Loading...
08/08/1989 - Minutes PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmembers Sydney Fonnesbeck and Wayne Horrocks were absent. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive carriage operators and the city Director, reviewed the Council ' s had not reached a consensus on how agenda and said that briefings the routes should be distributed. were scheduled for August 10, He said the operators were con- 1989, for the issues involving cerned about protecting their side and rear yard set backs and investment while allowing new restrictions in a B-3 zone. companies into the market. Lee King, Budget Analyst, Councilmember Hardman asked briefed the Council on the hear- how a new company would get a ings relating to the horse drawn share of a finite number of down- carriage ordinance and the certif- town permits, and Mr. Larsen said icates of convenience and necessi- that one possible method would be ty ordinance. (See Attachment to hold a lottery, then each year #1) He said meetings had been one half of the permits could be held between city staff and the given to the existing operators in carriage operators to work out proportion to the status quo and acceptable language for the ordi- the other half would be lotteried nance. He said the new ordinance off to new operators. He said a should grandfather in existing lottery ticket would be the permit applications, protect current to operate a carriage in the city businesses, and allow for the and every operator with a valid entry of new operators into the permit could enter in the lottery. market. Mr. Larsen said that the Mr. King said the traffic distribution system was only engineer and the carriage opera- needed to allocate the routes in tors had agreed that the downtown the downtown area where traffic could support 18 carriages. Kurt congestion was a problem. He said Larsen, traffic engineer, said that operators could apply for that Blaine Oveson had requested permits and routes outside the an additional carriage on the downtown area according to exist- application which would raise the ing procedure. number of carriages downtown to 19. He said he felt the city Councilmember Hardman asked could live with that. why all the downtown permits weren' t included in the lottery Councilmember Godfrey asked and Mr. King said that the city if the number of routes would was interested in protecting some increase and Mr. King said the of the investment of existing 89-236 PROCE•INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 operators. Mr. Oveson said that by including all the permits in the lottery it would put the operator' s business and investment at risk because of the possibility of losing every permit in the lot- tery. Mr. Larsen said that a new company could buy lottery tickets by obtaining the needed permits, and as each year' s lottery was held, the new company could in- crease its share of the market if it won in the lottery. Coun- cilmember Godfrey said that per- mits and routes would open up as carriage companies went out of business due to natural market forces. These could then be distributed to new and existing operators. Mr. Larsen said that no decisions had been made as to the final form the distribution system would take, but the lottery idea was just one of the possibilities. Councilmember Stoler asked what the grievance procedure was for operators not receiving per- mits, and Mr. King said that according to the ordinance, the final decision would be made by the traffic engineer but the procedure could be changed. He said the decision power could be placed with a committee to include representatives from the engin- eer' s office, the Council and the administration. Mr. Oveson said he liked the idea of a committee making the decision, as it would take the pressure off one person and avoid problems that might come from perceived favoritism. 89-237 ncil Meeting 8/8/89 achment 1 . ' 1 iff OR I2� � ROBERT M.BRIDGE ALLEN C.JOHNSON,AICP BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY DIRECTOR SUPERVISOR PERMITS AND Business Licensing ZONING SERVICES 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 215,CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7717 August 8, 1989 SUMMARY STATEMENT CM CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY AND THE HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE ORDINANCE After a rather lengthy meeting Monday with the three present operators and the City's Task Force on the Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance, we feel that we have reached a consensus on five major points with respect to the ordinance: 1. Grandfathered in this ordinance would be the approval of the following number of carriage permits: number Carriage Horse Livery 15 owner (Wayne Scott) Carriage For Hire 10 owner (Blaine Oveson) Carriage Connection 6 owner (Mark Tanner) Total 31 (The new authorized permits being grandfathered are a result of formal requsts being made through proper channels to the appropriate City agencies by the following operators:) no. requested - date requested 1. Carriage Horse Livery 5 Dec. '88 2. Carriage Connection 4 Sept.'88 237a 2. Approval by The Division of Transportation of the following number of autorized carriages in the Downtown Central Business District. Carriage Horse Livery 10 Carriage for Hire 4 Carriage Connection 4 Total 18 3. The other 13 Carriage permits to be approved for routes in other quadrants of the City by The Division of Transportation. 4. Division of Transportation to develop a system or process which will allow for a fair and reasonable procedure whereby a new carriage operator may enter the market place and for the fair and reasonable allocation of routes and termini in other zones and quadrants of the City. • 5. The amended ordinance to reflect such a system or process (perhaps a lottery) which will be developed by The Division of Transportation with input from other city agencies and carriage operators by no later than February 15, 1990. 237b PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Council Members Sydney Fonnesbeck and Wayne Horrocks were absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES waiting. He said he had spent 30 minutes trying to help an out-of- #1. No invocation was given. town mother and child connect with the right bus to get to the air- #2. The Council led the port, but she ended up missing her Pledge of Allegiance. flight. He said something should be done about the bus situation #3. Councilmember Kirk during parades. He said he would moved and Councilmember Godfrey like to talk to someone about the seconded to approve the minutes of routing of the UTA buses as he the Salt Lake City Council for the knew that by changing the route of regular meeting held Tuesday, one bus it would save 22 inbound August 1, 1989, which motion and outbound routes and save carried, all members present voted approximately $50, 000. Mr. Lloyd aye. said the city should levy a pollu- (M 89-1) tion tax on trucks, buses, and cars. Mayor DePaulis said he would follow through with the COMMENTS problem. Conrad Lloyd, 1174 Gillespie Ave, said when he arrived at CONSENT AGENDA tonight ' s meeting he found the south door locked, and he felt Councilmember Godfrey moved that all City and County Building and Councilmember Hardman seconded doors should be kept open for to approve the consent agenda, Council meetings. He was also which motion carried, all members concerned about the "unorganized present voted aye. chaos" during the Pioneer Days horse parade with the schedule of #1. RE: Set a date for a UTA buses. He said the buses public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- should have been allowed down Main ber 5, 1989, at 6:40 p.m. , to Street up until 5:30 p.m. but obtain public comment regarding a instead they had been routed down proposed ordinance outlining State Street and the would-be conditions and an overlay zone to passengers were on Main Street legalize certain garages, carports 89-238 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 and patio covers that were built related facilities at approxi- without proper permits and do not mately 1943 East 3435 South (Ever- adhere to present side yard or green Avenue) . rear yard requirements. (C 89-418) (0 89-33) #6. RE: Set a date for a #2. RE: Set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- ber 5, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to ber 5, 1989, at 6: 50 p.m. , to obtain comment concerning proposed obtain comment on a proposed amendments to Section 21.78. 130 overlay zone to allow cer-tain -regarding recreational facilities recreational vehicles in the side in residential areas. yards of residentially zoned (0 89-36) properties. (0 89-34) #7. RE: Adopt Ordinance 49 of 1989, closing portions of #3. RE: Set a date for a Ashton and Simpson Avenues and public hearing on Tuesday, Sep- associated alleyways between 1300 tember 12, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to East and Highland Drive pursuant obtain comment on a proposed to Petition 400-732-89. amendment to Section 21. 52.010 (P 89-177) regarding "B-3" business districts to prohibit mechanical repair and #8. RE: Adopt Ordinance 50 specialty type service centers for of 1989, rezoning property between automobiles and light trucks. Simpson Avenue and I-80 and 1300 (0 89-35) East and Highland Drive from Residential "R-2" and Commercial #4. RE: Adopt Resolution 97 "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursu- of 1989, authorizing the execution ant to Petition 400-731-89 . of an interlocal agreement with (P 89-176) the Utah Department of Transporta- tion (UDOT) to establish a man- agement and operation structure PUBLIC HEARINGS consisting of the UDOT safety engineer and the Salt Lake City #1 RE: A public hearing at transportation engineer, to deter- 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment con- mine goals, objectives, and poli- cerning a proposed ordinance cies relating to the operation and regarding Certificates of Conve- maintenance of the signal system. nience and Necessity for horse- Both parties will maintain juris- drawn carriages. diction over their respective roadways and signals. The adviso- ACTION: Councilmember God- ry committee will be responsible frey moved and Councilmember Kirk for traffic analysis, traffic seconded to close the public control philosophy, computer hearing, which motion carried, all programming and maintenance and members present voted aye. installation functions. (C 89-419) Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to #5. RE: Adopt Resolution 98 adopt Ordinance 51 of 1989, which of 1989, authorizing the execu- motion carried, all members tion of an interlocal agreement present voted aye. with Salt Lake County for an easement for a watermain and 89-239 PROCEIIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, Mr. Zoll, representing Carriage business license supervisor, said Horse Livery, said Wayne Scott had a lot of research and input from worked hard for the past five committees and operators of the years and spent a lot of time and horse carriages had gone into both expense to gain input in order to ordinances and he recommended that have a more efficient ordinance. they be approved as written. He said he enjoyed the image it had given to Salt Lake City. He John Fox, Humane Society, said since the city was presently said his office was concerned that allowing the service on a trial there were no limitations or _ basis-he hoped they would pass the regulations regarding the length ordinance. of time horses could be used and whether they would be allowed to Mr. Tanner, said the Carriage operate in the cold and hot weath- Connection was very concerned er. He said the proposed ordi- about the horses and didn't want nance said the animals should be them getting hurt, and they had examined by a veterinarian but he large veterinarian bills as a felt it should be done by an result. He said they used special equine practitioner He said they rubber shoes for horses to help would also like to see a specifi- alleviate the stress from the cation in the ordinance allowing concrete. He said the horses were the animal control officers to fed well, and they used light pull the animals from the street colored horses during the hotter if the tack or equipment used was daytime hours and darker colored improper. horses during the cooler hours. Frank Crowe, Animal Control, Mr. Miller said the carriages said the ordinance stated that were equipped with buckets of horses would be pulled from the water in the back so the horses street if any condition occurred could drink every couple of hours that affected the horse' s ability and the horses were taken good to pull a carriage safely. He care of. said there were also limited hours that the horses could work as they Ms. Garcia said she felt the were not allowed on the streets carriages added a great deal of during peak traffic hours. He ambience to the city and she said his office checked on the thought they were classy. horses regularly and during July they had pulled five horses off The following people spoke the street. He said he felt the against the issue: Humane Society had some valid concerns that should be addressed, Lee Englebrecht Bountiful but he recommended that the Coun- Wendy Von Crum 1671 Redondo Av. cil approve the ordinance and Fred Englebrecht Bountiful amend it later if necessary. Conrad Lloyd 1174 Gillespie Av. Robert Von Crum 1347 E. 1700 S. The following people spoke in Pat Von Crum 1347 E. 1700 S. favor of the issue: Those who spoke against the Ray Zoll 360 W. 5300 S. ordinance complained about the Mark Tanner Carriage Connection following: horses having to work Loren Miller Bountiful in extremely hot or cold tempera- Adria Garcia 445 Virginia St. tures; carriages creating a 89-240 PROC INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 traffic hazard downtown; horses regulating horse drawn carriages, having to breathe fumes and which motion carried, all members pollution from automobiles; horses present voted aye. having to stand for such long periods on concrete which tended DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, to create a strain on their business license supervisor, said tendons; the necessity of special he had recently attended a nation- shoes for horses because of the al business license convention concrete; and that only those where he had presented Salt Lake people pushing the ordinance would City' s proposed horse drawn car- profit from it. riage -ordinance. He -said it was interestingto note the comments Councilmember Godfrey pointed he had received on it. He said out that the audience was probably many other cities had horse drawn confused with the two ordinances carriage businesses and he was before them as one was regarding told by their business license certificates of convenience and administrators that it generated a necessity for horse drawn carriag- lot of tourism and created a lot es and the other was for estab- of interest for the local people, lishing horse drawn carriages in as well as brought a lot of charm the city. to the cities. He said that after reviewing the voluminous files Councilmember Bittner said that had been accumulated during she was uncomfortable with the the study he recommended that the statements made by Mr. Fox from ordinance be passed. the Humane Society and wondered whether they should address some Council Chair Stoler said of those concerns before passing that the comments made during the the ordinance. previous hearing probably applied to this hearing, and they were on Larry Spendlove, assistant record and would be taken into city attorney, said he wanted to consideration. clarify that there were two sepa- (0 89-31) rate ordinances before the Council and the one before them now was #3. RE: A public hearing at dealing with certificates of 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- convenience. cerning bicycle dealer fees. (0 89-32) ACTION: Councilmember God- #2. RE: A public hearing at frey moved and Councilmember Kirk 6 :30 p.m. to obtain comment con- seconded to close the public cerning a proposed ordinance hearing, which motion carried, all regulating horse drawn carriage members present voted aye. businesses within the city. Councilmember Godfrey moved ACTION: Councilmember Kirk and Councilmember Kirk seconded to moved and Councilmember Godfrey adopt Ordinance 53 of 1989, which seconded to close the public motion carried, all members hearing, which motion carried, all present voted aye. members present voted aye. DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, Councilmember Kirk moved and business license supervisor, said Councilmember Bittner seconded to his office had received a lot of adopt Ordinance 52 of 1989, comments from bicycle dealers 89-241 PROC INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 regarding the fees they were DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, presently allowed to charge for business license supervisor, said registration and decals. He said he had been impressed by the it involved a lot of time and amount of involvement required by effort to register and fill out various city departments in pro- forms in triplicate and he re- cessing a business license appli- quested that the fee be increased cation. He said there had to be from $1 to $2. inspections, surveys, etc. and it was a cooperative effort between Councilmember Bittner ques- his department, the Police Depart- tioned the record keeping methods ment, Fire Department, and Build- of the bicycle dealers and said ing and Housing. He said some of they should ensure that the the applicants did not qualify and records were maintained properly. he felt that a non-refundable application fee would help to Mr. Bridge said the registra- cover part of the expense associ- tion forms were completed in ated with the application. triplicate with one copy being (0 89-29) maintained by the dealer, one copy going to the owner and the third #5. RE: A public hearing at copy going to Salt Lake County 7:00 p.m. to obtain comment con- where it was microfilmed. He said cerning Petition 400-596 submitted this allowed them to track bicy- by Banj Investment requesting that Iles if they were lost or stolen. the city close the alley located at 750 South 25 West. Cindy Gust-Jensen, Council Executive Director, said there was ACTION: Councilmember God- an 80-90% recovery rate if bicy- frey moved and Councilmember Kirk Iles were registered and later seconded to close the public lost or stolen. She said the hearing, which motion carried, all program was not perfect but it was members present voted aye except good and improving. She said the Councilmember Hardman who was city sold all the licenses and the absent for the vote. county recorded them, so it was a joint effort. Councilmember Godfrey moved (0 89-30) and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 55 of 1989, which #4. RE: A public hearing at motion carried, all members 6: 50 p.m. to obtain comment con- present voted aye except Coun- cerning a proposed ordinance to cilmember Hardman who was absent establish a non-refundable busi- for the vote. ness license application fee. DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, ACTION: Councilmember God- planning director, explained that frey moved and Councilmember Kirk the hearing had been advertised seconded to close the public and presented to the Council once hearing, which motion carried, all before, but at that time his members present voted aye. office had presented the wrong staff report. He said it was a Councilmember Godfrey moved request to vacate part of an alley and Councilmember Bittner seconded running north and south for 38 to adopt Ordinance 54 of 1989, feet and east and west for 8.25 which motion carried, all members feet, and it was an extension of present voted aye. an alley already vacated between 89-242 PROCE•INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 700 and 800 South and Main Street and West Temple. He said it would become part of the Rick Warner auto dealership development. He said all the necessary city de- partments had reviewed the pro- posed ordinance and recommended approval. (P 88-260) The meeting adjourned at_ 7:05 p.m. CO IL CHAIR C Y CORDER CHIEF DEPUTY 89-243 ® rn i nub SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA a mi-ei(ta c- CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, August 8, 1989 6:00 P.M. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 P.M. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 'n,- �(,, 1 . Report of the xecutive Direc or. J J, ` 1 �6U^^ �� 2. A/Wedf.au � 4/1-IQ li7 '. ..et iutrff - . / &Ai , , B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1 . Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: (\ /1. Side Yard/Rear Yard Requirements Set a date to hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:40 P.M. to obtain public comment on a proposed ordinance outlining conditions and an overlay zone to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. '. l -L (089-33) l`C W ht , GIOC1f V OnO - d0 bn aoti - `Peaple, Staff Recommendation: Set Date. haniGa, O2. Recreational Vehicles in Side Yards t*C61"` . Set a date to hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:50 P.M. to obtain public comment on a proposed overlay zone to allow certain recreational vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. (089-34) Staff Recommendation: Set Date. 3. Speciality Service Centers in B-3 Business Districts Set a date to hold a public hearing on September 12, 1989 at 6:20 P.M. to obtain public comment on a proposed amendment to Section 21 .52.010 "B-3" business district. The amendment is to prohibit mechanical repairs and speciality-type service centers for automobiles and light trucks. (089-35) Staff Recommendation: Set Date. 4. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Utah Department of Transportation Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for establishment of a two level management and operation structure consisting of the Engineer of Safety, Utah Department of Transportation; and the Transportation Engineer, Salt Lake City Corporation, to be charged with the determination of goals, objectives, and policies related to the operation and maintenance of the signal system. Both parties will maintain jurisdiction over their respective roadways and signals . The Advisory Committee will be responsible for traffic analysis, traffic control philosophy, computer programming and maintenance and installation functions. (C89-419) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. 5. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for an easement for a water main and related facilities approximately 478 feet long in a county road at approximately 1943 East 3435 South (Evergreen Avenue) in Salt Lake County. (C89-418) Staff Recommendation: Adopt . 6. Recreational Facilities in Residential Areas Set a date to hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:20 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to Section 21 .78. 130 Recreational Facilities in Residential Areas.— (089-36) (�� Staff Recommendation: Set Date. A Ordinance - Shopko Street Closures k(�� I�� To adopt an ordinance closing portions of Ashton and Simpson Avenues and AV Uv associated alleyways between 1300 East and Highland Drive pursuant to V O�ttyp/ Petition No. 400-732-89. (P89-177) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. Ordinance - Shopko Rezoning To adopt an ordinance rezoning property located between Simpson Avenue and I-80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East from Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to Commercial "C3-A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-731-89. (P89-176) Staff Recommendation: Adopt . E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: / Certificates of Convenience and Necessity 6:20 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance regarding Certificates of Convenience and Necessity for horsedrawn carriages. (089-32) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. Horse Drawn Carriage Business 6:30 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance regulating horse drawn carriage businesses within Salt Lake City. (089-31 ) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. 3. Bicycle Dealer Fees 6:40 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance concerning bicycle dealer fees. (089-30) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. 4. Non-Refundable Business License Application Fee 6:50 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance on establishing a non- refundable business license application fee. (089-29) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. 5. Petition No. 400-596 - Banj Investment. I. 7:00 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment requesting Salt Lake City close the alley located at approximately 750 South 25 West. (P 88-260) Staff Recommendation: Close Hearing and Adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. *'' FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA i i?cL_ DATED: `` • : p71,,' BY: CI CO STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On th eiiL day o , 89, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the 11461#4.4.. Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 P.M. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 P.M. in the Newsroom, Room 343. AP Kt/I f,(AL-Al'ioJ ag4.4 L,______ CITY R' CO' �� Subscribed and sworn to before me this . day of August, •89• ' fjo (1tiCC--c N ar Public residing in the Stat ' of Utah My Commission Expires: da .1 �' � Ll NDA�DOMINO I iti% �; CI &Coun Bui B 'I ` Mir COrnm;slan'Expires I State otUtah I APPROVAL: C ,..)5( 4, ,,,.._ EXECUTIV DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1989 (Rezoning property located between Simpson Avenue and I-80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East from Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-731-89 . ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 14 . 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Clark Development, No . 400-731-89 , the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located between Simpson Avenue and I-80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East from Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursuant to Petition No . 400-731-89 is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21 . 14 . 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows : Sec. 21 .14. 020 . Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" is hereby rezoned Commercial "C-3A" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at a point that is the Northeast corner of Highland Drive and Simpson Avenue, also being the southwest corner of Block 6 , Union Heights Subdivision, Big Field Survey 10 Acre Plat A, thence S . 20° 05 ' 15" W. along the east line of Highland dr �� Drive 823 . 15 + feet to the north line of the ll Interstate 80 No-Access line; thence east along said north line of Interstate 80 to the west line of 1300 East Street; thence north along said west line of 1300 East Street to the Northwest corner of 1300 East Street and Simpson Avenue; thence west 1273 .45 + feet along the north line of Simpson Avenue, also being the south line of said Block 6 , to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS . This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions has been met: 1 . The issuance of a site development permit for the Shopko project proposed by the Petition. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the condition has not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: - CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -3- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Closing portions of Ashton, Stringham and Simpson Avenues and associated alleyways between 1300 East and Highland Drive pursuant to Petition No. 400-732-89 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING PORTIONS OF ASHTON, STRINGHAM AND SIMPSON AVENUES AND ASSOCIATED ALLEYWAYS BETWEEN 1300 EAST AND HIGHLAND DRIVE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-732-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public streets and alleyways described below is not necessary for use by the public as streets and alleyways and that closure of said streets and alleyways will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That portions of Ashton, Stringham and Simpson Avenues and associated alleyways between 1300 East and Highland Drive, which are the subject of Petition No. 400-732-89 and which are more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby are, CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as public streets and alleyways, with the title remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value or other adequate consideration: Said streets and alleyways are more particularly described as follows : PARCEL "A" BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS S . 89°56 ' 42"W. 168 . 090 FEET, AND NORTH N. 00°12 ' 04"E . 33 . 00 FEET FROM A MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1300 EAST AND ASHTON AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°56 ' 42"WEST 16 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°12 ' 04"EAST 130 . 08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37°25 ' 43"WEST 8 . 189 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°56 ' 32"WEST 733 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°03 ' 34"WEST 8 . 767 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°12 ' 04"WEST 130 . 049 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°56 ' 42"WEST 16 . 00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00°12 ' 04"EAST 71 .527 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56 ' 37"EAST 8 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°12 ' 04"EAST 73 . 029 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1-0 89°56 ' 32"EAST 1 . 85 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°12 ' 04"EAST 8 . 003 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56 ' 32"EAST 745 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37 °38 ' 18"EAST 8 . 225 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°12 ' 04"EAST 130 . 08 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF STRINGHAM AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89°56 ' 22"EAST 16 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°12 ' 04"WEST 278 . 189 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 18, 363 . 4 SQUARE FEET EQUAL TO 0 . 4216 ACRES . PARCEL "B" BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS SOUTH 89°55 ' 48"WEST 165 .454 FEET AND SOUTH 00°11 ' 44"WEST 33 . 00 FEET FROM A MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1300 EAST AND SIMPSON AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 00°11 ' 44"WEST 152 . 489 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°56 ' 05"WEST 956 . 80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°11 ' 44"EAST 152 . 409 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SIMPSON AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89°55 ' 48"EAST 16 . 00 FEET; - ''vr 1 THENCE SOUTH 00°11 ' 44"WEST 129 . 99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 36°36 ' 52"EAST 8 . 011 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56 ' 05"EAST 915 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37°36 ' 57"EAST 8 . 228 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°11 ' 44"EAST 129 . 99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°55 ' 48"EAST 16 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 19 , 693 . 0 SQUARE FEET EQUAL TO 0 . 452 ACRES . PARCEL "C" (SIMPSON AVENUE) BEGINNING AT THE WEST LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET, SAID POINT IS S . 89°55 ' 48"W. 28 . 954 FEET FROM A MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF SIMPSON AVENUE AND 1300 EAST STREET; THENCE N. 0 0°11 ' 4 6"E . 32 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTH /. �1�1`�' LINE OF SIMPSON AVENUE; THENCE S . 89°55 ' 48"W. 1274 . 610 L a FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF HIGHLAND DRIVE; THENCE q-g"S� S . 20°05 ' 15"E . 69 . 177 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SIMPSON AVENUE; THENCE N. 89°55 ' 48"E. 1250 . 629 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET; THENCE N. 00°11 ' 46"E. 33 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1 . 884 ACRES . -2- PARCEL "D" (STRINGHAM AVENUE) BEGINNING AT THE WEST LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET, SAID POINT IS S . 89°56 ' 22"W. 30 . 273 FEET FROM A MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF STRINGHAM AVENUE AND 1300 EAST STREET; THENCE N . 00°11 ' 46"E. 33 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF STRINGHAM AVENUE; THENCE S. 89°56 ' 22"W. 927 . 996 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE BOND PROPERTY; THENCE S . 00°03 ' 38"E . 33 . 00 FEET TO THE CENTER OF STRINGHAM AVENUE; THENCE N . 89°56 ' 22"E. 24 . 354 FEET; THENCE L S . 00°03 ' 38"E . 33 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF STRINGHAM AVENUE AND THE EAST LINE OF KEY BANK PROPERTY; THENCE N. 89°56 ' 22"E. 903 . 347 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET; THENCE N. 00°11 ' 46"E. 33 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1 . 387 ACRES. PARCEL "E" (ASHTON AVENUE) BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS N. 89°56 ' 42"W. 31 .59 FEET FROM A MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHTON AVENUE AND 1300 EAST STREET, SAID POINT IS ON THE WEST LINE n OF 1300 EAST; THENCE N. 00°12 ' 04"E. 33 . 00 FEET TO THE ,irw NORTH LINE OF ASHTON AVENUE; THENCE S . 