municiple services and coordinated land development policies. The County agrees with this recommendation and has encouraged the developer to annex to Salt Lake City. ANALYSIS Salt Lake City is concerned with the development patterns in this neighborhood and has outlined its policies in the Sugar House Community Master Plan and the 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration. Because this parcel is contiguous to an existing city boundary and since the proposed development requires the use of city services such as culinary water, sanitary sewer, streets and storm drains, police and fire protection, etc., the property should annex to Salt Lake City. The 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy Declaration identifies this area, the "Brickyard Area", as a possible annexation area to Salt Lake City. An update of the Master Annexation Policy Declaration will be required and is currently being prepared. Land use development objectives for the proposed annexation area are listed in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. One specific objective is to improve the neighborhood convenience commercial strip along Highland Drive with landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter and sidewalk. The proposed development is an all-suite hotel consisting of 44 one bedroom units and 30 two bedroom units with kitchens and living space. The preliminary plan is designed to meet the requirements of the Salt Lake City • Zoning Ordinance for the Commercial "C-1" zone. The property is currently zoned "C-3" under Salt Lake County jurisdiction. The petitioner's request for annexation has been circulated to city departments as required by city policy. Favorable recommendations have been received fran Fire, Public Works, Public Utilities and Finance Departments. The Finance Department indicates that while additional costs to the city would be insignificant, revenues gained are estimated to be approximately $22,500 annually. RECOMMENDATION The planning staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the following conditions: 1) the petitioner be encouraged to expand the annexation petition to include three (3) additional parcels of property west of the petitioner's property along Woodland Avenue to complete the annexation of the entire block; 2) fifteen (15) feet of the petitioner's property-along Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue be dedicated to Salt Lake City to expand the public right-of-' ay to fifty (50) feet; 3) the curb, gutter, sidewalk and street improvements be constructed and the parking strip be landscaped and sprinkled along Highland Drive, Woodland Avenue_and Miller Avenue according to-Salt.Lake City Engineering Depart- ment specifications paid for entirely by the developer; 4) the streetscape improvements on Miller Avenue align with existing im- provements west of the petitioner's property; 5) the property be zoned Commercial C-1"; 6) the existing off-premise sign for Utah First Bank be permanently removed from the petitioner's property; and 7) an annexation plat be prepared by a registered professional engineer or surveyor meeting all city standards for such a document. WTW/dm Attachment ) • -. -...- .1 . • ''',1 W- 52 I 15,2./4( t AVe • , ••• - ..//d.5 r r • vewli.. ' ••,, .5.02 4.1. , lk 5° ,- I 'n •1.1116. . • -r!t 1 . . ... ., .. - : I -•Z702 AY.-003 i - /37 /31. /.13 TIMIIIIMIL,4/6-.21-428-.203 -2. lirr A. 1.: "4 ,..„ Z7 • Z . ..g,'W:- .-.,- ,43/. 44,74_ ,___-.I - • 1-- 1• _ — — — ._;_, - - • vic Z •• 5'0 ••,, 27 NT- 4. 2 AN, 97 r •••••t.,tr.,....c-.. — .. Z:3 111 .. • o ...to. . — - 17._ .. ... ..,41, , ......tu,... r•075 r ..pm 7 -4 M6/6-28 3o i•ool • . ..t 7:t . •4 i or7.4.1. sr:ir i -•-^-,•..Z.. ... -- .7---",..• ' ,J.1 -4. .• . 1 tt, -;.--,.-, ./8 ' ... - , . ,, ..:-.,;... di-.- . . - •-• 4 ' .. '`.M''. 4.;7. '- •.,7„,- • in 44 • ' I / 7 ?a, •, . 1 &mg •-' '- V f::. • •,. e'k.,.• a., :s" A5-• • 7:::3\tA c.„....'15' 6. . : PO." • t.6 ?`:/ I 7012..11 ....a. ; t 6 ••. -.. .P,6~ .•• it-41 ' • 4,- , --.e.--- --tc. — • ....... , 1 _. _ - • 2 - • A. ...- 1 - !At I • . • . _ 60 , • ... - . - ' .• ....1.• • ' .. - t.:%. I ., --,---c„.,- , - • • .• ..,..,-iirt \ , , . . -..r !TA:44M'- 1,44.1....46.1.14. tzt.77i;-4: :._‘.•--'.....;. .....• . . .k'r''.. 7331C7/74 - ' .." • i, .6 •• a'n/irVIC4ft.Uummi \ . ..19 t',i.' - • •/40 ...'i I .,.. „ ,.•.0. .,...,• lc. P• • - , .. -01 I .„, r. --.... . . --, I it•i-•: • im I .... . . 0 - •;,\ 55 .. r.- , . - .... N.13 . _,---,--r...nr. 1 6•1',1- 012 . ' ,7 '''. /I- ". — ,• or•-... api • ' 4 --.'... \ - - 0- - .• i..,,,- . . - •t ig •-,--, ,, 1^ ..ef- ./ - .• —7 '''' • 4 • -,,- ... -;,...°'.-..,...-`r .• t,-•• \ - I al r' , r ..,- -41 .,-.Flt 7,...,.1 ?‘•A •- - t\ • - -• r irk . •.,p-. - . II -:0 Z 0 , .• • f-. Ig - . • . oi 1,,, I . -, . ._ , ....,,b. ,. ...tio, 1-7q . • • , .- ..., .•- .1-rl •.?-;:... fit')...1,4:.. • . ...- 1%1 :_-... 4 . -. , . - ..:7- ' -I - - 41 , : ,\Izi,;,,I ty?1.-.-., - . • A _ . . . , ,.. •• i •,, . ,.-.!-,.. •;. - - . .. . . .... . . . , , . • 1. - • •• . • 1 l't- \ • • -..,-- ., 0 . ' ''..... -.: r : ., , , . _ • •1 r" .4, thafderAtire_I•, • , \ ...‘ 1 .••• - /4/• •.• . ..74.2/7-4 .E. WOOD/ A Ai...".7%s A ',. . --ir. r to. .........,,,,,,!--.-• - AVE: .3.1.•- '.'' • ••: .- ,-. 2 . 4.111i , aa. : , , ... . - ,\ . .., ,.. • - %I . • ••6 /c.:.•- NI Mi.-6. .•"•.., ...PIA r-71 ..'%. ...• PA.-acy 4. "I -I .--.• ',7•1•Y'') -I-. - ; ..- •-7., . ,-; r 1 • .1... o ' \ L. 1-,0,-- • -'110.,1 - '.1 ' allrelc ..,7 r,,,,..,,, . ._ i PETI" ION NO . 4r0-274 ai1iu • jjjjjJJ D.Mt iik 27 TH SOUTH ST - 1153 SOUTH iT 111 ..; L , 4----U--,-L I Z.' I.! - ---1RHEdvE L,'"i,--...,:.... ' L rEOR E��V or, CMdR LTO' CIR0 S cr.tutbr f tiil o I �6 !2 ... n Pr' TTxTS1 ._ c� _ —. i x u tv . L. io r , _ �- IRS•A • it- / ZEH1 H it t, . .rik.N.t: RTL 1 �•• v �O nv[ CIR. � y • c 1 lYT Yri I ~ 7 o = v, J 6. ZINCO IR _ • CIR. 1 _• V . . IV —7� Ai• CITY LIMITS zvz ��' v ..AN ! me i•piH ELGIN AVt Iz. ' LSIN 7. 1•tbtiUra H i \ MIN [ ..f. iliNpi « L .4/6 , � II 1 41 \ LR Ermswoomminga —1 I_— 1 f \ 1 ........- . ... . . . ? :A... . . _ ..,,,-,1.-. :: '•ZA . ... . ...*1' .... ,q. ....f. *4... ,. - .. -• -_......i.,.... '...e.".' .• ' - C:-."--;.l'-'161; • .1 • r 1.1.4F._,‘.;.. - . -z "' ib:-Ar.16. .- ...i .-41•• 4.. ..43-14• A' .—"'"''— i.1.-1 — .. --.1`..*--. ',... 49•415IF:'4.—. -.. . . - . . . -''.':,,r....' ',.•:-...' .-;-:•-.3.-rk...,:e.--.0...,-..-_--..n. ..r., . -_,......nw:.:,?-...n•-...• ...ie-,e•....1 . _ . _ .11-,:_.:,. .,,9L,..7•",.....A.-, ',••••••..„9:i.- . . - . ... ... • .....--- -••••-•...-.1....,.- .1.- .. . . . . . . . ._ -. .,. . . .. • • • • - • • - - - . . . _ • g.... . . . . , .. . - . .: . . .. •:.•-_, : " ' • • • .. •. . . .-.. .. . , . • ... . .. . . _ • • - .•. .• • . . . . _ . . . .. .. -._, . ... ... . . . .. . . • - .. - . . - .. . .. ... . .... - . -- . - .. . • . • • .• . • i',* . . . _ . . ... _ ..• • . . . .. . . •,_ . ,• : - - . • - - _ . _-44- .d.,f'... _..ri.-.---.;.'.17•7•-•,•• •'1.'0.' '-1.7.:-7... . - . •.:. ..../' '-'•i:_7.,..•`!,,.."‘'..."--7.7:;--... •.'.._.;'...",•., . . , . . . ' '1.- . •. 4.'......:.- .'.1.7..••..,••1•L- :. ...L.•-•: . .- - - . . ,. . - "• , .- . -r . • . . . . ._ . . . . . .._ • . .' . . •. ... . •. .• . . . • . . - . ....- . . . . . . . . - • . _ - '. t• •••.: - : . . • - ''.4••••1-'• . .... . . . • . . . •• - . .- . .. ,. . .. . . . . . _ ... . • ' '-- , - :-.•-.....•".....-''-•.' 2"; . . - . . .. . _ • . ..'--.',' — -•••••,.-• -•••:::'-'11 - - - _ . . . •• . . . . . :. . . . • • . . .-• . • ,'.•-• •• - .• . ._ . • . • • . . . .. • • - , . • - : . .. . ' . • . '. . .. _ • . _ . . . i . ' • ' .. . ' . . . ... . ..., -. • '' . • • . . . • . .• • ' . .,.. • . . . •1 . • . . . . •• • . • . . - ,. • . • .... . . . . ... . . .. • .. . . . 1 . . . , . . . . _ . ' .. .. . . . . ., . . i .. . . . . .. . . •• ' ' ... . • . ' . •..••. . . . • . _ . .. . . 1 . . • . -' . . . • ' . . .. • .i• . ... _ . . . . • . . . .• . . - . . • • • • . . .• . _ . . . • . , " . -•• . .. . .. • . . . . . . . .. • . .- .. . . . . • . . . . • . ' . . . . .. •' " . . .. , . , . . . . —• . ..1 . .. . ... i • SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION AMENDMENT 5A Petitioned Sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area Miles Annexation April 1985 Prepared by Salt Lake City Planning Department CONTENTS 5A Introduction 5A-1 5A.1 Area Considered for Annexation 5A-1 5A.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics 5A-1 5A.3 Assessed Property Value 5A-3 5A.4 Comparison of Cost of Government Services 5A-3 5A.5 Water 5A-3 5A.6 Sewer 5A-3 5A.7 Fire 5A-3 5A.8 Police 5A-3 5A.9 Planning and Zoning 5A-5 5A.le Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal 5A-5 5A.11 Streets and Highways 5A-6 ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES Map of Proposed Annexation Area 5A-2 Table-Comparison of City and County Mill Levies 5A-4 Introduction The following information is provided to satisfy requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1979 as set forth in Section 10-2-401 through 10-2- 423 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. In harmony with the intent of the act, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The petitioned area is a sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area as defined in that Declaration. This report updates and amends the Master Annexation Policy Declaration with respect to the petitioned area. 5A.1 Area Considered for Annexation The map on page 5A-2 depicts the proposed annexation area. It includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City's southern boundary between Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue and between Richmond Street and Highland Drive legally described as follows: Beginning at a point south 464.85 feet and east 302.93 feet from the northwest 1/4 corner of section 28, Township 1 South Range 1 East, Salt Lake Meridian, south 15°21' east 360.63 feet; thence north 86°24 ' west 531.20 feet; thence following the current city limit line described as north 114.68 feet; thence south 71°00' east 11.06 feet; thence north 24.5 feet; thence south 71°00' east 133.74 feet; thence south 87°30' east 58.54 feet; thence south 17.94 feet; thence south 86°00' east 17.03 feet; thence north 248.71 feet; thence south 87°15' east 233 feet to the point of beginning. 2.75 acres. 5A.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics The proposed annexation area is 2.75 acres of commercial and residential land presently with a commercial building, a fourplex, a triplex, and a vacant lot. The proposed redevelopment is an all-suite hotel on 2.23 acres of the land fronting an Highland Drive. 5A-1 • • MAP OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA i J i i I-- 1 I , , 1 __t _] i i ' 1 ILLI ___I L___JI. I 1 ... 1 71 _____i • 1 , ---, :. .. .„ ,7 --------:11 . i 1 • ! 1 1 Salt La t 1 i i I 1 i 1 1 i , Li — 1 : _ .Z.41-_, i •::- ;:i ... ' •• a II ------7\li I . e, .. I.1 -I _ j { , , i. , :. Lii.....N.,, i _: , EA \., ••35;II ?: \ n --.---1 • . l_. I; le-il (.-)........y.. .....y......j_. _ . . . - --___1L EI.c,•, 1.r .;'. , \ Mr" .. • : : - ---i. ___ \" ----,,,• , , -.,- ,• . .- l.. , Li .. _ PLAZA \ '111.1011 - r _ - -•• -- --• , . . [-- 1 ' I 1 : \--I- -I - • --CM _ , - 71-7 , , 1 I 1 : , ,! 1 •,, I : --1-1 --i,-- • - . N\ . ! .. ___ - , • . . i1 C q III 11111111 I I: i 1-i • 1 1 ''-' ----',I i iI hN, \ _ 1 MOEN= . . , --.\k —-,-----=--- R - ew .--' . ' .-- - •••••••=im i 1 ' um am _ .__, ,___t ,,.q ,o •a __, MT 111. 1. . I I 1 , ,lib< . . 1 i T7-2 1 i 1 ., 5A-2 5A.3 Assessed Property Value The proposed annexation area lies exclusively within Salt Lake County Tax District 17. Assessed value of the property, compiled from the 1984 tax rolls in the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor's office is $133,785.00. 5A.4 Comparison of the Cost of Government Services Table 1 of page 5A-4 compares the present mill levy with the future mill levy. Tax District 17 (unincorporated area) has a 1984 mill levy of 82.75 mills. If the area is annexed, it will become a part of Tax District 13B with a 1984 mill levy of 88.38 mills, or a 5.63 mill increase. 5A.5 Water The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department currently provides water - service to the proposed annexation area. 5A.6 Sewer The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department currently provides sewer service to the proposed annexation area. 5A.7 Fire Protection The petitioned area is within the service area of the Salt Lake City Fire Department's Station Company No.3 at 1085 Simpson Avenue. The Department has sufficient equipment to handle any emergency at the petitioner's site. 5A.8 Police Presently the area receives law enforcement services from the Salt Lake County Sheriff's office. The proposed annexation area will receive law 5A-3 COMPARISON OF CITY AND COUNTY MILL LEVIES IN TAXING JURISDICTIONS AND SERVICE DISTRICTS WITHIN STUDY AREA 5 FOR 1984 (in dollars per $1,000 assessment) Service Departments Mill Levy County City Salt Lake County 18.65 18.65 Salt Lake City -- 18.79 Salt Lake County Municipal Type Service District 8.52 -- Salt Lake City School District -- 40.68 Granite School District 45.36 -- Salt Lake County Library 3.35 -- Salt Lake City Library -- 3.39 Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District 3.94 3.94 Central Utah Water Conservancy 2.00 2.00 Hansen Planetarium Fund 0.20 0.20 Hogle Zoo Fund 0.55 0.55 South Salt Lake County Mosquito Abatement District 0.18 0.18 TOTAL MILL LEVY 82.75 88.38 5A-4 enforcement services at the same level as currently provided to other city areas with similar population, business, and transportation densities. 5A.9 Planning and Zoning The subject property is adjacent to the Sugar House Community. In the community master plan, this area is identified as a potential annexation area. The master plan recommends that land use for this area be neighborhood convenience commercial. The plan also recommends urban design guidelines as specific development objectives. For this area the guideline is: " improve the neighborhood convenience commercial strip along Highland Drive with landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter and sidewalk". The proposed annexation area will be zoned to city standards concurrent with the annexation. 5A.10 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal Salt Lake City provides waste collection service to one, two, and three unit residential structures only. All others, including commercial and industrial uses, must contract privately for such service. Upon annexation, the City Public Works Department will assume responsibility for waste collection in accordance with the above mentioned policy. Therefore, the proposed commercial development and the existing residential four-plex will need to contract for solid waste disposal services. 5A-5 5A.11 Streets and Highways Upon annexation, portions of Miller Avenue and Woodland Avenue will become a part of the City's street network. Therefore, all new street construction will be required to moot the standards set by Salt Lake City's Department of Public Works. Street services will be provided to the area in the same manner they are currently provided in the city. Street maintenance, street lighting, parking enforcement, installation and maintenance of traffic signals, signs and pavement markings will be provided as development occurs. 5A-6 'r 'icy ',t), r . {-.l ''�i-.'„R•Vr1 {. r'.:,.. r}_f l ' • • • • • • •• • .. • 1• . . • L .. - - • f . • • .1 • . 1 • • • • '. iT ' F STAFF RECOMMENDATION Petition No. 400-500 Appeal of Historic District Ordinance April 3, 1987 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: LARRY LIVINGSTON ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Overturn decision of Landmark Committee and of Planning Commission to deny the use of chainlink fence. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Landmark Committee has consistently denied the use of chain link fence ever since the creation of the Historic District Ordinance in 1978. The Planning Commission has never overturned the Committee's decision that chain link is not an appropriate material . Rather, the Commission has always been in agreement that chain link should not be approved. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The fence has been erected on City property, and exceeds the allowed height for fences in a front yard area. The applicant applied for a height variance to the Board of Adjustment , but the Board denied the variance. The issue as it relates to this appeal focuses on the right of the Landmark Committee and of the Planning Commission to make these types of value judgements about what are appropriate materials for use in Historic Districts. The Historic District Ordinance explicitly grants this power to the Committee and to the Commission. The Committee and the Commission are not condemning the use of chain link fencing in the City, nor are they saying that chain link fencing does not have a place and is not good fencing. What they are saying is that for the purposes of promoting the neighborhood Historic Districts, that to allow the use of this particular type of fencing would detract from the quality that is intended by the very creation of such districts. The three neighborhood Historic Districts in the City (Avenues, Capitol Hill, and South Temple) are all basically Victorian Period neighborhoods, and chain link fencing does not enhance the character of this Period. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS; I move we close this public hearing. I move we uphold the decision of the Landmark Commitee and of the Planning Commission, and deny this appeal . ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: Applicants Bernice and Byron Couch, and their attorney Mr. Bruce W. Shand. • ( Iil y . -:-- : • r{ � -. a' Via~ VERNON F. JORGENSEN MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR .- ' - ,�`, THOMASC EA . ELLISON MILDRED G. SNIDER SA42 5' a1 ;i 1-1I04f LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY --.• ---15 _ _ � .,. DEPARTMENT'OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES< RALPH P. NEILSON EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: GEORGE NICOLATUS MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission WILLIAM PRICE CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE„STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT-tAKE..CITY,•UTAH`84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL PETER 535-7757 VAY NALSTYNE E I. J. WAGNER February 24, 1987 Honorable Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Mayor 324 South State St., 5th F oor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition No. 400-500 Dear Mayor DePaulis: We are in receipt of Petition No. 400-500 by Ms. Bernice Culley and Mr. Byron Couch through their attorney, Mr. Bruce W. Shand, requesting permission to retain a fence located at 322 North 300 West which extends approximately 8.7 feet on city property. The issue of the fence has been heard before the Historical Landmark Committee, (Case No. 642) the Board of Adjustment, (Case No. 386-B) and the Planning Commission. The Historical Landmark Committee on October 15, 1986 denied the request for approval of the chain link fence installed on the property which is in an historic district. The fence was does not comply with'the Historic District guidelines (see enclosed Findings and Order) . The Planning Commission at their meeting on January 8, 1987 upheld the decision of the Historical Landmark Committee (see enclosed minutes) . • The issue presented to the Board of Adjustment on November 24, 1986 was to legalize the chain link fence which exceeds the permitted height in the required front yard in a Residential R-3A District. This request was denied due to the fact that the Board could find no unusual condition attached to the property which would justify granting the variance (see enclosed minutes) . • Therefore, we would recommend that the decision of the Historical Landmark Committee be upheld and a revocable permit be issued only upon compliance with the conditions outlined in their decision. The existing chain link fence must be removed. This fence does not meet Historic District guidelines and exceeds the height limit permitted by zoning. Before a new fence may be installed it must be reviewed and meet with the approval of the Historical Page 2 Petition No. 400-500 Landmark Committee, comply with the height requirements of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code and satisfy the requirements for a revocable permit. Sincere , Vernon F. Jorgense Planning Director encl. VFJ:JJ Bruce W. Shand ci)ttov2Ey at / nip SUITE 280, 311 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (64 (801) 531-1300 e February 6, 1987 Hand Delivered RECE;Wb'� FEB 0 9 1387 Hon. Palmer DePaulis n Mayor of Salt Lake City 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re : Request for Conditional Use Permit-322 North 300 West Dear Mayor DePaulis : This office has been retained by Ms. Bernice Culley and Mr. Byron Couch to negotiate a rental agreement with Salt Lake City for a strip of land located at 322 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah which encompasses a fence erected by Ms . Culley and Mr. Couch. Ms. Culley and Mr. Couch have owned the real property at that above-noted location for several years and recently erected a fence in front of their property. Unfortunately, the fence was erected along a line directly abutting the sidewalk and done without a survey before the fence was erected. Subsequently, my clients have had a survey done and find that the fence that they erected is located on- City property. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the survey showing the property line and the location of the fence on City property. The fence cannot be moved back onto the property owned by Ms. Culley and Mr. Couch because of the close proximity of the building to the actual property line. As a result of this series of events, Ms. Culley and Mr. Couch would like to enter into some sort of lease of the fence line property extending approximately 8 . 7 feet . r: .,.., .; .-7150 `^"-` ?�:y-Grr^y�N�;�a'dv �.�'_ Hon. Palmer DePulis Mayor of Salt ke City February 6 , 1987 Page 2 west of their property line and extending along the west boundary of their property for the full width of the property. I am informed by Mr. Bill Schwab of the Planning and Zoning Department, that this type of arrangement is not unusual and can be done on a long term basis . I certainly would appreciate your consideration of this application at your early convenience so that we can resolve this problem with a minimum of inconvenience and satisfactorily for both parties. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /-L" 442 Bruce W. Shand BWS/kc cc: Bernice Culley Byron Couch Bill Schwab ;f. • 5.IL Lo-�� • y ,,k, '„(., .,ir '.' • ,. • •.tad 1 vri,+ . •,4 •: r+rr• h• w^r.' 1r'4'1 CJ :. 9 T, , 3EGAL DESCRIBTIr1. r1 , '. + , • - • 1I ' •. l' Beginning at••it point which is 1b1.25 'feet' North,from/ the Southwett'+{ . r •` / • t"r . 1 '. corner of Lot 4,•Block 114, Flat'••A' ;'Halt Lek Cityy.,Surtey And I - i +' . , '; running.thence'North 49:5 feet,•thence Bast 165-.er feet; thence •�.. r•y`•. . I - , r''' South 49.5 feet/ thence West•1d4.a feet, more �Z less, to the •";1'�t ' 'point of:beginning. :Containing o-�.19•+Icfas k a ? ' ywyl (5 is ,., ,; .r -I', •.Syr. r y' rij: 1�y .',f rJ C I-� �e - R•.. I r 1'6' Y ' '1. ;i, R ... •u,7^,y 6 1.0"., '';',.....4.rd!.+:1�1i�• C� rrt • r , U o `-: PI j r( i '. r(� ,' > 5.4,..be- EAST-C Dc D) N ere 52'51 C.-C acTLIAI-) ICA5.0 • s'I I 4 V 4 i j t,t i Chao" I,nk 9...... • • , . .•• • . , ' ' ',-0 g ' :' .'.., ' '. .• ',, • F • • i• 'j r F 3g ' Q'-' • 3 ' •� � �. 0 , . . ,.../. r- ' ' ' j 3 'r • . .: .. . . r � 90 .i b • • . , . o ' - . 0 r°' II ' ..› . .: ' .:' :‘ 1;".."':- +� .... ' "•. •'T-(cc ) O � b -Ca�TUI) 1c . ' C.l hub s.lh./.. In r ' INe.}r-b.ad - • LI VJ hl0-02 ofe,-ACTTJ . . : . 6.W Csr•nv of l...r� i qq�.n+,..,. _'� ,r.r c. r r. r. rar•rr , `"t•�ra D1«k r,a, a1.+ A- AoH• Itt.:1 SUF VEYO t'$:. tFT( t'!�' .'.r, . , .,y4 1,rr �, .ci t. „v ,. f:', C . 1,. X, Richard H. Snide+ean, certify that I am•5 Registered Land.).ti 4/ ,,{�{•�� 1 -p I. Surveyor as prescribed by the Lava'gt-the State of irtah, '••;1 V' 0 a `.' holding Certificate No. .5716, and that a survey of.'.the • • O !O Z d s, described .tract Qf, sand ha■ been made ,and found t, s + ^'' Q • .shown on this; plat V1ND S9 .i' < tC) . . '.,-6.:.. ,-.-.... �. b Same q./��'� i Ri har H/ n a�yICHA(lD FI. �� 't I 1 Nre t! P� r: Bruce W. Shand RECEIVED c gEEovzEt� at 1'acv CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE SUITE 280, 311 SOUTH STATE STREET 17 -•- ��rj�//�J SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 77 �lII (801) 531-1300 t� v�� @p. February 5, 1987 F 49 fr, 0c y 9� „` . Salt Lake City Commission 324 South State Street f, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 yal/����1 Gentlemen: I have enclosed herein the Appeal of Decision of Bernice Culley and Bryon Couch and Argument In Favor Of Granting Variance dated January 8, 1987 . The real property is located at 322 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah and involves the replacement of an old cast iron fence on the north boundary line with chain link fence. My clients would like a hearing on this matter after the 18th of February, 1987 . If there is a problem with that scheduling, please contact me as quickly as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, ,e(.2 ,<12„ ( Bruce W. Shand BWS/kc Enc. . APPEAL OF DECISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 8, 1987 RE: BERNICE CULLY AND BRYON COUCH AND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GRANTING VARIANCE Applicant' s real property is located at 322 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah. It is currently zoned R3-A. and is currently being used as a four-plex rental unit. Two of the tenants have been occupants for over twenty years. On or about the 6th day of September, 1986 , the applicants caused to be removed an old cast iron fence on the north boundary line of their real property. A complete survey with certificate is attached to this application marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. Two photographs of the old fence are attached hereto marked Exhibits "B" and "C" for reference. As is evident in the photographs, the old fence ran adjacent to the driveway extending from 300 West to the rear of the property. Before the fence was removed by the property owners, it had become dilapidated party because of age and partly due to the abuse it received at the hands of the tenants of the property immediately north of the subject property. As a result, the fence began to lean into the driveway causing a dangerous condition for the tenants of the property. The property owners contacted Acme Fence Company to replace the fence and continue the fence across the front yard and meet the chainlink fence on the property immediately to the south. No mention was made by the fence company of any permit requirements or classification of fencing that was required by the Landmark Committee for this area. The fence was constructed on the 6th and 7th of September, 1986 by Acme Fence Company. The position of the fence is -noted on the Survey which is Exhibit "A" . On September 11, 1986, the property owners were notified by letter from Mr. Robert G. Susman, Zoning En- forcement Officer that the fence was installed without the approval of the Salt Lake City Landmark Committee. A copy of that letter is attached to the variance request marked Exhibit "D" . And the property owners contacted Mr. Bill Schwabb of the Planning and Zoning Department and filed an appeal with the Landmark Committee. The outcome of that hearing on October 15, 1986 is noted above. The applicant' s have conducted an unofficial survey of the block between 300 North and 400 North on 300 West on both sides of the street and to the rear of all of the property that faces 300 West Street in an attempt to locate all of the chain link fences that are in the neigh- borhood. The results of that survey are contained in Exhibit "E" to this application on the Sidwell map for the area. The existing chain link fences are marked in yellow and the subject fence is marked in red. Not noted on that map is the substantial chain link fencing surrounding the block between 200 North and 300 North on the East side of 300 West which encompasses the West High School tennis courts and recreational facilities. These fences are in excess of 10 feet in height and virtually encompass the block. Additionally, immediately to the rear of the subject property, is a chain link fence installed by Salt Lake City Corporation in connection with the Fire Station which has exists on Ardmore Street and on 300 North Street. That fence stretches from 300 North Street to Ardmore Street on the north and amounts to some 377 feet of fencing. In addition to the chainlink fence surrounding the Fire Station, chainlink fence encompasses the property immediately adjacent to the subject property on the south and the property owned by Evelyn M. and Delmore D. Sparks two lots to the north. Chainlink fence exists on both sides of Ardmore Place at least to the middle of the block between 300 West and 200 West. Across the street from the subject property substantial chainlink fencing surrounds a pool facility at the motel situated on the property numbered 8-36-411-004 and owned by Sheldon R. and Edna K. Brewster. The chain link fence is required by the zoning and planning regulations regarding a pool facility (18-15-1 (f) Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah) . On that same side of 300 West Street, the property located at 8-36-213-012 and owned by Frank M. Nelson is also surrounded by chainlink fencing. We have attached hereto a series of photographs of both sides of 300 West from 300 North to 400 North on both sides of the street showing the character of the street at this point. The zoning for this particular block is a mixture of both existing commercial enterprises and residen- tial housing. The character of 300 West is changing and to a great extent has lost its residential character . Many business surround the subject property on all sides. On the west side of 300 West, only two residences remain. The rest are businesses and commercial ventures. On the east side of 2 300 West, two commercial ventures already exist, i.e. a hamburger stand on the corner of 300 North and 300 West and a motel located at 338 North 300 West. It should also be noted that this particular four-plex serves a substantial number of elderly tenants. Security for those tenants at the lowest possible cost is a prime requisite for their continued occupancy. Chainlink fencing is by far the most economical form of protection for those residents. No other such elderly facilities are located in the area and therefore this particular fencing project is a unique application in this area. Unecessary hardship would result if a variance from the Landmark Committee requirements is not granted. Cost to remove the fence and replace with a wrought iron fence of the kind sought by the Landmark Committee in its statement presented at the November 24, 1986 hearing of the Board of Adjustment is $4 , 447 . 00. Currently, the rental from the premises is $3, 600. 00 per year which pays for the property taxes and the maintenance of the premises and no other profit. The property is currently loosing approxi- mately $2, 800 annually and the existing rental rates are at a maximum for the building and area. To amortize the new wrought iron fence would require a rent increase from $150 to $225 . 00 per month. The rental market in this area will not support that increase rental and the building will have no tenants since the existing tenants will be forced to move. Additionally, Applicant' s property immediately to the south of the existing property is allowed to have a chain link structure on the premises as a "grandfather" right since the chain link was installed prior to the adoption and inclusion of the property in the Landmark District. Land is owned by the Applicants and presents an abutting use of chain link which is prohibited by the Landmark Committee on the Applicant' s adjacent property. The subject land is located in the extreme south- western boundary of the district with substantial chainlink fencing already in existence surrounding the property on the east and south of the property as well as directly across the street, and up the block. Since the erection of the subject fence, the city building department, the Landmark Committee and Department of Planning and Zoning has failed to take any action whatsoever against owners of the fence structures in the immediate neighborhood and in fact has ignored the violations of the Landmark Committee guidelines 3 with regard to the house immediately to the North of the subject property which is a house that was allowed to place asphalt shingles instead of the shingles required by the guidelines and was allowed to place a brick "driveway" on the property and allowed to park vehicles in front of that home also in violation of the Salt Lake City Ordinances . The instant case is, at best, a case of selective enforcement and it is the position of the appellants that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission is arbitrary and capricious in light of these circumstances. The subject property is currently used as a low-income aged residence with each of the occupants being over the age of 65 and living on retirement income. Security for those tenants at the lowest possible cost is a prime requisite for their continued occupancy. Chainlink fencing is by far the most economical form of protection for those residents. No other such elderly facilities are located in the area and therefore this particular fencing project is a unique application in this area. The stated purpose of the Historic Districts and Landmark Sites provisions of the Ordinances was for the purpose of more fully preserving building and related structures of historic and architectural significance in the districts and sites, being amount the City' s most important cultural, educational and economic assets, and so that the character of the districts and the landmark sites will not be lost through expansion or change of commercial or other activity in the city, and so that said districts and sites will be preserved for the use observation, education, pleasure and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, Utah. It is respectfully submitted that the granting of the variance in this case will not affect that purpose since this area of Salt Lake City has historically been dedicated to a mix of business and residential purposes and the area has little remaining historical or architectural significance. Additionally, in light of the variances from the Landmark Committee guidelines that the City is apparently willing to allow by its inaction on other property in the area, the actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission is arbitrary and capricious and should be overturned by the City Commission. 4 /221LAPIL Bruce W. Shand Attorney for Appellants Bernice Cully & Byron Couch 5 REAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 400 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1802 08-36-401-002-000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 629 East 400 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102-2839 08-36-401-003-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 400 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1802 08-36-401-005-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 440 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1898 08-36-276-001-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 440 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1898 08-36-276-003-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 440 East 100 South - Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1898 08-36-276-005-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 440 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1898 08-36-276-004-0000 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF 6 SALT LAKE CITY 440 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1898 08-36-276-006-0000 BOND, JAMES & JAMES JR. 6808 Camino CT Fortworth, TX 76126 08-36-256-012-0000 BREWSTER, ROBERT S & BLAIR H WAYNE E. CLINGMAN 155 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1508 08-36-401-001-0000 BREWSTER, SHELDON R & EDNA K % WAYNE E. CLINGMAN 155 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1508 08-36-401-004-0000 CARLSTON, REVA 239 W Ardmore Place Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1245 08-36-256-009-0000 COOLING, CALLIE E 422 North 500 West Lehi, UT 84403 08-36-253-007-0000 CULLEY, BERNICE C & COUCH, BYRON L 816 East 4255 South Salt Lake City, UT 84107-3044 08-36-402-002-0000 CULLEY, BERNICE C & COUCH, BYRON L 816 East 4255 South Salt Lake City, UT 84107-3044 08-36-402-003-0000 GARRARD GARAGE & IMPLEMENT INC. 7 % NYMAN, TAGE M 3696 W Saddler Drive West Jordan, UT 84084-5524 08-36-256-003-0000 HILL, DARL E & JOSEPH D, JR 1358 E Maplewood Circle Salt Lake City, UT 84121-1907 08-36-254-003-0000 HOLT, ETHEL & RICHARD D 348 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1214 08-36-256-001-0000 HALL, OLIVE D. 221 West Ardmore Place Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1245 08-36-256-011-0000 HULLINGS, BEVERLY S A & TERESA A (TC) 335 West 400 North Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1225 08-36-253-007-0000 HULLINGS, BEVERLY S A & TERESA A (TC) 335 West 400 North Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1225 333 INVESTORS 333 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1215 08-36-253-013-0000 KOULIS, KATHERINE G % GUY & DONNA TIMOTHY 810 East 4200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84107-3041 08-36-402-004-0000 LEE, CHUAN I & CHUNG S T 1812 South 900 East Bountiful, UT 84010 8 08-36-256-010-0000 LLOYD, VIOLA T. M. 110 West Girard Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1739 08-36-402-001-0000 LLOYD, VIOLA T. M. 110 West Girard Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1739 08-36-402-001-0000 MAACK, ROBERT D & ROBERT S 588 N East Capitol Street Salt Lake City, UT 84103 08-36-254-004-0000 MAACK, ROBERT D 310 S Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2105 08-36-254-005-0000 NELSON, FRANK M 343 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1215 08-36-253-012-0000 NEWSOME, PAUL I. & BETH C. 344 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1214 08-36-256-002-0000 PARCHINSKI, MICHELLE 337 North 200 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1204 08-36-256-013-0000 PARTINGTON, JACK K. 480 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1219 08-36-254-002-0000 PARTINGTON, MILDRED V. 480 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1219 08-36-254-001-0000 9 ROBISON, SIDNEY D 365 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1215 SALT LAKE CITY 451 South 200 East #320 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3107 08-36-256-005-0000 SALT LAKE CITY 451 South 200 East #320 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3107 08-36-256-006-0000 SALT LAKE CITY 451 South 200 East #320 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3107 08-36-402-005-0000 SALT LAKE CITY 451 South 200 East #320 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3107 08-36-402-006-0000 SILER, CECIL P 3695 South 700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84106-1171 08-36-253-006-0000 SOLBRIG, HAROLD R 333 North 200 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1204 08-36-256-014-0000 SPARKS, EVELYN M & DELMORE D 334 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1214 08-36-256-004-0000 THRALL, MELVIN F & BEVERLY J 245 W Ardmore Place Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1245 08-36-256-007-0000 THOMAS, CHARLOTTE, A M ET AL 321 West 400 North 10 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1225 08-36-253-003-0000 TITE, GEORGE A & VERNON % DAVID D DALY 1793 E Meadow Moor Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84117-5942 08-36-253-007-0000 VAN CAMPEN, GARTH & IRENE 369 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1215 08-36-253-010-0000 WAHLEN, WILLIAM L & ELIZABETH F S, ET AL 319 West 400 North Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1225 08-36-253-004-0000 WILLIAMS, RICHARD J & LUCILLE T 2662 E Comanche Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84108-2809 08-36-253-011-0000 WILLIAMS, RICHARD J & LUCILLE T 2662 E Comanche Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84108-2809 08-36-253-010-0000 11 REMARKS Petition No. 400-500 By Bernice Culley and Bryon Couch Ry - �ruce I,J Shand +tnvno,i • • ! :Requesting permission to retain a i !fence located at 322 North 300 West ' i Which extend approximately 8.7 feet "on City property. • • I I ; is Date Frled_fPhruary 13, 1987 Address '111 Smith State Street, Sul le 280 Salt Lake City, Utah 34111 Bruce W. Shand EEoz,zey aE Zaci• SUITE 280, 311 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (801) 531-1300 February 6, 1987 Hand Delivered ' Hon. Palmer DePaulis Mayor of Salt Lake City 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re : Request for Conditional Use Permit-322 North 300 West Dear Mayor DePaulis : This office has been retained by Ms . Bernice Culley and Mr. Byron Couch to negotiate a rental agreement with Salt Lake City for a strip of land located at 322 North 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah which encompasses a fence erected by Ms . Culley and Mr . Couch. Ms . Culley and Mr . Couch have owned the real property at that above-noted location for several years and recently erected a fence in front of their property. • Unfortunately, the fence was erected along a line directly abutting the sidewalk and done without a survey before the fence was erected. Subsequently, my clients have had a survey done and find that the fence that they erected is located on City property. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the survey showing the property line and the location of the fence on City property. The fence cannot be moved back onto the property owned by Ms . Culley and Mr. Couch because of the close proximity of the building to the actual property line . As a result of this series of events , Ms . Culley and Mr . Couch would like to enter into some sort of lease of the fence line property extending approximately 8 . 7 feet Hon. Palmer Dr"aulis Mayor of Salt sake City February 6 , 1987 Page 2 west of their property line and extending along the west boundary of their property for the full width of the property. I am informed by Mr. Bill Schwab of the Planning and Zoning Department, that this type of arrangement is not unusual and can be done on a longterm basis . I certainly would appreciate your consideration of this application at your early convenience so that we can resolve this problem with a minimum of inconvenience and satisfactorily for both parties . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce W. Shand BWS/kc cc: Bernice Culley Byron Couch Bill Schwab I • rsm.,,I,5..14 t.....y.... • . . ' . • . .. . .. . ....i ,• .1 h . • 1 .• d lj • •. . .• ., . w.ca, Drsournop, : • , ., • , , 03 7 < `9 40 . . r • • f) — il . • •• ^ •• - • • • • :•. i .:: . . . • . . , . . Beginning at a point which is lb1.•25 feet North froth the Southwe . ;.; • • i • 1.) : : . .• • • . ,''' corner of Lot 4,•Block 114, Plat "A“..'Salt LokO.C1 ty Survey and •; ' • ' , running thence North 49:5 feet,-thence Bast 165.:0 feet; thence `;':•'..,•, ' . • . • ' ..., South 49.5 feat; thence ries t•165.0. feet, more.•clk .leano.to the ,..':.4,1•t ... , - .' . . 0 ' 1. .., • point of.beginning. .Containing 0..19 actes. . .."'••! : ';',. ' •' r"-tr.-I • , . i •• ,.• • . ..., ti 10 • • .•-•: . .. .., , :. • , .; : • . ... .,.. ',v.....: •.. ,-..:.,! .,,,, ,,-; ..... . .• . • . • , - ....- .. .. . •, ...,. .• -,•;••,• .....• • r ' .... ...,. ..':. i. .'•:,1', • . • I.\s••. .,- I J.' •::'.....4 , . . 1. 6.1.‘ H . .\..., ...,... • ; . • .. . A . •. . . I tt t t . • • . , . . • . . . . .. . . ' • ' • • . • 0 I \9 8 4 . • . • .. . . •,.. • •• . .. .• .. . • • . . . ,•, . . . .4. • • . , • • ; , : • . . • . .• . 0 0 i . . ' ' • • . .• • ' . . • . • • ' .• •, . . . • . • ., . • ' • 0 3) 1 ° VI ' &A I-a, II' •• : • •. • v . . . .....5.4 ,....b99,- E...A.'57--(bc...r.,D) F-4 en'52.5 I.C.,-(ACTUAL) ' ICA ES.C::: • :• • 4 , . . „.....__.-41 g. ...... oz. . . . . - - • ,os 1 ' ' • •'. ; 3 6 6 . •• • • . . , • , :i .• i • • , • . P): ' '. . ii, . . • 03 ()• • • . .,. • • . • ; .., •..•,.. , -'' • • , . • . _ , lc v • • Z' 9 g . 'a,..,. . • 0 . 1-,, . • . ' !:;••• . : • j ' , ...-• . - ti ._ . , . zi ... . .. , . .. • , 1 0'8 . • • - . . • . . io b I • • • • . . .' 0•-• • ± • ...:8.71 ' 2 ii.) 1 . . . .0 ‘1 . . . . -__ ! .. .• • j. -1-1 .183 J • . - . , ..• , I Ir......,... ...Pt . . '0 v 0 [j• ' > .4 . -,'" i 't • CC. . •. . Z.--- Cr) E (1) X . • 5.4 kJar w c_, -r--C t)c,e.o) 'b thr-f 151: -51:'w-(A-c-ru,a,L) 1 c.,5.o' . -, t...k.. 1,-.. 0 la • to. • 4,-,0 drld . . . . •• . , V.1 0.'oF. 05 ir....a.c-ru..xt._. • . ; . . 1 i51.2.15 • • . ' .,, . • C Z -i--: V , . i. , . . • ' ' l -9 • d J 4- ). 70.64: . ' — • ' . ' l!.vi, c r Loa' -4 t • •• 1.• - ••••r—- . • • ' . 14.1...31t. 114 0..1.4 A' e..t4- F.7..inntvEyon•,p-eir-j- i;tii6pirj-- -:,,'07 t' ' 'i'i?.t:1:...4`-,': .:T•"-7, .•••. •i:.",.. 7 Tki.(71 "'.-. C if > .' 1-.4.14-• G.4A ts •••••,•15 I 8 .. . ,..: i, Richard R. Sniciertnan, certify that I arm ii Registered•tand..P.ii R (40 Surveyor as prescribed by the Laws qf•the S tato of t'teh, :.. '• -i ,..• ' 4 . ' '. holding Certificate No. .5716, and that a survey of the 0 ic) Z •..., 4 , • 0 ,.', • described tract 9f land hes been Made and founc1_,Aelobows .;:'0..11 --i CL • , . . • .: 'shown on this, plat.. . ' :' - .• .7..-TD LAND‘;,,,,„\ .. 1 ij . • •.-• ••••••,,C, 44 t: . • • •• • •.••:: ' ' ' , •"... '' - 6' e-- •-•.434-,s‘.;,i• . ., • .6 . (C1_502...-_,../..:Li) V:* _. .• .. 6 . , • . . Ri -har ill, .n J nalplictiAnD li ',/ .:•':I ' . • • • g..:;.1 t•ozear,-,e.r.1....-.0 ert , . SNMEMAn 'IV •• 1 . . .- . • " - d>'-•••• . ..'1,/;Z.(s'. I • • • •istria‘woo'' ,. . • . .. - NM•111111••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••1=••••••••=4•1111•11.1•••••••••••••••••••, • PC Minutes January 8, 1987 Page 2 r--' Historical Lanrirnerk Committee Case No. 642 Mr. Jorgensen stated that this is a request by Bernice Culley and Byron Couch appealing the Landmark decision denying a chain link fence at 322-324 North 300 West in the Capitol Hills Historical District. Mr. Schwab explained that on October 15, 1986 there was a stop work order place.on the construction of the fence being constructed at 322 North 300 West and the petitioners were asked to come in and review with the Landmark Corrmittee the proposal for the fence. The owners wanted a chain link fence around the property. The Landmark Committee denied their request on the basis that it was not their policy to approve chain link fencing, particularly in the front yard, because chain link is an industrial-type fencing and not in keeping with the neighborhood. By the time Landmark received the case, the fence had been installed. The fence is also 8.7 feet:arm exceeds the 4 foot • allowable height in the front yard. The petitioner was informed that only the r Board of Adjustment could legalize the fence. The petitioners applied to the Board and were denied. The Board of Adjustment did rot deal with the issue of type of fence. The petitioners were also told that the Board could not grant them the right to utilize public property. The petitioners has rot submitted any request to the City for a permit to allow them to keep the fence on the public property. Mr. Shard, attorney for the petitioners, stated that they were in negotiations with the City on this issue. Mr. Schwab asked Mr. Shand when their letter to the City was submitted and that there was no such letter in the file on this issue. Mr. Shard stated that application for the revokable permit has not been rrade but that they have discussed the issue with the Planning and Zoning staff. • Mr. Shand identified himself and addressed the Commission. He stated he represented the petitioners tonight asking them to override the Historic Landmark decision with regard to the fencing materials. He stated that they bad been before the Board of Adjustment regarding the height restrictions and stated that the fence was in code as to height except for a strip of fencing ! which runs from the front of the building to the sidewalk (handouts of the photographs of the fence were riven to the Planning Commission for review) and stated that the previous fencing consisted of barbed wire fencing attached to some 2 x d's and there had been a section of wrought iron fencing in the front } yard. He stated that the property has been owned by the Culley family since 1927 and is located approximately a half block from West High School. He stated that in this neighborhood and to the south of the Culley property there were other chain link fences. Also, there is an 18 foot high chain link fence surrounding the West High School's tennis courts and across the street are chain link fences that run the entire length of the block. He stated that this particular street there are at least two existing businesses that have Chain link fencing. He stated that other properties in the neichbcr:ccd also have chain link fencing. `•{r. Shand stated that the ^et t one_rs have had } significant problem over the last few years with vandalism and vac-rants, and PC Minutes January 8, 1987 Page 3 that since the property is close to West High School a wooden fence would rot work because of grafitti that would be spray painted on it. He stated that the same ccit any who had installed their chain link fence had also given a bid on a wrought iron fence for $4,447.00 as opposed to the $1,200.00 cost of the chain link fence. Mr. Jorgensen asked the petitioner why the contractor installed the fence without meeting the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schwab informed the Commission that the Landmark Ccirmittee did not require that the petitioner install a wrought iron fence. Mr. Shand stated that it was his understanding that a wood fence or a wrought iron fence was requested. Mr. Schwab stated that a fence that would be in keeping with the character of the building should be used. Mr. Shand stated that the building on the petitioner's property is a fourplex and is in a Residential "R-3" zone and that the property currently has only two tenants and has catered to elderly tenants and the present tenants have lived there for 30 years and the present rent is $150.00 per month. Mr. Shand submitted schedules of rent showing what the .petitioner receives for rent at this time and at a time when all four units were being rented, which shows an inability to rent these units for more than what they are now getting, and raising of the rents would force the present tenants to move because of their fixed-incase status. Mr. Shand stated he feels that the use of a chain link-type fence would rot change the character of the building and chain link fencing has been in the neighborhood and that the chain link fence which has been installed will not affect the purpose of the Landmark Committee as this p rticular property is on the extreme southwest corner of the Historical District in this area and is the last residence in this particular district (is in a very border line area) and as a direct result of all of this the petitioners feel that the chain link fence is certainly rot going to harm the astectic value or chance the architectural importance of this house. He stated that Mrs. Culley had called the Planning & Zoning offices before the Chain link fence had been installed (she cannot recall whom she talked to) and the staff member that she talked to said it was fine to install a chain link fence in this area and there would be no problem with this type of fencing in this area and he stated that there was never a stop work order placed en. the installation of this fence. Mrs. Liddle-Saronal asked Mr. Jorgensen what procedure an individual needs to follow if they are going to install a fence. Mr. Jorgensen stated that if a fence is under 4' in height, no permit is required a d it is the responsibility of the property owner and their contractor to make sure that the fence is being built on their property; and stated that chain link fencing goes against the policies in a historical district. Mr. Nicolatus stated that he attended the field tour of this property earlier before the meeting and noted that numerous residents within this area (within walking distance) have the same condition or type of fence and the fences are installed right cut to the sidewalk. .4r. Jorgensen stated that this is a relatively nea historic district and all previously installed fences in this area would have a nonconforming status. Mr. Schwab stated that he has six cases within three blocks by the same fence company within three months of PC Minutes January 9, 19,9:' Page 4 each other. Mr. Schwab stated that aL::e Fence, who had installed this chain link fence has also installed six other fences in this area after being told (i__--, the chain link fences were not legal and that they needed to go beforeJthe Historic Landmark Committee. Mr. Nicolatus stated that in this area the security, protection and the well- being of the people inhabiting the property is of concern. Mr. Jorgensen stated that a wccd fence is every bit as secure as a chain link fence. Mr. Shand stated that maintenance on a wood-type fence, bothin upkeep and sanding I or repainting because of grafitti would be substantial. Mr. Schwab stated that chain link fencing is basically an industrial-type of fence and is not aSteCtlCal1V compatible with the architecture of the building; th1 issue is i what the Historical Landmark Committee revie,ied, not the fact .that chain link does not have its place or that they do not like chain link. He stated that the Landmark Committee suggests a picket fence, a wood fence or a board pillar fence with the same t roe of brick material — there are design solutions to the problem that are not "as expensive" as the wrought iron fence. Mrs. Hermoine Jex submitted pictures Cf the property as originally const-,c"d aril as it now appears. 1 1. She stated that the wrought iron fence located between 324 and 330 North belonged to the Sin-Iron's me and was illegally removed by the petitioner's contractor when the Chain link fence was installed. 2. That the petitioners (Ccuch/Cullev) did not work out an arrangement with the Sid duns in regards tc the new fence. 3. An easement between neighbors needed tO be established before a fence Ca n i be erected. I 4. The present owner is in a rest home_A and d has provided that the property be wi l m e to the church and will probably be put LTD for sale in the next two or three years. The Historic District inthisarea wasformed toetherai c 5. stor ul _ 1Ct fO�:.._ lr7rOV._ .. _ 7 Cr- hocd. 1 1 Gene Simmons of 330 North 300 ,4est stated that he is the neighbor to the nor h of the petitioner are he submitted three letters from residents of the neighborhood who are against the fence and the aI Deararice it gives the ' neighborhood. He stated that earlier it was stated that ther were two businesses located on 300 West between 300 North and 400 North but noted _thet there is only one business (a rccel) in this area which has a chain link � =e stammer that as car es 300 ';esz is concerned, the resid =ntial district starts at 300 North and goes to KC _I Wirth (to Wasatch-ch �or� ) and __. this area there are only four residents=s on the north side of this five-blo.k a+-ea that have Chain li_k fences, and that two of t3S2 residents are .C_Ca_re__` ?C Minutes January 3, 1'?g7 Page 3 :,_i _ business the chain link fence probably is owned -.: the bu- i ne ,r.��:. Ste. the west side of 300 :•lest between 300 North and 300 North thPre are only t'•iC homes wit."1 fences at o all, of which=h one of the .f_"nces sec.:_att..ino property - � .��Je_t': ij chain link fence; so asfaraschain link fences on 300 =lest are concerned, chain link fencing is not that significant in the nei chbor ccd. . r stated t hasbeenresident of P 7 for20 i_ . S_:�rQrs 3 wt that hea _ i:.._,_.�. the neighborhood years and has not had any problems with either the students of Wens 'r_icr School nor the transients. About the only problem is with the garbage which is cene=ated from the Arctic Circle locatedin the are a. Mr. hard informed the C i i cr thatin r. the_ Shand s. __a_or-"°d t_h'_ _:JiC:r SS_ _Tla_ regards S to L.1e ',JrCuC;.t ironf e_':CS betwe_ien 324 and 330 North, the petitioner's grandmother was resconsible for • the installation of that fencinc. He also stated that there is ro agreement nor convenant on this property that prohibits the chain link fence. He also stated that the fence is 6 inthes in from their side orooer t,r line. :qr. Shan.-1 stated that thetitle that the petitioners are _ e C clear oan s of SriCCJS ��e the era 1;� crl- the prorerty at 322-324 North 300 >'7est and the prcne_rty is not to he wil l e' to any thu rch. Schwab stated that he would like to read the motion which was o e r the Historical Landmark C�^ i Sr:mi.