89°56 ' 42"W. 1012 . 951 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF HIGHLAND DRIVE; 0 THENCE S . 20°05 ' 15"E . 70 . 250 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF ASHTON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N. 89°56 ' 42"E. 567 . 554 TO UDOT' S HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND NO ACCESS LINE AS SHOWN ON R/W SHEET NO. 12 , PROJECT NO. I-80-3 (4 )120; THENCE N. 79°02 ' 37"E. 111 . 041 FEET THRU TWO UDOT R/W MARKERS TO A LINE 12 FEET SOUTH AND PARALLEL TO THE CENTERLINE OF ASHTON AVENUE; THENCE N. 89°56 ' 42"E. 312 . 094 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET; THENCE N. 00°12 ' 04"E. 12 . 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1 . 34 ACRES. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above enclosure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities , including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . -3- SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS . This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions have been met: 1 . Ashton Avenue, Stringham Avenue and the associated alleyways, properties D, E and A above, shall be closed and sold only after all residential occupancy abutting on the closed streets and alleyways has ended. 2 . Simpson Avenue and the associated alleyways , properties C and B above, shall be closed: a. Only after all residential occupancy abutting the streets and alleyways has ended; and b. The commercial planned unit development is approved by the City; and c . A building permit for the Shopko project has been issued. If the foregoing conditions have not been completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the conditions have not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19_ CHAIRPERSON -4- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19_ Published: -5- 1A4 f I A\ 111Y1 l§J� ON ROBERT M. BRIDGE ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY DIRECTOR SUPERVISOR PERMITS AND Business Licensing ZONING SERVICES 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 215, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7717 August 8, 1989 SUMMARY STATEMENT ON CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY AND THE HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE ORDINANCE After a rather lengthy meeting Monday with the three present operators and the City's Task Force on the Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance, we feel that we have reached a consensus on five major points with respect to the ordinance: 1. Grandfathered in this ordinance would be the approval of the following number of carriage permits: number Carriage Horse Livery 15 owner (Wayne Scott) Carriage For Hire 10 owner (Blaine Oveson) Carriage Connection 6 owner (Mark Tanner) Total 31 (The new authorized permits being grandfathered are a result of formal requsts being made through proper channels to the appropriate City agencies by the following operators: ) no. requested - date requested 1. Carriage Horse Livery 5 Dec. '88 2. Carriage Connection 4 Sept. '88 2. Approval by The Division of Transportation of the following number of autorized carriages in the Downtown Central Business District. Carriage Horse Livery 10 Carriage for Hire 4 Carriage Connection 4 Total 18 M 3. The other 13 Carriage permits to be approved for routes in other quadrants of the City by The Division of Transportation. 4. Division of Transportation to develop a system or process which will allow for a fair and reasonable procedure whereby a new carriage operator may enter the market place and for the fair and reasonable allocation of routes and termini in other zones and quadrants of the City. 5. The amended ordinance to reflect such a system or process (perhaps a lottery) which will be developed by The Division of Transportation with input from other city agencies and carriage operators by no later than February 15, 1990. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Horse Drawn Carriages) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5 .37 THERETO, RELATING TO HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES, AMENDING TITLE 8 BY AMENDING SECTION 8.04.010, DEFINITIONS, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8. 16, RELATING TO REGULATION OF HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE BUSINESSES, AND AMENDING SECTION 11.36. 120 OF TITLE 11. The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . That Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new Chapter 5 .37 pertaining to horse drawn carriages to read as follows: Chapter 5.37 HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES Sections Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 Definitions and interpretation of language. 5.37.010 Applicant. 5.37.015 Carriage or Horse Drawn Carriage. 5.37.020 Carriage Business. 5.37.025 Carriage Day. 5.37.030 Carriage Stand. 5.37.035 Driver. 5.37.040 Holder. 5.37.045 Horse. 5.37.050 Person. 5.37.055 Stable. 5.37.060 Veterinarian. 5.37.065 Work. � r Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. 5.37.080 Fees--Annual operation. 5.37.085 Existing holder's certificates. 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. 5.37.095 Minimum use of carriages required. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. 5.37.110 License display. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing. 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued. 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic laws. 5.37.135 Lights. 5.37.140 Speed. 5.37.145 Presence and control. 5.37.150 Number of passengers. 5.37.155 Passengers restricted to passenger area. 5.37.160 Appearance. 5.37.165 Hours. 5.37.170 Routes. 5.37.175 Termini. 5.37.180 Rates. Article VI. Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. 5.37.190 Misdemeanor. Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 The words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined and set forth in this Article. 5.37.010 "Applicant" means the person signing an application -2- either for a carriage business license or for a Driver' s license under this chapter. 5.37.015 "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 5.37.020 "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. 5.37.025 "Carriage day" means the operating of a horse drawn carriage for business on the streets of Salt Lake City for at least one hour during any calendar day. aJ 3 jv i 5.37.030 "Carriage Stand" means that portion of a curb lane sh� designated by the city's division of transportation for loading 4' I. 0 Ct .‹X-111 and unloading of passengers for horse drawn carriages. IA 5.37.035 "Driver" means any person operating or in actual e.) s43-% physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver' s seat of such carriage with the intention 3 Of causing it to be moved by a horse. L d J ?. 5.37.040 "Holder" means any person to whom a certificate of . convenience and necessity has been issued and which certificate c is unexpired. 0 -ramGX . U- �- 5.37.045 "Horse" means an animal purely of the genus equus ei caballus, specifically excluding crosses with other genera. r% a s 5.37.050 "Person" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity. -3- 5.37.055 "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 5.37.060 "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. 5.37.65 "Work, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. No person shall operate, or permit a horse drawn carriage owned or controlled by him or her to be operated, as a carriage for hire upon the streets of the city, without first having obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the city in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, or its successor. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. In addition to the application information required under Chapter 5.05, or its successor, the application, verified under oath, shall show the experience of applicant in the transpor- tation of passengers by horse drawn carriage and shall show the specific route or routes within the City along which applicant proposes to operate one or more horse drawn carriages. 5.37.080 Annual operation. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof has paid an annual business regulatory fee of eighty dollars plus fifty dollars each year for each -4- • F horse drawn carriage authorized under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. 5.37.085 Existing holders' certificates. A. The three horse drawn carriage companies operating horse drawn carriages under revocable permit and licensing agreements with the city as of the effective date of this ordinance shall, upon application as provided in chapter 5.05 and section 5.37.075 herein, or their successors, have a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to them, allowing them to operate the following number of carriages, plus one training cart as set forth in this section 5.37.085, or its successor, without the hearing provided in this article, the public convenience and necessity having heretofore been demonstrated: Carriage Horse Livery Ltd. 15 carriages Carriage For Hire 10 carriages The Carriage Connection 6 carriages Said carriages shall be of types customarily known in the carriage industry as "vis-a-vis, " "landau, " "brougham, " "victoria" and/or "rockaway, " and shall meet all of the equipment, registration, and other requirements of this chapter before being used to transport customers. Said horse drawn carriages shall operate only within specified routes and/or quadrants as set forth in Section 5.37. 170 herein, or its successor. -5- B. Each holder may operate one training cart, that is, a two wheel, horse-drawn vehicle with extra long shafts, designed for training purposes . Said training cart shall not be used for the transport of customers for hire and shall meet all of the equipment, registration and other requirements of this chapter and shall operate only within routes specifically authorized by the city's transportation engineer as set forth in Section 5 .37. 170 herein, or its successor. 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. A. A holder is required to have the total number of carriages authorized under such holder' s certificate of convenience and necessity and to obtain the license plate required by Section 5 . 05. 155, or its successor, for each and every carriage. B. In the event the holder does not license the total number of carriages authorized by the certificate before February 15th of any year, such holder shall forfeit the right to any carriage not so licensed, unless such carriage is licensed within five days of written notice being given by the city; that authority shall automatically revert to the city, and the certificate shall be modified to reflect the total number of vehicles actually licensed before February 15th of any year. Such forfeited right to operate any carriage may be reissued to any person; provided, however, it shall not be reissued except upon application required by Section 5.05. 105, or its successor, and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5. 05 . 140, or its successor. -6- C. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit .a holder from. having carriages in excess of the number authorized under such holder' s certificate for the purpose of replacement or substitution of an authorized carriage under repair, maintenance or breakdown; provided, however, any such carriage shall not be used as a carriage other than as a replacement or substitution as herein provided. The type or style, color, seating capacity, year of manufacture, and serial number or identification number of any substitute carriage shall be filed with the licensing office. 5.37.095 Minimum use of carriages required. A. No certificate issued in accordance with Section 5.37.070 of this chapter, or its successor, shall be construed to be either a franchise or irrevocable. It is the intent of the city that all carriages authorized be actually used for the transportation of passengers for hire. In order to implement that intent, the city hereby imposes the following requirements: 1 . Each certificate holder shall have in service at least one carriage authorized under its certificate for a minimum of one hundred twenty carriage days during any calendar six months. 2. Within thirty days following each June 30 and December 31, a holder of a certificate shall file a report with the city license supervisor' s office. Such report shall be in writing, signed by the holder or by some person authorized to sign the same on behalf of the holder, and shall be properly verified. The report shall contain the following information: -7- a. A list of all carriages licensed under a certificate during the preceding calendar six months, showing the serial number and the city business license plate number for each carriage. Such list shall include any carriage which has been salvaged or otherwise removed from the fleet, as well as the replacement thereof; b. The number of carriage days each such carriage was in service during the preceding calendar six months; c. The holder may also file with such report a written statement of the circumstances that caused the authorized carriages to be in service for less than the required number of carriage days; d. A statement that the information contained in the report was obtained from the company records, and that all statements contained in the report are true and accurate. C. In the event the carriages licensed under the provisions of this chapter are not actually in service for the minimum required carriage days during any calendar six months as set forth in this Section 5.37.095 or its successor, the right to operate one or more carriage may, upon at least ten days notice to the holder, and upon the hearing had therefor, be revoked by the city. The holder may appear in person or be represented by counsel at such hearing to show cause, if any he or she has, why the right to operate such carriage or carriages should not be revoked. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the city shall find that the holder has shown extenuating circumstances, the city may grant continuance of authority. -8- D. Upon revocation by the city of such authority, the certificate shall be modified to reflect the number of carriages actually in service for the required minimum number of carriage days during such calendar six months. No refund shall be made for any unused portion of the license fee. Such forfeited right to operate any carriage may be reissued only upon application required by Section 5 . 05. 105, or its successor, and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5.05. 140, or its successor. E. Each holder shall maintain and keep current at the place of business a daily log showing all trips made by every operator during such operator' s hours of work showing time( s) and place( s ) or origin and destination of trips, and the specific carriage( s ) and horse( s) operated. Such logs shall be made available to the city for inspection upon reasonable notice. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. The holder shall not be relieved of any responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter, whether the holder pays salary, wages or any other form of compensation to drivers. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for a holder to permit any person to operate a carriage for hire or a training cart upon the streets of the city without such operator having -9- first obtained and having then in force a current chauffeur' s license valid in the state of Utah. 5.37.110 License--Display. Every driver operating a carriage under this chapter shall keep his or her chauffeur' s license on his or her person while such driver is operating a carriage, and shall exhibit the license upon demand of any police officer, animal control officer, license inspector, or any authorized agent of the license office of the city. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing. Prior to the use and operation of any carriage under the provisions of this chapter, the carriage shall be thoroughly examined and inspected by the animal control division and found to comply with the specifications of Section 5.37. 125 herein, or its successor. 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued. When the animal control division finds that a carriage has met the specifications established by Section 5.37. 125 or its successor, the license office shall issue a sticker to that effect. 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. A. Specifications. Every carriage operating under this chapter shall be inspected by the animal control division at least once each year in order to make certain each carriage is -10- being maintained in a safe and efficient operating condition in accordance with the following inspection requirements. 1. Each carriage shall be equipped with rear view mirrors, two electrified white lights visible for 1, 000 feet to the front of the carriage, and two electrified red lights visible for 1, 000 feet to the rear of the carriage. All lights shall be operational from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and during times of lessened visibility. Electrified directional signals are required at all times. 2. Each carriage shall be equipped with hydraulic or factory equipped mechanical brakes appropriate for the design of the particular carriage. 3. Each carriage shall be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem ( red triangle) attached to the rear of the carriage. 4. Each carriage shall permanently and prominently display the name and telephone number of the carriage business operating it on the rear portion of such carriage. 5. Each carriage shall be equipped with a device to catch horse manure falling to the pavement. 6. Each carriage shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Inspection fee. The carriage owner shall be required to pay an inspection fee of five dollars each time the vehicle is inspected. -11- C. Training cart. This Article IV shall be fully applicable to training carts, as described in Section 5.37.085.B. , with the exception of subparagraph A.2. above regarding brakes. In addition, all training carts shall be clearly marked, on the rear portion of such cart, with the words: "CAUTION: HORSE IN TRAINING. " Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic laws. A driver operating a horse drawn carriage shall be subject to all laws of the city pertaining to the driver of any vehicle. 5.37.135 Lights. The driver of each carriage in operation from one half hour after sunset until one half hour before sunrise, and in conditions of poor visibility, shall turn on the front and tail lights of the carriage and take any action necessary to make them operational, such as by replacing a light bulb. 5.37.140 Speed. The driver shall not permit the speed at which any horse drawn carriage is driven to exceed a slow trot. 5.37.145 Presence and control. No driver shall leave the carriage unattended in a public place. 5.37.150 Number of passengers. No driver shall permit more than six adult passengers to ride in the carriage at one time, plus no more than two children under three years of age, if seated on the laps of adult -12- passengers, unless the carriage was designed to carry fewer, in which event the carriage shall not carry more passengers than it was designed to carry. With regard to a training cart, no more than two passengers shall be permitted, neither of which shall be a customer for hire. 5.37.155. Passengers restricted to passenger area. No driver shall permit a passenger to ride on any part of the carriage while in motion, unless the passenger is seated inside the carriage. 5.37.160. Appearance. Drivers shall be neatly dressed and courteous in manner. 5.37.165 Hours. Neither a licensee nor any driver shall operate or allow to be operated its carriages on the streets of the city during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9 :00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 5.37.170 Routes. A. l . The licensees and drivers shall operate horse drawn carriages only upon certain streets within specified routes and/or quadrants and according to restrictions authorized by the kmrst di-ctwK Caa^ni'lf_Cokt►q►'ttee city' sil . In determining said routes, horse_ d NQW et CaNr,`a-d e_ cen,"tifie.e restrictions, and/or quadrants, the shall seek to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city, and shall take into consideration the location of the streets therein, the expected traffic flow upon such streets, the history of traffic accidents upon such streets, the width of such streets, and any natural or -13- man-made physical features of such streets which may be pertinent to the safe and efficient movement of transportation thereon. 2. With regard to the determination as to which holders may operate carriages and as to the number of carriages to be operated by such holders along a particular route or within a particular quadrant within the city, the city r-aRere i n... -cte engineer shall, no later than February 15, 1990, develop a process for allocating in an equitable manner such routes and/or quadrants among holders. Said process shall not unreasonably withhold entry into the market from holders which have not previously operated along a particular route or within a particular quadrant. Said allocation shall be made on an annual basis, no earlier than February 15 of each calendar year. 3. As of the effective date of this ordinance, subject to horn'€ drmwK Ca `QV L COPh thief amendment by the city as provided herein below in this section 5.37 . 170, there shall be established a quadrant for the operation of horse drawn carriages which shall be bounded by the following streets: North Temple, 200 East, 400 South, and 200 West. The maximum number of carriages which shall be allowed to operate within said quadrant, unless amended howst decal.441 car - e Coktm, by the cityA , shall be eighteen. Subject l itoks e drat w w ./e &.kilt/`free to reallocation by the city tr-a .spe •t as provided hereinabove, the three carriage companies in operation as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed to operate the following number of carriages within the aforementioned quadrant: -14- Carriage Horse Livery. Ltd. 10 carriages Carriage For Hire ' carriages The Carriage Connection 4 carriages B. Licensees are barred from using streets which: 1. Have a speed limit exceeding 35 m.p.h. , unless prior approval is obtained; 2. Do not have traffic signals at major intersections; 3. Involve major arterials during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , including but not limited to State Street, 700 East, 500 South and 600 South from 700 East west to I-15. C. The authorized routes and termini shall be subject to `jo=aki c¢rHfc�¢ a �O�k�1C/'�Iee amendment from time to time by the city � ' �// in order to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city, according to the guidelines set forth in this Section 5.37. 170. Advance charter tours may deviate from the route provided the driver stays on streets already approved for routes. A driver must receive prior permission of the cf./1y Io c kfitkiK C,ahHf`Q € Cokt Pk �zn, tatinn Png;n^^r to deviate from streets which have not been approved for routes or destinations which require use or crossing of streets designated as arterial or collector streets on the city' s major street plan and official map. 5.37.175 Termini. Approved on-street route termini include those areas hAws e dp.wvt c e_CPA / /'c e designated by the city Drivers shall not stop on-street longer than the maximum three minutes avail- able in any designated freight or passenger loading zone unless -15- N,ovse- cirfaiWt caw' 1v4i/// it is at a termini location approved by thei weer or in a legal parking space. Each holder shall obtain permission from the property owner of all off-street staging areas before using such areas. Upon request by the city Glorse QII^oWK i�anspart r, a holder shall verify such permission to use such off-street staging area by submitting to the engineer evidence of such written permission from the property owner. Drivers shall not stop at designated bus stops, bus lanes, or any other restricted parking areas. 5.37.180 Rates. All drivers must make available to any person upon request, the rates for all tours and trips offered by the service. Once a vehicle has been hired for a designated route or termini, the driver may not accept additional passengers without the original contracting passengers ' consent. Article VI. Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. If any person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this chapter commits a violation of this chapter, such license may be revoked or suspended according to the procedure provided for revocation or suspension of a business license issued by the City. 5.37.190 Misdemeanor. Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a Class B misdemeanor. -16- SECTION 2. That Section 8.04.010, pertaining to Animals be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.010 Definitions. As used in Title 8 of this code: 1. "Animal at large" *** 2. "Animal boarding establishment" *** 3. "Animal grooming parlor" *** 4. "Animals" *** 5. "Animal shelter" *** 6. "Animal under restraint" *** 7. "Bite" *** 8. "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 9 . "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. [$:] 10. "Cat" *** [9 ] 11 . "Cattery" *** [10. ] 12. "Dog" *** [ ] 13. "Domesticated animals" *** 14. "Driver" means any person operating or in actual physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver ' s seat of such carriage with the intention of causing it to be moved by a horse. -17- [12. ] 15 . "Enclosure" *** [13. ] 16 . "Estray" or "stray" *** [3 ] 17. "Guard dog" *** [15. ] 18 . "Holding facility" *** [16. ] 19 . "Impoundment" *** [17. ] 20. "Kennel" *** [18 . ] 21 . "Leash" or "lead" *** [19. ] 22 . "Person" *** [20. ] 23 . "Pet" *** [21. ] 24. "Pet shop" *** [22. ] 25 . "Provoked" *** [23. ] 26 . "Quarantine" *** [24. ] 27. "Riding school or stable" *** [25. ] 28 . "Set" *** [26. ] 29 . "Spring-loaded trap" *** 30. "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 31. "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. [27. ] 32 . "Vicious animal" *** [28. ] 33 . "Vicious dog" *** 34. "Work, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. SECTION 3 . That Title 8, Salt Lake Code be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new chapter 8. 16 pertaining to horse drawn carriages, as follows: -18- Chapter 8.16 Regulation of Horse Drawn Carriage Businesses Sections Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. 8.16.015 Identification number. 8.16.020 Examination required. 8.16.025 Certificate required. 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. 8.16.045 Police or Animal Control orders. 8.16.050 Disqualification. 8.16.055 Accidents. 8.16.060 Examination by the City. Article II. Care of Horses 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. 8.16.070 Stables and stalls. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. In addition to the requirements of Chapters 5.05, 5.37, and other applicable ordinances, or their successors, of this code, all holders of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city for the transportation of passengers for hire by horse drawn carriages shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter. 8.16.015 Identification number. Each horse used to pull a carriage in the city shall be identified by a brand or mark in accordance with Chapter 4-24, Utah Code Annotated, or its successor, which brand or mark uniquely identifies the horse thus marked. The identification -19- brand or mark and description of each of said horses, including age, breed, sex, color and other identifying markings, shall be filed by the carriage horse business with the city licensing office. 8.16.020 Examination required. Every horse shall be examined prior to use in a horse drawn carriage business, and every six months thereafter, by a veterinarian and at no expense to the City. The horse shall be examined and treated for internal parasites; problems with its teeth, legs, hoofs and shoes, or cardiovascular system; drug abuse; any injury disease, or deficiency observed by the veterinarian at the time or previously, and the general physical condition and ability to perform the work required of it. 8.16.025 Certificate required. No person shall cause or attempt to cause a horse to pull a carriage, unless the horse has been certified pursuant to this section. The certification of the horse may be made subject to a condition, or otherwise limited by the veterinarian. The certificate shall be kept and be available for inspection by the city at the stable where the certified horse is kept, and a copy of the certificate shall be mailed to the City within five days from its date. 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. After performing the physical examination required by sec- tion 8. 16.020 above or its successor, the examining veterinarian may sign a certificate attesting that the horse is in good -20- _health. The certificate shall specifically identify each horse by its breed, sex, color, and identifying markings and shall state, in the opinion of the veterinarian, the maximum load which each horse can reasonably be expected to draw safely and without causing injury to the horse. The certificate, if issued, shall be valid for a period of not more than six months from the date of signature. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. For purposes of this chapter, a horse shall be deemed to be in good health only if the horse: A. Strength. Has, in the opinion of the veterinarian, flesh, muscle tone, and weight sufficient to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages; B. Immunization against anemia. Has been immunized against equine infectious anemia, and such vaccination will be effective at all times during the next six months; C. Coggins test. The horse has been given a coggins test with negative results on at least one certificate per year; D. In general. Is, in the opinion of the veterinarian, in general good health and in all respects physically fit to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages. 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. A veterinarian shall cancel a certificate, if the veterinarian learns of a condition which is reasonably expected -21- to make the horse unfit for its work for a period of two weeks or more. If the horse appears to the veterinarian to be suffering from an injury or sickness from which it is expected to recover in under two weeks, the veterinarian shall suspend the certificate for such horse for the time that the veterinarian expects will be necessary for the horse to recover. Upon written request of a holder for a hearing on such cancellation or suspension of a veterinarian' s certificate, a hearing shall be held by the city within three working days of receipt of such request to determine whether said cancellation or suspension shall remain in effect. A cancelled certificate shall be destroyed by the veterinarian or clearly marked as cancelled or invalid. Suspension of a certificate shall be clearly marked by the veterinarian in non-erasable ink on the original of the certificate. 8.16.045 Police or animal control orders. A City police officer, a health department officer or an animal control officer may order that a horse not be used to pull a carriage in the City and that the horse be returned to its stable, if the officer has cause to believe that the horse is suffering from any injury, ailment, or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage safely. The order shall be effective only for so long as the officer specifies or until a hearing can be held regarding disqualification, or for three working days, whichever is shorter. -22- 8.16.050 Disqualification. The mayor may, upon prior notice and hearing, disqualify a specific horse from use in pulling a carriage in the city, if the mayor finds that the horse presents a hazard to public or passenger safety greater than the hazard posed by a normal horse, or that the horse is in any way unfit for the work of pulling carriages in the city. Before a horse may be disqualified, a hearing shall be held before the mayor, or his/her designee, at which the carriage business and the owner of the horse may appear and express themselves. At least three working days notice shall be given of the hearing to the carriage business using the horse. A disqualified horse shall not be used to pull a carriage within the City. 8.16.055 Accidents. In addition to any other requirements of law regarding reporting of vehicle accidents, the operator of a horse drawn carriage shall report to the animal control division any accident involving such carriage, and no such horse or carriage shall again be operated until such have been inspected by an animal control officer and a determination has been made by such officer that no removal order is necessary as provided by Section 8 . 16. 050 herein, or its successor. 8.16.060 Examination by the city. The City and its officials may at any reasonable time examine any horse owned by a carriage business or used by a carriage business to pull a carriage, or may have such a horse -23- examined by a veterinarian. The costs of such examination shall initially be borne by the city. Such orders shall be in writing and may be given to the driver of a carriage to which the horse is hitched, or to a carriage business owning or having possession of the horse. If such examination determines that such horse is suffering from any injury, ailment or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage in the city, the costs for such examination shall be reimbursed to the city by the certificate holder owning or operating such horse. Article II. Care of Horses. 