�.ee iie mac: _ze r�ntion for Caseio. �642_ _ the.* fence be denied and deemed to be nonconforming with the historic i et itemized and t the ownersof e property are clriimirg t-'at they d st_ i__mi ... ar. that _ t':, nr.�are unaware of the restrictions of the historic districts and that the con- struction company erecting the fence Should he bt law aware of these ordinances. Therefore, such company should be recuested to appear '.:,.e fore the Historic Landmark Committee to present reasons why the fence should rerrai n and if the reasons are not satisfactory the fence Should be removed, et the fence Corr arv's expense, and reolaced with a fence that is approved by t:hP Historical 'Landmark Committee. Mr.. 3nar.d askedaaked Mr. •7Chwai if anv further action. had been taken ace 4 nst t e fence companv. Mr. c_._.Jab _ __=e that contact had been made with *he fe ce - - t _oirpen_i ut the salesman vh- negotiated the s ale :f this f �'Tc: .rs no longer in their e-cic_i; ..eycnf. this _3 further action had been *,ken act=_e= the fence ccmea 7. d middle-Carnal made a -U:i_n that the Historical Lands"':. Committee's_ J decision be upheld because Cf the nonconfor:'l__. issue, because the prccer*v is locate: i_a an historic district, and there is no evidence which would 3ust_-'7 :e ``r.Rio commission to override the Landmark Commit-ee's decision. Mrs. \asai seconded the m=_'on. __o_.'_.s _ ..._. _.. .� ..._ ..:..: _� .. case '/__ . _ nwne= fclo now .._: :C_.- fences and enjoy the iC=`i_ _!' 'ecur' -_ ._..d a n :..II -1 N. I,I .1-. 6J IV I-• ltl UI I.O it fr N Ord C�o I-( fr - I� CJ 'CI 'i7 ft- > W !4 r3 ft ft fr r. ft rt. J O 'U 'U • ' O I tL Y •, 7 U ri a) u J Cl 6\ In +. .1) .1 O 1-'• '-i- ::,' ..� r .i .S ; r'i bi () t)' (-) -1; I-' ,3' 1, (o ;p II () 1n fD I ul (� ,� , n iD m m (D to m FS C) rl n `a (- ., 'IC C- "i tO rt h•- I-' ft ri '17 t O UI N ',Pt I< tU 'd IU 1 n Ip 0 1' t-• O ri if) (I) C) (D (-1, d' = 11) O m (n •'I 0. )-' U iu li CO (D i6 N• 1'• ?� i:, r' ,.I ',1 , J IU ,-J ,-- ft ,-1 , 1. 1 t :,3 () �' II In iD G (D UI 11 O O (L 0 N 1� f) I C)' i,, ut f 11 :,' :,' s-• :1 )' , )' :1 , t-• 1r 1_0 r1 I( • c1 O .1 In p1 (D t-' t f G I--1 0 ii Cl U) hi li, F- O 0 ft m (D f- ``1 .i iJ , i' in (., Iu U' m N -1 (1) • :'S C. ft 1•' �. fr 1-, 1 (i lu hi '� ((' ,Q li, (� 1... N N lD (_. G H,':, (D 1 It t'r ( 1 r (r (I- (17) IJ, (D r- 0 (p i'• S P. :1 rt :r 1D In () 7 7 I ' J t (U :-1 • In fr �' t1 ri ai W• (l, (v (D O IL (D 'd < 3 i� ` 1 • O O iC) �. fr. �.. Cr O ,,, ;u (l) •7 (I' (t 0 U) C) �J (I) (� U) h U) (1 ty, U, tl (D N (1. (D (0 i' 1-'1. -• )i F.- •J. - I� ' O ) (t t-� ii. GG <. i-'• U) 3' ) 0 ii) m 'U u. • n� m In it N ,_ ,. I-' i i ii I i (t to iD II .1 •7 (L U 1'• ID ft Ui iD (D fr ID 11, in rr :-) G iy Ill :3' 0 J U) I'• i.. t' rr (n C) (�, rt it 'd I-' C 0 iC in :3''d (0 m • ti F ;r (J r • F' N r t )' IL 111 (D II f) 1 r (D r .1 C) r i' I {'• (D it 11 7 ft �rA (.. :. i r i1 (- i O 1 (U (n fJ .,1 I. ( G r , N 1 11 I1 1U (D CL (u I ID t U (1) 1 c r iL u i•1 -„ 1-'• G (n 11) r• (n I-• ti, :,, 1'• `I l) (-i, (S, )U ii, I�,. ip 2', _ (t 'i� 1 ZJ•II/ ''� I_, H •ti iD Ip �-' ill D 1 h'• H-' U O O U1 „I 011 it' C) ru 1-• 4", t: l/ 7 , p., rL 1++ t� f» (L P. tP t's1 I: it. S I'll US UI O 0, '1 (U 0 1 N ri' P. O t'- Q O I-" (D 1-1. rr I-' O It ID I-' 1-. I (U fi O '(1 ., 0 O U (1 (f) 'Y 5. Ch 1 (] '1 li .3' Ii I Ip 2- I-' (D iJ '1 h-• II; :;_ a, ,) (D rr {u ;J ti, •. N (-S :.1• 'O N ,U At l) ;�, ;A (U (0 (') I 1 ICJ. (U t u) 1� f) to ) t0 . • '•• to :)'10 '0 ii 1• ti P. UI ri 11 I'D i7( ` (n AI U) [, • 1 - 0 P. N ft I r' IJ (l F'• (6 (I I.- i( -. iD L.• 1, III .) H. N- U t-' fl; ri 'i N 'S 1'h N N ,J :� N (D S 1.,. 1 H. (I (G 0 U) ' I---' ) Ul r O (t 17 CI. !i, t N .1 O 1U f] �1 :,' .. in 1;J(Cl (,. F,. I h ft U) ID = f)' 1 I.,. ) t1' `S Ls) 1'3' (L W (D (D' 'S 21 'I -S 11 , f: ) u I) 'CI In N .3' - - (D N (Si (D Cl' R. n Di -i I--' iii t'I f), C) 'C) O I :(1 Cr i(, 'J Ii :S tSS 'C' O (D CD UI I� O C) 0 J t t 0 :5 t-• `l 0 • .3 II t ('t r••s� •Cf ., I-,. li I-' II) (7 ti (-). :1 01 >S N 2., 1 I-' N 'O :-ti (G I-' • i-i b ri In m I'. )' O iD 1; (.. ,I) 11. 'u ID 0''0 (u u. (U r(s ti il, '- O ht In (n G, U) t • ;� -t m <, hh F'•'CI I , + �.l Ui 1D r6 O L l, tP <: 1'• ), 1 O O �') W iG O (b t1• 'S 1-'• Ui :D i; I I, i I 11 U, 11 O Ili r i� t.) y,. p �.•. Ll (p 1(s C) -, to �. iD (,, C ] O i;I O ID () I 1 I =.a (I ill i.': :S C.) O •3' O 0 11, D ri O (0 It. 0) �u C) 7 1 ;1 , ft P. U' �:F .!{? ',1 t l (u I- (D 1'.I.y :1 (U ((i • - tU III -1 I'( it `1 ,)' (n I 1 (U r h F•• tU 1.. y,. I•• O 'O 'S J ID (U N F'• iU I-'• N (p "Ifr ( ft l:J ;v )i U U) Ii :l rl, fl' 1J • (;) U O Sl. ( rt .l 1 I'• O 1 O rn m (1$ ;J .. I-. i I ill W 1� U) :� 1'• U Sit •.) �S :_, (!; rrii I i0 (ill. O I,, ( CI, ;S I, O LLt 1 I Ilk (D O 7 Ih 1 (n v N m . I,) O t) i hh l N• (D n, (D 1.1 "I At I-' L UI n 1-I, (U (D C1. 111 ff <' '• I1 U) rh (((.)�1 'ri <. ' ;n '', (G ill t-• L1 fr S %� li :l '1 ct y' I i = :3 (D tt q. ,- R I:1 (1 i� :� (6 O N f_i (.I (� I S ,(1 (D rrt O (D N• U1 1 (u • ti In t0 I1 ft t:' t-• ,i (p i h (D (D H I- ID i C) G F' N • ('I (t C) ID rD H• •.) Ie' O (u I••• '('i I ) 1.,, I ts -r (I 1L U) •�S 0 O U) :3' 11, !:i 1 O' II 7 :D t11 < '(3 '-I J C) In .3' t'• f✓ U/ '""d I • 'L; (D II '< r 0 I-' 0 ,n Gw r• C (U G u 'i (', ,U t-+ (-r I(-)' '1 Cl N S rd ft ll1 (ll (U (D rp r'S i'] '< r It r1 I. CS )' (: (t Ii) - Ii U Ii 1 U H w 0 C) (II rt :I'' i) - 1 (n rh 01 ,U IO i1 °I < N Ot t IA) O ii O :), ct 1-3 I-' (n O (n rh p (n 0 .I' • r0 f!' rt .3 O IJ ',T ,r i-, :)i 'ri •• ;.,' t N 1 ' i N IG a ,J rT rt (n In (- 1 rt m :3 ;r1 i-• Cu O (_) l " .1- 0 - I-' r)• f1 m fI' iu Ft 0' it I-•• (D Ul r1- f) a-, )' t.i I.11 ,) 'll C. O pi , - I-• : 0) L: O. i• ,1'I,• .3' 1 j- ppI 0) LU o = C! (n -) (D .-n (1, '0 U I .3 1'i II 1 U, I--" V. rr N I'• 1), f(, N O i11 (D r'• '1 (-I II 'C) :)' (7 ID (D co .� f_l 'i I i rt, I'• in IU (-i, (n l p C) F' <, ' 1 N ID (--' Cl, (0 It • <. <. i I h ,-1 ID -r '•: ;I S), O rt rt tU (U 1 Hi I`. (U r I-'• rO 1L rn r• N• (u 'i) a-h D O U, 1:" Cr .� 1 <; (II O rt) ) ' (n fr p, to ri Imo• Imo. rn it U' ,-, (i IU .1 tJ it ,, I--' O • 1U (n O G 0 (1. 1v t-1 I-- N 3' (D ct (D 1 (n f, _)' ,.3 O) 1 O to F`• w (• (u Cl' 0 (n (U Ill it. C) ,u 1'• tU (J to it .3 N (n (I) '(5 Cl ID • 0 r' f1' I ' I-I 1 rt (r I'• L - f) rt 0 ri' 0 rt (D N iU ft fl fir (D Io to rt cu i-• I.: (1 Q C'' Ul (G H ,1) ti (-'•,n Hi hh (l1 U I-t a tL a tT O t1 ! (u I; 'J 11 0, (I� 1 ' (r N• tt I 1 y 1-1, (t 1 .) CD rt N, if () Pi i,' (i' t--' IL t'' Il N 11) co <• 11) ft r• .I-. (, LT I-' (p 0) '.. O ID 1-1 Imo• fr I) Iu to (J 0- fH (u i:) '() fr t.. LL = iD • ;3' 3' (i• O rt. N • 0, 3' J (D f3. ft ti O 3 ;. :(, ..i . ,3 ID •• ''(1 art ' ,S. 7 l'• (U 3' O 3' O O i''' < C1 C) iJ (1, 1, - c) ri () m W 'z3 I' �•. �, tit :1 :r - to (r) O rt ti W �) t-I I r C i C. 1: 1 1 O 0 (U I{ 'C1 to m r] ,}' 1 f+ iA it k,. t3 0 (0 I' 1 f) (U 0, F'• ':. Li ()' O U• �) iD ti (�' :1 n1 3 C) - 1 r• l 'C) (. 'd U) U N '� '1' _S'In 1 ;1 1 („ 'I (D 1 '(I I'• . I') lid 'Y' :S O ID N• {{-�1 (D G tL) (n U) tt (r -t c( ti U) 2. I-'- It, G I, t, tJ Cr • i 1, (G I'1-,I it C) (0 0) (1) ft- O = ( p' I-,• I-( U) rh r CU. Ui 0, ,i i.-• ,1 U, rfi 1 ,•• �. r I-j J ID {). ., C. t ('i (1 ID •3' :l S Imo• 'Cl 0 ff I F'• 111 p fi r i t. et (: U .1 I• I-' (h U, (D '(3 r• :h r :l ID, tv 3',(� x l r (U ,)' +: IA) O to U' I-' (I- <, i") 11 0 1-, I-' rt (1 rl (n (1 I-'• ft,,( ) Q H. r•• ;i' I-•- t-' to 1•i (U ' ,i I r ,1 1.1. O, a'• I-'• it) ( A, (u O r• CJ Qi U, , n N '•].] rr 0 0 (n D) C) 0) (I, rI - Ii) (1 i,, - II, (I (u is, ft. 'i H. ) Ii ti r '() 'C3 (D N• :S"C It, (t :.3' 1.,. id .n :t .1, ( I-. 1-•• t-• .: IU i.i n„jl 1G I-'• O (t N t-1 C. (D rr3 (v )' 'D cr fr lu ,, 1I t)' II 1'i 1-' Ii ID 0) m O 0i I'• C) 0) (D (0 F'• a' 0 '1 1-J I-' (t IN 3' '1 r� • to ID (1' '�: (: r.r, (n :5: O 1 (D O :1 O •9 1) u) in ill:. U. O. ,' tJ, (6 O If3 ' ( • (-t (I) • In , r r O, .1 (U iJ. :1 (U C: (D ''� I F' H. tiI ID al '' I.) .'1 U • ii. iU tz. .1 I'{ 11 rt 1 9 (-1. I'n fr (r U) ....1`t I; ...1 (r, in rt Da it - rt C) •.)' i t .S a ,1.'t' (r) 0 •)' U) U HI Ul t3' (It (D (D (I I ,•-• , --) , ----..., - . ....._.. '-.4L1_ .<, 'T. `-'s • , . • - ) ::•., .. 0.) '•- c.,) 0) ••-- .r: ..) ;) , . . „ r• - ...: ,", .,1; :1) ^ 07! c s.:! / • . ,.,.: :Z 1 ; ;; r: c_ • 4/1 C' ".) ,- t t ...:.: c.) ,L, ;7 A 4) ....: el , .1.2 • r 7 r .': _C: v- 3'..) ,--- .1_3 -r:". .4-, •r-r- ..,:i C.) C7 -274 v-- 37:: 1....) •-.7 :1 •-.1 '..'.13 '.:41 •,-• ,t1 ,- 3.3 f. ..:.: •,-- '4,-. (_ .1, I"- •r- 0 r- 42.; , -2, r.; _'.- (11 (-) 2-, •:,' '.••• r: r:-_ 1„. 4.'") 2-- I.< '2) C.! (7 •r. "...., • .17 W r- i-4 1_1 U) -L., ,-- ..,; C..) 0., (..1 '._,` .1 <; (-.) '74.) 3-) 1-.) •- r3.1 tU 4 ) •r- (-) ni . --.....,,(_ ,-...,,.., fl) ,-.•-, ,7) c-• t_ n".4 (37 (11 2: I-) 411 C-: C. C. C 3C; •c, ;7' ;7 _C ...-7.1 .4.: '.1.7 '7.; (I 3:1 v) • 1.77 31- '4; 7) ,--• 11.-7 •c 117- .C: ,3.1 t_ CI) •,- ''..: -,) --,--, '.-- -1--' '!- • 71:) ,.`J •,-- ,- -4-4 .2.. 12 4, :71_ 4 7 • •-L : C__": I-, (1/ 4J (;) 4-•._., .- 4.` (1, -17 .rl p 3 '1) 1 J A --- ',7) .712; c 1 •-- 4 7 C7: '7- :73 r 741 17; (r) 17.2_1-) (1) CO 41) _c 7 2.4 41- 0- 2.--. •.- ....1 (.. C..-_- -C.4 •r- :', ;:-) -Z.- 244 !-, ...- C-1 ::: 61 c::: 4,,I i(.:. C.. L.) :-: ns :F:. I-, .- -I,•'. C.4:. •;, fr) .471 •::3 4,7 I • .377 4:) ...) •-- C7 "11 ;..; :•-• "'.• •••3,1 '' •" . , C' (7. CC _r- 0_ .,-- c7.: :.-_. c_ ,.:) ^; :., i-:. . •,•- 7. ,--- ..-: • .. -,1 ....) ••, r: ,.; c'. ..) 7) i- ',.. '::.: t,1 ,.-'. L-: 7IC, 1 U ! I C:-.. O. 41.1 •,- rt.) - ::: ::)._ :7: 4.4 ,,1 I- (' r.-7. •,- :•; ^, -.-*. .,-. .1-- ,-:,-1 0) C_) (;) .--- :=1 •,-- • 1-) 1.:: CO (I) ,_) ,,.) 1-) •-, 0 ,i) '."i t- 071 4._) -I--1 3: tl) 1: fr7. C' t- '1) C.7 (7) 'I- 0 0 ,-) ••- C: ,--- .•. C.1 4-4 4.1 (0 :-..., _17. •r- .:1 0.) (23 C-. •r- (... . .-3.-. ;3 _CA .4- CI • Cl) 4 3 21 3- 7_3, '7.1 •r- :: 4-`_ :,..1 .:.1 ...:1) 1) 4-, (,) rs) 17) .41 4--) r-- -1-) 1) (3) 27. L, .._ cc:, •zt• II; 4-) :) :7: 7-, 71 - )".. _1.7.: C) :7: • 3r. CD 4.0 ...:71. ••- r0 1- 4.0 4-, 4-, 0.1 7-_.1 :-.. •'..') > ,7'.) C'.) (4-- .) C' (3; (L1 •3-) 4, •,-- • l'....,.: ro -- (3.) 4-, •7.:.-- 4--) :77 () C.,3 C C.. C. .,- (J) 443 .4.7 C.- C :::. ••- 4.) .4:: C.) 4:11 0) )., ',-- C 4 ,71 , C.,) -,-- i '.-r) C' )-' c-.1 ''..:'..: 4-, 7,••4 1,4 (_) C41 C.C1 0) 4- !: 1-, 4-, .1) 'c- '1- _4.) I) • -777 -•,-- ,7 1 t_ .C: rt 3 37 41- r 3 1,1 c7_1- 4_, C: C- 14-- -4...-1 41 (I) 4_1_. ,r4 -- in :L: C.: 7 17-.; C.,.. ::---, ;) 3,-, C: 37) )4 E.: ("72 7: s,EZ, •,- ri , : ..C) (11 CD 1-) • c1.1 •,-- ,-- ft) :__ 3) 4 J (74 -LI I-, ,n ,i) 73 ,•c-1 1J r,; C__ 1) (73 • '----' V) -0 (1_, f.- :2- 4-, 0. 4-, • 0 '..-= (/) 2) CU •.--) •• 0 - 1) I':., ,-) C- (4) C: 0.1 7-) (7.) ,..) .3-) 4) .:•-: 371 0 0_ fD C 3.4 2). C. C.• •.- 7C :- 4-.4 c.7 J.4,._:-.) .7). _,))) l".. f.. •:, ,,.", Z.:, :---, 1,,, , ,-, (.. •,-- i-- CI, .4,7 (i) 1.-:: ,,,1 t.T.-: .. IA C) -.-. .:•"" •,-- ,.) 4.) •,- 7: ,-• 4-, •)",..'. :1 ..:: CI, •• _:: C. :.) :1) :"..., r 1 .4J 1..) c. •,- L C) (-..', C.), CU • --- 11 •,.- C. ,,.. -.7; F7: 01 ',:? _L-: CC i_-_.) '',.:1 ('' TIC .4 3 ..-.7 .C.) ,.. 0 4771 Cc: 741 •,-- CAC 73) I-) .C:1 3-- 4i- C-7 •--- 31- :"7 v- .4.) I,_. (1) •f- (I) (1) 'A '-- '74 4 _•.' •--- ,il •r-. ,1) r,1 (7 (0 2:7_ _C: C:: 'I- •I- ril k'... ....) '.) .".-..- •1- .-- •-• 1; 4,4 0 7., .1) .1) -,::, _c: cl_ .-. •,- ..;.-7 _.1 II) -1-, 02 71:1 73.7 1.1 1.:7 4 7,7J C... 4:: • : '1-1 -!,-.) -I ' 0 •.- "1-7., -C. 7. 2 4-4.: C 1 •:: ...-•..,---- I-, f....., C. 41- r_l 4-, 0_ CC r_-) I-, (4) 0) CT: 4 4 4-, (.1) (1) L.,_ t--- 4/) _(:. _CTI- -- 7_4 -4 .,:r7 ,,:', 1' r 3 0 1-- :'3. 4-, 4.7.. CsJ,-- •72) C IL": C') 7,..) 4 li v) (7.) ,-- i__ L_ .4:7 •_77 7::.! • •,- 1:1 4.i t_. fll I . •r- 4..3 .1- 0 .:•) '7.7-:1 •_:' : 1 '1) 0 ,-- -f- L. C7 (1) ), ,.) .,.--, ''._-: (I, r.,) ••- .1', ,...7) .',.; • :..) c. i •• . , 4, 0 ,,, _,..._: :,..: ,i) CL L. -!-) Cl (:.' t_ C,) I- CL, Li 'J i 4-, 4.J 4.1.1 _C.: :1.1 :_31 -,..--) C._ 4f, .1) 1-7 •,- •7:7 •,' 2_73 u1 47) 347 C. 4._1 C!) _C7_ 4 J -I-) '1r c, ; , ,r--, .4.- .,_., ,,,- C. _r_: 4 4 •-- f2L-.21 ".._: C 24, CI 22,1 r: ,i.• •r- ....: () t- .I- .,. 0 ..1; j: 10 C._ il.) t-1 CO .7- 4-4 Cl) (1/ ,: 0 4 J •,- •r- 0 •,-• C 11 -...-, 31' •r- 7_'_1 _.- ,744 4 4 (,) 14 0 CU l•-• 4-, 147 I_ CC ';- ,.-77 (C) J.4. . :Z.: 4) 4_, .34I ... tr.', -l...7 '3:7 ni 477 rtJ >, ,C1 .f.; i J 1.1 (_) - ,-.- -•.-1 rJ .;) (7,"I- •.- C.7 -4--) _37: 77.7•J ( 14 _2• •••4 (-....) 4) :1; ••-- C. :.3 :-: _ I 7,3 0. 'c.) 1/) 37: C) 4L1 ,'J IP I:, :1 C.-2 4-, I', TO " 2L4-,....!' C.) LL. -..f .., :0 i..-;. .r: 4') ,-) ,..) 1-: ,•-r -2-2 2=, '41' 4 i 0.4 4 i (1) i':.-- ...(I: (V ,c) _C7. r--- 1.- ..1: 4-4 c1 -,-- ,11 4-) _3". rl., c': 1-, •,-• ::•,,I :7O +••• ',...". '-.- c.., ,-' -:•.".7 :1: 44- - ko r_: !,1 C:.: 4:-: r.5 'C 4-, .72‘..: •,- -4-) r-- f...) 0 r-- c_-.: •.!...' C.I 1_.) .!3 .'.:- -I 3 - - ,...." .' ::2 :T ,), •,- ,:.) • C.) _J._ C. 7-, ...- (.1 ,4) i 0 4) :4; ':1 4::: 4374 47 4 ) •• 1: •4 4 4 7 :7-'0(1' r-- I.- CO -0 C.') l'-.; CI (..-;` II:. .r t LI ,r',I ::•., ..1- .'.., r0 .17 (; 4 ) •c - ••') 77_) 3- ...1 ') _31: .."•, ,3) v-- 41; 1 , (.4).) (1, 4 4-4 1) 4- 4.1 C) .(7: (1.1 C C1) :-•••• v-- tc) c.) 3._ 7'.4 ;..7 ::: 4 , •r- .(3 •..) •r- r...; r.-3 .r: r 1 ..-7) .1) <i 4-, JD ,1 -1.11 2._) C.) _1:: if) Ili 4-1J Cy) 4c1 L: V, _O ri 4-77 • f. ••-• ,...,` il) f- C.7. :4-- c) 1, 4_,4./1 :1) _C7 c..) (11 (,) 4 3 (......) ....:. 4., C.., r21 r-.1 C (,) ,...,i 0 ..) 0 7; -.•;. O.) k-.. s.--,'I- :: 0 r-- 0 r.., r-- I--, Ti r---- Cli ,..7-, _r-. .!: • ,-- 74' c( L3. 7.1 L1 > C) 41- 4,-, (_ .., :•• 3.3 ...-...) ....... ..- CO )1 47 -,- ,1) 4.- CI' 07 L. cc) C.: C4- cl f: t.3 L_ r2) 4:7) ;) r-- .1) _C: 0 .1371 ••-- 773.2 . 7: ,-- 7..) •-• 777. 277: 0 4 J •3) .C: :1 :11 •r-_.(721 C.) 0 •.-- •13 r,i •,.- f3. 0 -.--- 4.,) 4.-. 0 C_ A.) 4._ C./1 ..c: IC C7. :') 17 7. 7•"3 2-, '4-.2' ,,; ••4: .,.2 •-- •,-- :7 7 .4 3 -- ,-..1 3 3 ..."/ >< '..::' 4-1 ...:: _1:. • 44 4, C. ,I-- I") •r- f 24 2.- _.. ,_/-. 2•4 '''. tr) co 3) •- .31 0 7---7 •,;) 4 7: C) .1-) •• 4.1 (11 ..-• _LI: C• !.7. ;,..) :',..., (1) ,-•• ,.._ c-..,.. 4.) -V) .71 7.7773 0 •,- 4,1 L.:_ 4.- 17. `---- C) 1".• 41,4 L- V) CO (7) (11 :1-:. u-i co _r-. C. c I co !...) :11 ; ; _(_: •-7,..• (1 411 0 77;c- 7:• 7.4., .7- 71 4.1 7.. •r-. 4' 7.2 C) L:. 7-; 4 t. Cc;7 IC3. ) (7: 3/1 ..- Cr: C'- ,C "r.-; r: c r..7 r: .... •.-- .-.- 4-) '4- _L: c:. C) " -0 7 ::-. ,;-- ••- i ..-r r..)._ :: ,.7.: 1.'.--( 0 Cr) 7.'' C' 411 .(4) f.:2_.1) 71) .7... '7.3 ....) •71 (C/ 3...) ••- _C: f: 0 .3--- •,- . ,7, 'I- ,'J (I) •11 r) 0 _Cl 4-) "CD Cr) 4) 4 , C: -_1 ,_ li -,,,) -.,-, ,...,, C ...: .7 c_ 4-4_ .:74 r.1 0.) 1: _, l-2 - '4-- ••- 4... '.-': •r-- (11 .1, ,;11 C_.) 1-) T. r.--, :: -,-- w ,(-- t: •,-• -.1 C: ..-) _7-. ,1 0,) C. ., •,-- -; • :;.) ;"--.I i: C! _;'..4 I-) 4 4 .2.; CI •I 1 CO -I-, 1.4 ;- 14.-. (4-_; ril (,) ).4 r--- 4.) 1: Li, C.: f.4 01 f.") ..:4: •.-- :::: r" .1) .:•_.: 0 - _f 74 ',- '7: C. '7; 1) 1- ..f 2 2:: (CI •ri 44.1 4-) CD v- 347 3 r.,1 :7 (".3 f7". (,_, ,-- t- 0, 0_,, 'I.- _J.:: -IL: 4 4 1.) -C4, '. ,'.", 4-' C7 -1--, CD > VC ..C' (.) .4-7.• 77..) 3.7; L- :-.) (4) 73) L) .72: .2:: 41) :1.1 V4 0 42- 4-, • .-- 4.: (C) -C1 •--• ..?:. '..) 7,..3 4-, '.) ',.., C''')I:,- C-- (4) 4-, EL' 4-, CJ CO 1- (U C" _LI: c... .1 3 1 ' () 7- ... ,) (C, '••• •,-- • ‘.=•---- 7: ..-r....- (1: .;-: ,) :) I IC: 0.7 •,- C4_7 I -2-, i.:1-•,- J.: .„7 l'j :7,-, '":17 4 , 4., C. .4-, (....., _.:'_: 1,' .-- 7 3-77. I.7 J 1.47)i-, CC'C') L 3'31 C) 1.1-) 7.4_1 C. 7 7 '; .4.) c'3 7,-, ! - 1/7 ,c; ,..- . , ' •1; .4.. _:. .17- C: 37; ,7 3 c) r• 47.•7 f_ .(1_ 40 43 (I) (rl :L3) CL 4-) C ...: 3,1 •,-- 431 3:7 c 4) 37- •,- 7.2( t•! •..3 0 r, c.: •••• C. -,-.) .:)._ c_:, r; _c_z 4_4 :: ;_, C') :1) •:-...) 0 ti, ,- Cr-) r.7.7 S. If) (-..) ..,.) (-3 W., 1-3 ',-.) ..-- ...r1 ...:=3.. __J C__ 7.: 2,4 e( -f: ,t, .)_) -(--, 1::_ [1i: ,:-- 4--) (0 r- e-1. .-. C: .1--) •.- .r. .. :CC . •)-) :-..) (.. -...) ') •- ' ''- •••v- (1; ''',; •.- . '- :F:.• 771 :: =.• ,-- • 13.) . 1, r7.5 61 :: _'.' 3'., I-, ;.) 1: C: 0 -'4 •: () ''.% r---- C: t.) (7! 1._ • 0 4,1 -! "..: 4_.: k .-- .. - ;.3 .... t.". .1.! f') 14 :: ; - C) ...": I_. l) i: r:, .7 c.) ,._ 4-1 C.) C' •.• 4'713 '1,3 C. ..-1,-,7 C.)- -- 1_, -,) cr..; (_ 431 122, (...1 _CI: C. r, /'..; r-1 ... ,.- 1"..., !I' Cr. C.: 4 4 t-: r- C.) I.....) rt.: '.7).: "4-; ; f c "._ r',1 , , I_ •r- C,-) . -..I CI :‘. ._ 4 ) C.: •..- (,, C_ (14 Cl C) •,- (7. •,- T7, •,- (), - ,t, C'-', (..', .., ..- , , .-T, 1, '• . r; = :-) '..._ 1,-, :_. :. I_ 4 k; ...... i •. :,-,..) 4 f (1 - l'. I ... .f. ; r*-, 34 -0 3.2 •• ) .:' •":. 37: :-7 ;.3, f-1 • 3) ,-'.. •.-. •.. (-.. T.) _r..: '... L.. c;:". 4.;, ,:.• •r-- Cl Cr; (L) 414 0 r'Ll.-.". I(.. C.f. '''-, • ) L.: _1...2 , , ..- f_ -).i.) I.': 2-1- .-- 4: '' •1, I. 2 ::: --" :2-. . . _ , I_ f.,.. r•-_, 7_, 4_7 ,:j 4_1 ,7. )..; C.:j:-_, f..'1 2:2 .--___- r‘i -1-.. > c_ ,,-.± c_)j....i (i:= cc. ,::: i- -:..), ...... v) ..-_:_ 01-, 2-, I47, ;:: 1•::. :.-'. __I 3 ,•••,-... , , I , `. ------- . • '.Page t — _ cOn�ir '..:�:; !ioar:i that the fence hod been installed On Sapte bc. ',A, 6 or th1S ter: :1. )�` t -.IC �.: :? Co:.i;,'niy G. tho r i�i!est of i r. Couc c'.:'i`r i'•_; . Cul 12y. Mr. i:r":'h:, s= i:. t; :r nau been a ui'rible.., 'r:i t^ West i•!' gh School st;rd='1ts 7.icross the property. Tr' teih:rhts of this fourplex olc'e; r'.._ i:nut security. I 1 S I2nCe 1S an e ensi of an , 2::1 _ .1. chain l h(::, fence . The next door neighbor has a dog which concerns C. .:ch C:ih l-y. Mr. a _. Gene S i:orh s, adjacent ne i c.hb`_rs at 320 North 300 West were pr'_eeht . They reported they had bear in the neighborhood since 19'�c and :^ no security problem with t h West High They _ stated ;1.. �;;... 1�:ii t,t r I�;d(I students. also S� �2:, their _ could not 1!t:'1p over a four foot fence . Mrs. Simmons said that -_ their hJ:'e ard the Six loot fence there were only 27 inches which :":c . .l j r "reach" 'cOChn s ro_ : The Board noted that a six font h i .1 ~ 1 .:rnce would he allowed 1 n the side yard Clacx of the building settac:c and in the rear yard if the fence were on the owner's property. Mr. Randall Dixon , who serves on the Landmark Committee , said fencing is a real problem in the City, and he encouraged the Board to enforce City regulaticns . Ms . CU l i cY said Acme Fence knew nothing of the Historic Landmark Committee nor did she. She said she had called the Zoning Office to get correct fence height . Later themeeti various aspects ofthewerereviewed. The in �c the asp is case Board felt the fence could comply with the ordinance with no real hardship. Also , the major fence companies have been put on notice regarding the he i cht of fences in zones which require front yards and the heights r'e:arding fences in the other yard areas in residential districts . Ms. Pleshe moved that a variance to legalize a chain link fence which e• teethe er� ed' \! t therequired f n .... _u_ permitted��._ i��_ �.�h� i n the front yard be denied due to • the fect that the Board could find no unusual Condition attached to this 1.ro, _r• which, the pi , ofthe .� ; 'r would depriven_ ` ;- _ �:'. ;;'ll in ��,.. o; nhi'�l ��.L.r;_, the o;•;�I�r .iil a sebetanti _l property right or use of his property which would justify the grantina of a variance. The Board also ordered that the fence m!JSt be removed in 60 days of the date of the Findings and Order and that the Fi ndi csOrders be by i a _� �. h ��.. �n , and � sera+, rLy, ��;.re�., mail . Mr. Marti nee seconded the ration , with all votin^y Case No. 369-B - reopened - 272-276 West 700 North Street in apJlica:ion of iiona I d—R. i,1 I 1 ul:is i Or a permit to remodel a noncon f ormi naly located duplex without the required side and rear yards into a fourplex, the parking lot at 716 Worth 300 West Street for which would not be located on the same lot as the main building and the wall for which would exceed the permitted height limit it in a Commercial "C-1" District. Mr.. Don Williams was present as was Randall Dixon. Mr. Hafey repeated to the Board that the park i na for the fourplex was on a separate lot from the proposed fourplex. Mr. Williams is as i no that the original variance be reinstated co that he can finish this parking lot and keep the fourplex. BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION and THE HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER, CASE NO. 642 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: This is an appeal by Bernice Culley and Byron Couch from the refusal of the Building Inspector of Salt Lake City, Utah, to issue a permit to erect a chainlink fence at 322 & 324 North 300 West within an Historical District . On October 15, 1986, the case was heard before the Historical Landmark Committee. Mr. Schwab showed a picture of this property and fence to the Committee , explaining that the west portion of the fence appears to be on public property as the property line is estimated to be just about where the "old" chainlink fence to the south is located. He submitted to the Committee a _ letter from the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council complaining about chainlink fences in Historical Districts. Mr. Schwab said the fence was erected approximately September 6, 1986, and that a Stop Work Order had been issued against it by a City Building Inspector. Ms. Culley and Mr. Byron Couch were present. Ms. Culley explained that the property was owned by her elderly aunt and uncle who are both in rest homes, and that she and her brother were not aware of the Historical Landmark Committee or of any restrictions on the homes in this area. She said the old fence was practically down and a new fence was erected to prevent the neighbors ' dogs, kids , people trespassing and throwing trash in the yard. The property to the south is owned by the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs . Simmons . Mr. Kimball explained that there is a Historic District on the Avenues , and that in July 1984 the City ratified and accepted as an Historic District under jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Committee all of Capitol Hill area including the area down to 300 West. He said this is a matter of public notice and it was published in the newspaper approximately 15 times and there were mailings by the Community Action Program to every legal resident in the neighborhood . He said that every fence contractor installing fences has the responsibility and is required to be aware of the Historic District and the restrictions therein . It is apparent that the fence constractor in this case did not apply for a proper permit and did not give proper notification to the property owners in this case or to the City. Ms. Culley and Mr. Couch stated that the contractor, when asked by them, said he was not aware of any Historic District restrictions . Mr. Kimball explained that this fence may be on City property, and further, the contractor has illegally erected a fence in violation of Historic Landmark regulations. Mr. Simmons said that he and his wife had attempted to notify the parties that the ornamental iron fence which was on the property should remain f _ Case No. 642 Page 2 because the property is located in a Historic District, and also that his attorney talked with Ms. Culley and the fence contractor about the fence being in violation of the Historic District regulations. Mr. Strarsky explained that when any construction is planned in a Historic District the contractor is licensed, and when the license is received, the contractor states his/her understanding of the law and the construction must be reviewed, before construction, with the City and by this Committee . if the property is in a Historic District. He explained that in this case the Committee would have discussed alternatives because the Committee - discourages the use of chainlink fences whether they are on the City property or the property owner's property. He said under the law for this chainlink fence to remain, the property owners will probably have to apply for a variance and that part of the process is that the matter will be heard by the Historic Landmark Committee. It was pointed out that on the north side of this house the fence appears to be higher than the rest of the fence and that it may be higher in the front than City Ordinance permits. Ms. Culley said the fence company is Acme Fence and the contractor's name is Fred Kuhn. It was also pointed out that there are other chainlink fences in the area and Mr. Schwab said that the Committee will attempt to resolve all of those issues . Mr. Simmons told the Committee that because of this fence being constructed, his family is literally "locked in" , having no access to their back yard, and he believes the former fence was on his property. There is a property boundary dispute between the parties and Mr. Stransky recommended that the parties have the property surveyed and also consult attorneys for legal advice. Mr. Kimball made a motion that in Case No. 642 the fence be denied and deemed to be nonconforming with the Historic District guidelines ; that the owners of the property are claiming they were unaware of the restrictions of the Historic District but that the construction company erecting the fence should be , by law, aware of these ordinances . Therefore , such company should be requested to appear before the Historical Landmark Committee to present reasons why the fence should remain ; if the reasons are not satisfactory, the fence should be removed at the company's expense and replaced with a fence that should be approved by the Historic Landmark Committee; Mr. Allen seconded the motion. There was a discussion about the types of fencing which meet the standards of the Historic District ; i .e. , wood picket fencing painted or stained, or wrought iron fencing. Mr. Kimball added that part of the motion is that if the Committee can "sting" two or three of the major fence companies , it may make all of the companies more aware of these standards and eliminate some of the fence problems . Mr. Schwab noted that the chainlink fences which were erected within the past several months will be pursued in the same manner as in this case but Case No. 642 Page 3 fences which were erected prior to the date of the designation of the Historic Districts can remain ; however, at such time as they are to be replaced, there must be a review before this Committee and the fences must comply with the ordinance. Mrs . Sperry said she could understand where there could be problems in this particular case, especially with West High School across the street, as students use "flow pens" to write on anything they can , and there would probably be writing on a wood fence at this location. The Committee agreed that a precedent should be set and not deviated from concerning fencing. Mr. Schwab told the Committee he had encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Simmons to retain legal counsel who is knowledgeable about land use and rights-of-way to pursue this matter legally as it is not under this Committee 's jurisdiction . He said that the fence is in the public right-of-way which will require a revocable permit in order for the parties to leave the fence where it is located , and it will be necessary for the owners to show proof of liability insurance in order that the City will not be held liable for any accidents involving the fence . Also the City has the right to charge the property owners for the fence to be on the City owned property. Mr. Stransky called for a vote on the motion ; all voted "Aye". On October 23, 1986, the case was heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was moved that the Planning Commission accept the recommendation of the Landmark Committee and deny the request . The motion was seconded, with all members voting "Aye" . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the request for a permit to erect a chainlink fence at 322 & 324 North 300 West be denied. Dated at Salt Lake City , Utah , this 15th day of December, 1986. ,� .w- // Secretary Minutes of the Planning Commission and the Historical Landmark Committee are on file in Room 200 CFS Building , 324 South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah, and are available for inspection. BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH FINDINGS AND ORDER, CASE NO. 386-B (REPORT OF THE CcT•IIISS1:)h: This is an appeal by i3ernice Colley and Byron Couch for a variance to legalize a chain link fence Iif i Cis exceeds the permitted height in tti required front yard at 322 North 300 ;lest Street in a Residential "R-3A" District. Byror L. Couch and i erni c:? C. Cs: i ! '; were present. 3ruc:: W. Shand, tnei r - attorney, was also present . Several other nei gnbors were in attendance. Their names are on the roll attached to thus:-' :'1i nutes. Mr. iiaf ey reported tnar tne City irdind'lce r=_'t;uir.s that fences oe on private property. Accor`lint] to tne SUrVIT tf13t '.4.1S SuJcilitted the ;distanc=e. oet`•ieen the siuzwalk and t;l rroqt property line is ti.7 feet so tne fence is on public property. ?h;e rence ii±i jht in the front is to 4 feet. The fence adjacent to the sidewak is 4 feet in height, but the lance that goes tack the rest or the 'clay to the setback of the hone is 5 feet. Trier:rort?, the applicant is askin ) for a vari.irc to lendIiZt:' t!lis fence 'leiync. Mr, :ine }ri •;dS Jr .:1:' .);)i s ] J:1 ;') it 1'.? Boer'! or AO:j :St,: 'i�f1t would deal with t _ -Ateridl or lvilt;-i ,'i-? r [Tlc_' was ' tc1e. .'.it 'ir. :lafey expiai , �h 3 - - ai'v i..i. Board would be J al •1 ,.11, wi to r •, ;ence h;?i jht art^ tndt the i:i.Jric Lan:l iar( ."i.71i cte_ ! ;uri s di ct i on over tne fence ..lateri a l . i:r. Shand BA font l n;.!d %:'1 l i'l'j t';i? _;adru that ...1 : fence had been installed 3n Se te:'iber o. J :)f tnis year ;; C'.- l >'c'c'_ C :::u2ry at the r';;uest of Mr. Couch and '!s. r Cul le . •ir. T11an'i sail t:i re n a oeen a problem wi trl West Ii gn School students 'ria ki^j across the i)rup rty. The t 3nants of this fourp iex are older and concern-..:, a:'ane ac:Jri' . Ills fence is do extension i)1' an existing cnai t link rence. The aaxt door neighbor nds a doy whi cn concerns Mr. Couch anti sir. and Mrs. Gene Si::'f ons , adjacent neighbors at 330 North 300 West , were present. They reported they had been in the neighborhood since 1966 and had 'i'': no security �r: le•" .•Jitil this 'West Hiyn students. Tney also stated tneir do5 codi i not julo over 3 four root fend'. Ars. Simons said that between triel r nine •ano tne six foot fence there were only 27 inches wrli ch seriously I i:ait"l their "reach" space. The 'oard noted that a six root high fence would be allowed in the side_ yard DaCK of tne building setback ana in the rear yard it the fence were on tne owner's property. Mr. Randall Dixon, who serves on the Landmark Comnittee, said fencing is a real proole'.l in the City, and he encouraged tne Board to enforce City regulations. Ms. f„`.i i l ey S31 d .-\c;.,.. Fence :n w nothing of the Historic Land,iiarK CJ;ictil tte nor did she. •j1: itl l : S:1_. d'.i 4 _I I .? the Zoning f fi Ce to get correct fence neignt. BA Case 386-8 Page 2 Later in the meeting the various aspects of. the case were reviewed. The Board felt the fence could comply with the ordinance with no real hardship. Also, the major fence companies have been 'put on notice regarding the height of fences in zones which require front yards and the heights regarding fences in the other yard areas in residential districts. • From the evidence before it and after further consideration, it is the opinion of the Board that the granting of the requested variance would be . inimical to the best interest of the district and contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, since the Board could find no unusual condition attached to this property wnich would deprive the owner of a substantial property right or use of his property and since no evidence was presented which would justify the requested variance. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the requested variance b denied. Action taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting held Monday, November 24, 198G. Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this lUth day of decenioer, 19e,b. rr3aii�— - Acting Secretary lti = • • • BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION and THE HISTORICAL LANDMARK# CQMMITTEEO _. FINDINGS AND ORDER, CASE NO. 642 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: This is an appeal by Bernice Culley and Byron Couch from the refusal of the Building Inspector of Salt Lake City, Utah, to issue a permit to erect a chainlink fence at 322 & 324 North 30O West within an Historical District . On October 15, 1986, the case was heard before the Historical Landmark Committee. Mr. Schwab showed a picture of this property and fence to the Committee , explaining that the west portion of the fence appears to be on public property as the property line is estimated to be just about where the "old" chainlink fence to the south is located. He submitted to the Committee a _ letter from the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council complaining about chainlink fences in Historical Districts . Mr. Schwab said the fence was erected approximately September 6, 1986, and that a Stop Work Order had been issued against it by a City Building Inspector. Ms. Culley and Mr. Byron Couch were present. Ms. Culley explained that the property was owned by her elderly aunt and uncle who are both in rest homes, and that she and her brother were not aware of the Historical Landmark Committee or of any restrictions on the homes in this area . She said the old fence was practically down and a new fence was erected to prevent the neighbors ' dogs , kids , people trespassing and throwing trash in the yard. The property to the south is owned by the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs . Simmons . Mr. Kimball explained that there is a Historic District on the Avenues , and that in July 1984 the City ratified and accepted as an Historic District under jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Committee all of Capitol Hill area including the area down to 300 West. He said this is a matter of • public notice and it was published in the newspaper approximately 15 times and there were mailings by the Community Action Program to every legal resident in the neighborhood. He said that every fence contractor installing fences has the responsibility and is required to be aware of the Historic District and the restrictions therein. It is apparent that the fence constractor in this case did not apply for a proper permit and did not give proper notification to the property owners in this case or to the City. Ms. Culley and Mr. Couch stated that the contractor, when asked by them, said he was not aware of any Historic District restrictions . Mr. Kimball explained that this fence may be on City property, and further, the contractor has illegally erected a fence in violation of Historic Landmark regulations. Mr. Simmons said that he and his wife had attempted to notify the parties that the ornamental iron fence which was on the property should remain Case No. 642 Page 2 because the property is located in a Historic District, and also that his attorney talked with Ms . Culley and the fence contractor about the fence being in violation of the Historic District regulations. Mr. Stransky explained that when any construction is planned in a Historic District the contractor is licensed, and when the license is received, the contractor states his/her understanding of the law and the construction must be reviewed, before construction , with the City and by this Committee if the property is in a Historic District. He explained that in this case the Committee would have discussed alternatives because the Committee discourages the use of chainlink fences whether they are on the City property or the property owner's property. He said under the law for this chainlink fence to remain, the property owners will probably have to apply for a variance and that part of the process is that the matter will be heard by the Historic Landmark Committee. It was pointed out that on the north side of this house the fence appears to be higher than the rest of the fence and that it may be higher in the front than City Ordinance permits. Ms. Culley said the fence company is Acme Fence and the contractor 's name is Fred Kuhn. It was also pointed out that there are other chainlink fences in the area and Mr. Schwab said that the Committee will attempt to resolve all of those issues . Mr. Simmons told the Committee that because of this fence being constructed, his family is literally "locked in" , having no access to their back yard, and he believes the former fence was on his property. There is a property boundary dispute between the parties and Mr. Stransky recommended that the parties have the property surveyed and also consult attorneys for legal advice. Mr. Kimball made a motion that in Case No. 642 the fence be denied and deemed to be nonconforming with the Historic District guidelines ; that the owners of the property are claiming they were unaware of the restrictions of the Historic District but that the construction company erecting the fence should be, by law, aware of these ordinances . Therefore , such company should be requested to appear before the Historical Landmark Committee to present reasons why the fence should remain ; if the reasons are not satisfactory, the fence should be removed at the company's expense and replaced with a fence that should be approved by the Historic Landmark Committee; Mr. Allen seconded the motion. There was a discussion about the types of fencing which meet the standards of the Historic District ; i .e. , wood picket fencing painted or stained, or wrought iron fencing. Mr. Kimball added that part of the motion is that if the Committee can "sting" two or three of the major fence companies, it may make all of the companies more aware of these standards and eliminate some of the fence problems. Mr. Schwab noted that the chainlink fences which were erected within the past several months will be pursued in the same manner as in this case but Case No . 