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. No Person shall cause a horse to draw or to be harnessed to a carriage if: A. Certifiable. The person attending to the horse knows, or reasonably should know that the horse, if then examined by a veterinarian, would probably not then be eligible for certifi- cation, or would be subject to cancellation or revocation of certification; B. Acute ailment. The horse has an open sore or wound, or is lame or appears to have any other injury, sickness, or ailment, unless the person attending to the horse has in his possession a written statement signed by a veterinarian and stating that the horse is fit for pulling a carriage notwithstanding the injury, sickness, or ailment; -24- C. Hoofs. The hoofs of the horse are not properly shod and trimmed, utilizing rubber coated heel pads or open steel barium tip shoes to aid in the prevention of slipping. Horses shall be shod and trimmed by an experienced, competent farrier at least every four to six weeks, or more frequently if necessary; D. Coat. The horse is not well groomed and/or has fungus, dandruff, or a poor or dirty coat. 8.16.070 Stables and stalls. All Stables used by a carriage business and the keeping of horses therein shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.08 of these ordinances, or its successor, as well as any and all other applicable laws and ordinances. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. No horse owned by or within the control of a carriage business shall be treated cruelly, harassed, or neglected. A carriage business and its owner and managers are all individu- ally responsible to take any action reasonably necessary to assure the humane care and treatment of the horses under their control. SECTION 4. That section 11.36. 120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to criminal mischief be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 11.36.120 Criminal mischief. A. A person commits criminal mischief if: 1. *** -25- 2. *** 3. He or she recklessly or willfully shoots or propels a missile or other object at or against a motor vehicle, horse or carriage, operating under the provisions of chapter 5.37 of these ordinances, or its successor, bus, airplane, boat, locomo- tive, train, railway car or caboose, whether moving or standing. B. *** SECTION 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -26- -+ r (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS:rc -27- PROCEEDINGS _2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT _.AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, August 1, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive area. Mr. Stoler said that pas- Director, reviewed the Council 's sage of the intents would allow calendar saying that those who the Clark group to approach their were interested in going to the financiers with a document showing Atlanta Convention should RSVP the City' s commitment to the with James as soon as possible. project. Ms. Gust-Jenson then reviewed the Council agenda. Council Member Fonnesbeck said she was uncomfortable with the intents She said that Mayor DePaulis and because they seemed to be promis- Council Chair Stoler would read ing the money to Clark before a and present a certificate of process was established for dis- appreciation to an Explorer Scout tributing the money from the loan group for their project "Exploring fund and they gave the appearance Spring Clean. " Ms . Gust-Jenson of excluding all other interested said that the scouts had organized groups from applying. She said a city clean up campaign and had the loan was being promised with- worked with the Public Works out an analysis of how the loan Department to clean up over three would be secured. tons of trash. Rosemary Davis, Director of Capi- Ms. Gust-Jenson said the consent tal Planning, said a preliminary agenda did not have any staff review of the Sugarhouse project recommendations included so each did show a need for a loan of this item would have to be done by a type. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the separate motion. loan application process would be based on the UDAG loan criteria. Ms. Gust-Jenson then passed out a memo (attachment #1 ) outlining two Council Member Godfrey said he was proposed legislative intents still uncomfortable with the concerning the Urban Development figures that he was receiving from Action Grant (UDAG ) Revolving Loan Clark Financial and he didn' t want Fund. She said that the intents to commit to the loan until a more had been drafted at the request of thorough analysis had been com- Council Member Stoler. Mr. Stoler pleted. He also said the appear- said that the Clark Financial ance of giving the loan before the group needed some official assur- process was established concerned ance from the Council that the him. He said the Council should revolving loan fund money would be establish the criteria and process available for their proposed for awarding the loan and then let development in the Sugarhouse Park the Clark application compete on 89-225 PROCEEDINGS 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 an even playing field with the rest of the applications. Ms. Davis said the intents would help establish the process and Clark would have to meet the criteria as established. 89-226 Salt Lake City Counci' Minutes August 1, 198` Attachment 1 • 4/ - l smr r ��: t rG RPO°�e �IOI� OFFICE- OF THE:CITY=,COUNCIL • ..'SUITE"300,-CITY HALL. ;324 SOUTH STATE'STREET,. SALT-LAKE CIT` ,UTAHJ84tf1" .. ...-:535 7600 ..�. M E M O R A N D U M To: Cindy Gust-Jenson Date: August 1, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell Subject: Legislative Intents • The following is proposed wording for the two legislative intents related to the budget opening which is on tonight's Council Agenda: 1) It is the intent of the City Council that the UDAG Revolving Loan Fund be used to assist Clark Financial in the construction of their proposed development of a power strip shopping center in Sugarhouse in the amount of up to $900,000 as funds become available between now and September 30, 1990, within federal regulations and using loan criteria similar to that used for UDAG loans. 2) It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration and Council staff develop a UDAG revolving loan approval process and that this process be approved by the Mayor and City Council before implementation. Please get back to me if you would like to amend this language. I will follow up with Rosemary Davis and provided her with a copy of these legislative intents. 89-226A PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAU .SAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 1, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES ered and retrieved by the streets division. #1. There was no invocation. Mayor DePaulis said this was #2. The Council led the so successful that people in the Pledge of Allegiance. streets department were talking about making this an ongoing #3. Councilmember Godfrey project. He congratulated Mr. moved and Councilmember Hardman Miller for showing the necessary seconded to approve the minutes of leadership. the Salt Lake City Council for their meetings held Tuesday, July Mr. Miller said local busi- 11, 1989, and Tuesday, July 18, nesses provided trash bags, T- 1989, which motion carried, all shirts and a free picnic lunch for members voted aye. all the participants. He said he (M 89-1) initiated this project because he wanted to promote the positive #4. Mayor DePaulis and aspects of youth and give the Council Chair Stoler presented a community an opportunity to see certificate of appreciation to youth doing a service project. He Stanton Miller, president of the also thanked Salt Lake City Corpo- Salt Lake Area Explorers - Boy ration for their support of this Scouts of America, for the project. "Exploring Spring Clean" project which he initiated. COMMENTS Mayor DePaulis read the certificate and Councilmember #1. Hermoine Jex, SLACC, Stoler said that over 150 parti- addressed the issue of development cipants set out on Saturday, May on Ensign Peak. She said last 5th to specific areas designated week the developer called her and by the public works department. said that they had met with the They collected old tires, bottles, planning and water departments and cans, papers, and other debris and were close to getting permission placed the garbage in 440 gallon to proceed with another plat. She garbage barrels which were deliv- also said the plan for a visitors 89-227 PROCEEDINGS ter' THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ,.,AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 center and tram on Ensign Peak had extracted on Victory Road. received a favorable review. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said She requested that the city she called the water department keep their commitments to the and LeRoy Hooton, public utilities Capital Neighborhood Council director, told her the last ap- regarding development on Ensign proval included three to six homes Peak. She said the Mayor and using present water. She said staff were obligated to prepare these houses were part of a previ- and present to the Council an open ously approved plat and any homes space plan and ordinances. She beyond these would require the said the city also promised the developer to build a water tank. neighborhood that there would not She also said Mr. Hooton told her be any more piecemeal approval of that no serious plans had been Ensign Peak development until a brought in since and there was no complete plan had been prepared money currently in the budget to and reviewed and until the two help build the water tank. reservoirs had been constructed by the developer. She said Ensign Mrs. Fonnesbeck also said the Peak park would then be implement- developer met with her and the ed and the open space ordinances Mayor and they told the developer adopted. that the plan was interesting and specifically told them to contact She suggested a moratorium the Capital Hill association, on development of Ensign Peak which was the first step in the until the plan and ordinances were process. She said the developer adopted. She listed several was also willing to trade land on actions to be taken which she a basis of value for value which considered a priority: make a meant that the city would get more grade change on nondevelopable property on the front of the peak land, establish access and trail and the developer would only get easements, adopt a ridge top about six additional lots in the ordinance, use the power of emi- back. nent domain to establish the Ensign Peak park, make the land In terms of the plan and the trade, acquire school property if ordinances, Councilmember Fonnes- declared surplus, and adopt the beck told Ms. Jex to work directly vista overlay zone. with the Mayor or Craig Peterson, director of community and economic She said in 1983-84 the city development. She said the project approved 14 lots and a small on Ensign Downs was watched care- portion of the Ensign Vista Drive. fully by the city and Mrs. She said at that time the city Fonnesbeck also said she sent told the neighborhood that no more people to talk to Ms. Jex. She lots could be approved until the said this was private property and reservoirs were constructed but there was only so much the city because of an old agreement these could do. lots could be approved. She said the city needed to plan the area Councilmember Bittner said correctly since it was highly she was concerned about the strip visible, a historic sight, and mining in the area and thought the deserved the best treatment. She operation didn't have a permit. said she also wanted to know why She said the legal department was the bedrock limestone was being aware of this situation. Mayor 89-228 PROCEEDINGS -F THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ..AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 DePaulis said he would have to placing traffic barriers in the check about the permit. avenues to preclude those people in the Avenues from egress or #2. Arla Funk, 1265 East 100 ingress into the University. She South, said she was concerned said that area needed to share the about the new traffic management burden equally. She asked why program to deal with the Universi- those people should not share the ty of Utah traffic. She said she consequences of their choice to thought other neighborhoods should live near the University and why have been consulted as thoroughly they should be absolved. as the Avenues since there were more than just those people who Mayor DePaulis said the were affected. She thought the barriers which were outlined in solutions were bandaids and the the proposal would control the problem was that the University afternoon traffic; the morning continued to grow and generate traffic would be open through out traffic. She said managing cars the area. He asked Ms. Funk what and buses didn' t solve the prob- she thought about a one way en- lem. trance into the University above 1300 East. Ms. Funk said she She asked if the city had thought it was a good possibility contacted the Board of Regents or but shouldn't be limited to above the Legislature in an attempt to 1300 East. She said she still get the University to resolve the believed that some people problem. Mayor DePaulis said they shouldn't be more equal than had contacted the Board of Regents others and have the traffic re- and representatives of the Regents stricted through their neighbor- met privately with Chase Peterson. hood when they generated a lot of They asked him to meet with the it. city so the Mayor said he would schedule a meeting with Mr. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Peterson. Steven Allred, deputy this would be a problem until the city attorney, said two months ago University stopped cars from the Legislature directed the Board pouring in. She said some of the of Regents to consider legislation biggest and best Universities in which the city prepared and sub- the country did not allow student mitted to them. He said the Mayor parking on campus. She said the would be invited to report to the University still did not take Board of Regents in the next buses seriously and she suggested month. that they should give free bus passes and charge a large fee to Ms. Funk said the Legisla- park. She said all the traffic ture only requested the University management just barely kept up to do an impact study and didn' t with the problem and she said the require them to respond to the Primary Childrens' Hospital wasn't impacts. She said the University open yet. needed a long-term program since more traffic would be generated Ms. Funk suggested that the due to medical facilities and Fort city hire one police officer to Douglas. She suggested dividing manage the traffic situation full the campus and specializing into time in terms of enforcing speed satellite campuses. limits. She said the city should put pressure on the University to Ms. Funk also objected to face up to the problem. 89-229 PROCEEDINGS uF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 CONSENT AGENDA year to qualified charities, which motion carried, all members voted #1. RE: Setting a date for a aye. public hearing to be held Tuesday, (0 89-26) September 5, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning Petition 400-740 submitted by PUBLIC HEARINGS Gloria Ruiz, requesting that property located at 145 North #1. RE: A non-advertised Redwood Road be rezoned from "R-6" public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to to a "C-1" classification. obtain comment concerning Peti- tion 400-723 submitted by Avis ACTION: Councilmember Rent-A-Car requesting that Salt Godfrey moved and Councilmember Lake City allow a longer time for Hardman seconded to set the date, relocatable office buildings so which motion carried, all members that they may be used during the voted aye. actual construction phase of a (P 89-247) commercial project. #2. RE: Adopting a resolu- ACTION: Councilmember God- tion authorizing the execution of frey moved and Councilmember Kirk an interlocal cooperation agree- seconded to close the public ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- hearing, which motion carried, all ration and the United States members voted aye. Department of Agriculture for evaluations of the condition of Councilmember Kirk moved and aquatic life in the Salt Lake City Councilmember Hardman seconded to oil drain. adopt Ordinance 46 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted ACTION: Councilmember God- aye. frey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 96 of DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, 1989, which motion carried, all planning and zoning, said the members voted aye. existing ordinance limited occu- (C 89-404) pancy to 365 days with one 30 day extension. He said this ordinance UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS was primarily used to accommodate businesses waiting to move into #1. RE: An ordinance amend- permanent quarters. He said the ing Title 2, Chapter 10, Section staff concurred with the petition- 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, er that one year did not accommo- 1988, relating to lost abandoned date large-scale developers that or unclaimed property by adding a often required several years new subsection D and re-lettering during a construction phase. and amending former subsection D to subsection E. He said the proposed ordi- nance contained four conditions ACTION: Councilmember God- to regulate and administer the frey moved and Councilmember Kirk ordinance. He said the extension seconded to adopt Ordinance 45 of of time would be granted only in 1989 amending Title 2, Chapter 10, the event of a new construction Section 020 of the City Code to project. He said one condition authorize the police chief to was that the permit for the re- donate up to five bicycles per locatable office building would 89-230 PROCEEDINGS _F THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAL' .AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 CONSENT AGENDA year to qualified charities, which motion carried, all members voted #1. RE: Setting a date for a aye. public hearing to be held Tuesday, (0 89-26) September 5, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning Petition 400-740 submitted by PUBLIC HEARINGS Gloria Ruiz, requesting that property located at 145 North #1. RE: A non-advertised Redwood Road be rezoned from "R-6" public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to to a "C-1" classification. obtain comment concerning Peti- tion 400-723 submitted by Avis ACTION: Councilmember Rent-A-Car requesting that Salt Godfrey moved and Councilmember Lake City allow a longer time for Hardman seconded to set the date, relocatable office buildings so which motion carried, all members that they may be used during the voted aye. actual construction phase of a (P 89-247) commercial project. #2. RE: Adopting a resolu- ACTION: Councilmember God- tion authorizing the execution of frey moved and Councilmember Kirk an interlocal cooperation agree- seconded to close the public ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- hearing, which motion carried, all ration and the Utah Department of members voted aye. Agriculture for evaluations of the condition of aquatic life in Councilmember Kirk moved and the Salt Lake City oil drain. Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 46 of 1989, which ACTION: Councilmember God- motion carried, all members voted frey moved and Councilmember Kirk aye. seconded to adopt Resolution 96 of 1989, which motion carried, all DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, members voted aye. planning and zoning, said the (C 89-404) existing ordinance limited occu- pancy to 365 days with one 30 day extension. He said this ordinance UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS was primarily used to accommodate businesses waiting to move into #1. RE: An ordinance amend- permanent quarters. He said the ing Title 2, Chapter 10, Section staff concurred with the petition- 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, er that one year did not accommo- 1988, relating to lost abandoned date large-scale developers that or unclaimed property by adding a often required several years new subsection D and re-lettering during a construction phase. and amending former subsection D to subsection E. He said the proposed ordi- nance contained four conditions ACTION: Councilmember God- to regulate and administer the frey moved and Councilmember Kirk ordinance. He said the extension seconded to adopt Ordinance 45 of of time would be granted only in 1989 amending Title 2, Chapter 10, the event of a new construction Section 020 of the City Code to project. He said one condition authorize the police chief to was that the permit for the re- donate up to five bicycles per locatable office building would 89-230 PROCEEDINGS c THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT _AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 not be approved until the permit flexibility in terms of regu- for the permanent structure was lating design layout for off- issued and the relocatable office street parking lots. building had to be removed before a certificate of occupancy was He said currently it was issued for the permanent struc- difficult to design new parking ture. lots and structures because the ordinance was so rigid. He said Frank Jones, petitioner, said some of the Planning Commission' s the reason Avis had a temporary design guidelines were established building was because the airport in March of 1974 so the time was was constructing a garage which right to update the criteria. He would require Avis to build around said the dimensions would be more the garage after it was completed. flexible depending on the size of He said they wouldn't have plans a structure and layout of the for their project until the air- parking lot. port was near completion after which time the Avis project would He said the ordinance would take about 6 months. not identify a specific size for a parking lot layout but would No one opposed this petition. identify the policy which had to (P 89-217) be approved by the transportation engineer and the Planning Commis- #2. RE: A public hearing at sion. He said the policy also 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- changed the concept of parking cerning a proposed ordinance stalls so rather than having one implementing revisions to the off- size for large cars and one size street parking policy. for compact cars, the width would vary depending on the depth of the ACTION: Councilmember God- stall and the amount of maneuver- frey moved and Councilmember Hor- ability space. rocks seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all Councilmember Horrocks asked members voted aye except Council- if a 30-foot width for a driveway member Fonnesbeck who was absent was adequate for a commercial for the vote. zone. Steve Meyer, transporta- tion, said in a commercial zone Councilmember Horrocks moved they usually didn' t have any and Councilmember Godfrey sec- trouble, but if someone requested onded to adopt Ordinance 47 of more width and could justify it, 1989, which motion carried, all then the transportation department members voted aye except Council- would give the request a favorable member Fonnesbeck who was absent recommendation to the Board of for the vote. Adjustment. He said the problem was if a commercial use requested DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, a 40-foot width where it really planning and zoning, said the new wasn't needed since in this case parking policy was initiated by it was harder to control ingress the planning staff and transporta- and egress of vehicles. He said tion staff and had been reviewed they liked to treat these situa- by the Planning Commission who tions more like an intersection to recommended Council approval. He channel traffic more directly into said the revision of the parking the street. policy was established to add more 89-231 PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ..AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 Councilmember Horrocks asked contractors and the various groups if the 40-foot width encompassed who would be affected by this. any industrial use and Mr. Meyer Mr. Meyer said they sent informa- said that it did. He also said tion to several different archi- if an industrial user needed a tects. driveway wider than 40 feet, they would get a favorable recommenda- No one opposed this ordi- tion but on a wide street like 900 nance. West there was no reason for the (0 89-28) driveway to be wider than 40 feet. #3. RE: A public hearing at Councilmember Hardman asked 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- for the minimum dimensions of a cerning a proposed amendment to parking stall. Mr. Meyer said it the 1989-90 Fiscal Year budget would be 8 feet 3 inches wide and relating to a Urban Development 17 feet 6 inches deep. He said Action Grant Revolving Loan Fund. one problem with the compact size parking stalls was that when the ACTION: Councilmember God- regular size stalls were full then frey moved and Councilmember large cars would park in the small Hardman seconded to close the stalls which encroached on the public hearing, which motion aisle width and took two stalls to carried, all members voted aye park in the compact area. except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote. Mr. Hardman asked if the parking lot design would be an Councilmember Godfrey moved administrative decision rather and Councilmember Kirk seconded than a Planning Commission deci- to establish an Urban Development sion. Mr. Meyer said that was Action Grant (UDAG) revolving loan typically the way it was and fund and appropriate $423, 719.41 developers would be given a range to the fund and decrease the UDAG as to how they could construct the repayment fund by the same amount, parking. and adopt Ordinance 48 of 1989, which motion carried, all members Councilmember Hardman asked voted aye. if builders could use a mix of parking stall sizes. Mr. Meyer Councilmember Bittner moved said they could and said as the and Councilmember Hardman seconded stall size shrunk, the aisle width to adopt an legislative intent of increased. Councilmember Hardman the City Council that the admin- also asked if the net effect would istration and council staff devel- be to park more cars. Mr. Meyer op a UDAG revolving loan fund said there wouldn't be much more approval process and that this parking available but they could process be approved by the Mayor control the aisle width and give and City Council before implemen- variability to the designer. tation, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Horrocks asked if the angle of the stripes deter- Councilmember Bittner moved mined greater maneuverability. and Councilmember Hardman seconded Mr. Meyer said yes. to adopt a legislative intent of the City Council that the UDAG Councilmember Stoler asked revolving loan fund be used to Mr. Meyer if he had talked to the assist Clark Financial in the 89-232 PROCEEDINGS -F THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT �,AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 construction of their proposed approving a loan for Clark Finan- development of a strip shopping cial before the loan process was center in Sugarhouse in the amount established. of up to $900,000 as funds become available between now and Septem- Councilmember Bittner said ber 30, 1990, within federal she didn't see any purpose in regulations and using loan crite- opening the process since the ria similar to that used for UDAG Council had been discussing loan- loans, which motion carried, all ing money to Clark Financial for members voted aye except Council- their project. She said as addi- members Fonnesbeck and Godfrey who tional funds became available voted nay. then the process should be estab- lished, but for this particular DISCUSSION: Rosemary Davis, money she thought it would be capital planning, said this public unfair to others to suggest that hearing was to consider depositing they bid for funding that the funds which the city was receiving Council didn't really intend to from the UDAG loans made over the make open. past five years, into a revolving loan fund. She said money from Councilmember Godfrey asked this account would be appropriated Mrs. Bittner if she was assuming to specific loans as they were that the Council would set up the reviewed and approved through a process after they had delivered loan processing procedure. the money to Clark. Councilmember Bittner said she didn't think the Diana Smoot, 2592 Elizabeth, process needed to include this supported the revolving loan fund initial money. She suggested that and urged the Council to approve if the Council was bothered by it. this then they should not set up the process until after the Clark Ruth Robbins, 819 Hudson, loan was processed. asked if money would be repaid by those who got funding. Council- Councilmember Bittner said member Stoler said the repayment the proposed process assumed that issue would be a policy decision money would be available and a made by the Council and Mayor. He number of applicants would be said the ordinance would establish considered. She said in the case a revolving loan fund to deposit of this particular money, this UDAG money returning to the city. scenario wouldn' t be true. She Ms. Robbins said she was amazed at said as additional UDAG funds the amount of time allowed for the became available then the city loans to be repaid. needed a process to determine how to allocate the money. Councilmember Bittner pro- posed a legislative intent that Councilmember Godfrey said he the UDAG revolving loan fund would wasn't sure the Council had prede- be used to assist Clark Financial termined who should get the fund- in the construction of their ing and said the Council hadn' t proposed development of a strip taken a vote. He said he thought shopping center in Sugarhouse. the Council needed to establish the fund and the process and then Councilmember Fonnesbeck said open it up to anyone who wanted to she was against this intent be- apply. He didn' t think it was cause she was uncomfortable with appropriate for the Council to 89-233 PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ,TAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 vote on an intent allocating Councilmember Bittner said funding which didn' t exist, for a her recommendation was only a developer who hadn' t yet applied, legislative intent and was not and using a process that didn't binding. She said it was just an exist. He said he thought this indication of what the Council intent would leave the community wanted but it could be approved or with the perception that the denied at the appropriate time. Council was favoring one individu- She said the Council had not voted al. on loaning money to Clark Finan- cial but the Council had attended Councilmember Hardman said sufficient numbers of meetings Clark Financial was not the first regarding this development and had petitioner to request funding and understood the developer' s finan- suggested that the State of Utah cial needs. She said the Council was the first petitioner since and Administration had indicated they asked for $2 . 5 million from their commitment to assist with the STT settlement . He said the this project and she thought it settlement was not a voluntary was unrealistic and unfair to payback but it was UDAG money that stand firm about a process when the city had received. He asked the Council had not been con- where the process was at that time cerned prior to this. to determine how the funds would be spent. He said the Council Councilmember Godfrey said he chose to help the state build a disagreed that the Council was new social security building in clear as to Clark' s financial the downtown area and at that time needs. He said when they first the Council didn' t seem to be met with the Council they needed bothered about the public process. $6 million and through the process of bargaining, the amount of their Councilmember Godfrey said request had dropped. He said he Clark Financial would be the first was not against the loan but he petitioner under the revolving was not willing to indicate his loan fund that the Council had support of making the loan until just approved at this meeting. the Clark financial needs were reviewed. He said he did not want Councilmember Fonnesbeck said to indicate to the community that there were questions that the the incoming funds were only for Council didn' t have to ask the the Clark project. He reiterated state such as how they would that since the Council had now secure the loan. She wanted to adopted an ordinance establishing find out how Clark Financial would the revolving loan fund, they secure the loan and she said she needed to establish the process of thought it was a different process loaning money prior to making any dealing with the State of Utah as loans. opposed to a private developer. She said she was uncomfortable Mayor DePaulis said from the assuming that funding for Clark administrative side, he understood Financial was already approved that the Council wanted to estab- because she thought a lot of lish the loan fund and then estab- questions still needed to be lish the approval process which answered. She did not object to both the Council and Mayor ap- the funding but objected to ap- proved of prior to its implementa- proving it prior to the loan tion. He said the Council ' s first process. intent regarding development of 89-234 PROCEEDINGS r' THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT .,AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 the process didn' t include specif- ic wording about federal regula- tions and UDAG loan criteria. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she thought the Council assumed that any process which the Council and Mayor developed would abide by federal regulations. Councilmember Bittner said in her intent to designate funding for Clark, she wanted the wording to specify that funding would be within federal regulations and would follow criteria similar to those used for UDAG loans. Mayor DePaulis said that administratively he automatically respected the process and Councilmember Bittner' s intent let the administration know that the Council felt strongly about the Clark Financial project. He reiterated that this was an intent which was not binding. He said they would still establish the process and this intent was only a signal to the Mayor that the Council was primarily interested in the Clark project first. Councilmember Stoler said that on numerous occasions Clark Financial mentioned both publicly and privately that the funding which they requested was not firm and could be reduced depending on the final outcome of the project. (B 89-5) The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 89-235 „adypa 4aP au/zei e czkOrir eticr 4a6k( tee4-t 77-) q2a4-1 Lem. a 4do tali” /1 _3f rto ? t T'r�) j c�Ir 11Yf G �O.° rI,ONf a• fit.) - DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON :114 CITY AND COUNTY'BUILDING pro. ie 0,6.0_ SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84.111, War 5�5-7777 yj July1 ""'I'0: Salt Lake City Council 9, 1989 RE: Side Yards and/or Rear Yard Requirements Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance outlining conditions - and a overlay zone to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize building additions. The Planning and Zoning Staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions the Board of Adjustment could use if you wish to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed so that the Board of Adjustment can verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as the Board can verify that the additions meet building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the following proposed conditions to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment with an overlay zone: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner or relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior. to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. 4. Thn pei'it:inner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Non -compliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped open space to the property line. 7. The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of • hardship and the compliance with building code standards. Should you concur with the recommendation after the public hearing, the City Attorney with the Planning Staff should be directed to prepare the necessary overlay ordinance that can then be enacted should a specific neighborhood request it. Legislative Action: No ordinance has .been prepared due to the complex issues that can not be resolved until a public hearing has been held. 0 elk a � /' . Submitted by: �G'`��� it kW') lit 1‘)If: 1140 CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ !` dam- G�hInm.jG ('AGO Ls T'�-- a0 02 J Olt u p, d dood too -‘) hem a lft 000 /?ao Flo Ilez ° dopkwk.). Iona , q,e, acid d % tit &der Sou- )20114-- - Pe (di Agtp 4147 /1/114 cabi 444 kthinu.4k *in( 40eL 1164 ru 1-66b tLe- 71760k- b - Cad fix- � 11 y ' Iffc'' • . Anfte t _ N241,64(01 afro tytLt "-kJ 6.1i • CqP- -to #16 eemA , klyn- aipki 11- Pk'414:k 610,dop bot 1-4 3.14 /11a1"1'41/ aiRi/vd a 91t*_, oluicLe " --(71."/ iv 114-e_ sA1,-(- aaf4/-4 1116' bc_ AdiR. 5442,/k, )atte tia.o it) d k /4_ PiaAw/nreir- &Thou/Jo/A.- - d 192 ileb- %Hail 7rzxe 1�`sR�6;li fit. "�/n 1�-- 12C fnes to 11ak- Flanniii fYct1nj f; l01,141-Q_ fit:stew, cloe,k;a Waht -N fit- re4m110,1i rxtihbm haoJ, skcITYhy 'lug ��ibli�, Cri4en4 • . • • 7 SA ►T! r pi Eallr�' �3/ �'�i r�'° A I01 i DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY"BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 535=7777 _ .._-_.. July 17, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Attached please find the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation concerning the City Council's request to change the Zoning Ordinance so as to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize these building additions. The Planning and Zoning staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if the City Council wishes to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed to verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as to verify that the additions mect building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the proposed conditions contained in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone similar to the one I have proposed to deal with the recreation vehicle parking issue. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of hardship and the - M AtopcnL ,ate poolot. 7f7 , Unto ode tiatc14, ,Oci 9044 ., amadi c6 54c1i3dynati 121te cadki4-/-0 mak 8/7)u e6 diet,oazz. 419/iia ‘val,/ ae 64- bajd Jteet‘id aceociar /fa& Pu,5- Fitittzet - aeAdi Fe-op-4_ p41 az4,6 /l4. eleae XiebA_z . 6d6z gboat, .<06e0x4,, ,62615)1 _ e.efLe4t_et yeictiv IJizetJ te cleiv z/.<21 ?2dL&è19c6 R ljofbiu,R do/A) de_ attzh8+. oinfize/d di6-4/ hea-?.07„/ pen dikx, /X cs gez.. {i Sca�c, CGniti., Mayor Palmer DePaulis July 17, 1989 Page Two compliance with building code standards. Upon receipt of your comments concerning this recommendation, I will request the City Attorney's office work with the Planning Staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and schedule briefing and public hearing dates before the City Council. Sincerely, — /1 &111'4;6 Craig E. Peterson ���/ .- v U Director fiukeg 4-6'mt-k 91g /y CEP:s Opp & ,mob y J °to m ALLEN C JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PLANNING DIRECTOR WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIREC"OR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER THOMAS A. ELLISON AND URBAN DESIGN 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SANDRA MARLER RICHARD J. HOWA SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 7, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director - Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Stroct, Room 218 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Craig: The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed City Council legislation intent which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without permits and do not have proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Staff has analyzed the existing ordinance and potential alternative changes to address the issues raised by the City Council and has recommended not to enact such legislation. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 1989, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council not to change the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibiting accessory structures in the side and rear yards without adequate setbacks. The Planning Commission and Planning Staff believe the existing City urban design policies and standards governing accessory structures are proper and all residents should abide by these standards unless a legitimate hardship is associated with a specific site. In those cases, the Board of Adjustment presently has the authority to grant variances. While studying possible alternatives, the staff concluded that in order to abide by the Uniform Building Code (for health, safety and welfare of City residents) , the ordinance would need to contain a host of conditions and provisions. Most, if not all, of the existing situations which the City Council is trying to address, would not be able to be granted because those structures could not comply with the Uniform Building Code provisions. Mr. Craig L . Peterson July 7, 1989 Page Two The Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the City Council not pursue a new ordinance authorizing the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain existing garages, carports and patio covers built without proper side and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Commission finds that the existing ordinance and City zoning enforcement procedures assure compliance with master planning goals for Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. Applying consistent standards of development will assure aesthetic design of our residential neighborhoods and provide standards for health, safety and welfare of Salt Lake City's residents. If the City Council should decide to proceed with a new ordinance, the Planning Staff would recommend eight conditions for approval of any legalization. The staff requests the opportunity to discuss these conditions with the City Council. Attached are the Planning Staff report and Planning Commission minutes for their review. IE you have additional questions, please let me know. Respectfully submitted, :(6,6i , ,„// /-r, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director AC;J:skm attachments PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 6 t Mr. Allegra from UtA explained that this first phase was simply to obtain the yeerjb • preference on type of system and that technical details involved in the (M" implementation and actual location of the system would be covered during the next phase of the study. Following the detailed and lengthy discussion, Mr. Neilson moved to recommend the loop system as the preference of the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission to the Transportation Implementation Committee. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Discuss Northwest Community Plan Update. Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that in 1980, the Planning Commission and the City Council adopted the Northwest Community Master Plan. Ms. Jardine asked if any of the Planning Commissioners had any questions on the update which they were already familiar with, and requested a hearing date for this matter to be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nicolatus moved to schedule this hearing for June 22, 1989. Ms. Liddle- Camonal seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. • Discuss legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Merrill Nelson presented the staff report and stated that enforcement procedures taken against many illegally located garages, carports and patio covers in the Yalecrest and Rose Park areas in 1986-1987 have revealed that often the present owners were not the persons responsible for the illegal construction. Many cases have developed were the present owner has unwittingly purchased property without the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks and the length of time that has past preempts the reasonable recourse the owner may have against the original seller of the property. The present owner is, therefore, subject to a real property loss if the zoning enforcement were to proceed. In order to protect the many citizens who become victims of other owners who built structures without the proper building permits, the City Council has proposed legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Uniform Building Code requires garages and carports to have a "one-hour" fire wall when the structure is located within three feet of the property line. This is a life-safety requirement designed to prevent the spread of fire from one property to the next. Most of the enforcement cases involved structures which were built on or near the property line and would be subject to this Building Code requirement. PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 7 The propriety of legalizing a structure simply because it already exists must also be considered. If a variance is granted because the structure already exists and not because of a hardship related to the property, the obvious motive for the variance is economic. Much evidence exists in case law which indicates that economics are not to have a role in considering a zoning variance. If the city were to pursue legislation that allows a legalization process, the staff would recommend the following conditions be met by the petitioner: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner nor a relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. 4. The petitioner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Noncompliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 foot of landscaped open space to the property line. 7. The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson said that separating dwellings in residential zones, by requiring minimum landscaped side and rear yard setbacks, is a significant planning objective. The proposed ordinance would substantially reduce this desired separation. Also, required side and rear .yard setbacks contribute highly to the quality of life as these setbacks buffer noise and activities from one neighbor to the next. Mr. Nelson added that the City Master Plans are supportive of open space, visual compatibility, and urban design developed to the property line is not consistent. Mr. Nelson stated that the Planning Staff believes the proposed legislation would be detrimental to the master plan for residential areas resulting in visual incompatibility and would encourage eventual conversion into living space. By opposing this legislation, we realize that some innocent people may suffer some financial loss; however, the quality of life for neighborhoods is, in our opinion, a higher priority. The staff recommends that the city does not create ordinances that would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize carports, garages and patio covers in required yard areas. PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 8 Ms. Liddle-Gamonal asked if property owners are informed of the conforming/nonconforming status of the property they are purchasing at the - time they purchase the property. Mr. Nelson responded that it would be possible to buy a piece of property that is nonconforming since the title report only deals with the deed of the property against financial encumbrances and not Zoning Ordinance issues. Mr. Johnson stated that the staff is recommending the ordinance not be revised because the majority of the violations would still exist and need enforcement even after the ordinance revision. Mr. Johnson added that enforcement is usually on a complaint basis due to a shortage of enforcement officers and when one neighbor has a complaint filed against him, he in turn, complains about everyone else in the neighborhood who is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson added that he did not feel changing the ordinance, instead of the way the enforcements are handled, is the best alternative. Mr. Nicolatus stated he feels the citizens who comply with the Zoning Ordinance, or those who are adjacent to someone in violation of the ordinance, need to be acknowledged. Mr. Howa moved to accept staff's recommendation to recommend that the City Council not create legislation regarding authorization for the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Becker seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Qfl•iER BUSINESS Informal R/UDAT Meeting Mr. Schumann stated that Mr. Chuck Davis of R/UDAT will be in town on Friday, June 16th, and is desirous of meeting with the Planning Commissioners at 9:00 a.m. to discuss R/UDAT. It was suggested the secretary make reminder calls on Thursday, June 15th. • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. • ..ecretar y • ASS ROGER F. CUTLER S2.412 1 ` �_'\1a j(I Y(G R O° 1 110. j RAY L. GTY ATTORNEY TANT MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED GREG R. HAWKINS RRY V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY LAW DEPARTMENT LABRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 CARLOS ESC/UEDA MEMORANDUM " TO: Craig Peterson, Director Development Services FROM: Bruce R. Baird //C Assistant City Attorney 1U DATE: July 16, 1989 • RE: Overlay Zones for Recreational Vehicles and Garages On Wednesday, July 26, 1989 LuAnn brought me your memos dated July 19 and July 20, 1989 addressed to the City Council regarding proposed "overlay zones" allowing for amnesty for illegal garages and for recreational vehicle parking in side yards respectively. I understood from LuAnn that you needed comments on these two proposals quickly. This letter provides those comments. Given the brief amount of time this memorandum does not purport to be an in-depth discussion of the two proposals but merely the first preliminary opinion from our office. General Concerns. Administration of the various overlay zones co`Id become — bureaucratically difficult and confusing for both the City administration and our citizens. To the extent that a court might determine that due to the proliferation of these zones no reasonable citizen could figure out the exact status of their Craig Peterson, Dir �tor July 26, 1989 Page -2- property we might have difficulty enforcing certain provisions related to the various overlay zones. Additionally, the overlay zone process contains the potential for discrimination in favor of "squeaky wheels. " That is, those citizens with an axe to grind and the ability to use the system may succeed in having the overlay zones applied where other citizens with less effective access to the process may simply give up in frustration despite justifiable claims. Obviously, to ease both of the above problems it would be simpler for the ordinances, assuming without deciding that they are useful from a planning standpoint, on a city-wide basis. Specific Problems. Creation of the actual overlay ordinances, except as noted above, is not terribly difficult. However, when the time comes to apply the "overlays" to the zoning maps great care would need to be taken to determine that the district overlaid with the zone met the rational relationship test for zoning ordinances. That is, planning reasons would need to be articulated why the district furthered the City' s comprehensive land use plan. It is not sufficient to meet the comprehensive planning objectives to simply say "the people of one particular area want it. " The line drawing, in applying the overlay zones, must rationally further the City' s comprehensive land use objectives. Another specific problem concerns the "amnesty" overlay zone for garages, etc. Condition No. 8, of "architectural compatibility, " is a very discretionary determination to place with the board as written. It would probably require more specifics (e.g. matching colors, matching building materials, etc. ) . Concerning the recreational vehicle overlay zone, it would be necessary before drafting the ordinance to come up with definitions for a great number of terms in the proposal. Speci- fically, "motor home, " travel trailer, " "recreational vehicle" and other terms. Condition No. 4, requiring approval from the affected, abutting property owners, is almost certainly impermissible. The Utah Supreme Court has already held that granting of variances and other zoning functions requires a comprehensive plan and cannot be conditioned upon neighbor approval. Craig Peterson, Director July 26, 1989 Page -3- Even should these other concerns be dealt with the process of drafting the ordinance for recreational vehicles will be long and complicated due to the great number of considerations which must be specified. If you have any further questions please let me know. I apologize, for the rough nature of this memorandum but ask you to remember it was written on very short notice pursuant to your request. BRB:rc cc: Roger F. Cutler Allen C. Johnson tr sAlip �A2(a"E,, JIJ" IID f CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council July 20, 1989 RE: Overlay Zone to allow certain recreation vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss a proposed overlay zone to allow certain recreational vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. Availability of Funds: Not applicable • Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission recommends the current Zoning Ordinance not be changed to permit the parking of these vehicles as proposed. The Planning Division's staff report supports the Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if you want to pursue this issue by adopting appropriate legislation. These conditions are designed to reduce the obvious impacts resulting from the parking of these vehicles in areas other than rear yards. After reviewing the staff report, the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the following proposed conditions in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone: 1. Limited to one motor home or travel trailer per dwelling. Other recreational vehicles are limited to a total of two per dwelling. 2. Recreational vehicles may be stored in the rear yard on an adequate hard surface pad with either a hard surface driveway, hard surface drive strips, or an access constructed of turf block or grasscrete materials with an irrigation system. 3. Parking in the side yard can only be allowed when there is not reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence shall not be adequate proof of lack of reasonable access to the rear yard. Topography, property located structures and mature vegetation are possible reasons to permit recreational vehicle parking in the side yard. A plot plan with photographs will be required for permit processing. 4. Any permit application for recreational vehicle parking within the side yard will require notarization of approval from the affected abutting property owner. 5. No recreational vehicle shall be parked in the required side yard unless parking area is improved with hard surface _materials of either concrete or asphalt. The recreational vehicle parking area can not be situated so as to interfere with access to required off street parking. 6. A parking area within the side yard should be located in the yard adjacent to the existing driveway. The access drive should be tapered to the existing driveway. At no time can this transition area be used for vehicle parking. 7. The parking area must be screened to lessen the visual impact by a six foot sight-proof fence with gate or equivalent element. Screening with. either, or a combination of, berms and vertical vegetation or with street trees is also recommended. 8. Any recreational vehicle stored on the property must be owned by the resident of the subject property and be currently registered with the Salt Lake County Assessors office. The overlay zone process is simple and places the responsibility of its enactment on the neighborhood through a legislative action of the City Council. The neighborhood would need to petition for the enactment of the overlay zone. The Planning Commission would then need to render a recommendation in public hearings held by the City Council. This process would ensure neighborhood involvement and the conditions of the Planning Staff would ameliorate some of the adverse impacts associated with the parking of these vehicles. Should you concur with this recommendation after the public hearing, the City Attorney's Office should be directed to work with the Planning Staff and prepared the necessary overlay ordinance that can then be enacted on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. • Legislative Documents: .No ordinance has been prepared due to complex issues to be resolved at the public hearing. Submitted by: CRAG . PETERSON Director lf/ • gar'!�� � ; IrT_t �g0 e tle0N1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 535-7777 July 17, 1989- Mayor Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Attached please find the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation concerning the City Council's request for the Commission to examine the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of possibly allowing the parking of certain recreation vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the current Zoning Ordinance not be changed to permit the parking of these vehicles as proposed. The Planning Division's staff report supports the Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if the City Council wishes to pursue this issue by adopting appropriate legislation. These conditions are designed to reduce the obvious impacts resulting from the parking of these vehicles in areas other than rear yards. After reviewing the staff report, the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the proposed conditions contained in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone. The overlay zone process is simple and places the responsibility of its enactment on the neighborhood through a legislative action of the City Council. The neighborhood would need to petition for the enactment of the overlay zone. The Planning Commission would then need to render a recommendation in public hearings held by the City Council. This process would ensure neighborhood involvement and the conditions of the Planning Staff would ameliorate some of the adverse impacts associated with the parking of these vehicles. Mayor Palmer DePaulis July 17, 1989 Page Two Upon receipt of your comments concerning this recommendation, I will request the City Attorney's office work with the Planning Staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and schedule briefing and public hearing dates before the City Council. ' Sincerely, Craig E. Peterson Director CEP:skm ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT. AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 11, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services Rm 218 City and County Bldg • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • Re: City Council request to examine the current zoning ordinance requirements concerning the parking of recreational vehicles in the side yard. Dear Craig: Planning issues related to the modification of the zoning ordinance regarding recreational vehicle parking in the front and side yard were discussed on the April 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission discussed a proposed staff ordinance change that would allow for possible parking and storage of recreational vehicles within the side yard. This draft ordinance proposal listed several conditions to be met prior to allowing recreational vehicle parking within the side yard. The Planning Commission identified several areas needing modification if the ordinance was to be recommended for approval. The Commission discussion indicated that the urban design character historically and presently supported by the city master plan would be severely impacted by allowing recreational vehicle parking within the front or side yard. It was also stated that they could not support changing an ordinance that can not be adequately enforced by another modified ordinance that would still maintain the same problems as to enforceability. With the enforceability issue concern identified, the Planning Commission did not pursue additional discussion of the areas of modification to the staff's proposed ordinance change to allow recreational vehicle parking within the side yard. At this time, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that no changes be made with the existing ordinance with regards to allowing front or side yard parking. Prior to transmitting the Planning Commission decision the staff has given an opportunity of each community council to have input on this matter. Most community councils did not respond, those that did gave a mixed response. The range of response was of support for the existing ordinance and enforcement of that ordinance to one that recreational vehicle parking should be allowed in the side yard only with adequate screening and abutting property owner approval. Not one community council supported an ordinance modification that would directly allow side yard recreational vehicle parking without some form of conditional control. It should be noted in the Planning Commission discussion that allowing side yard parking with approval of the abutting property owner was a questionable requirement and not supported. Also the draft proposed ordinance has not been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Everett L. Joyce. Sincerely, Allen G. Johnsen, AIC� Planning Dior attachments ACJ:elj CC: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman file SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION STAFF REPORT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE IN fl1E Slut I YARD IN RESIDENTIAL DIS IUCI5 OVERVIEW At the request of the City Council through the Mayor the Planning Commission has been asked to examine the current zoning ordinance concerning parking of vehicles in the side yard, particularly, providing for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles. BACKGROUND Examination of this issue was initially raised in 1987 from the complaint of one neighbor concerning several other neighbors which have structures such as carports in their side yards usually to cover and store their recreational vehicles. A survey of the Rose Park area has brought to light several violations of this kind and it would be fair to assume that there are many • more violations throughout the City. Subdivisions within Rose Park developed with two eight foot side yards when an attached carport or garage was constructed. At the time of development only one off street parking space was required. Due to this development pattern, allowance of side yard recreational vehicle parking would have the most visual and environmental impact upon abutting residential uses. ANALYSIS Recreational vehicles are part of the local life style in Utah, however, they do detract from the aesthetic atmosphere of the neighborhood when parked or stored in the side and front yard. In addition there is a loss of air circulation and light (sun) penetration. In many cases the ground underneath is not surfaced and becomes muddy when wet and rutted in dry weather and presents or•adds to an unkempt appearance of the residence. Recreational vehicles for this discussion include motor homes, travel trailers, campers, boats, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATV's) , snowmobiles and trailers to transport motorcycles, snowmobiles and boats. Accessory storage of recreational vehicles, particularly motor homes, can be on a long term basis and would impact abutting properties similar to a structural addition. Allowing such storage would effect the urban design and air circulation elements of maintaining open space between residential uses through minimum required side yards. Information obtained from the Salt Lake County Assessor's office provided 1988 registration numbers for recreational vehicles within Salt Lake City (see table) . That office estimates that 25 percent of the recreational vehicles in the valley are not registered in Salt Lake County. 1988 RECREATIONAL VEIIC« REGISTRATION MOTOR HCMES 538 TRAILER 3,303 CAMPER 927 BOAT 2,814 MC7TORCYCLE 2,199 ATV 940 SNOWMOBIT F 248 TOTAL 10,969 Within Salt Lake City recreational vehicle parking is allowed in the rear yard on a hard surfaced pad with a hard surfaced driveway with a curb cut. The zoning ordinance prohibits parking vehicles in the side yard. Enforcement on a complaint basis only has resulted in the proliferation of structures for and storage of recreational vehicles in the side yard. Acknowledging that the problem exists and will remain the planning staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow the parking and storage of recreational vehicles upon compliance with specified - conditions. These conditions would minimize the impacts such parking has on the quality of life and esthetics of residential neighborhoods. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. A survey of surrounding cities in the Salt Lake area shows that they allow parking in the side yard with requirements ranging from a very general statement in the zoning ordinance to specific conditions to be met for such parking. Adoption of an ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the side yard should not give existing recreational vehicle parking areas any • nonconforming status. Existing parking areas may be legalized if that parking meets the conditions identified in the proposed ordinance for allowing recreational vehicle parking. Recreational vehicle parking should be limited to single family and duplex residential uses. Other multiple residential uses need to be restricted from allowing recreational vehicle parking due the fact that multiple dwelling units share the open space associated with that particular development. Certain multiple dwellings may have areas set aside for storage of recreational vehicles, however, this is accomplished through the Planned Unit Development process with approval by the Board of Adjustment. RECOMMENDATION N The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a modification to the zoning ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the rear and side yards upon compliance with the conditions outlined in the proposed attached ordinance. March 1989 Everett Joyce Janice Jardine • Summary of City ordinances pertaining to recreational vehicle parking • Where Allowed Conditions Salt Lake Rear yard Hard surfaced pad and drive. Sandy Rear & side yard Not in public right of way. Murray Front yard On established driveways 10' setback from front property line. - Ogden Rear & side yard Hard surfaced pad and drive with tapered transition. Pad not to extend in front of building. Screened with 6' sight proof fence. Must maintain one required parking space. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES 'ID ACCCNMODATE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING (Definitions) 21.04.377 Recreational Vehicles "Recreational Vehicle" is a motorized self propelled vehicle with more than two wheels or a towed vehicle that may be transported or drawn upon the • highway, except devices moved by human power. Types of recreational vehicles are: "Travel Trailer" is a structure designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use. "Motor Hcme" is a portable dwelling designed and constructed as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle. "Pickup Camper" is a structure designed primarily to be mounted on a pickup or 'truck chassis and with sufficient equipment to render it suitable for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational or travel use. "Water Craft" is any unit that is used for water travel or pleasure. "Off Road Vehicle" is a snowmobile, dune buggy, or any All Terrain Vehicle with either three or four wheels designed for off-road travel and used for recreational purposes. (Proposed ordinance change to the Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations) 21.80.290 Recreational Vehicles In a residential zoning district, single family and duplex dwelling uses, as an accessory, residents are allowed to park a recreational vehicle, trailer or boat under the conditions outlined in subsections (a) and (b) below. This parking shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, the required off-street parking spaces for the particular zoning district. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked on a public right of way or front yard. A recreational vehicle may not be used for storage of goods, materials, or equipment other than those to be considered part of the unit. Recreational vehicles must be stored in a safe and secure manner. Tie-downs, tarpaulins and ropes must be secured from rattling and flapping in windy conditions. Any tarpaulins used to cover vehicles that are kept outside must be of a neutral color. Parking is permitted only for storage and no recreational vehicle shall be used for dwelling purposes. (a) Parking is permitted within any enclosed structure when the structure conforms to the zoning requirements of the particular district in which it is located; (b) Parking is permitted outside of an enclosed structure in the side yard or rear yard under the following conditions: 1. Limited to one motor home or travel trailer per dwelling. Other recreational vehicles are limited to a total of two per dwelling. 2. Recreational vehicles may be stored in the rear yard on an adequate hard surface pad with either a hard surface driveway, hard surface drive strips, or an access drive constructed of turf block or grass- crete materials with an irrigation system. 3. Parking in the side yard can only be allowed when there is not reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence shall not be adequate proof of lack of reasonable access to the rear yard. Topography, . properly located structures and mature vegetation are possible reasons to permit recreational vehicle parking in the side yard. A plot plan with photographs will be required for permit processing. . 4. Any permit application for recreational vehicle parking within the side yard will require a notarization of approval from the affected abutting property owner. 5. No recreational vehicle shall be parked in the required side yard unless the parking area is improved with hard surface materials of either concrete or asphalt. The recreational vehicle parking area can not be situated so as to interfere with access to required off street parking. • 6. A parking area within the side yard should be located in the yard adjacent to the existing driveway. The access drive should be tapered to the existing driveway. At no time can this transition area be used for vehicle parking. 7. The parking area must be screened to lessen the visual impact by a ' six foot sight-proof fence with gate or equivalent element. Screening with either, or a combination of, berms and vertical vegetation or with street trees is also recommended. 8. Any recreational vehicle stored on the property must be owned by the resident of the subject property and be currently registered with the Salt Lake County Assessors office. March 1989 • SIX EWi' FENCE - Sight Proof with Gate • HARD SURFACE PARKING PAD . mi s non un? 1111.01111011111 ■muuuw •uuEII �w FCCESS DRIVE MEW Cwr LANDSCAPE SCREENING AREA V NY - Vertical Vegetation — — - — -- I Street Tree PC MINUTES April W, 1989 Page 12 Centre Park project, subject to the granting of an avigation easement to Salt Lake City and installation of drainage plan improvements as proposed by the developer. Mr. Wheelwright also recommended that the Planning Commission authorize the Planning Director to grant final plat approval administratively upon compliance with city ordinances and requirements. Mr. Van Alstyne moved to approve the preliminary plat. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. PLAMIINC ISSUES Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage in the side yard in residential districts. Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff,report and stated that City Council has requested, through the Mayor, that the Planning Commission examine the current - Zoning Ordinance concerning parking of vehicles in the side yard, particularly providing for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Joyce stated that this issue was raised through complaints of violations. Mr. Joyce added that a field survey brought many violations of this ordinance to the staff's attention. Mr. Joyce then showed slides of pictures taken of current violations in the Rose Park and west side area. He noted that the problem is evident throughout the city and not just within these two neighborhoods used in the illustrations. A discussion followed on the growing number of recreational vehicles in the city, the detraction of the esthetic atmosphere and the loss of air circulation and light penetration caused by these vehicles, enforcement difficulties, safety hazards when there is no open space between residential units, and the fact that there are already more than 100 pending cases in need of enforcement. People wanting quick access to their recreational vehicles was also discussed as well as security risks at storace centers and the impact of obstructed views of abutting residences. Mr. Joyce stated that the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a modification to the Zoning Ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the rear and side yards upon compliance with the conditions outlined in the proposed attached ordinance. Mr. Howa asked how they would be able to enforce anything new that might be drafted if they can't enforce the current ordinance. Mr. Johnson that the department has ticketing authority and that 900 of the compliance to the Zoning Ordinance is voluntary. Mr. Howa pointed out that the majority of the violations will remain as violations even if the ordinance is amended. Following a lengthy discussion and debate of the current ordinance, Mr. Nicolatus moved to recommend enforcement of the current Zoning Ordinance rather than revising it. Mr. Van Alstyne seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." CO) FIRST FEDERAL 505 East 200 South SAVINGS SPalt a ke C.Box ityBUtah 84147 (801)531-7800 April 10, 1969 Mr. John M. Schumann 10 West Broadway. Suite 610 Salt Lake City. Utah 64101 Dear John: I am unable to attend the meeting this Thursday. but wanted to comment on two of the agenda items. With respect to recreational vehicles. I think "two wheel" should be deleted from the definition. Also. I would prefer wording that begins with a prohibition of side yard parking and proceeds to permission by exception. Also. I would delete the affirmative approval of the abutting owner. With respect to the Landmark Committee, I believe that the intent of the amendment might be served better by requiring a member from each council district rather than excluding a group of members from any historic connection. Actually. historic integrity shouldn't be the subject of political whim. and I think committee membership is better served by professional qualification than residency. Cordially yours. Ralph P. Neilson Executive Vice President RPN:kd cc: Planning Committee Members Member FSLIC b3 CRAIG E. PETERSON1�� d� �' T�Y�G®RP) I�ON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council July 27, 1989 Re: Proposed Amendment to Section 21.52.010 "B-3" Business District Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 12, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss a proposed amendment to Section 21.52.010 "B-3" business district. The amendment is to prohibit mechanical repairs and speciality-type service centers for automobiles and light trucks. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: In February of this year, the Board of Adjustment considered and concluded that a Goodyear Service Center, proposed for the Foothill Village Shopping Center, met the test of a "shop for retail business" which is allowed in the present "B-3" district. This decision was largely based on evidence presented by Goodyear that over 50% of their gross income was from "sales" (principally tires) with the remainder from "service". Prior to this decision these types of activities, specialty-type service centers, were considered to be a conditional use in the Commercial "C-1" zone. The decision of the Board is somewhat precedent setting in that for an "B-3", or other less restrictive zone, a Goodyear Service Center that can establish facts similar to those in this case, can now be considered as a permitted use. This could also open the door for other similar activities that can establish that more than 50% of their income is from "sales". The Planning staff is concerned that the master plan goals and intent of the Business "B-3" district is at jeopardy. In many neighborhood areas, there exists the potential for the establishment of an auto service center as a permitted use not as a conditional use. An auto service center have a much larger customer area than the immediate residential vicinity and would be a disruptive influence in any neighborhood. The Planning Commission has reviewed the amendment and recommends approval of the amendment. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E. P VE7 Director �__ } If 3t . F SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 ( Permitted uses in the B-3 zoning district ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 52.010( 8) OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE BUSINESS B-3 ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission and has taken into account citizen testimony; and WHEREAS, the Council believes it appropriate to prohibit certain mechanical repair and specialty-type automobile service centers from the Business B-3 zoning district and has concluded that the proposed amendment to Section 21. 52.010( 8 ) is in the best interest of the City; • THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 21 . 52.010(8 ) . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 52.010( 8 ) be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21.52.010 Permitted uses. A. In a B-3 business district, no building or premises shall be used and no building shall be erected which is arranged, intended or designed to be used for other than one or more of the following uses: 1 . *** 2. *** 3. *** 4. *** 5. *** 6. *** 7 . *** 8. Shops for retail business; For the purposes of this Title businesses performing mechanical repair for automobiles and trucks, including engine and engine part repairs and drive train repairs and specialty- type services centers primarily providing repair and maintenance for automobiles and trucks, including brakes, mufflers, upholstery, automobile glass, tire installation and repair, tune-ups and lubrication are prohibited in this district even as accessory uses. These uses are subject to the provisions of Section 21 . 56.040. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1988. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: BRB:rc- -3- ALLEN C. JOHNSON SALT' +� , 1 GUY CORPORATION NANCY K. PACES CHAIRMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR '� ROBERT LEWIS G EO P.GINA DuFcuR DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DOROTHY PLESHE SECRETARY Board of Adjustment on Zoning PETER VAN ALSTYNE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 BRENT B. WILDE I. J. WAGNER SUPERVISOR of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ALTERNATE: CURRENT PLANNING 535-7757 W. KENT MONEY June 23 , 1989 RECEIVED Mr . Craig Peterson , Director JUN 27 RICO Community and Economic Development 451 So. State Street Salt Lake City, UTAH 84111 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Re: Amendment to Sec. 21 . 52 . 010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Dear Craig, On June 22, 1989 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission considered an amendment to Sec . 21 . 52 . 010 of the Zoning Ordinance of Salt Lake City. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit mechanical repairs and specialty-type service centers for automobiles and light trucks in the "B-3 Business" district . The Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of this amendment to the City Council . Therefore, it is now appropriate to have this item scheduled on the first available City Council agenda . The planning staff will work with the City Attorney ' s Office to prepare the necessary ordinance revision. Respectfully, -doffr- Alle C. Iohnson, AICP Plann1129. tirector . ACJ: bp cc . File SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SEC.21.52. 010 BUSINESS "B-3" OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OVERVIEW Planning staff is proposing an amendment to Sec. 21 . 52. 010 Business "B-3" of the zoning ordinance. This amendment is necessary to remove the possibility of encroachment of specialty- type service centers into neighborhood convenience business areas . BACKGROUND On February 22 , 1989 the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment considered and concluded that a Goodyear Service Center , proposed for the Foothill Village Shopping Center , met the test of a "shop for retail business. " This decision was in response to a request for an interpretation of Sec. 21. 52. 010 .A8 of the zoning ordinance. The decision rendered in this case (Case No. 983-B) was largely based on the evidence presented by Goodyear that over 50% of their gross income was from "sales" (principally tires) with the remainder from "service" . Prior to this decision these types of activities, specialty-type service centers , were considered to be a conditional use in the Commercial "C-1" zone (Sec. 21 . 56 . 040 ) . The zoning for Foothill Village Shopping Center is B-3 Business. Thus, the decision of the Board is somewhat precedent setting in that for any "B-3" , or other less restrictive zone, a Goodyear Service Center that can establish facts similar to those in Case 983-B can now be considered as a permitted use. Further , any other similar activity that can establish that more than 50% of their income is from "sales" has a strong likelihood to be considered a "shop for retail business" . Indeed, the city is already facing pressure to allow a Goodyear Service Center at another location without proceeding through the conditional use process . Therefore, in many neighborhood areas there exists the potential for the establishment of an auto service center as a permitted use. Recognizing this , and the nature of the interpretative decision made by the Board of Adjustment, the planning staff is concerned that the master plan goals and intent of the Business "B-3" district is at jeopardy. Clearly, an auto service center has a much larger catchment area than the immediate residential vicinity. These activities can draw from a wide area and as such can be a disruptive influence in any neighborhood. Additionally, a review process has been established (conditional use process) that considers and evaluates the appropriateness of the use for a specific site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To remove the possible establishment of "auto service centers" in neighborhood oriented business areas , the planning staff would propose an amendment to Sec. 21. 52 . 010 Business "B-3" of the Zoning Ordinance of Salt Lake City. It is proposed that the form of this amendment would clearly prohibit mechanical repairs and specialty-type service centers for automobiles and light trucks as a permitted use in the "B-3" zoning district. Rather , these types of activities would still remain as a conditional use in the Commercial "C-1" zone under the provisions of Sec. 21 . 56 . 040 . The exact amendment proposed to Sec . 21 . 52 . 010 follows; SEC. 21.52.010 AMENDMENT 8 . Shops for retail business; for the purpose of this Title mechanical repairs and specialty-type service centers for the ordinary repair and servicing of automobiles and light trucks are not permitted , even as an accessory use. These uses are conditional uses under Sec. 21 . 56 . 040 . DEFINITIONS Mechanical Repairs: An establishment primarily providing for the repair and maintenance of automobiles and trucks including engine, engine part repair , and drive-train repair . Specialty-Type Service: An establishment primarily providing repair and maintenance for automobiles and trucks including brake, muffler , upholstery work, auto glass , tire repair and change, tune-ups and lubrication. June, 1989 Bruce Parker . PC MINUTES 6/22 Page 9 Planning Staff Initiative to amend Section 21.52 Business "B-3" to clarify permitted uses, prohibited uses and conditional uses with regards to shops for mechanical repairs and specialty type service centers. Mr. Parker presented the staff report and stated that the Planning Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 21.52.010 Business "B-3" of the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment is necessary to remove the possibility of encroachment of specialty-type service centers into neighborhood convenience business areas. • On February 22, 1989 the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment considered and concluded that a Good Year Service Center, proposed for the Foothill Village Shopping Center, met the test of a "shop for retail business." This decision was in response to a request for an interpretation of Sec. 21.52.010.A8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The decision rendered in this case (Case No. 983-B) was largely based on the evidence presented by Good Year that over 50o of their gross income was from "sales" (principally tires) with the remainder from "service." Prior to this decision these types of activities, specialty-type service centers, were considered to be a conditional use in the Commercial "C-1" zone (Sec. 21.56.040) . The zoning for Foothill Village Shopping Center is B-3 Business. Thus, the decision of the Board is somewhat precedent setting in that for any "B-3" or other less restrictive zone, a Good Year Service Center that can establish facts similar to those in Case 983-B can now be considered as a permitted use. Further, any other similar activity that can establish that more than 500 of their income is from "sales" has a strong likelihood to be considered a "shop for retail business." Indeed, the city is already facing pressure to allow a Good Year Service Center at another location without proceeding through the conditional use process. Therefore, in many neighborhood areas there exists the potential for the establishment of an auto service center as a permitted use. Recognizing this, and the nature of the interpretative decision made by the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Staff is concerned that the master plan goals and intent of the Business "B-3" district is at jeopardy. Clearly, an auto service center has a much larger catchment area than the immediate residential vicinity. These activities can draw from a wide area and can be a disruptive influence in any neighborhood. Additionally, a review process has been established (conditional use process) that considers and evaluates the appropriateness of the use for a specific site. To remove the possible establishment of "auto service centers" in neighborhood oriented business areas, the Planning Staff would propose an amendment to Sec. 21.52.010 Business "B-3" of the Zoning Ordinance of Salt Lake City. It is proposed that the form of this amendment would clearly prohibit mechanical PC MINUTES Page 2 June 22, 1989 repairs and specialty-type service centers for automobiles and light trucks as a permitted use in the "B-3" zoning district. Rather, these types of activities would still remain as a conditional use in the Commercial "C-1" zone under the provisions of Sec.21.56.040. The exact amendment proposed to Sec.21.52.010 follows: Si I2.21.52.010 AMENDMENT 8. Shops for retail business; for the purpose of this Title mechanical repairs and specialty-type service centers for the ordinary repair and servicing of automobiles and light trucks are not permitted, even as an° accessory use. These uses are conditional uses under Sec. 21.56.040. DEFINITIONS Mechanical Repairs: An establishment primarily providing for the repair and maintenance of automobiles and trucks including engine, engine part repair, and drive-train repair. Specialty-Type Service: An establishment primarily providing repair and maintenance for automobiles and trucks including brake, muffler, upholstery work, auto glass, tire repair and change, tune-ups and lubrication. Mr. Ellison asked what the difference was between a convenience store that sells gasoline and an automobile repair shop which would create less traffic. Mr. Parker responded that the convenience store draws from the neighborhood while the repair shop draws from a much larger base. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Staff recognizes the fine line between definitions and is examining the entire B-3 zoning. Mr. Ellison moved to approve the recommendation to amend Section 21.52 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." { SALT" t IOI 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 JOSEPH R. RC OR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKSS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER (801) 535-6630 July 12 , 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis Room 306 - City Hall RE: Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Dear Mayor DePaulis: I recommend approval of the attached agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation to establish a two level management and operation structure consisting of the Engineer of Safety, Utah Department of Transportation; and the Transportation Engineer , Salt Lake Corporation; to be charged with the determination of goals , objectives, and policies related to the operation and maintenance of the signal system. Both parties will maintain jurisdiction over their respective roadways and signals. The Advisory Committee will be responsible for traffic analysis, traffic control philosophy, computer programming , and maintenance and installation functions . Costs of expansion or alteration of the system will be determined on a case by case basis by the Advisory Committee. Sincerely, G-t-S-44-41-0 - sep R. Anderson Public Works Director KGL/lh cc: Timothy P. Harpst CO , TRACT ROUTING FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION DATE PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 7/12/89 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT PHONE Timothy P. Harpst or Kurt Larson 535-6630 NAME OF CONTRACTING PARTY REF # SUBJECT Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation to share costs & responsibilities for signal system Yes No Number of Copies 16 Insurance Required Expected Completion Insurance Attached RECORDER FINANCE Contract No. 03- C c/Oo2' Vendor No. `� ' Account No. Q�_ /,/00 —/.39!7 ® �." �;! ,• JUL 1 J i989 FINANCE DIVISION Funds Available 7/K-PL ll -0t. Funds Not Needed ATTORNEY - LdA-4.7 APPROVED AS TO FORM RECEIVED CT: A O NE Y'S Ci F CE Date 7/1/k, yC.4:7.7.: -7 —.0. __Ts1 COPY DISTRIBUTION Date To RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 , U.C.A. , 1953 , as amended, allows pubic 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 agreement to establish a two level management and operation structure consisting of The Engineer of Safety, Utah Department of Transportation; and the Transportation Engineer , Salt Lake City Corporation, to be charged with the determination of goals , objectives, and policies related to the operation and maintenance of the signal system. Both parties will maintain jurisdiction over their respective roadways and signals . The Advisory Committee will be responsible for traffic analysis, traffic control philosophy, computer programming , and maintenance and installation functions. 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 , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL BY: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 'i= 7 1.8„9 a • SAW T' r CIT1Y1 OORPO° I0N1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 JOSEPH R. ANDERSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER (801) 535-6630 TO: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 12, 1989 RE: Agreement between the Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City Corporation to establish a two level management Advisory Committee for operation and maintenance of the traffic signal system. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council approve the agreement. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Costs of the expansion or alteration of the system will be determined on a case by case basis by the Advisory Committee. The total estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining the completed computerized traffic is detailed in EXHIBIT A. Both fee- cost sharing ratio and estimated annual operation and maintenance costs may be revaluated and brought current every three (3 ) years. The lump sum payment for each of the first three (3) years shall be $38 , 000 . At any time after each three year period the City may submit to the State, or the State may request that the City submit the most recent information necessary to establish a new lump sum payment. DISCUSSION: The approval of this agreement will result in both Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City sharing costs and responsibilities for the traffic signal system. /lh cc: Joseph R. Anderson #',��4 • ROGER F. CUTLER wsI2 'ate MY�v � D +a ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPENDLOVE R. BAIRD SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 BRUCE R. CHERYL D. LUKE FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP July 7, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Timothy P. Harpst Transportation Engineer 333 South 200 East, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: UDOT Traffic Controls Dear Tim: I have reviewed the enclosed agreement and find it sufficient. On page 4, however, the "Approved as to Form" designation should be modified to read "Approved as to Form and the Laws of Utah" in order to conform with §11-13-9, Utah Code Annotated. Very truly yours, Deputy City Attorney SWA:rc Enclosure AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (UDOT) and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (City) , hereby acknowledges and reduces to writing an agreement made on or about the above date. IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS : A. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to establish the rights and obligations of both parties with regard to the operation and maintenance of the computerized signal control system in Salt Lake City. B . MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION: 1 . A two level management and operation structure will be established from appropriate representatives of each of the parties . This management structure will consist of the following : a . An Advisory Committee made up of the following members or their designated alternatives: The Engineer of Safety of the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Engineer , Division of Transportation, Salt Lake City Corporation. The advisory Committee will be charged with the determination of goals, objectives, and policies related to the operation and maintenance of the system. Both of the parties will maintain jurisdiction over their respective roadways and signals. The Advisory Committee will be responsible for traffic analysis, traffic control philosophy, computer programming , and maintenance and installation functions. The output from this committee will be formulation of procedures to be used at the operating level . Costs of expansion or alteration of the system will be determined on a case by case basis by the Advisory Committee. b. The Operating Level , consisting of such personnel as are required to perform the necessary day-to-day operation and maintenance of the system facilities. 2. The operation and maintenance of the system will be performed by the appropriate engineering representatives and other personnel of the parties and in accordance with the directives established by the Advisory Committee, subject to the approval of both the parties. 3 . Salt Lake City Corporation will operate the central control facility, and will assign a permanent operator and such other personnel as are determined necessary to assure the effective operation of the system. The present estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are detailed in EXHIBIT A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4 . All presently-existing and future traffic controller equipment in the field shall be the property of and shall be maintained by and be the property of the party who has roadway jurisdiction. All presently-existing and future computer telemetry equipment and other equipment located at the central control facility shall be the property of and shall be maintained by and be the responsibility of Salt Lake City Corporation. The City will repair CICU units belonging to UDOT which are delivered at the City' s repair and maintenance facility, but the City will not be responsible for repair of UDOT equipment in the field . 5 . The State will contribute a lump sum payment each year to the City for the operation and maintenance of the system. This lump sum payment is based on the estimated annual cost as shown in EXHIBIT "A" and in accordance with the percentages established in paragraph "C" herein. Both the fee-cost sharing ratio and the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs may be revaluated and brought current every three ( 3 ) years. The lump sum payment for each of the first three ( 3 ) years shall be $38 , 000 . At any time after each three year period, the City may submit to the State, or the State may request that the City submit the most recent information necessary to establish a new lump sum payment. After State approval is given, this will establish the lump sum payment for each of the next three (3 ) years. The total estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining the completed computerized traffic is detailed in EXHIBIT A. Each year the City shall bill the State for the current lump sum payment in accordance with Utah Department of Transportation procedures . Said billings shall be submitted in a timely manner . C. FEE-COST SHARING RATIO: System operation and maintenance costs shall be shared by the Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.D.O.T. according to a ratio set by the number of traffic signals owned by each jurisdiction. At present, there are 190 signals in the area of computerized control; 82 of these belong to the U.D.O.T. and 108 belong to Salt Lake City Corporation. -2- The present ratio for cost sharing is as follows : U. D.O.T. 43% SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 57% D. The U.D.O.T . shall have access to all information generated by the central processor . This includes all information concerning system operation, traffic volumes and any other data desired. E. The term of this Agreement shall be indefinite, but may be terminated at the option of either party upon twelve months written notice to the other party. Any and all sums owing to or be either party hereunder at the time of termination hereof shall be computed in accordance with the then applicable fee-sot sharing ratio and the then current estimated annual operation and maintenance costs as pro rated for the portion of the year expired at the date of termination hereof. F. The parties hereto shall be excused from performance under this contract and shall incur no liability for failure to perform where performance is prevented by a force majeure. The term "force majeure" as used herein means acts of God; strikes, acts of public enemy , blockades, wars, insurrections, or riots; epidemics; landslides, earthquakes, fires, storms, floods, or washouts; governmental restraints, either federal or state, civil or military; civil disturbances, explosions; inability to obtain necessary materials, supplies , labor ; inability to obtain timely approvals and inspections or permits due to administrative procedure, existing or future rules, regulations , orders, laws , or proclamations , either federal, state, city or county, civil or military; so long as the above causes or events are beyond the . control of the affected party. G. It is recognized that the parties hereto do not carry insurance for and have not been changed a premium hereunder for insurance for the potential liability of the respective parties for services provided hereunder . In lieu of such insurance and payment of the premiums therefor, each party hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and to hold harmless the other party from any and all lawsuits or liability of whatever kind including negligence that arises or may arise out of either party ' s respective performance hereunder . -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have subscribed their proper officers duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By By CITY RECORDER MAYOR ATTEST: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By By COMMISSION SECRETARY DIRECTOR RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL FUNDS AVAILABLE By By ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BUDGET OFFICER By ENGINEER FOR SAFETY APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE By DIRECTOR OF FINANCE APPROVED AS TO FORM AND THE LAWS OF UTAH: FINANCE APPROVAL Funds Not Needed By Funds Available 7-"!