642 Page 3 fences which were erected prior to the date of the designation of the _ Historic Districts can remain ; however, at such time as they are to be replaced, there must be a review before this Committee and the fences must comply with the ordinance. Mrs . Sperry said she could understand where there could be problems in this particular case, especially with West High School across the street, as students use "flow pens" to write on anything they can , and there would probably be writing on a wood fence at this location. The Committee agreed that a precedent should be set and not deviated from concerning fencing. Mr. Schwab told the Committee he had encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Simmons to retain legal counsel who is knowledgeable about land use and rights-of-way to pursue this matter legally as it is not under this Committee's jurisdiction . He said that the fence is in the public right-of-way which will require a revocable permit in order for the parties to leave the fence where it is located, and it will be necessary for the owners to show proof of liability insurance in order that the City will not be held liable for any accidents involving the fence. Also the City has the right to charge the property owners for the fence to be on the City owned property. Mr. Stransky called for a vote on the motion ; all voted "Aye". On October 23, 1986, the case was heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was moved that the Planning Commission accept the recommendation of the Landmark Committee and deny the request . The motion was seconded, with all members voting "Aye". IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the request for a permit to erect a chainlink fence at 322 & 324 North 300 West be denied. Dated at Salt Lake City , Utah , this 15th day of December, 1986. // Secretary / i Minutes of the Planning Commission and the Historical Landmark Committee are on file in Room 200 CFS Building, 324 South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah, and are available for inspection. • pCMiriuted January 9, 1987 Page 2 [istoritar,;- drimar ; Cormiitt•ee CaseNo r:b42 Mr. Jorgensen stated that this is a request by Bernice Culley and Byrron Couch appealing the Landmark decision denying a chain link fence at 322-324 North 300 West in the Capitol Hills Historical District. Mr. Schwab explained that on October 15, 1986 there was a stop work order- place\.on the construction of the fence being constructed at 322 North 300 West and the petitioners were asked to corm in and review with the Landmark Corrmittee the proposal for the fence. The owners wanted a chain link fence around the property. The Landmark Committee denied their request on the basis that it was not their policy to approve chain link fencing, particularly in the front yard, because chain link is an industrial-type fencing and not in keeping with the neighborhood. By the time .Landmark received the case, the ''Ni 'i-' -1 fence had been installed. The fence is also 8.7 feetcand exceeds the 4 foot-1 Li... i allowable height in the front yard. The petitioner was informed that only the Board of Adjustment could legalize the fence. The petitioners applied to the Beard and were denied. The Board of Adjustment did not deal with the issue of type of fence. The petitioners were also told that the Board could not grant them the right to utilize public property. The petitioners has not submitted any request to the City for a permit to allow them to keep the fence on the public property. Mr. Shand, attorney for the petitioners, stated that they were in negotiations with the City on this issue. Mr. Schwab asked M.r. Shand when their letter to the City was submitted and that there was no such letter in the file on this issue. Mr. Shard stated that application for the revokable permit has not been Trade but that they have discussed the issue with the Planning and Zoning staff. Mr. Shand identified himself and addressed the Ccarnission. He stated he represented the petitioners tonight asking them to override the Historic Landmark decision with regard to the fencing materials. He stated that thev had been before the Board of Adjustment regarding the height restrictions and stated that the fence was in code as to height except for a strip of fencing 11 which runs from the front of the building to the sidaialk (handouts of the 1 photographs of the fence were given to the Planning Commission for review) and 4 stated that the previous fencing consisted of barbed wire fencing attached to sc:toe 2 x 4's and there had been a section of wrought iron fencing in the front yard. He stated that the property has been awned by the Culley family since 1927 and is located approximately a half block from West High Schcol. He stated that in this neighborhood and to the south of the Culley property there were other chain link fences. Also, there is an 18 foot high chain link fence surrounding the West High School's tennis courts and across the street are chain link fences that run the entire length of the block. He stated that this particular street there are at least two existing businesses that have chain link fencing. He stated that other properties in the neighborhood also have chain link fencing. Mr. Shand sia;:ed that the petiL!one_r= have add, a significant problem over the last few years with vandalism and vacra_rits, and PC Minutes January 8, 1987 Page 3 that since the property is close to West High School a wooden fence would not work because of grafitti that would be spray painted on it. He stated that the same company who had installed their chain link fence had also given a bid on a wrought iron fence for $4,447.00 as o posed to the $1,200.00 cost of the chain link fence. Mr. Jorgensen asked the petitioner why the contractor installed the fence without meeting the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schwab informed the Commission that the Landmark Committee did not require that the petitioner- install a wrought iron fence. Mr. Shand stated that it was his understanding that a G,ccd fence or a wrought iron fence was requested. Mr. Schwab stated that a fence that would be in keeping with the character of the building should be used. Mr. Shard stated that the building on the petitioner's property is a fourplex and is in a Residential "R-3" zone and that the property currently has only two tenants and has catered to elderly tenants and the present tenants have lived there for 30 years and the present rent is $150.00 per month. Mr. Shand submitted schedules of rent showing what the petitioner receives for rent at this time and at a time when all four units were being rented, which shows an inability to rent these units for rrore than what they are now getting, and raising of the rents would force the present tenants to trove because of their fixed-insane status. Mr. Shand stated he feels that the use of a chain link-type fence would not change the character of the building and chain limo fencing has been in the neighborhood and that the chain link fence which has been installed will not affect the purpose of the Landmark Committee as this particular property is on the extreme southwest corner of the Historical District in this area and is the last residence in this particular district (is in a very border line area) and as a direct result of all of this the petitioners feel that the chain link fence is certainly not going to harm the astectic value or change the architectural irr ortance of this house. He stated that Mrs. Culley had called the Planning & Zoning offices before the chain link fence had been installed (she cannot recall whom she talked to) and the staff member that she talked to said it was fine to install a chain link fence in this area and there would be no problem with this type of fencing in this area and he stated that there was never a stop work order placed on. the installation of this fence. Mrs. Liddl2-Casnna_ asked Mr. Jorgensen what procedure an individual needs to follow if they are going to install a fence. Mr. Jorgensen stated that if a fence is under 4' in height, no permit is required and it is the responsibility of the property owner and their contractor to make sure that the fence is being built on their property; and stated that chain link fencing goes against the policies in a historical district. Mr. Nicolatus stated that he attended the field tour of this property earlier before the meeting and noted that numerous residents within this area (within walking distance) have the same condition or type of fence and the fences are installed right cut to the sidewalk. Mr. Jorgensen stated that this is a relatively new historic district and all previously installed fences in this area would have a nonconforming status. Mr. Schwab stated that he has six cases within three blocks by the same fence company within three months of PC Minutes January 9, 1997 Pace 4 each other. Mr. St:.,°';'dah stated that AC::; Fence, who had installed this chain (i__--, link fence has also installed six other fences in this area after being told the Chain link fends were not legal and that t:'_e' needr'� to cc before - Historic Landmark Committee. �i,-. Nicolatus stated that in this area the security, Drotec icn and the well- being of the people inhabiting the property is of concern. :'ir. Jorcensen stated that a wccd fence is every bit as secure as a chain link Jf,tce. Mr. Shand stated that rr'aint.enance on a wccd-t'_J_`e fence, both in u'ckeec and Sand_ng or repa i nt_ng because of crafitti � culd be sur.`stantial. 'sir. Schwab stated thrt c1"ain line fenc_ng is basically an industrial-tvce of fence and _s r. i aster tally compatible with the architecture of the building; this issue is what the Historical Landmark Committee revie,ied, not the fact that Gain li.n.: does not have its place or that they do not like chain link. He state hat the Landmark Committee suggests a picket fence, a wood fence or a board Pillar fence with the same force of brick material — there are design solutions to the problem that are rot "as e;c erisive" as the wrought iron fend. Mrs. Hercoi ne Jex submitted pictures of the Property as Crici n all y ccns t_'_ct=f"' and as it now acr.:ear s. - 1 . She stated that the wrought iron fence located r,a'aen 704 and 730 `:Cr`.. belonged to the Si.' on's borne and was illegally removed by the petitioner 's contractor when the Chain lin'{ fence was i_nst=' i er•. That the petitioners (Couch/Cullen) did not work out an arc cement with i7 the 3i uns in r ecards to the now fence. 3 . An easement between neighbors needed to be established De-ore a fence c='"' be erected. ___. A. The present owner is in a rest here arc has rrovi-ec _'at .e orco,r-•-•✓ to willed to the Church and '•Jill probably be cut uo for Sala the _:eat two Or three years. 5. T` e Historic District in `^is area w7ras formed to L- opie_ . e r.e' chb-r- i I:ccd. Gene •S Limons of 330 North 300 :lest stated that he is the nelc,^.ccr to `::e north of the petitioner and he submitted three letters from r=sidents o= the neighborhood who are against the fence and the appearance it gives ---le r?lcrbor cod. He stated that earlier it was stated that here aero t,tio businesses located on 300 West between 300 North and 400 North but there ' s only one business (a =lel) in this area whi char' , -- =e stated t_`:� _ '-e. ear as :CO ;.iesa is core.=rrad, _h. _=s ;._.t_;1 (.Hest-i__ starts at 3CC, r.orth and coes to . C0 _•_rtb Wes_ - ! an. __ this area there are onlr four residents on the north side o= _is f_.-.-1 mac.. area that have chain link: fences and that rase re - e �, two of ..ems _ _Ge �.., .� bordered 1 ?C Minutes January 2, J27 ?ac_e y a business so the chain link _:lice probably is owned bv the business. Ca the west side of 300 West between 000 North and 300 North there are only WC hGR�S wi fences at all, of which one of the fences se_arat_.: pro ier is _ chain link fence; so as far as chain link fences on 300 West are conc�r:e- chain link fencing is not that significant in the ne ig:hbor ccd. Mrstated that hasbeen a resident of r 20 - �_-zrQrs he ��,._.� the neighborhood _or years and has not had any problems with either the s-tudGnts of WOst --ici+ School nor the l_G.J1ehl s. ?..Gout the only problem is with the gar ace which is ce-nerated from the Arctic Circle located in the area. Mr. Shand indorc'ed the Commission that in recards to the wrcucht iron fence between 3241. and 330 Torzh, the _etiticner's grandmother was restionsible for the installation of that fenci.nC He also stated that there is no acreertient ncr convenanit on this property that orohibits the Chain link fence. He also t o ^? fence isinches in - theirside r ert• line. . r Shan,' stated �_ the _ 6 �.... S _=�,.'[l S_C_ �_OC ,-J 1_. -�P.a_... a o that title thatthe r arethe fre„•, �Y ors- ` st_t d � the shuns petitioners titre_s _ � clear lJ.al1�J of the pro erav at 3?_ 24 ,-t 300West and the rcoertybe w ' l? to ^c -3 do h a is not to -ai env Church. M- ❑� ' Schwab stated that he would like to read the motion which ^a :... the _. -, Historical Landmark Committee meeting: "The motion for Case No. Gv"2 _s a fc de` e en deeme'..'. to be ncncCa- tnat t'1_ ��.C_ C2 c_ i C -Cr':L.`.g with the ;historic district itemized and that the owners of the Orocer tv are claimina that they are unaware of the restrictions of the historic districts and that the con- , structicn company erecting the fence should In by law aware of these ordinances. Therefore, such company should be i eaues ted to appear before the Historic Landmark Committee to ?resent reasons why the fence Should rerrain and if the reasons are not satisfactory the fence should be removed, at the fence c _n e oan.v's exoe_nse, and replaced with a fence that is a�cirot - - . approve,-'... v the 1 Loist:ric,l Landmark a_� ty ee. !J Mt-. S'hand asked Mr. Bch wab if an • further action [:ad been 1 -={c acai:St _^.e fence company. Mr. Schwao _ -a_ .' that contact had been made with the fence _,rro nyJ _,.'t the s._les an negotiated the sale of this fence was no le ce_r in their e-nlcy; ceven.d tnis no further action had teen t- Cam..r aCc_aS= the f nce ccroar:'I. Mrs. Liddle-3aa✓nal ,made a motion that the Historical Landmark Committees decision be upheld because of the :o condo oia issue, because the crc^✓erav _s i oc ate: i.': an historic district, end there is no evidence 1-/ �dh ' odld -ust_f Cocaission to override the Landmark _:.T!Tlittee's decision. Mr-... Kasai seccnd -d the m:_on. e ce = tha71 vc='_"� v�=.'1...__ ... -__ __�_�i �. v..�.-. hap ees to he of:.._ Ji _e oar e_c •lh. acw have thelr fences ate-', enjoy the r-ivacsecurity _-- 1.1 .1:. (.., N) t•' Ill U, 'CI (t ft N n r(1 �)' I-� fr - H lb ''o .-p f' '. �,7 `-' r (F f, rr (i. Li; ft.-Ho s O 't1 'V . O r .Y .i 1 O t( lU U .) C) Gl N () 11 .r Fi O I� .) .l 7 .l' () Il' (7 r-' ,l' f N iU 0 i C 1n ID I U1 O c (D ((U� n (D (D N N N N O ;i •a I-•• -1 .' C. 'i 'CI ti 1-•'• I-• rt hi "Cl ti O • N t'. rt I; ( '(I li) I-n ID i,) (:•• ('• () ri ,fl, (D Cl (D tl, (Y = ril O N In r•1 ci. r-' C) ID '1 1i Cl) ID t'• ('- is ('r •.I ',1 .J ID rJ (t r1 < (t '3 ( n}[, 11 N (D (: fD W ID O O (U Cu I-� (] 1 t) lt. ul f IS :,' :1' ,-• :1 ')' J ') ('. ,1-IQ Il III • III o 1 IA iv (o t-' ft rt U lt1-t 0 rt rl N 1111111� O 0 rt (D (D C' to I,7 i:' I•' it. C to lb (D N :1 tt(, • ~1 (. rt I-' < rt F•- .1 (t pi l) '< ri ((l i11 (- I-'- (D (U (D ` U t-r,'< (D 1 ‘.1 ,U ,. :1 r•r ( ,T IT rt- 117 (], (; H. U (Q H. i t11 .1 r1- - (I) Ul C) 1 .1 ;1 I-• D t (U • l,i rr .' 1-1 1-1 '.a I-'• H. 01 (D n i)+ (D '(i <, 3 Y - :1 O n 1O ►a. rt A I • U, () ,., ;v u) (t (t, n (n n c,t y (U r)' 9 N 1� N rt tl, N tl N (n t1 (D (D ' 1 l� U ;,, i''• 1-'• .r u i' t-'. O 7 r t Ct, < I-'- U1 ]' (�l O iD (n t'D u. • ((l� N N rT N i I-• (t 1, 1 i (r IU (D 11 i •1 (l, 0 H- ID Cr N ,D (D rt l 1 hl (n rt' 1 U I-i tI) a' 1+ L) I'• r.. 1.- it In O 0+ re 11 'CI I-' •', 0 5C (v ;3'1J fD N • t-i c I'• (D it 11 11 rt rt ;S ,�, ID H l' (u I- (t 'i [11 t1 (p 1'S n 1 tt (D (;• 11 i n rt ft rt 0 S (U N CU I< 1'i ,1. ;,. (-' tD fl ��S htt ``, r �D ID y fJ•' ft �� �D (t 1p 'i7 R. f3 ()'1.7 '() �1 t' !f �(13 D 11 ID G F-h r. in t:) (:, ;, ' (1 O (-r. 0, p O U'J '�. ,3' O r1' n fU iv ' l�1 < ) 1 I (-1. t1 (11 tD, f11 (f. 1` IlI 111 (l ill 1i 1'1t (.1 N 0 fr, ;1 Ill 0 P. .S (D rt d :S. O ('• C) O I'• N r rt :J 1� C) rt (D 1-' 1-1. ;t (Li f) Cl '(i ., G, () 1 Cl 11) 3' < kJ, 1 (] rj II '3' (i (I (D ss O )- (D i11 i 1� r i; ,] (D rr (u (d N •. (U '--i ;3' '(I (D iD w () 3 :1, �' (v (l, C) II Imo• N ID N l-' () N I)' U, . . u' In )'1(7 'i•] ti f t ri (l. (i) '1 y ri N Cl , In N D) 0 Ia. tv (t C) l.]. • r- lit CT H. iD Cl I'- 1 i - (p (�• 1) III 3' fl+ r U l) t—' rt _ 11 S rD 's tit (n (il '3. C) N (D 1 I'• .:I i H. (1 (D 0 N C) I� Ul fr O rt (T CL LIJ ft, N :S •1 r)' t)1 2 1i '.j (n (,(() I-'• (-'• t(1 t u) iD = )' 1'• 11,- ') 1' '1 w ..1 Ili 1l1 (D (D '1 (J .1 (I ( ' (: ) f„ Q '';) Iri [1 �s' - (D II) N Foe C„ n (I) -. 1-. li, ('l ('i, O 'ir�) () I •11 r)' iU 'J fi :S r5 :1J O (D (D (a I-, , n O O O (t O :s I-' '1 U • J Jl rt 0' )';'I •) •-I. 11 I (u ( rt t]. ;1 O. .''•: N i i 1-' N 1} i' (0 I•' • ti b ri W N i-- ( IU I i I.i .0 tb 'U 01 .'(i iU U. ( ''CI 11 T iD ''- O I1 U) U, (]. Ul t • � .-1 (U �, t Il H•'CI ,- 1 1 II. - (1 (Jo (U (D 0 i� (R. (1) (� I-' z I'- 1, '1 O n U Li Al6 n p1 .1 'S l'• N ;p (1 (• I, l I U, - II (1 (1 1' l) C-.) t'• O, 1-'• i' ((1 '(1 O :'1 in i.. (D O) tiO (t,t l) ID ' .' O' J-' (1 I ;d ( ;1 J n ,) (, n l). D II O IU t m 'Ii • ;1 , ;S I-' rl O. 1)I ;I ',1 II (U 1,. (D , ti ( (t r U' N I (1 lU rIt F'• (U 1'• 1'. `. ,... �' 1 ,A 1(' " - (D ,11 't 1 s U 'O 1 {D N N l • (U I'• t-' i� - 11 C rt liJ ,V II O 01 'l :-1 Ili CI' ID • I.,• ft) to n t], 1-'- ii- ..l 'i H. n .1 n (n (L C., �i'- U �I 1'• (11 (' 1-' N N(y :\ I'• U w .) i. (I; r� (� (D Ct• U i.), rt Cl, I I'• O rt ) I hi (D n 1 lh I N I 1'U W m 1,1 (1 ) l) S t'h (l) N- (D (p (D rt W 4U I-' 11 UI O I , iD CD f1, I I, it .' 1:-.- 1-5 N rtl (], '1 <. in ,-; iD i), ('• t-)+ rr 1 ") 1 1 .1 f rr F' Ci = ;3 (U rt p I:, (j 1 (U 7;' )G D Ill I( ii' C., ('• 1 , •() (D fft n (D I-'• (n 1 (u • 11 to 'o ri I-j ;l rt IL) lU (Q 1 2�} S Ui • Ct 1%. 1.-' .1 re I'll lD !D F'- I'• ID II (] (' 1-'• (U rr (1, (t O ID (p I''• •i L,. n CD• it; I•-• Ti • , ) (1, I{! h t C1 N 1 (1' n N S' Ii ..}3 W O' lI 1 D t11 < 'i1 1 'iS C) N ;S I-' U. ''d 1 (�1 ''I: (D '< r rOi 1' O (C) (K11 i- i) N U G u U iS 1 'Z i� nt t[l - i1 (j I1 (S in I-• N ;i iU C) Cl f,i rf ;i '( - I m rh © ID Fr 1t tf1 9J , N Gt (t ;t1,(1 ti (] a, rt 1. 1' In U Ul Hi :1 N • 0 ;1- • 'U 1-t if ,�' 0 ID ,-, r., •)i '7I •• ..t S-i N I (J (U ID (u (T Il • rt m (n 1< t" ' t'1' N ;i . • (-• (II O ) , ,r- n - ,-' r). 1 (D ft so ( (-l. c; rt ;Al N• CD (1) rt U Cr )' Ll I.,. .) '0 U O ill 1-- I--• .= IA [-: t). i' (t ,.) ,' i- p, (d fU •1 = n (n i (D r it f 1• •a U i) i) t( II 1 [n I.'.. (,. ft Id 1-,. IU i(, (D Itt1 :1: (D I-'• '1 rl 1 '(3 :,)' C) Cl) CD (U • :.7 •S i i'l, I'• 10 ill II. [!1 3 3' U I' 1 < II. , N N t-' �. fU ti • _ 2. :1 I T. 1 ID •-: r S• S.]. • (1 rt it al (D '1 (l. (1. lU U I-•• 'O II. (n I-'• I-'• U 'l') I-•h (D n N t_' (1 ;1 P1 O ,-' !ri f r. n, N rt ('. (�. In It �T j r .D 1 w r t I, .1 - 1 ' n • (I) N C) U O , (L t'( I' N ) (D (fl' (D 1 N (t .) (y7 i O N r • w (.i (I) (U C) In N 1." t l lu ('• (u SU N `t7 >' ,ll N N '(1 ll rD • N rr P. ; • 11 1 rt (t, (G 1' - n r t 1 O rt' O rt D N (l1 It t' ffr (�, u) (1)..., rt (i) • , i-, t.: O O r," U) (D I-' di Ill U (-..IQ 11. Hi (it 11 O rt f-' U) a I-{ U >). (t) 11 ''J 11 (,I N I-' (t I'- 11 I :1 .1 (.L rt '1 :..) Il) rt N (l *. tl 1"i l)' r-, (U )-' II N (p (.) <; if) 2, rt II • .ram p (. T (-' (() fi), . (1 ID 1-I 1'• t I.1 to • (U (U (t I' (U i,) 'v f- (a- (L = (D • ,,77 3' rt- (7 rt rd 1'• () f3' C) (D 0. rt a 1i • n it ;t( .f .a ID Ill t-i i ,1. .1 (-'- (D :_i' O •)' U it (.,• < U (] 'r7 iJ • (11 .:j i.l 5 C) 1•i 'li 0 (D (:.) '(J I'• 1'. n (u :1 .3' = N (A O ft N s Ci U) '1 rt C t. t. ill () O ID I tt ICJ E. (n (D r-] ,3- 1-' f*. re t t (-•• r7 O (U l' 1'• 1 ;'I f N u; r,. •:. O O' O N Ll p rt ri Cl '3' (1, ) n :I I' j 'h [. '(3 ill. n N 'El ;7 'tt7 ,'• :1 11 (1, ,I (D 1 'i, 1;'• C 11 ipp Y' '1 Q iD 1'• 1 ill U U (n w r rt t rt ri (n Z I'- it. .I, I' iJ it • (1, iD rr.Il iD () (D (U h+ 11' C) c C) 1 - t1 in rh t C3 Cl, N i..' 1 1 UI U) 1 t ;] U1 O,Iti (: N• ('t 'Cf ,D :)' .1 I-1 I.,. • 'CI () ft i� L.. d' ri r 1. I'1' r% U 1 N• I-' U1 Ui y L N 'U 1'• is (I .1 tU .� 2 1 11-. (U f:' ' ,h (] (U U' I-' (t ) '1 Q I•' I-' rt (i II In 1? i.• (Y,,( I ,7 ('. t'. �.. ice. I-' CA '1 fU 1, 1 r 1 I 1.1. n1 r'• ('• 1(I r1 (U fL O I' tU/ !li N , f' fu -j ( U C) N Id O L) ((r 11 ' ,i] 1) I,, - ID it U tW (�; 'I Ili, i It 1-t t '(1 IN (D N• :S'L, I'I, rt ..-.•'' t-.. Cl .1, •i :a. i) I-. l••• I-' iU :1 ib(f) tU H- O (I. (J I-; CD Hi rti )' () rt 1r (U i I r r i r' 1... (( tU W N C) (n I' O U) (U 1u F' N a I1 (U l-,. (t (N i' 1 r- t,, to l�' 1ti f_'• in ..0 0 1 (U O Cl C) •] r( U'l N Ii i (1. ,' Li. (D ) 'C) , ' I ' II' N • in rr (I, :l li (1. .1 (u C' (D '- rt I-• ►'• DI to C) 1•i :1 U • (I, iD y 1 tl (.. (1 i C) II. I.1) (•r (I; U) •.5 I: :1 1r. (II rt O. (t - it O ,)• I t :) . ,:,•Ii In 0 ,)' (a) O I-I. (i1 I)' (U (D (D (I im.:etin,j of 1: .' Ag,W,0Lkjiq*94‘0 H' L C-hv , hel,j Mund•Ity, 2 , I at 4:00 p.m. at 3?:, Sioth Ltr,ac,t , 201 . 1-res,-,nt W"472 Board ML:Abers Nancy K. Pace , David M. Di-L.) Lit WaLson, L.,e W. Martihez, D,-Jrothy Pleshc, and Robert. Lewis . Exol:o:2d was I . 7onin.j H.,-0rccna 0:fitial . Chairman, called th i,2eting to order and .ed'.plaind tat tie r,royies hod Oten i s by ',,.o,;!!..ers of tra E,oard , the caoas ,: odid be aid wo!J1C be d cc:.:c:e: ah Zha end of the moeti!io the ndrtio:, , the whitten Findings and Crders wcld be mailed out in two 'and th,. aor,licahts, if they did not wish to for the end of th? co,ild call the office after next Frinay (r:nen the mihdtes will lob: transcribed) , to fird oht ''net (1 ,0isionz had tom n inane. advised that the ioformticn ci . n during the maetihg was being recorded , the tare to be retained Oy the Ldord for a pariol of 90 days so tott tho yml,f• te frbe te liste:• to th.o or dp..eih a cop: OF tranecript at the e: cnse Of the che Obtainine it. Case No. 325-3 at approximately 641 West 200 1.i.orth Street in application of -Jerry 17l7estohts nba Sc Rancho Motel Lodge (64j korcn Te-mple Street ) for a variance to legalize a 6 foot hi oh sec,Jrity fehce witn barbed wir:- on top in the 200 North front yard in a esidential "R-6' District . ko one was present on this case . Later in the meeting the chairperson again called this case, and no one was present. ccci nn cccmtfe by Hs. Plesne and seconded by Mr. X.711-:4,fl=2 with all vctin:] "Aye' that this case be Loin over and reodvertised on the next rt,.J.larly scheduled incetin and that the staff notify the applicant of said action . Can No. 326-B/at 322 North 300 West Street in application of Eernic,, i-ey end L).,yron Couch for a variance to lealize a chain ii oh fence which exoee's the permitted height in the reuired front yard in a Residential "R.--3A" District. L. Cr.:7h ard E. rnice C. CAlEy Es71) also presont . Second l other nei ,inors wore in Their rnaes ara on tne roll attached to these r.limitEs. Nr. the City orainance r(osHres that fences tor co private property. hd on the st:r.vey that was submitted the distance hatwoah the en the front property lire is 2.7 feet so the fence is on roerty. The fence heicht I:: the front is limited to 4 fact. The fence adecer..t to the sidewalr:: is 4 feet in helght , but the fence that owes rest cf the way to the setac'K of the home is 5 feet . Thereore, tic ar::Hicant is asl:in,g for a variance to ledalize this fence Mr . Shand ws of toe opinion that the Board of Adjustment wo.11d deal with ci fx:' which the fence was ride, b:Jt. Mr. Hafey e. pi non tOo- wod ealir,:1 only with the fence hocho ach tra: the Histdric C,:mmittee held jurisdiction over tie fence material . hr. Shard • . _ . { • .r l illrlutes i',J`r:'.,::..E.r r.•: , i. !.6 Page t • con of this :ti continued t•, I i tli; 7 �;,•.. �i0df'i th the i s ?�_ I?!i C'�n 1 n`_1. 1 i 1' September u::•; 6 r' by .�`.-.1e ,,.,',:e c^'.i-:;lam/ a; on r::•::il:?.it or I'.r. Couri? c'..'Id Ms. • Cul i eJ. Mr. `hen seid there had been a problem with ,test High 5c :col Stt►d_nts walking aeress the property. Thetenants of this Tour j)1`_':. are .. •s'':.'t••--. older n,' cameo ueed eboi t security. This fence is an i� _ t:�.rlsi ;.n! o an eXie_ .nt chain lirl:', fence. T!"e next door neighbor has�a dog Which concerns Mr. CI'.:ch ar:d Cjl l ey. Mr.. and . .rs. Geoe Si5'.mOils adjacent nei( hbcrs at 330 North h 300 Wes- were ,., d they had b ? the neighborhood U ' present . I.?�_ reported they ht:a ue�r, ?i wl r:. 1�'! ;?O:i;i since nc� 1 J6 and _ had hed ,no security problem wiC.h the West High students. They also stated i t'? :j could f• 1 foot f`fence . Mrs . Simmons ns said that t _ r _ not jump over a four r?'- , L t2tWE !1 i . hon ea-,d the six Ivor fence there were only 27 inches which s:hiC" ,1y their "reach" space. :u- :. 1 ?= Board noLed t idt :. six foot h i ch fence would be allowed in the side yard back of the building set:.`ac'.L - and in the rear yard if the fence were on the owner's property. . 1. Randall Dixon ,x, who C m ttea said�::. �_11 ..i, .u;? , serveson the Landmark Committee , fencing is a real problem in the City, and he encouraged the Board to enforce City regulations . Ms. Curley said Acme Fence knew nothing of the Historic Landmark Committee nor did she. She said she had called the Zoning Office to get correct fence height. • Later in the meeting the various aspects of the case were reviewed. e In.. Board felt the fence could comply with the ordinance with no real hardship. Also, the major fence companies have been put on notice regarding the height of fences in zones which require front yards and the heights regarding fences in the other yard areas in residential districts . Ms. F? :she moved that variance t fence which �_ �:: , ., r? t a v!_rianc ..o legalize a chain link fen exceeds the permitted height in the required front yard be denied due to the fact that the. Board could find no ((unusua l co:nditiori attached to this ir y which,r� erthich it the opinion of the ard, would deprivethe owner of a r - i3 substantial props.... ,' right or use of his property which kill justify the granting of a variance. The Board also ordered that the fence must be removed in 60 days of the date of the Findings and Order and that the Firdinc, and Orders be sent by registered mail . Mr. Martinez seconded the n motion, withall voting "Aye. " Case No. 369-B - reopened - 272-276 .test 700 North Street in application Gt Uona i d R. tvim i aliis f5r a permit to remodel a noncon f ormi ng?y located withoute' yards into a fourplex, the duplex therequired!i r;..i sideandrear Street which would not be located on parking lot at 7 b North 300 West r for `ii h „ the same lot as the main building and the wall for which would exceed the permitted height limit in a Commercial "C-1" District. Mr.. Don Williams was present as was Randall Dixon. Mr. Ha f ey repeated to the Board that the parking for the fourpl ex was on a separate lot from the proposed i ourpi ex. Mr. Williams is asking that the original variance be reinstated so that he can finish this parking lot and keep the f ourpl ex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Designation of Charles Mullett Home on City Historical Register April 3, 1987 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: LARRY LIVINGSTON ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: List Home individually as a City Landmark Site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Historic District Ordinance governs all structures lying within a designated Historic District, as well as any structure individually listed as a City Landmark Site. A structure may be individually listed even though it is already within a Historic District . That is the case for this home, which lies within the Capitol Hill Historic District . STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The owners of the home have made a substantial economic investment in order to restore the home, and as a result they wish to do all they can to provide a basis for protection of the home. Listing the site individually on the City register (and on the National register) provides a further rationale for careful protection of the structure. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS; I move we close the public hearing. I move we adopt the ordinance before us which lists the Charles James Mullett Home at 680 Wall Street as a City Landmark Site. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. MIT_WC MT ellingloNi DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council February 24, 1987 Re: Designation of the Charles James Mullett Home on the City Historical Register Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 7, 1987 at 6:45 pm to discuss designating the Charles Mullett home at 680 Wall Street on the City Historical Register. Funding: Not applicable. Background and Discussion: A detailed history of the home is attached for your review. The Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission have found this property qualified and worthy to be placed on the City Historical'Register. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance which is attached for your consideration. Submitted by: / � n CRAIG E. PETERSON ____ Director jd/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1987 (Designating as an historical landmark the Charles) James Mullett House located at 680 Wall Street, pursuant to Case No. 649) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 51-32-2(4)(b) OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO HISTORICAL LANDMARK SITES. WHEREAS, in response to Case No. 649, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body, before the Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission and has taken into account citizen testimony and other matters as part of it deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded it appropriate to add the Charles James Mullett House, located at 680 Wall Street, as a city landmark site. THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 51-32-2(4)(b). Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 51-32-2(4)(b) be amended by adding subsection (36) as follows: Sec. 51-32-2(4)(b)(36). Charles James Mullett House, 680 Wall Street. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1987. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp1189 F. G. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION' c. p.;: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES " - Or O' ~' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -.7;1 324 So. State Street, Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 YES February 11, 1987 Craig Peterson, Director Development Services Department 201 City Hall Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Historical Landmark Committee Case No. 649 Dear Craig: The Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission, on January 7 , 1987 and January 22, 1987, respectively, reviewed this nomination and have recommended that it be approved and a public hearing be held to place it on the City Historical Register. You will find attached the pertinent infor- mation. If you have any questions, please contact me at 535-7757. Sincerely, -- /;/ Bill_ Schwab Preservation Planner BS:pm BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION and THE HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND ORDER, CASE NO. 649 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: This is a request by Helen Draper that the Charles James Mullett House, located at 680 Wall Street , within an Historical District , be approved for City Historical Register nomination. On January 7, 1987, the case was heard before the Historical Landmark Committee. Mrs. Helen Draper was present , and stated that she and her husband have always shared a love for the history of this community and would be honored to have their home nominated to the Salt Lake Historical Register. Mr. and Mrs. Draper moved to Utah in 1979 and purchased this home in the Historical Capitol Hill neighborhood. She and her husband had sought architectural advice in 1981 from the Utah Historical Society and the Utah Heritage Foundation, and were advised that with patience and money they were perfect candidates to restore the Charles James Mullett home. During the past one and one-half years , they have dealt with dry rot , termites , crumbling chimneys, foundation restoration, and leaking, sagging and molding roofing in the process of restoring this home. Mrs . Draper said that records indicate this home was built by Charles James Mullett during the 1870' s. When first built, it was a small , square adobe mud and horsehair cabin , Vernacular style with a three-opening facade and gable roof and chimney. The adobe had a stucco covering. There is a photograph which substantiates the adobe material . There are full dimension 2" X 12" timber floor joists in this section of the home. The first extension to the original house was a brick gabled extension to the north. This brick section has segmental relieving arched window heads, and the flat porch could be contemporary to the brick section , and possibly this work was accomplished during the 1890's. During the Victorian pattern book era , further remodeling occurred, possibly between 1905-1910. Victorian design influence can be seen on the addition of a single gable built over the old adobe section. Later additions include a French Mansard style kitchen and bath to the rear possibly added between 1910-1920. Charles James Mullett was born in England on September 8, 184U. His wife, Elizabeth Ann Clucas Mullett, was born on the Isle of Man on August 6, 1847. They immigrated to the United States , met each other in St. Louis , Missouri , and were married on July 8, 1868 by David M. Stewart. On July 9, the next day, they started their strange honeymoon by crossing the plains with Elder Stewart and a company of Saints. They eventually arrived in Salt Lake City and lived with relatives in Spanish Fork a short time. They had a home in the 24th Ward in 1872. They had four children and Charles helped build the railroad from Echo Canyon to Ogden , Utah . Later records indicate he worked at the Jones Lime Kiln as a laborer in 1885. He died in July 1911 or 1914--there are conflicting recorded dates of death . The home remained in the family until 1924. Mr. and Mrs. Draper feel that having the Mullett home on the Salt Lake City Historical Register would be honoring the memory Charles James and Elizabeth Mulletts ' labor and love which exemplifies the spirit of the people who settled the Salt Lake valley. HLC 649 Page 2 Mr. Draper exhibited pictures of different views and elevations of the house, and which showed the original three openings, being the two windows and the door. The north elevation of the house showed where the final addition to the house started. The rear elevation showed the lower portion where the kitchen is located and the upstairs where the bathroom is located, as well as four chimneys, all of which are operable but only two are currently in use as fireplaces. Mr. Draper explained that when the singhles on the overhand on the upper floor were removed, it was assumed they were the original shingles, and they were replaced with new shingles in the same manner. The pictures showed the columns on the porch with the gable. Mr. Draper said the two of the original chimneys had a little bit of corbelling done to them and rather then change them too much, all four chimneys were torn down to roof level and rebuilt to look the same. Mr. Kimball explained that one way to protect the house, as well as the whole neighborhood, is to go to the Utah Heritage Foundation and have an easement placed on the exterior of the home which means, in essence, that the owners grant to the community-at-large the exterior of the home because of its historical nature. The owner has, as a result of this gift, certain tax credits . A survey is made to determine the dollar value of that easement. After the easement is in place, the owners are required to maintain the house in that historical condition , and further, the easement remains on the property and must be included with the conveyance of the property. It was explained that there are legal requirements in this process and that the owners should consult their accountants and lawyers before going through this process , and also to consult Mr. Joel Picklner with the Utah Heritage Foundation. Mr. and Mrs. Draper explained that this is exactly their intent and they agreed to follow that procedure. There was a discussion concerning the reasons for and the benefits of placing a home on the National Historical Register. It was explained that a plaque containing a history of the home can be placed in front of the home whether the home has a "site specific" designation on the Historical Register or not. Mr. and Mrs. Draper are desirous of a "site specific" designation but they are mainly concerned about protecting the home from being demolished in the future. Mr. Kimball told the Committee that the State Department of History currently gives only three designations, being "significant", "contributory" or "noncontributory", and he suggested that perhaps the HLC's criteria could be as simple as saying "only those that have been deemed "significant" be considered for "site specific" designation or approval of recommendation by this Committee. Mr. Schwab told the Committee that a minimum qualification for the Register is that the structure be 50 years old. Ms. Sperry made a motion in Case No. 649 that the request for a City Historical Register nomination be approved. Mr. Kimball amended the motion to include that the applicants also apply for an easement as the mitigation for the "site specific" designation on the Register. Mrs . Wacker and Mr. Stransky requested that the motion include clearly that this is not a precedent-setting action and that anyone requesting further applications for nominations be encouraged to wait until the HLC has established the criteria for nominations. HLC 649 Page 3 Mr. Schwab pointed out that a church had been nominated for the National Register nominations and he had, in discussing the nomination, attempted to make it clear that once a structure is entered on the National Register , each structure in the district is a National Register Site and cannot receive any further designation. Mr. Stransky said he did not object to this nomination but he wondered what the alternatives were, and he thought that perhaps one alternative would be a moritorium on nomination cases . It was agreed that this issue should be placed on the agenda for the upcoming work meeting planned for the Historical Landmark Committee. Mr. Emerson noted that the Committee should clearly define what is "architecturally significant"--is it clear style which has not changed or is it the ecclectic end result of years of style added on to one another, and the Committee generally agreed. Mr. England seconded the motion as amended ; all voted "Aye" . On January 22, 1987, the case was heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission , It was moved that the Planning Commission accept the recommendation of the Landmark Committee and approve the request for a City Historical Register nomination with the provision that the applicants also apply for an easement as the mitigation for the "site specific" designation on the Register; further that it be made clear that this is not a precedent-setting action and that anyone requesting further applications for nominations be encouraged to wait until the HLC has established the criteria for nominations. The motion was seconded ; all members voted "Aye". IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the request for nomination of the Charles James Mullett House to the City Historical Register be granted. Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 10th day of February, 1987. Secretary Minutes of the Planning Commission and the Historical Landmark Committee are on file and available for inspection at 324 South State Street , Room 200. Salt Lam:_, C l�y _ into_ fca i dcork Co rci_tee Salt lake Ci iv 51a=ing Department Room 414 City and County B.:ildinF, Salt ia'-Ke City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7757 Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources ' Invents• ry—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections 1 . Name historic Charles James Mullett andior common 2m Location street & number 680 Wall Street city Salt Lake City 3® Classification Category Ownership $Aatus Present Use district public AA occupied —agriculture _ museum building(s) XX private _ _ unoccupied —_ commercial park structure both - work in progress educational XX. private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment __ _ religious object —_ in process )12C yes: restricted - government scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no military other: 4. Owner of Property (Owner of Legal Record) name Sidney H. and Helen H Draper - street & number 680 Wall Street city, town Salt Lake City vicinityof state Utah ' 3 �' 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds. etc. County Recorder's Office street & number Salt Lake City and County Building city, town Salt Lake City state Utah 6. Representation in Existing Surveys title Utah Historic Sites Survey has this property been determined eligible? XX yes __ no date federal XX state _-- county local depository for survey records Utah State Historical Society city, town Salt Lake City state Utah 7. Description Condition Check one Check one XX excellent deteriorated XX unaltered XX original site good ruins altered moved date _ fair unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance Building Materials : Brick; Stone Foundation, Stucco over Adobe Building Style: Vernacular/patternbook This house appears to have gone through a number of building/remodeling phases. The original house probably was a small "scuare cabin" vernacular type with a three opening facade abd gable end chimney. This section of the house, is adobe and could date from the 1870's or 1880's. The first main addition to this small vernacular house was a brick gabled extension to the north. This addition resulted in a basic "T" floor plan and gave the house a gable facade appearance. The brick section has segmental relieving arched window heads. The flat porch could be contemporary to the brick section and possibly this work was accomplished in the 1890's. Remodeling again occurred during the Victorian patternbook era - possibly in the 1905-1910 period. Victorian house design influence can be seen here in the addition of a shingled gable which was'built above the older adobe section of the house. A tripartite lunette can be seen in this front projecting gable. Later additions of undetermined date and style occur to the rear. 1982-1983 Roof and chimneys (4) were restored using cedar shingles and corbelled brick chimney design. 1983 Award of Merit Utah Heritage Foundation for Residential Restoration m Significance Period Areas of Significance—Check and justify below ___ prehistoric archeology-prehistoric community planning _ landscape architecture religion 1400-1499 archeology-historic __ conservation law science 1500-1599 agriculture economics literature sculpture _ 1600-1699 architecture education military social/ 1700-1799 art engineering music humanitarian L1. 1800-1899 commerce exploration settlement philosophy theater 1900— communications industry politics;governrnent transportation invention _ other (specify) Specific dates 1876 Builder/Architect Charles James Mullett Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) Evidence of title and directory suggests this house was build about 1876 by Charles James Mullett. Mullett was born in England, Sentember 8, 184-0. A meinber. of the LDS Church he emigrated to Utah where he worked as a laborer, at Jcnes Limekiln in 1885. Mullett died in 1911 and his widow, Elizabeth Ann Clucas Mullett deeded her share to the children the same year. The house remained in the family until 1924. .Thereafter it was sob 1924 To Kimball and Richards 1926 to Kimball and Richards Security Co. 1934 to Joseph P. and Nellie Bailey 1977 to Kim and Kent Fuller 1979 to Current owners 9m Major Bibliographical References Salt Lake City Building Permit, #4934, April 9, 1913, USHS Salt Lake County Plat Records, 1869_1940 Cu7mer, SIC nirectrrv, 1 7' Sanborn Maps, Salt Lake City, 1898,1911 , 1999 1969 Graham, " " , 188 Hannohs, Salt Lake City Directory, 1879 U.S. Di -ectory Co. , 1RP� Sloan, " " " " , 1874 "Charles James Wu7l ett", neser t mews 1On Geographical Data January 5, 1911 n.2 Acreage of nominated property less than one Census Tact Plat E Block 32 04 Tax Number 2813 11 ® Form Prepared By name/title S. H. Draper organization date November 11, 1986 street & number 680 Wall Street telephone 263 9600 (work) city or town Salt Lake City state Utah 12. Exhibits/Documentation This foam must be accompanied by the following: 1. Plat mar showing the lorlation of the property (available from the County Recorder, 2nd Floor, City and County Building! 2. Photographs: A,JL photographs must be clear and in focus.Trey must be 8 X 10 inches in size and may be black and white or color. The following views are minimum requirements but the arolicant is encouraged to provide additional views and details to fully document the building's appearance: a. Front elevation b. General view from a distance showing environment, landscaping and adjacent buildings. c. Rear elevation and one other side d. Exterior details, two or more. This may include windows, front en Lrance, ornament, etc. 3. Color Slides: Slides of the above views. .ibs 4 •�, `."' '4tY"S^ w,f -7ci-ti...,-, :r^ _ 4 v _ •�z,e t ,lr. • Fit h• a_ - -3"E LAY < T L/ E CITY E ' * .e. . a CKk-'-, ' L , } - 1 3- ,- a 7 • z« r. • * `t'" SCd1Ltic RT — ONE .NC,,.c. !: , • . /` 5L C� / _ .333 . . . '' r I. • • ��es • s F° n /- ,-• r �,, -Z n' Mgr . .. _ a. q'�I•.,. _� < ,.h'`—,• , _ f . '' 5- \'''''' ,. .., _ ..)) -t ''., 3 - ,,..-4 Ir. - t 1. , 4 - t kl 373. a7' • J , '' „1. .ate 3 " _ ."34-or . ( f h 3' , E e a t� fi<rrt circa 0� 9 \ ` f • Z^e , a y 4- .. }4,Afi , i it,: o-\ ` \ 1 - y `' ` ', ?_ ° , ck�4 r 1. r — 1 ‘• ;c � y - xCS• I ' - - , '; . ' , T Pcj 5�-r __— ` 1' , yy . 04 Cfl 1, - :+ t •` gL t J+:aA v ` e � ktz' t • nTT: \ -. F , P [ T -'1 .'-'" r. 1•�-.y -- ` , '.,- 1 z-'7--' ,lir Av_. _ i T. LL s,f • '� 1s_ C:, ,y j, 1- •.t CI-L N I.O-t 5+84 'A• _t - l'' . - ' - e 6, �9 .r,.D } {$ '-a--g '.q . .;I =mac '.'�•. -. :. 4•`` t • ' • }; ..1tt [ . L - ti 'F " t: ✓3, x { n:s s ar �; -S , r " } fi t ` .. . _ _• f * *P,. r NikF �s � '2 aS' t� ' ",` � L ' , n •r r _ • % • ' , •' •c • - " '..�.t-• nyr.1 • a h M p+ 4 4- ;':" r ,r . --„ . . - z4;i4,'.;;:a � L d .4 1r . ' , fi JG OIlnyroNEEtt IIFRITAcE 47 in Sn/I hake (:it) Iltcy dccidcd to goo on tO Slt:�rriislt I'oI'k with t b .7 Ch:u Ins. They arrived there on September hard in order to stake it possible for the children to have rood 1 S, lfi(i4, and on the clothing and surroundings. LS evening of that same day Margaret and (;harks were married. • She had a very sweet, clear singing voice, as did her hns- :" '!'he family made their home with the, )flung couple until they band. They sang at parties and socials, and often at night as ", •�t. could establish thcutsclvcs in a home of Iltcir otvnn' she sal sewing, they would sing, for their children. 'fire little ,t om Margaret had been used to all the necessities and many 'iris of the town loved to go tof Maggie Hiotvrte's Shop to 4 luxuries when she lived in I;ngl:tad. She was artistic with a �' r tat people tattuciized her because she my their hats. The immil ,;.,t• needle and when just child won a prize in the infant's class would tryto fit them reason:tl>� and :t , tro triatel '. 'l he trusted ;c >' � l I 1 } Y P. a t+itlt her fancywork. Ambitious, she decided to rely on her re- her judgment. She belonged to inany clnnrcl► organizations and ;` stances for t)blaininl; finances, so she diet dressmakingand fed n full life. 11cr children were: oin' Nicholas, t;lizabellr • •� milliners' work for others. At first, it was necessary for ter to Maria, Charles Jlenry \Villinnt lloa Ttilnrg;aret Alice`, Mary make all dresses by hand, which was a tedious jolt, but later Jane Lily Soulborn Sarah I?lba,, Flossie liar, and J. Allen. she bought a sewing machine. It was clone an event when her Margaret Ann died July 5, 1924, and was buried in the new machine arrived. It was one of tltc first in town (Ind the, • Sp:utislt 1 Fork ('entclery. Ilex many friends p:+id glorying tribute first many of the people had ever seen. Dressmaking was not to her faith, loyalty and ambition. —Elizabeth Sterling so long or tedious after that, and although Margaret was frail, 01, she oft times sat up the greater part of the night to finish dresses • FROM "I III; ISLE OF MANand hats so her customers would have .than for some special Elizabeth AnnClncns Afullel, daughter of James and liar occasion. garet IJenry Clucas, was horn August (3, i8�I7, on the Isle of y' Ilcr millinery shop, which was said to be the first in town,was in one room of her home. Her father, Nicholas Iloak, walked Mau. \Nitta the child ryas only three months old, her mother died and she was cared for by an aunt who raised her with ep1.4 to Salt Lake City and carried her first supply tly of hats hack ,. I 1the idea that "children should he seen and not heard " and to Spanish Fork. Later she purchased some property on Main was so told when asking questions pertaining to her relatives, .fit. Street and moved her business uptown, where she experienced as well as other things. �',�; ;natty hardships and trials. At one time doctors removed a large After emigrating to the United States, the family lived in • ;,, • tumor from her leg. On the 25th of September, 1901, her Sr. Louis. Here Elizabeth attended school, and Lydia Danford, 'cA, • daughter Flossie liar dial and on Ucccntbcr 18, IOOJ her ; Alder, was her scatntalc ill the Benton School. later'Mrs. George .. ';;_ drncghter Alice passed away of typhoid fever. Two other chit- She continued to live with her aunt, but when all opportunity, dren, William and lily, also contracted the fever and it was to go to Utah presented itself, she 'was married Jul} 8, 18G`{, [cued they would not recover, but they were spared. to (;halicsjdullet by I)avid M. Stewart, and on July fItln started In 1)ccrntber l S)7, i Inrgaret went to Mammoth to start on a strange honeymoon by crossing the plains. l•ront her jour- y'' ` a millinery shop. She was accompanied by her (laughter Marv. nal we quote: I he trip was hard because the roads were rough and the weather ir- My uncle and aunt didn't want Tile to leave until they had f2 bitterly cold, but soon she established a successful business. given are a wedding; reception, but I was anxious to he on ti4. puling that Hole, ker .shot burned down and her furniture ti my way. Among their gifts to rile was a beautiful pair of hlan- ;'�.7) and supplies wets a total loss, but she did not give up. She r Ft: t 1 kris. 'They were ro11c•d carefully tit yards of fable oilcloll► for opened another business, and in I1)05 was appointed post- protection from dirt and moisture and then securely strapped mistress of Mammoth, which position she held until 1920 when on top of the trunk containing lily other belongings. Wilde r she resigned and returned lv Spanish Fork. She built a small going by boat to Ontaha, these precious blankets disappeared. ' frame house in the Second Ward and lived there until her Needless to say, this upset me very much. I knew they were r't death. on the boat and was determined to have a thorough search ; 1\l:u trct Ann was the mother of tent children, six of whom made:. I was on my way to ask the captain to have this done when I met David M. Stewart, die elder in charge of the coin- !' her. Her older children were very dependable and t rat} of Saints. Upon learning of the situation, he advised me :tssunted much of the responsibility of the honuttvork and I reining of the family. She Was stern and exacting with I er chit- against carrying out my intentions of lrnving; a search ntacic as F he feared by so doing the hard feelings already e.x➢sl➢:tg toward �. then and those who worked for her, yet she was also charitable the Saints would be increased to our d➢saclvanttage. 1lcluctanlly and kind, and always considerate daring illnesses. She worked 1t:,'y' 1 ' ' W ''' c' 48 Oun I ioNtaat IIEHITAGE TUUE YEAR or 11168 Ala.) I gave up the idea and with it my blankets, for I never saw for a few years, the father also winked as a photographer for them again. I had the feeling they had been taken by a deck a short time. Ultimately he started a small candy business on baud whose actions were suspicious to toe. Nlcdlock Street in Nlaueheste•, making candy in the basement Nly twenty-first birthday was spent on the plains. On July and selling it in the small drugstore above. here William assisted 21th we traveled only one-half of the day. (;auap was made :Hal his father awl learned the business of c:auly ,,,,,Ling. At the death 41. our flag was Hung at Half-ssul to show respect to fiche• C. of his father, Williams moved to the nearby village of Dudley ; nd Kimball who had died. When we readied Laramie, we camped apprenticed himself in the hardware business. Ile euntimted to F+ two or three weeks, waiting for a company of English emigraunts follow the hardware sates until 18(iti at which Iiumc he decided to arrive and join us on the last lap of our journey to Salt Lake to sail for America. (:ily. 'II le re were about one hundred fifty-two in this last After the death of their father, William's sister, Harriet, company to make the journey with oxteams. Front Laramie we moved to London to be with their Gouts. \Villioan wrote of his traveled by horse and mule teams. decision to leave his native land and invited Harriet to accusl- Arriviug in Salt Lake City, we spent three or four days pony him if she so desired. Against the wishes of her aunts and in the tithing yard block while getting provisions and convey- friends,she gratefully accepted his invitation, and in Nlay of I8(i8 I •utce to take us to Spanish Fork where we had relatives. The they set sail for America on a steamer bound for New Yolk. 3: first night in Salt lake City my husband and I went to the it was while they were staying in New York that William Salt Lake 'Theatre to see "The Witch of Entlor." I was very took Harriet to a Ia';uimh meeting of the Church of Jesus Christ ataiuus to go to see the final performance in the theatre but of Lotter-day Saints, a (;birch to which she did out know was suable to do so, to my great disappointment. her brother belonged, and she was surprised that lie was one :f. Nf ' husband was engaged to drive a tears to Dixie, and of the speakers. This was die I lust (line she had ever heard .; huhig left :dune 1 hired out for housework in a family by the Munnouistn preac:hcd. 'I'bey left New York and traveled by rail C name of Snedeke-, the salt ratan, as he was called. With the and isle team, arriving in Salt bake (:ity in October It 68. �, first money I earned I bought a washboard, paying 2.(I0 for 1Villiant auud his I?nglisln sweetheart, Hagar hick, were tour- 4. it. Nly husband didn't want me to work out, as he could care vied November 1.1, 1808, Ili the Endowment I louse in Sall for me, lint I continued to do so, living in the family of John Lake City. Ile taught school for one year at Warship then Kimball and also working for the first wife of Ilenry Lawrence. moved to Salt Lake City where be clerked mud manufactured Then my first child, named Elizabeth Amelia Mullet, later candy until 1875. Taking his family then to Provo, he engaged Burton, was born in 1872, and with her to care for• I was content in the candy business in a building located on Center Sheet to devote my time to the home we now had. Nly husband was near Second \Vest. At die age of Ilhimty-two William died, (caving away from home much of the time working. Ile helped to his wife and three sons and one daughter to mourn his untimely build the railroad from Echo Canyon to Ogden. Eleanor Jane passing. His death was the result of lifting a stone slab that was born► to us in 1877 ;end is now deceased. Our only son, was too heavy, causing a blood vessel to burst. 'I'luts be bled Charles Ja toes, was born in 1880. The last child, Ethel Mead to death. • Mullet Shcin, now a widow, was burn in 1882. Nagar worked diligently at the business and was able to , For many years we lived in the 17th Ward on the block keep it going until her children were old enough to assist her. this side of Captain Ilooper's home. Sonic (line was spent as 13eing a very generous person, she would help anyone in need. members of the IGllt Ward, tit n we moved to the 2-1ti_ Ward. She was industrious, courageous and the soul of huior and g NI)' husband died January 5, 1f111, auc7 tlic-mine was bro en truthfulness. Spiritually minded, Nagar was proud she was up, and since then I have moved about a good deal, but at the a Mormon and lived accutding to the teachings of the Church. present ant living with my daughter in the 10th Ward. She lived to the age of eighty-two years. —Charlotte A. Moyle —Amine V. Slamttul> Jtidy,e, CIanddaugiter . ` ;: •' s:�'.-.:' . \l.''t \1.11(l.\ lAltN1AN l)E�CIIEY T.•:I.i.'i 'EEaal ',TOM' 1 '4 t rF,� s s,; t r.,' 'off 1 tl .t_ih Kf •.,,� .i. ,.. ' 1 f ii F °1-