-,7 5711,, ATTORNEY GENERAL Contract w D - f001A ATTORNEY APPROVAL APP OVER AS TO F By ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL -4- EXIBIT "A" ESTIMATED COST OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE SALT LAKE CITY COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM AS OF JUNE 1989 NO. OF SHARING SYSTEM SYSTEM PARTICIPATING SIGNALS RATIO OPERATORS MAINTENANCE* TOTALS U.D.O.T. 82 43% $24,940 $13,060 $38,000** SALT LAKE CITY 108 57% $33,060 $17,340 $50,400 TOTAL 190 100% $58,000 $30,400 $88,400 *Estimated System Costs: Annual Electrical power (computer room) $ 6,000 Computer (CPU) maintenance 19,200 Environmental control (computer room) 1,000 CICU maintenance 1,200 Interconnect cable repair 3,000 Total $30,400 **Lump sum payment payable to City by U.D.O.T. -5- D5 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. (�I I/,'�I SUPERINTENDENT mac\ I��i\r�,l�'+ �r/mm, ,� WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS �..► i E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION • MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, RE. SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER July 20, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Easement for Pipeline Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of Watermain Extension No. 33-C-1418. Recommendation; That the Council approve the agreement. Availability of Funds: None Required. Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install an 8-inch watermain extension on Evergreen Avenue at approximately 1943 East. 1. Please return the original and four (4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: LEROY W. HOOTON,o J . Director Department of Public Utilities /srb Attachments File C-6 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY 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 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 for a water main and related facilities approximately 478 feet long in a county road at approximately 1943 East 3435 South (Evergreen Avenue) in Salt Lake County. 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 , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of July , 19 89 , by and between the SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body of corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and Salt Lake City Corporation, Dept. of Pub)i c Utilities 1530 S. West Temple, S.L.C. Ut 84115 hereinafter called "GRANTEE. " WITNESSET H: 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 the COUNTY and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of Water Supply ; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions herein set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPELINES. (Address) iprnximatp1y 19a" Ragt 3435 South (Evergreen Avenue) Length of Cut (Feet) approximately 478 feet of 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe cantud6dnmx Owner, Corp. , Co. , etc. 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 forty-two (42) inches shall consist of 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe pipe, 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 Eckhoff, Watson & Preator 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 Public Works 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 Public Works 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 interruption of highway traffic. The GRANTEE shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to handling 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 safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the GRANTEE in constructing said pipelines. 4 . COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfill 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 as directed by 2 the 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 Public Works 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 materials, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with a new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be permitted 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 original condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the GRANTEE. 6. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completion of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from within the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any highway 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 and their attached appurtenances, excluding fire hydrants 3 and the connecting system thereof, shall at all times be maintained, repaired, reviewed and operated by and at the expense of the GRANTEE in such a manner as shall most suitably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approval of the COUNTY. In the event emergency repairs of reconstruction of said pipelines or appurtenances are required as determined by COUNTY, and after notice in writing requiring GRANTEE to perform said repairs or reconstruction within a reasonable time, and upon a failure of GRANTEE to complete said repairs or reconstruction, the COUNTY reserves the right to make such emergency repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary and the GRANTEE hereby agrees to reimburse the COUNTY for the cost of such emergency reconstruction or repairs. 8. 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 (except for any fire hydrants, including the connecting system thereof) , the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections. 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. 4 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. 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 is understood and agreed that neither the COUNTY nor the GRANTEE by entering into this agreement acknowledge any liability for any acts of negligence, whether of omission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 11. 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 COUNTY at all times as the COUNTY deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other COUNTY purpose over the area covered by this easement, and when the GRANTEE ' s lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any COUNTY purpose, the GRANTEE 5 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. SALT LAKE COUNTY By: D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: H. DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk GRANTEE: Salt Lake City Corporation Ar1'EST: City Recorder MAYOR STATE OF UTAH : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989 , by , who is the of NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 6 miff' ' ")a erg-Cm o ION CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council July 28, 1989 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Section 21.78.130 Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Recommendations: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 21.78.130 Recreational Facilities in Residential. The proposed amendment was requested by the Council to regulate liquor at these facilities. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has recommend that the existing ordinance be amended to state that accessory uses shall not be considered to be uses which require licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CA--0:Y"CRAIG E PETERSON Directo lf/ • ROGER F. CUTLER Sv.�= 1 \ a GI I IV V l\l�,� A'1��®l ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS LARRY V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP July 13, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Section 21 . 78. 130 Petition No. 400-708-89 Dear Craig: In response to Bill Wright ' s letter of June 30, 1989, I have redrafted the proposed amendment to Section 21 . 78 . 130 in response to the DeSantis petition to modify the prohibition on alcohol pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation. I have discussed this modification with Allen and we both note that even the modified language creates a problem for such recreational uses as the Salt Lake Country Club and, possibly, other golf courses and similar uses. My understanding is that Allen intends to be present at the Council hearing on this petition and so inform the Council of the potential problems. If you have any questions, please call . Sincer y, ,. , BRUCE R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:pp Enclosures ►�7'. ®,S1��,J Nit%ULM re M ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL RICHARD J. HOWA SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN June 30, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development / yr 451 South State Street, Room 218 RECV Salt Lake City, Ur 84111 fir. Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Section 21.78.130 �' Dear Craig: On Thursday, June 22, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance change amending Section 21.78.130 allowing recreational facilities in residential districts as a conditional use. The petition was submitted by David DeSantis specifically to allow "for profit" organizations to provide these recreational facilities. On June 6, 1989, the City Council referred the proposed ordinance change back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation regarding regulation of liquor at these facilities. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed language in Paragraph H2 on page 5 and felt it to be of a "criminal" nature rather than a land use regulatory nature. The Planning Commission believes this language may be difficult to administer and unreasonable for the owner of the property to enforce. The Planning Commission recommends an alternative approach. They .suggest replacing the language in Paragraph H2 on page 5 with the following: H2. Accessory uses shall not be considered to be uses which require licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this ordinance and supports a control on the sale and consumption of alcohol. Mr. Craig E. Peterson June 30, 1989 Page Two Please call if you have any questions on this matter. Respectfully submitted, (a/(6,1 .16dt ,(f/t...7- ,/ William T. Wright, AICP Deputy Planning Director WIW:skm attachments fi SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21.78. 130 Dealing with Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Pursuant to Petition No. 400-708-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.78. 130, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, DEALING WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-708-89 . WHEREAS,the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning and Zoning Commission and believes it appropriate to amend the provisions of Section 21 . 78. 130, Salt Lake City Code, dealing with recreational uses in residential districts as conditional uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 21.78. 130 of the Salt Lake City Code. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21.78. 130, Salt Lake City Code, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That Section 21.78. 130 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 21.78.130 Recreational facilities in residential districts. A. Recreational facilities as conditional use. Where not otherwise authorized by this title, and when in its opinion the best interest of the community will be served thereby, the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit, as a conditional use, the use of the land in a residential district for recreational purposes, subject to the following conditions and procedures: B. Definition. "Recreational uses" , for the purpose of this section, shall be defined to mean a structure or developed open space designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities, including paths and playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses and golf training facilities, nature exhibits and similar uses. "Recreational uses" shall not include commercial spa or aerobic clubs, all terrain or recreational vehicle parks, amusement parks, waterslides, skateboard parks or similar uses. C. Application. Applications for conditional uses under this section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such applications shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in subsection E. below. The application shall alsorequire the payment of a one hundred dollar ( $100.00 ) processing fee which includes the cost of mailing any and all required notices. D. Notice and hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on applications for conditional uses under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be given to residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use. E. Approval criteria. -2- In considering the petition for conditional use the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine from the criteria below whether the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development patter for the area in question in conformity with the city master plan for that area. The factors and criteria to be considered include: 1. Whether the proposed recreation area is of such size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. F. Design requirements. Before the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant the proposed conditional use it must find that the following mandatory criteria have been met. 1. That the area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities, together with all required off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facilities while still maintaining required landscaped thirty foot front yards, ten foot side yards and twenty five foot rear yards. -3- 2. That all drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. G. Additional design elements. Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the conditional use is appropriate for the site, the Commission may, in addition, require any or all of the design criteria specified below which are determined to be reasonably necessary to minimize any negative esthetic, economic or planning impacts associated with the conditional use: 1. An opaque masking structure or fence of a material in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to screen the proposed use from neighboring uses. 2. Such other conditions reasonably necessary to ensure compatibility of uses within the district in conformance with adopted master plans and policies and the protection of property values. H. Prohibited accessory and other uses. 1. Accessory uses on the property such as retail sales and food services shall not be permitted except as such uses have been specifically approved by the Planning and zoning Commission. Any such accessory use shall be solely for the benefit and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. -4- 2. Accessory uses for which licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol are required shall not be permitted as part of any conditional use permitted pursuant to this section. I . Security. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct the conditional use, adequate financial security shall be posted in a form acceptable to the city to ensure completion of the proposed and required landscape improvements. J. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission may appeal the decision to the City Council. Appeals must be filed within fifteen days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Commission' s final decision. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the appeal. Notice of the appeal and hearing shall be provided to all residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use no later than seven days prior to the hearing. SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -5- 15156 • •f - Y .V f S.AMA OFFICE OF THE CITY.,,COUNCIL SUITE 300,•CITY HALL .324 SOUTH STATE STREET_ .' .SALT:LAKE-C1TY:-UTAH.841 1 535-7600 ---- August 4, 1989 MEMORANDUM • TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JEI'SON 017'() RE: SHOPKO ORDINANCES The Attorney's Office has prepared the attached ordinances which reflect the action you took on the two Shopko petitions, and they are on the Tuesday, August 8 meeting agenda for adoption. As with all ordinances that confirm action of the Council, they have been placed on the consent agenda. Due to the tight time frame, you'll see that the property descriptions are not included in the draft ordinances. These are being finalized and confirmed by the Planning Division at this time and will be put into the ordinance on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. We will then get them to you for your meeting. R F SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Closing portions of Ashton and Simpson Avenues and associated alleyways between 1300 East and Highland Drive pursuant to Petition No. 400-732-89) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING PORTIONS OF ASHTON AND SIMPSON AVENUES AND ASSOCIATED ALLEYWAYS BETWEEN 1300 EAST AND HIGHLAND DRIVE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-732-89. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City's interest in the public streets and alleyways described below is not necessary for use by the public as streets and alleyways and that closure of said streets and alleyways will not be adverse to the general public' s interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That portions of Ashton and Simpson Avenues and associated alleyways between 1300 East and Highland Drive, which are the subject of Petition No. 400-732-89 and which are more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby are, CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as public streets and alleyways, with the title remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value: Said streets and alleyways are more particularly described as follows: SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above enclosure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions have been met: 1 . Ashton Avenue and the associated alleyways numbers and above shall be closed and sold only after all residential occupancy abutting on the closed streets and alleyways has ended. 2. Simpson Avenue and the associated alleyways, properties numbers and _ above, shall be closed: a. Only after all residential occupancy abutting the streets and alleyways has ended; and b. The commercial planned unit development is approved by the City; and c. A building permit for the Shopko project has been issued. If the foregoing conditions have not been completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time -2- may be extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the conditions have not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19_ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19 Published: _3_ DRAF SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE DE5 No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located between Simpson Avenue and I-80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East from Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-731-89. ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Clark Development, No. 400-731-89, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located between Simpson Avenue and I-80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East from Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-731-89 is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: • Sec. 21.14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" is hereby rezoned Commercial "C-3A" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: [property description] SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions has been met: 1. The issuance of a site development permit for the Shopko project proposed by the Petition. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be extended for .an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the condition has not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER BRB:pp • • • • • -3- STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 Non-refundable Business License Application Fee Proposed Ordinance August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Hold a public hearing and adopt ordinance which provides for charging a non-refundable business license fee of $35. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As was discussed in Committee of the Whole, this fee is proposed to help cover the costs for staff work, inspections, hearings and other items associated with processing business license applications. The $35 amount is recommended by the Administration because that is the fee that a new business is charged for their first license. In some cases it totally covers the cost, but in many it does not. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposal appears to be very reasonable, with a conservative fee. Many of the applications that are denied have required a significant amount of staff work and processing time. At some point in the future the Council may wish to reevaluate the amount of the fee and adjust it upward. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Close hearing and adopt ordinance. SUGGESTED-MOTION: 1. I move that we close the public hearing. 2. I move that we adopt an ordinance amending Section 5.04.070, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new subsection D thereto relating to the establishment of a non-refundable business license application fee. 111111/11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining ,to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. .The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • I move that we close the public hearing. • I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5.05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None 111111111 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUt'CIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining ,to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5. 05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. .The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we close the public hearing. • I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. .The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • I move that we close the public hearing. I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None 111111 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining ,to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. _The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee -but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • I move that we close the public hearing. • I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5.05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None 111111/11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION (7 Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining ,to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. .The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee 'but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add. a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • I move that we close the public hearing. • I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None • 11111111 STAFF RECOMMENDATION I Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76 pertaining ,to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. .The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fcc is not in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we close the public hearing. I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5.05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5. 72 and 5.76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None �- (_ caN F ti �I S E1 r�l QJ MY C. O;RP R ION CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council July 10, 1989 Re: Ordinance Regarding Certificate of Convenience and Necessity . Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 8, at 6:20 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance regarding Certificates of Convenience and Necessity. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: This proposed ordinance has been prepared to combine all chapters of the current ordinance that pertain to certificates of public convenience and necessity into one chapter which governs all transportation businesses requiring such certificates i.e. horse drawn carriaces, ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The new Chapter 5.05 will standardized requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35.00 non-refundable application fee. The fee will help recoup•the City's cost of processing and reviewing the applications, inspecting the premises, and corresponding with the applicant. The fee would not be in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee. Most often there is a greater amount of effort expended and cost incurred with those applicants which are denied or withdrawn than with those that are approved. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is attached for your action. Submitted by: , CRAIG E. PEIERSCN Director lf/ • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER 1 1 CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT f.o1QJ sx-rliYr( RPAMI©i ( THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY LAVONE LIOOLE.GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER, 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN F. KESTEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETERITH VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, -Director ( 1 Community and Economic Develpment FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Directo� X: Planning and Zoning Division DATE: June 14, 1989 RE: Ordinance Regarding Certificates of Convenience • and Necessity Enclosed are 17 draft copies and one final copy of a proposed ordinance regarding certificates of public convenience and necessity in the city. As you may recall, in earlier discussions regarding the proposed horse drawn carriage ordinance, it was decided that a separate ordinance should be enacted which combines all of the chapters of the present code pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity into one chapter which governs all transportation businesses requiring such certificate. This ordinance was, therefore, separated from the horse drawn carriage ordinance for the sake of simplification. Scope of Ordinance: This ordinance removes much of the present language regarding certificates of public convenience and necessity from Chapters 5 . 10 of the City Code regarding ambulances, 5 .72 regarding taxicabs, and 5 . 76 regarding transportation of handicapped persons. A new Chapter 5 . 05 is enacted which sets forth standardized requirements for I _ certificates of public convenience and necessity for all such • Craig Peterson June 14, 1989 Page -2- cant, explain deficiencies in the applications, and follow up with further inspections. Under the ordinance as it presently exists, whenever an applicant withdraws the application after it has been filed or whenever the City denies the application for cause, the license fees previously paid to the City must be refunded. This means that the City has been receiving nothing whatsoever from the applicant for the time and effort expended and the costs incurred in processing and reviewing the appli- cation, inspecting the premises, and corresponding with the applicant. Most often there is a greater amount of effort expended and cost incurred with those applicants which are denied than with those that are approved. It is our feeling that it is only proper that the City charge a non-refundable application fee for the effort expended and the costs incurred by the City. In examining those costs, it appears to us that .$35. 00 is an appropriate fee: That fee, as provided by the proposed ordinance, would not be in addition to the business license fee but would rather be paid as a part of and credited towards the .regular business license fee. In the event of a denial of the application by the City or a with- drawal by the applicant, the $35.00 application fee would be • retained from any license fees paid or payable to the City, unless such a fee is provided for elsewhere under City ordinance. Fiscal Impact: This ordinance should cause no additional expense to the City. On the contrary, it should provide for additional funds to cover the actual costs of handling business license applications where the license is withdrawn or denied, which has not been covered heretofore. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification in this regard. Thank you. ACJ:rc . : s, a SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 5.05, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, AND IAMENDING CHAPTERS 5 . 10, 5. 72 AND 5. 76 RELATING TO CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new Chapter 5.05 pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity to read as • follows: Chapter 5.05 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY Sections Article I. Definitions 5.05.005 Definitions and interpretation of language. 5.05.010 Applicant. 5.05.015 Certificate. 5.05.020 Holder. 5.05.025 Person. 5.05.030 Vehicle. Article II. Certificate Requirements 5.05.100 Required for operation. 5.05.105 Application--Information required. 5.05.110 Application--Public hearing. 5.05.115 Hearing--Notice to applicant, other holders, and public. 5.05.120 Insurance required. 5.05.125 Additional authority by holders--Application. 5.05.130 Application fees For certificate or certificate of additional authority. ry':_::i7 r{J `t 5.05.135 Fees. 5.05.140 Issuance--Determination authority. 5.05.145 Transfer restrictions. 5.05.150 Suspension and revocation--Conditions. 5.05.155 Vehicle business license sticker/plate issuance. 5.05.160 Vehicles--List filed with police department. Article I. Definitions 5.05.005 The words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined and set forth in this Article. 5.05.010 "Applicant" means the person signing an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. 5.37.015 "Certificate" means a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city as set forth in this chapter. 5.05.020 "Holder" means any person to whom a certificate of convenience and necessity has been issued and which certificate is unexpired. 5.05.025 "Person" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, excluding, however, the United States, the state of Utah, or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. 5.05.030 "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a street or highway. Article II_ Certificate Requirements 5.05.100 Required for Operation: All persons required by any ordinance of Salt Lake City to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a condition of operating a public transportation for hire business -2- • '.tiY gmL) ce within the city shall be governed by this chapter. Nothing herein shall relieve any persons of the requirements of any other applicable city ordinance. 5.05.105 Application--Information required. An application for a certificate shall be filed with. the city license supervisor upon forms provided by the city, and the application shall be verified under oath and shall furnish the following information: A. The name and business address of the_ applicant and, in the event the application is made by a corporation, a certified copy of the articles of incorporation. No. application shall be made on behalf of another person, without disclosing that fact and stating the name of the person on whose behalf the applica- tion is filed. The application shall also include the residence address of all sole proprietor applicants, of all partners of partnership applicants and of all officers and directors of corporate applicants. B. The number of vehicles, as defined by Section . 5 .05 .030, actually operated by such applicant for public transportation for hire as of the date of such application; C. The number of vehicles for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity is desired for public transportation for hire; D. The location of the proposed central place of business and any other office to be maintained; -3- { • E. The financial status of the applicant, including any unpaid or non-bonded judgments of record against such applicant, the title of all actions and the amount of all such judgments, and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to such judgment; F. The experience of applicant in public trans ortation of passengers for hire. G. The color scheme or insignia to be used to designate the vehicle or vehicles of the applicant. H. Any facts which the applicant believes tend to establish that public convenience and necessity would be served by the granting of a certificate; 5.05.110 Application--Public hearing. Upon the filing of an, application the mayor or his/her designee shall fix a time and place for a public hearing thereon. 5.05 115 Hearing--Notice to applicant, other holders, and public. Notice of the public hearing provided in Section 5.05 . 110, or its successor, shall be given to the applicant, and to all persons to whom certificates of public convenience and necessity have been theretofore issued, by United States mail, and notice shall be given the general public of the city by posting a notice of such hearing in the office of the city recorder. Said notices shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to said hearing. -4- I 0-1 <;<< 5.05.120 Insurance required. No certificate of public convenience and necessity shall be issued or continued in operation, unless there is on file with the city recorder a certificate of insurance executed by an insurance company or association authorized to transact business in this state, approved as to form by the city attorney, that there is in full force and effect a comprehensive general liability policy of insurance covering the operation of applicant' s business operations with minimum limits of $250, 000/$500, 000 for personal injury and $100, 000 for pro erty damage or such greater amounts as set forth in Section 63-30-34, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, or its successor. Such policy or policies shall include coverage of all vehicles and horses used or to be used for public transportation for hire-, all stables and other buildings and structures occupied or used, and all motor vehicles used in connection with applicant' s business. A current certificate of insurance shall be kept on file with the city' s recorder at all times that a certificate of convenience and necessity is held verifying such continuing • coverage and naming the city as an additional insured. The certificate shall contain a statement that the City will be given written notification at least thirty days prior to • - I cancellation or material change in the coverage without reservation of non-liability for failure to so notify the city. Cancellation shall constitute grounds for revocation of the certificate of convenience and necessity issued hereunder unless -5- tr • �S= another insurance policy complying herewith is provided and is in effect at the time of cancellation/termination. 5.05.125 Additional authority by holders--Application. Upon the filing of an application for a certificate, any present holder of a certificate may apply for additional authority under such certificate for the same or any other number of vehicles for which authority is asked in the application, and such request for additional authority shall be heard in conjunction with the application initially filed. 5.05.130 Application fees--For certificate or certificate of additional authority. • An application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity or an application for a certificate of additional authority hereunder shall be accompanied by a payment of a fee of one hundred dollars, the same to be applied toward payment of the costs of hearings and proceedings on same. If the costs to the city of such hearings and proceedings exceed one hundred dollars, the applicant shall reimburse the city for 'such excess. If the cost is less than one hundred dollars, the city shall refund the difference to the applicant after the final conclusion of such hearings and proceedings. Said fee shall be in addition to the fees required to be paid under Section 5.05. 135 of this chapter, or its successor. 5.05.135 Fees. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof has paid the annual city business -6- license revenue fee, the annual city regulatory fees for the business and for each vehicle authorized under a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and any other fees or char es established by proper authority and applicable to the holder or to those vehicles under the holder's operation and control. 5.05.140 Issuance--Determination authority. A. If the mayor or his/her designee finds that further public transportation for hire in the city serves the public convenience and necessity- and that the applicant is fit financially and willing and able to perform such public transportation and to conform to the provisions of this chapter, then the city shall issue a certificate stating the name and address of the applicant and the number of vehicles authorized under the certificate. ` B. In making the above findings, the mayor or his/her designee shall take into consideration the' number of vehicles already in operation, whether existing transportation is adequate to meet the• public convenience, the probable effect . of the issuance on the present carriers, the probable effect of increased service on local traffic conditions, the character, experience and financial responsibility of the applicant, the number, kind and type of equipment, and the ability of the applicant to earn a fair return on the capital invested. 5.05.145 Transfer restrictions. No certificate of public convenience and necessity may be sold, assigned, mortgaged, leased or otherwise transferred or -7- encumbered, without the formal consent of the mayor or his/her designee after a public hearing conducted in accordance with this chapter. • 5.05.150 Suspension and revocation--Conditions. A. A certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter may be revoked or suspended by the mayor or his/her designee if the holder thereof has: 1. Violated any of the provisions of this cha ter; 2. Abandoned operations for more than sixty days; 3. Violated any ordinances of the city or the laws of the United States or the state of Utah, the violation of which reflects unfavorably on the fitness of the holder to offer public transportation; or 4. Become financially irresponsible to a degree that reflects unfavorably upon the holder' s ability to offer public transportation. B. Prior to suspension or revocation, the holder shall be given notice of the proposed action to be taken and shall have an opportunity to be heard by the mayor or his/her designee, according to the procedures set forth in Sections 5.02 .230 through 5.02.310 of these ordinances, or their successors. 5.05.155 Vehicle business license sticker/plate issuance. Upon the payment of the fees provided for in Section 5.05 .135, or its successor, a vehicle business license sticker or plate, as determined by the city's transportation engineer, shall be issued by the license supervisor for each vehicle -8- • r`. licensed under holder' s certificate of convenience and necessity, which sticker or plate must be affixed to each of said vehicles as directed by the city's transportation engineer 5.05.160 Vehicles--List filed with police department. Holders shall at all times have on file with the police department an up-to-date list of the vehicles operated under their certificates, which list shall contain the make, type, year of manufacture, serial number and passenger capacity of each vehicle operated under said certificate. SECTION 2. That Chapter 5. 10, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended pertaining to certificates of public • convenience and necessity for ambulances to read as follows:: Chapter 5.10 AMBULANCES Sections: • Article I. Definitions 5.10.005 Definitions. 5.10.010 Ambulance. 5.10.015 Certificate 5.10.020 Holder 5.10.025 Manifest. 5.10.030 Person. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.10.035 Certificate--Required. 5.10.040 Certificate--Additional [A]application information. [ . . • ccrtificate3. 5.10.065 CCr€rte— conditions. -9- 70 F cat^ rt; f t f additional authority. -5.10.075] 5.10.045 Fees-Annual operation. [5.10.080 lee er- bend required. , 5�-i.085 Corti ic`ate ='r-�-�!ofer limitations. vocation conditions. Tim.0 5 List of ye cles—to y f a. 5.10.100 Examiner Appointment_ cisions_ 5.10.110] 5.10.050 Existing licenses allowed certificates. Articles III. through VII. *** Article I. Definitions 5.10.005 *** 5.10.010 *** • 5.10.015 Certificate. • "Certificate" means a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city [council] authorizing the holder thereof to conduct an ambulance service business in_ the city. 5.10.020 through 5 .10.030 *** Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.10.035 Certificate--Required. No person shall operate, or permit to be operated, an ambulance owned or controlled by [ ] such person as a vehicle for hire upon the streets of the city without having first obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the city [council] in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, or its successor. 5.10.040 Certificate--Additional [A]application information. In addition to the application information required under Chapter 5 .05 or its successor, the application, verified under -10- S w 1 y oath, shall show the experience of applicant in the transporta- tion of sick or injured persons, and its training program in first aid and medical care. �r • f• 11 furnish the following information: • rtified copy of • ;r. ouch application; 13e loeation of proposed depots and terminals; • • , 'ncluding any • judgments; and medical care; is -11- •-. that public convenience and necessity require ranting of a certificatc; • The insignia, color scheme and name to be used to deai_gnete-_the-veh-i-el-e-er--veh-ielee-ef-t-hc applicant; II. Sueh other information as the city council. may, in • diaer-e-tien7--rea-setrie4a-1-r-requi-rer [5.10.045 Applicatiety Public h aring. Upen the filing of an application, the eity ceuneil shall fix a time, and place for a public hearin- [5.10.050 Public hearing Notice to npp1ict and public. e-ef—the-Pub-l4e-41eer-Cng-P-rev-j-eled-ifl-tlle-Preee4ifrg section shall be given to the applicant by United States mail, and notice shall be given the general public of the city by recorder. i3 chapter shall certificatesbe given to all persons to whom convenience and necessity have been theretofore • Additional5.10.060 Upon the filing of an application for a certificate, any preoent holder of-a-certifieete-may-app-iy---fer-edene1 eut-her--ity-under sueh--eertifi-eat-e-fer-t-he same or any other numbor--of- ambulancoc --for which - authority -Ic-- -accd in---tho -12- . • . • • • ) • • additionalpPplication, and such request for • heard in conjunctionapplication initially • 5.10.065 Certificate Issuance conditions. additionalA. If the city council finds that neeessity and that an applieant is fit, willing and able to perform sueh transpertatien end to conform to the previs- en of this ehap-ter and the rules promulgated hereunder by the serviee in the city is required by publie convenience and council, thon the- city council ehafl- izeue a . • the name and address—of the applieant, the number of • certificate,: authorized under—said . . of issuance; otherwi3e, the application shall be denied. . . city-council take-into conoide-ration the number of ambu-iancce - alr-cady ehall operation,-- whether . . publicto meet the of the io3uance—en existing local traffic conditions, the character, experience and responsibility of the applicant, the , cind and type of equipment, applicantability -of the invested. -10.070 Fece Fcr --cc -t-ificatc . . additional cgtc of- authority. -13- • • the eo ' xcess. • conclusion d gs. i, L l l 5. 10.07-5 e-f th's ehapt e-r, er it's . [5.10-.075] 5.10.045 Fees--Annual operation. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof .has paid an annual business regulatory fee of fifty dollars [ ambulance business, ] plus fifty dollars each year for each vehicle authorized under a certificate of convenience and necessity. 5.10.080 Insurance er bend required. • • • • r association • • -14- (Si • is in prescribed by the mayor that there pell-cy-ef---insuranee-candi-ti-ened-tc-pay-eny-final judgment resultingagainst the holders of such certificate for bodily injury to or the death of any person • • . . . • • successor, entity !Rey be held liable. Such policy orpeeies-shpll cover all ambulances used or to be use. • 5.10.085 Certificate Transfer limitations. He cerifieate of public eenvenienee and • ty may be withseld, assigned, mortgaged, leased er otherwise transferred or encumbered -iitheut the formal eerisent of the city eeuneil art-er a public hearing conducted in accordance this chapter. Suspension. . 00 cate • . certificate title may be revoked or suspended by the • • if-the holder thereof has: provisions • s -t-itle 2 . Abandoned operations for more than-sixty days; 3 . Violated any ordinances of the • laws of the United States or the state, the vioatipn • unfavorably -on the fitness of the- holder to offer --public transportation; -15- iC7) financially • 4. Become ble- to a degree that reflects unfavorably upon the holder' s ability to of-fer pub1- e transportation. B. Prior to ape3-u-ocnsion or revocation, the holder shall be an-eppertuft-i-tf-to be heard. furnished.5.10 095 List of vehicles to be dePa-rtfflerrt-an--uP---t-e-da-te-l4s-t-ef-the-vehi-e-l-es--ePere-t-ed-ttnder their certificates, which list-shall Contain the make, type-- Yea--r-ef--manuf-aetu-re%aeri-a-l-er-engi-ne-ntmlber-endr-paesefkg-e-r eafrae-i-t'2--e-f---ea-eh-vell-iele-ePer-a-ted-as-aft-antb1±-1-enee= y investigation, inquiry or hearing which the c-i+y council has power- to undertake or to- hold may--bc- undcrta1cn or 5.10.100 Examiner Appointment. held by or beby the ei-ty-eettfte-il-f-er---sueh-pu-r-perse-as-nte-27-be-perfffi-t-ted or required in this chapter. 5.10.105 Examiner All investigations, inquiries commissioner or an examiner appointed by the city. . council investigations,be deemed the • of the city council; and all findings, orders or decisions made by a commissioner or an examiner appointed by the city-eouncil, when approved and confirmed by the city council and filed in the -16- [5.10.110] 5.10.050 Existing licenses allowed certificates. *** Article III. through Article VII. *** SECTION 3. That Chapter 5.72, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity for taxicabs, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.72 TAXICABS Sections: Article I Definitions 5.72.005 Definitions and interpretation of language. 5.72.010 Cab day. 5.72.015 Calendar day. 5.72.020 Calendar quarter. 5.72.025 Calendar six months. 5.72.030 Car pool. 5.72.035 Certificate. 5.72.040 Cleared. 5.72.045 Cruising. 5.72.050 Extras. 5.72.055 Face. 5.72.060 Fare. 5.72.065 Flag. 5.72.070 Holder. . 5.72.075 In service. 5.72.080 Manifest. 5.72.085 Open stand. 5.72.090 Person. 5.72.095 Small parcel delay delivery system. 5.72.100 Taxicab. 5.72.105 Taxicab driver's license. 5.72.110 Taximeter. 5.72.115 Waiting time. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and NPrc.ssity 5.72.130 Required for operation. -17- [ . 5.72.155 In uranee or bond rewired. 5.72.160] 5.72.135 Fees. [ . 5.72.170- Iaouanee Determination authority. 5.72.175] 5.72.140 Existing -holders' certificates--Ski season increases. [5.72.180 Transfer rentrictions. 5.72.200] 5.72.145 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. [5.72.205] .5.72.150 Minimum use of taxicabs required. 5.72.215] 5.72. 155 Compliance responsibility. • Articles III. through IX. *** Article I. Definitions 5.72.005 through 5.72.030 *** 5.72.035 Certificate. "Certificate" means a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city [council, ] authorizing the holder thereof to conduct a taxicab business in the city. 5.72.040 through 5.72.115 *** Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.72.130 Required for operation. A. No person shall operate or permit a taxicab owned or controlled by [ham] such person to- be operated as a vehicle for hire upon the streets of Salt Lake City without first having obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the city [council] in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, or its successor. -18- • 02) (RI LI* B. *** [ -72..135 Application • • An applicat-len for a • • filed • th the license-supervisor upon forms provided by the city, and the • application shall be verified under oath and shall furnish the • following information: applicantA. The name and address of the • n the event the application • • • articles-ofof the be made en-behal-_-€-&-f—enet-her-person wIthout diaelesing that fact and stating the name of the person en whese behalf the application is filed; vehicles13. The number of vehicles octually owned and the number such application; whichC. The number of vehicles for . . venience and necessity is desired, and the locatiofi of the proposed central place of business and any okher office to be maintained; 13. The financial status of the- applicant, including any unpaid or giving• the title of all actions and the amount of al-I-such judgments-- and the nature of the transaction or act-s judgment; E. The experience of applicant in the- transportation of passengers; -19- 6:T.) F-_,_____Any_f_e_e_t_s_wh-i-eh-t-he-app-l---i-eant--bel-ieves tend to prove that public eenvenienee and neeess-ity require the granting of a certificate; ' •C. The color scheme • • the vehicle or vehicles of the applicant; II. Any ether facts and such gnate en as-the eity may, in its discretion, reasonably require. (Prior code §43 2 2) 5.72.140- Application Public hearing. upen_the-f-ilej-ef---an--app-1-i-erat-ienr-the city-council shall fix a time and p-lace for a public hearing thereon. 5.72.145 Hearing Notice to applicant and public. • Noticein the Section 5. 72. 140, or its successor, shall be given to the applicant by un_i_t_e_d_state-s-me-i-lend-neri-ee-she-1-1--be given thc general public of the city by peating a netic the city recorder-7 5.72.150 Hearing--Notice to holders of certificates. Net-i-ee--of—t-he--pub-l--ie-heari-ng-previ-ded--i-n-this chapter shall be given to all persons te whom eertifieatca el' public convenience and necessity have been theretofore issued-- 5.72.1-56 Insurance or- bond required. No-certificate -of-- public- convenience -and --nececc-ity chall- -be the city --recorder-- a . . cate--of- -iflurQnce- executed by--an . . -incurance -company-- or in this state, upon a form as prescribed by the-mayor, that -20- • • • • ,rrc ri-�ovei all ta�s'icabs s —o to be—Lr3ed-:] [5.72.160] 5.72.135 Fees. . No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof has paid an annual business regulatory fee of one hundred twenty dollars [ the- taxicab business, ] plus fifty dollars each year for each vehicle authorized under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Such fees shall be for the calendar year and shall be in addition to any other fees or charges established by proper authority and applicable to the holder of the vehicle or vehicles under the holder' s operation and control. Provided, however, for any taxicab licensed from October 15th to April 15th only, pursuant to Section 5 . 72. 140, the holder shall be required to pay thirty dollars for a seasonal (one-half year) license. -21- 6 • • Upon the filing for an present holdadditipna whichauthority under- such certificate for the same or any—lesser number of taxicabs for • application, ty is asked in the and such request for additional author- ty---sha11 be heard in conjunction • th the application • -led for which the hearing is scheduled. 5.72. 170 Issuance- Determination authority. A. If the- c-ity council find3thatfu-rthcr.--tajcab corvice ces3ity and that the- applieant is fit, willing pttb_l_i_e__t_ranapert-at-i-en—and--t-e—eenf-erm--t-e—t-he—prev-isions of this insigniaauthorized under the—eertifieate, the color scheme er findings,to.be- used -to designate the- vehicles, -and the date of issuance;- otherwise, the application shall be denied. B. In making the above existingtake into consideration the number of tdcabo already- in eperation, whether • s adequate to meet the public need, the probable- efffect of the issuance on the present carriers, the probable effect of increased—service on trafficlocal . . ons, the character, experienee and responB . . . ty of the applicant, the number, kind and type -e equipment, and the ability of the applicant to earn a Lair return on the apital invested. ] -22- [5.72.17-5] 5.72.140 Existing holders' certificates--Ski season increases. All holders of existing taxicab certificates at the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall have a certificate of public convenience and necessity awarded to them, allowing them to operate the same number of vehicles •as they are presently authorized to operate, without the hearing provided in this article, the public convenience and necessity having heretofore been demonstrated. Likewise, the public convenience and necessity having been demonstrated for the need of additional taxicabs during skiing season, all holders of existing taxicab certificates shall be allowed to increase the number of vehicles authorized in their certificate by fifty percent from October 15th to April 15th of each year. [5.72.180 Trano-€cr • • transferred or • • • h this chapter. holder thereof has; service for more than sixty days; -23- This is your homework for Thursday night. All four of these issues are up for public hearing on August 8. '= or the laws of the der to offer public transportation. • • 11 have . ] [5.72.190 Vehic-lee-n' =e icense-- � " r�ees--pro ded f o • e-r • • • —eaehaxicab ouch taxi ab: [5.72.200] 5.72.145 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. A. A holder is required to have the total number of vehicles authorized under such holder' s certificate of convenience and necessity and to obtain the license required by Section [5. 72. 190] 5.05. 155, of this chapter, or its successor, for each and every vehicle. B. In the event the holder does not license the total number of vehicles authorized by the certificate before February 15th of any year, such holder shall forfeit the right to any vehicle not so licensed; that authority shall automatically revert to the city, and the certificate shall be modified to reflect the total number of vehicles actually licensed before -24- February 15th of any year. Such forfeited right to operate any vehicle may be reissued to any person; provided, however, it shall not be reissued except upon application required by Section [5.72. 135] 5.05. 105 [of this chaptcr] , or its successor, and by- a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section [5. 72. 170] 5.05. 140, or its successor. C. *** [5.72.205] 5.72.150 Minimum use of taxicabs required. A. *** 1. *** 2. *** S C. In the event any taxicab licensed under the provisions of this chapter is not actually in service for the minimum required seventy-five cab days during any calendar.-six months, the right to operate that taxicab may, upon at least ten days ' notice to the holder, and upon the hearing had therefor, be revoked by the city [council] . The holder may appear in person or be represented by counsel at such hearing to show cause, if • any he or she has, why the right to operate such taxicab should not be revoked. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the city [council] shall find that the holder has shown extenuating circumstances, the [beard] city may grant continuance of authority. D. Upon revocation by the city [council] of such authority, the certificate shall be modified to reflect the number of taxicabs actually in service for seventy-five cab days -25- during such calendar six months, and the unused portion of the license fee will be refunded. "Unused portion, " for the purposes of this section, means any remaining full calendar quarter in the calendar year in which the revocation takes place. The refund shall be one-fourth of the fee paid for each such calendar quarter. Such forfeited right to operate any vehicle may be reissued only upon application required by Section [5.72.135] 5.05.105, [of this chapter, ] or its successor, and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section [5.72. 170] 5.05. 140, or its successor. [ • . • . Holders sue" at t s-navy—en file with the police d passenger ] [5.72.215] 5.72.155 Compliance responsibility. *** Article III. through Article I%. *** SECTION 4. That Chapter 5.76, Salt Lake City Code, relating to certificates of public convenience and necessity in the transportation of handicapped persons, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.76 TRANSPORTATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS SECTIONS: Article I. Definitions -26- • = f- 5.76.010 through 5.76.090 *** Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.76.100 *** 5.76.110 Application--Additional [1]information required. [5.76.120] [5.76.130] •• [5.76.140] [5— 50] [5.76.160] 5.76.120 Fees. [5.76.170] [5.76.180] 5.76.130 Existing licensees allowed certificates. [5.76.190] [5.76.200] [5.76.210] [5.76.220] Article III through Article VI *** Article I. Definitions 5.76.010 Definitions and interpretation of language. *** 5.76.020 Certificate. • "Certificate" means a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city, [council] authorizing the holder thereof to conduct in Salt Lake City a business in the transportation. of handicapped persons, pursuant to this chapter. 5.76.030 through 5.76.090 *** Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.76.100 Required for operation. No person shall operate, or permit to be operated, a special transportation vehicle owned or controlled by such person upon the streets of the city without having first obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from -27- ‘71- r-� \;- the mayor, authorizing the operation of a special transportation vehicle as defined in this chapter, in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, or its successor. 5.76.110 Application---Additional [] information required. [ f 1 1. �_�L1 all be-Z i ed wi the' following information: , event the appliea-tieft is made by a eerpo-ra ien7—a certified copy • • ch appli ation; • • n vehicles for • uding any • • dgments, judgments; -28- i 4 vee tcnd to prove certificate; • r discretion, . r asonably require. ] In addition to the application requirements of Section 5 .05. 105, or its successor, the application, verified under oath, shall show the experience of the applicant in the transportation of handicapped persons and its training. program in first aid. • [5.76.120 Application Public hearing. • F� _ fix a time._and place for a public nearing. lic of the city—by of the city recorder. crs. tes of public retofore issued. � I -29- 5.76.150 Insurance or bond rcquireth- A. No operation shall be conducted pursuant to the authority of any issued certificate of public convenience and necessity unless there is on file with the city recorder p certificate association a form as prescribed by the mayor, that there is in full force and effect a policy of insurance conditioned to pay any final judgment eganst the holder of said certificate for bodily injury to or the death of any peon resulting from-te negligent operation, maintenance or-use of special transporta tion vehice-s---under- such certificate-;- or for the-les-s or damage t-e-the-PrePer-tr-ef—ethers -n---the-atneurt-t—a-f—efte-hund-red-theusand dollars bodily injury to or death of one person in cennec-tion with one accident, and in the amount of three hundred the -spnd de-l-l-ar-s-f-e-r---i-n-jur--i-es-t-e-er---dee-t-h-ef---more-t-han-enc-- person in one used.accident. Such policy or policies shall cover all speci-a- transportation vehicles---used or to be . In lieu of the ins-urance herein prov -ded for, the m-ayor may, in his or her discretion, accept a bond to -b-e mayor may prescribe, with a sufficient corporate s-ur-e-ty or pereena-l--au-nat-y-of--net-Iess-t-hen-twe-persefta-l--aure -i-es7--whe pay damages as herein provided for--] -30- [5.76.160] 5.76.120 Fees. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder- thereof has paid an annual business regulatory fee of fifty dollars [ transporting handi appcd persons, plus fifty dollars _each year for each special transportation vehicle authorized under a certificate of convenience and necessity. [Such fees shall be her fees or charges established by proper authority. .. [ . - • ouncil. • rvicc in • • hall ia3uo denied. • take ftto a t, • • ehicles already in operation; -31- , • Q- Whether existing transportation is—adequate to meet the public need; 3. The probable effect of the issuance on e*dsting holders; 4. The probable effect of increased service on local 5 . The—character, experience and respons-ibility of the applicant; 6. The number and kind and type of equipment; 7. The—color scheme and designation to be used; and 8=--she--atti--14ty—e-f—t-he—app-li-ean-t---te--e,arn a fair return on the apital invested. [5.76.180] 5.767130 Existing licenses allowed certificates. *** Upon the filing of an application for certificate, any pres-et holder of a certificate may apply for additional authority under such certificate for the same or any the- number of special transportation in the application, and such req-uest for additional authority she-1-1--be—heerd—i-n—eaft-iuneti-en—w-i-th—the—appl-i-eation initially filed. • ice department. . . containHolders s1ra1l at all times have on file with the police department an up to date lis-t---of the vehicles operated under st shall ch • • -32- 5.76.210 Transfor limitations. • • �a e��eearan--���r •ti �- A— -certificate—}-asue der tic provisio:s of this ayor if the holder thereof has; • Jhan sixty days; • or the laws of the • transportationh ereunaer. en-opportunity to- be heard. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . • CHAIRPERSON -33- 1 ;a t• CT ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: - CITY RECORDER • • (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS:rc -34- . .. OFFICE' OF°THE CITY:,-COUNCIL 'SUITE 300.'CITY HALL ,,,; '324 SOUTH STATE STREET.,' SALT'%LAKE 7.0TY;;UTAH'841 fr. 55-`T6OO August 4, 1989 MEMORANDUM • TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance - - As a result of your discussions during Committee of the Whole on August 3, 1989, the City Attorney's office has scheduled a meeting with City staff and representatives of the carriage companies for 12:00 PM, Monday, August 7. The agenda will include discussions on establishment of a lottery system and a more detailed description of the number of certificates to grant. Larry Spendlove and I discussed some specific language that follows your intent to grant additional certificates to Mr. Tanner. We are going to have to do some more research on how best to implement your intent without granting additional certificates to the other companies, one of which also has a request pending for 5 additional carriages. This would give the original company 15 carriages which I don't think was your intent. We will have the new language prepared for Tuesday's briefing session. S`= T% ` a-'G ili G�; RPO CRAIG E. PETERSON ""� DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 • 'ID: Salt Lake City Council July 10, 1989 • Re: Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance - Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 8 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance regulating horse drawn carriage businesses within Salt Lake City. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: This-proposed ordinance simplifies the earlier ordinances by providing the regulations of horse drawn carriages in the ' city through the requirement of the certificate of public convenience and necessity. The businesses operating presently.,,would, upon application, be licensed to operate.with-.the_:samejnumbei f carriages-as• they--presently-operate:under their revocable permit.._without-hearing.. .- Included in the ordinance are certain regulations pertainingIto driveridice ;c nsingarriage;equipmentt :ands maintenance °''and the,,.conduct ofi theTdr-ivers_and operation.of carriages. • The Transportation Division will direct the number"of-carriages -operating atcertain areas- mi-i _the'7dity-and•-ttie-routes to:'be:'followed. Certain sections pertaining to the suitability and care of horses have been added to Title 8 of the present code placing such .regulation under the general,, jurisdiction of the Animal.Control Division: • Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E. P Director lf/ : :1 • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR ,�1r ym►�Tgr 7{�9 RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER SA IN r A\ �w't V�R 11 �IM MION{ CINDY OMER THOMAS A.RELL SON SECRETARY LAVONE LIDOLE•GAMONAL EX•OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL F. KEITH STEPAN 535•7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director lam/ Community and Economic Developent • FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Director Planning and Zoning Dina-srio ` DATE: June 14, 1989 �J RE: Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance Enclosed are 17 draft copies and one final copy of a proposed ordinance regulating horse drawn carriage businesses within the city. This ordinance is the result of extensive meetings and discussions with numerous City' staff members including people from the Transportation Division, Animal Control Division, the Police Department, the City-County Health Department, and our office and with each of the three horse drawn carriage businesses at present in operation. The ordinance is considerably simplified from earlier versions. It has been separated from the sections pertaining to a certificate of convenience and necessity, which is now contained in a separate ordinance. We would request that this ordinance be presented to the City Council for further discussion, a public hearing, and consideration for passage. Scope of Ordinance: Basically the ordinance provides for regulation of horse drawn carriages in the city through the requirement of the certificate of public convenience and necessity. The businesses operating at present would, upon • --rrv�_-......rf....v-...ram-:..---,•'.. .rtt••.rs! ...�r.wx'ICre^L, ,.:r.t•tY.+L'T•r'flfl!'•-_treJrrv'.. • aver-r..-.:•-...::i-..1...••-v.•.r,.` �...^•�:"_ => Craig Peterson June 14, 1989 Page -2- application, be licensed to operate with the same number of carriages they have heretofore been authorized to operate under their revocable permits, without further hearing. There are certain regulations pertaining to driver licensing, carriage equipment and maintenance, and the conduct of drivers and operation of carriages. The number of carriages operating at certain areas in the city and -the routes to be followed will be under the direction of the Transportation Division. Certain sections pertaining to the suitability and care of horses have been added to Title 8 of the present code placing such regulation under the general jurisdiction of the Animal Control Division. • Fiscal Impact: Other than manpower of City staff required in inspecting carriages and horses and monitoring routes and holding hearings, the only actual costs will be for the issuance of license stickers and plates. However, these cots should be defrayed, for the most part, by fees required under the ordinance to cover licensing, inspection, and hearings . Please feel free to contact me if I can give further clarification or assistance in this regard. Thank you for• your help. ACJ:rc ,Y 44- F T SALT- LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Horse Drawn Carriages) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5 .37 THERETO, RELATING TO HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES, AMENDING TITLE 8 BY AMENDING SECTION 8.04.010, DEFINITIONS, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8 . 16, RELATING. TO REGULATION OF HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE BUSINESSES, AND AMENDING SECTION 11.36 . 120 OF TITLE 11. The City Council of Salt Lake- City, Utah,- does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1.- That Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is,, amended by ,adding a new Chapter 5.37 pertaining to horse drawn carriagesjto read as follows: Chapter 5.37 HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES Sections Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 Definitions and interpretation of language. 5.37.010 . Applicant. • 5.37.015 Carriage or Horse Drawn Carriage-. 5.37.020 Carriage Business. 5.37.025 Carriage Day. 5.37.030 . Carriage Stand. 5.37.035 Driver. - 5.37.040 Holder. 5.37.045 Horse. 5.37.050 Person. 5.37.055 Stable. 5.37.060 Veterinarian. 5.37.065 Work. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. 5.37.080 Fees--Annual operation. 5.37.085 Existing holder's certificates. 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. 5.37.095 Minimum -use of carriages required. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. 5.37.110 License display. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. . Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic .laws. - 5.37.135 Lights. 5.37.140 Speed. 5.37.145 Presence and control. 5.37.150 Number of passengers. 5.37. 155 Passengers restricted to passenger area. 5.37.160 Appearance. 5.37.165 Hours. • 5.37.170 Routes. • 5.37.175 Termini. 5.37.180 Rates. Article VI, Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. 5.37.190 Misdemeanor. • Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 The words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined and set forth in this Article. 5.37.010 "Applicant" means the person signing an application -2- either for a carriage business license or for a Driver's license under this chapter. 5.37:015 "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device • in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 5.37.020 "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means -of a horse drawn carriage. 5.37.025 "Carriage day" means the operating of a horse drawn carriage for business on the streets of Salt Lake City for at least one hour during any calendar day. 5.37.030 "Carriage Stand" means that portion of a curb lane designated by the city' s division of transportation for loading and unloading of passengers for horse drawn carriages. 5.37.035 "Driver means any perso n operatin or in actual physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver' s seat of such carriage with the intention of causing it to be moved by a horse. 5.37.040 "Holder" means any person to whom a certificate of convenience and necessity has been issued and which certificate is unexpired. 5.37.045 "Horse" means an animal purely of the genus equus caballus, specifically excluding crosses with other genera. 5.37.050 "Person" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity. -3- 5.37.055 "Stable" means an l p yace or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 5.37.060 "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. 5.37.65 "Work-, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. No person shall operate, or permit .a horse drawn carriage owned or controlled by him or her to be operated, as a carria e for hire upon the streets of the city, without first having obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the city in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, .or its successor. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. In addition to the application information required under Chapter 5.05, or its successor, the application, verified under oath, shall show the experience of applicant in the transpor- tation of passengers by horse drawn carriage. 5.37.080 Annual operation. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof has paid an annual business regulatory fee of eighty dollars plus fifty dollars each year for each horse drawn carriage authorized under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. -4- • 5.37.085 Existing holders' certificates. A. All persons operating horse drawn carriages under revocable permit and licensing agreements with the city as of • the effective date of this ordinance shall, upon application as provided'in chapter 5.05 and section 5.37.075 herein, or their successors, have a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to them, allowing them to operate the same number of vehicles as they are at present authorized to operate, plus one training cart as set forth in this section 5.37.085, or its successor, without the hearing provided in this article, the public convenience and necessity having heretofore been demonstrated. ` Said carriages shall be of types customarily known in the carriage industry as "vis-a-vis, " "landau, " "brougham, " "victoria" and/or' "rockaway, " and shall meet all of the equipment, registration, and other requirements of this •chapter before being used to transport customers. Said horse drawn carriages shall operate only within specified routes as set forth in Section 5 .37. 170 herein, or its successor. B. Each holder may operate one trainin cart, that is, a two wheel, horse-drawn vehicle with extra long shafts, designed for training purposes. Said training cart shall not be used for the transport • of customers for hire and shall meet all of the equipment, registration and other requirements of this chapter and shall operate only within routes specifically authorized by the city' s transportation engineer as set forth in Section 5 .37. 170 herein, or its successor. -5- 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. A. A holder is required to have the total number of carriages authorized under such holder' s certificate of convenience and necessity and to obtain the license plate required by Section 5.05 . 155, or its successor, for each and every carriage. B. In the event the holder does not license the total number of carriages authorized by the certificate before February 15th of any year, such holder shall forfeit the right to any carriage not so licensed, unless such carriage is licensed within five days of written notice being given by the city; that authority shall automatically revert to the cit , and the certificate shall be modified to reflect the total number of vehicles actually licensed before February 15th of any year. Such forfeited right to operate any carria e may be reissued to any person; provided, however, it shall not be reissued except upon application required by Section 5.05. 105, or its successor, . and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5.05. 140, or its successor. C. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a holder from having carriages in excess of the number authorized under such holder' s certificate for the purpose of replacement or substitution of an authorized carriage under repair, maintenance or breakdown; provided, however, any such carriage shall not be used as a carriage other than as a replacement or substitution as herein provided. The type or style, color, seating capacity, -6- year of manufacture, and serial number or identification number - - of any substitute carriage shall- be--filed with the licensing - office. 5.37.095 Minimum use of carriages required. • -A. No certificate issued in accordance with Section 5.37.070 of this -chapter, or its successor, shall be construed • to be either a franchise or irrevocable. It is the intent of the city that all carriages authorized be actually used for the transportation of passengers for hire. In order to im lement that intent, the city hereby imposes the followin requirements• 1. Each certificate holder shall have in service at least - • • one carriage authorized under its certificate for a minimum of one hundred twenty carriage days durin any calendar six months 2. Within thirty days following each June 30 and December 31, a holder of a certificate shall file a report with the city license supervisor' s office. Such report shall be in writing, signed by the holder or by some person authorized to sign the same on behalf of the holder, and shall be properly verified. The report shall contain the following information: a. A list of all carriages licensed under a certificate during the preceding calendar six months, showing the serial number and the city business license plate number for each carriage. Such list shall include any carriage which has been salvaged or otherwise removed from the fleet, as well as the replacement thereof; -7- b. The number of carriage days each such carriage was in service during the preceding calendar six months; c. The holder may also file with such report a written statement of the circumstances that caused the authorized carriages to be in service for less than the required number of carriage days; d. A statement that the information contained in the report was obtained from the company records, and that all statements contained-in the report are true and accurate. C. In the event the carriages licensed under the provisions of this chapter are not actually in service for the minimum required carriage days during any calendar six months as set forth in this Section 5 .37.095 or -its successor, the right to operate one or more carriage may, upon at least ten days notice to the holder, and upon the hearing had therefor, be revoked by the city. The holder may appear in person or be represented by counsel at such hearing to show cause, if any he or she has, why the right to operate such carriage or carriages should not be revoked. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the city shall find that the holder has shown extenuating circumstances, the city may grant continuance of authority. - D. Upon revocation by the city of such authority, the certificate shall be modified to reflect the number of carriages actually in service for the required minimum number of carriage days during such calendar six months. No refund shall be made for any unused portion of the license fee. Such forfeited right -8- to operate any carriage may be reissued only upon ap lication • required by Section - 5 . 05. 105, or its successor; and by . a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5 . 05 .140, or its successor. E. Each holder shall maintain and keep current at: the place of business a daily log showing all trips made by every ' operator during such operator' s hours of work showing time( s ) and place(s) or origin and destination of tri s, and the specific carriage( s ) and horse( s) operated. Such logs shall be made available to the city for inspection u on reasonable notice. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. The holder shall not be relieved of any responsibility for . compliance with the provisions of this chapter, whether -the holder pays salary, wages or any other form of compensation to drivers. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for a holder to • permit any person to -operate a carriage for hire or a training cart upon the streets of the city without such operator having . first obtained and having then in force a current chauffeur ' s license valid in the state of Utah. 5.37.110 License--Display. Every driver operating a carriage under this chapter shall keep his or her chauffeur' s license on his or her person while -9- such driver is operating a carriage, and shall exhibit the license upon demand of any police- officer;- animal control officer, license inspector, or any authorized agent of the license office of the city. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing Prior to the use and operation of any carriage under the provisions of this chapter, the carriage shall be thorou hly examined and inspected by the animal control division and found to comply with -the specifications of Section 5.37. 125 herein, or its successor. 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued. When the animal control division finds that a carriage has met the specifications established by Section 5.37. 125 or its successor, the license office shall issue a sticker to that effect. 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. A. Specifications. Every carriage operating under this chapter shall be inspected by the animal control division at least once each year in order to make certain each carriage is being maintained in a safe and efficient operating condition in accordance with the following inspection requirements. 1 . Each carriage shall be equipped with rear view mirrors, two electrified white lights visible for 1, 000 feet to the front of the carriage, and two electrified red lights visible for 1, 000 feet to the rear of the carriage. All lights -10- shall be operational from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and during times of lessened visibility. Electrified directional signals are required at all times. 2. Each carriage shall be equipped with hydraulic or factory equipped mechanical brakes appropriate for the -design of • the particular carriage. 3 Each carriage shall be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem (red triangle) attached to the rear of the carriage. 4. Each carriage shall permanently and prominently display the name and telephone number of the carriage business operating it on the rear portion of such carriage. 5 Each carriage shall be equipped with a device tocatch horse manure falling to the pavement. 6. Each carriage shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Inspection fee. The carriage owner shall be required to pay an inspection fee of five dollars each time the vehicle is inspected. C. Training cart. This Article IV shall be fully applicable to training carts, as described in Section 5 .37 .085 .B. , with the exception of subparagraph A.2. above regarding brakes. In addition, all training carts shall be clearly marked, on the rear portion of such cart, with the words: "CAUTION: HORSE IN TRAINING. " -11- Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic laws. A driver operating a horse drawn carriage shall be subject to all laws of the city pertaining to the driver of any vehicle 5.37.135 Lights. The driver of each carriage in operation from one half hour after sunset until one half hour before sunrise,- and in conditions of poor visibility, shall turn on the front and tail lights of the carriage and take any action necessary to make them operational, such- as by replacing a light bulb 5.37.140 Speed. The driver shall hot permit the speed at which any horse drawn carriage is driven to exceed a slow trot. • 5.37.145 Presence and control. No driver shall leave the carriage unattended in a public place. 5.37.150 Number of passengers. No driver shall permit more than six adult passengers to ride in the carriage at one time, plus no more than two children under three years of age, if seated on the laps of adult passengers, unless the carriage was desi ned to carry fewer, in which event the carriage shall not carry more passengers than it was designed to carry. With regard to a training cart, no more than two passengers shall be permitted, neither of which shall be a customer for hire. -12- 5.37.155. Passengers restricted to passen er area. No driver shall permit a -passenger to ride on any part of the carriage while in motion, unless the passenger is seated inside the carriage. 5.37.160. Appearance. Drivers shall be neatly dressed and courteous in manner. 5.37.165 . Hours. Neither a licensee nor any driver shall operate or allow to be operated its carriages on the streets of the city during the hours of 7 :00 a.m. to 9 :00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 5.37.170 - Routes. A. The licensees and drivers shall operate horse drawn carriages only upon certain streets within Salt Lake City according to routes and restrictions authorized by the city' s transportation engineer. In determining said routes and restrictions, the transportation engineer shall seek to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city and shall take into consideration the location of the street, the expected traffic flow upon such street, the history of traffic accidents upon such street, the width of such street, and any natural or man-made physical features of such street which may be pertinent to the safe and efficient movement of transportation thereon. B. Licensees are barred from using streets which: 1. Have a speed limit exceeding 35 m.p.h. , unless prior approval is obtained; -13- 2 Do not have traffic signals at major intersections; 3 Involve major arterials during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.-, including but not limited -to State Street, 700 East, 500 South and 600 South from 700 East west to I-15 . C. The authorized routes and termini shall be subject to amendment from time to time by the city transportation engineer in order to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city, according to the guidelines set forth in this Section 5.37 . 170. Advance charter tours may deviate from the route provided the driver stays on streets already approved for routes; A driver must receive prior permission of the transportation engineer to deviate from streets which have not been approved for routes or destinations which require use or crossing of streets designated as arterial or collector streets on the city' s major street plan and official map. 5.37.175 Termini. Approved on-street route termini include those areas designated by the city transportation engineer. Drivers shall not stop on-street longer than the maximum three minutes avail- able in any designated freight or passenger loading zone unless it is at a termini location approved by the transportation engineer or in a legal parking space. Each holder shall obtain permission from the property owner of all off-street sta.inq areas before using such areas. Upon request by the city transportation engineer, a holder shall verify such permission to use such off-street staging area by submitting to the -14- engineer evidence of such written permission from the property • owner. Drivers shall not stop at designated bus sto s, bus lanes, or any other restricted parking areas. 5.37.180 Rates. All drivers must make available to any person upon request, the rates for all tours and trips offered by the service Once a vehicle has been hired for a designated route or termini, the driver may not accept additional passengers without the on final contracting passengers ' consent. Article VI. Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. • If any person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this chapter commits a violation of this chapter, such license -may be revoked or suspended according to the procedure provided for revocation or suspension of a business license issued by the City. 5.37.190 Misdemeanor. •Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a Class • B misdemeanor. SECTION 2. That Section 8.04.010, pertaining to Animals be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.010 Definitions. As used in Title 8 of this code: 1. "Animal at large" *** 2. "Animal boarding establishment" *** • 3. "Animal grooming parlor" *** -15- 4. "Animals" *** 5 . "Animal shelter" *** 6. "Animal under restraint" -*** ' • 7. "Bite" *** 8. "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 9 . "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. [8-] 10. . "Cat" *** [9-7] 11 . "Cattery" *** [10. ] 12. "Dog" *** • [ —] 13. "Domesticated animals" *** 14. "Driver" means any person operating or in actual physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver' s seat of such carriage with the intention of causing it to be moved by a horse. [12. ] 15 . "Enclosure" *** [13. ] 16 . "Estray" or "stray" *** [14. ] 17 .. "Guard dog" *** [15. ] 18 . "Holding facility" *** [16. ] 19 . "Impoundment" *** [17 . ] 20. "Kennel" *** [18. ] 21. "Leash" or "lead" *** -16- • [19 . ] 22 . "Person" *** [20. ] 23 . "Pet" *** [21 . ] 24. "Pet shop" *** • [22. ] 25 . "Provoked" *** [23 . ] 26 . "Quarantine" *** [24 . ] 27 . "Riding school or stable" *** [25. ] 28. "Set" *** [25. ] 29 . "Spring-loaded trap" *** 30. "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 31. "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. [27 . ] 32. "Vicious animal" *** [2.8—] 33 . "Vicious dog" *** 34. "Work, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. • SECTION 3. That Title 8, Salt Lake Code be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new chapter 8.16 pertaining to horse drawn carriages, as follows: Chapter 8.16 Regulation of Horse Drawn Carriage Businesses Sections • Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. 8 . 16 .015 Identification number. 8.16.020 Examination required. 8 .16.025 Certificate required_ -17- 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. 8.16.045 Police or Animal Control orders. 8.16.050 Disqualification. 8.16.055 Accidents. 8.16.060 Examination by the City. Article II. Care of Horses 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. 8.16.070 Stables and stalls. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. In addition to the requirements of Chapters 5.05, 5.37, and other applicable ordinances, or their successors, of this code, all holders of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city for the transportation of passengers for hire by horse drawn carriages shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter. 8.16.015 Identification number. Each horse used to pull a carriage in the city shall be identified by a brand or mark in accordance with Chapter 4-24, Utah Code Annotated, or its successor, which brand or mark uniquely identifies the horse thus marked. The identification brand or mark and description of each of said horses, including age, breed, sex, color and other identifying markings, shall be filed by the carriage horse business with the city licensing office. 8.16.020 Examination required. -18- N . Every horse shall be examined prior to use in a horse drawn carriage business, and everysix months -thereafter, -by a veterinarian and at no expense to the City. The horse shall be examined and treated for internal parasites; problems with its teeth, legs, hoofs and shoes, or cardiovascular system; drug abuse; any injury disease, or deficiency observed by the veterinarian at the time or previously, and the general physical condition and ability to perform the work required of it. 8.16.025 Certificate required. No person shall cause or attempt to cause a horse to pull a carriage, unless the horse has been certified pursuant to this section. The certification of the horse may be. made subject to a condition, or otherwise limited by the veterinarian. The certificate shall be kept and be available for •inspection by the city at the stable where the certified horse is kept, and a copy of the certificate shall be mailed to the City within five days from its date. • 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. • After performing the physical examination .required by sec- tion 8.16 .020 above or its successor, the examining veterinarian may sign a certificate attesting that the horse is in good health. The certificate shall specifically identify each horse by its breed, sex, color, and identifying markings and shall state, in the opinion of the veterinarian, the maximum load which each horse can reasonably be expected to draw safely and without causing injury to the horse. The certificate, if -19- issued, shall be valid for a period of not more than six months from the date of signature. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. For purposes of this chapter, a horse shall be deemed to be in good health only if the horse: A. Strength. Has, in the opinion of the veterinarian, flesh, muscle tone, and weight sufficient to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages; B. Immunization against anemia. Has been immunized against equine infectious anemia, and such vaccination will be effective at all. times during the next six months; C. Coggins test. The horse has been given a coggins test with negative results on at least one certificate per year; D. In general. Is, in the opinion of the veterinarian, in general good health and in all respects physically fit to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages . 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. A veterinarian shall cancel a certificate, if the veterinarian learns of a condition which is reasonably expected to make the horse unfit for its work for a period of two weeks or more. If the horse appears to the veterinarian to be suffering from an injury or sickness from which it is expected to recover in under two weeks, the veterinarian shall suspend the certificate for such horse for the time that the -20- n- veterinarian expects will be necessary for the horse to recover. Upon written request of a holder for a hearing on such cancellation or suspension of a veterinarian' s certificate, a hearing shall be held by the city within three working days of receipt of such request to determine whether said cancellation or suspension shall remain in effect. A cancelled certificate shall be destroyed by the veterinarian or clearly marked as cancelled or invalid. Suspension of a certificate shall be clearly marked by the veterinarian in non-erasable ink on the original of the certificate. 8.16.045 Police or animal control orders. A City police officer, a health department officer or an animal control officer may order that a horse not be used to pull a carriage in the City and that the horse be returned to its stable, if the officer has cause to believe that the horse is suffering from any injury, ailment, or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage safely. • The order shall be effective only for so long as the officer specifies or until a hearing can be held regarding disqualification, or for three working days, whichever is shorter. 8.16.050 Disqualification. The mayor may, upon prior notice and hearing, disqualify a pecific horse from use in pulling a carriage in the city, if the mayor finds that the horse presents a hazard to public or passenger safety greater than the hazard posed by a normal -21- • horse, or that the horse is in any way unfit for the work of pulling carriages in the city. Before a horse may be disqualified, a hearing shall be held before the mayor, or . his/her designee, at which the carriage business and the owner of the horse may appear and express themselves. At least three working days notice shall be given of the hearing to the carriage business using the horse. A disqualified horse shall not be used to pull a carriage within the City. 8. 16.055 Accidents. In addition to any other requirements of law regarding reporting of vehicle accidents, the operator of a horse drawn carriage shall report to the animal control division any accident involving such carriage, and no such horse or carriage shall -again be operated until such have been inspected by an animal control officer and a determination has been made by such officer that no removal order is necessary as provided by Section 8 . 16 . 050 herein, or its successor. 8.16.060 Examination by the city. The City and its officials may at any reasonable time examine any horse owned by a carriage business or used by a carriage business to pull a carriage, or may have such a horse examined by a veterinarian. The costs of such examination shall initially be borne by the city. Such orders shall be in writing and may be given to the driver of a carriage to which the horse is hitched, or to a carriage business owning or having possession of the horse. If such examination determines that -22- such horse is suffering from any injury, ailment or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage in the city, the -costs for such examination shall be reimbursed to the city by the certificate holder owning or operating such horse. Article II. Care of Horses. 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. No Person shall cause a horse to draw or to be harnessed to - a carriage if : A. Certifiable. The person attending to the horse knows, or reasonably should know that the horse, if then examined by a veterinarian, would probably not then be eligible for certifi- cation, or would be subject to cancellation or revocation of certification; B. Acute ailment. The horse has an open sore or wound, or is lame or appears to have any other injury, sickness, or ailment, unless the person attending to the horse has in his possession a written statement signed by a veterinarian and stating that the horse is fit for Pullin a -carriage notwithstanding the injury, sickness, or ailment; C. Hoofs. The hoofs of the horse are not properly shod and trimmed, utilizing rubber coated heel pads or open steel barium tip shoes to aid in the prevention of slipping. Horses shall be shod and trimmed by an experienced, competent farrier at least every four to six weeks, or more frequently if necessary; -23- r- D. Coat. The horse is not well groomed and/or has fungus, dandruff; or a poor or dirty coat. 8. 16.070 Stables and stalls. All Stables used by a carriage business and the keeping of horses therein shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 8 . 08 of these ordinances, or its successor, as well as any and all other applicable laws and ordinances. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. No horse owned by or within the control of a carriage business shall be treated cruelly, harassed, or neglected. A carriage business and its owner and managers are all individu- ally responsible to take any action reasonably necessary to assure the humane care and treatment of the horses under their control. - SECTION 4. That section 11.36. 120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to criminal mischief be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 11.36.120 Criminal mischief. A. A person commits criminal mischief if: 1. *** - 2. *** 3. He or she recklessly or willfully shoots or propels a missile or other object at or against a motor vehicle, horse or carriage, operating under the provisions of chapter 5. 37 of these ordinances, or its successor, bus, airplane, boat, locomo- tive, train, railway car or caboose, whether moving or standing. -24- B. *** SECTION 5. Effective Date_ This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS:rc -25- G'3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Bicycle Dealer Fees -- Proposed Ordinance August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Hold a public hearing and adopt ordinance increasing the fee relating to bicycle dealer licensing and registration. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Business License Division has recommended that bicycle dealers be able to charge two dollars rather than one dollar for bicycle registration. Several questions were raised at the Committee of the Whole discussion. In researching this further, I have found that this program is a cooperative effort between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the other governmental entities within the valley. All dealers in the Salt Lake Valley make their permit book purchases from Salt Lake City. Dealers buy books for $32 per hundred at the present time. Licensing plans to increase the fee to $50 if this ordinance is approved. When a license is issued, the dealer keeps a copy of the record, the customer gets a copy and a copy is kept in the record book, which is eventually returned to Salt Lake City. When the City receives the books, they are forwarded to Salt Lake County where they are put on microfiche. The County keeps these records and regularly provides copies to the other governmental entities. Salt Lake City gets three copies of the microfiche and so it is very accessible to the Police Department. In addition, the City does keep a record of which groups of permits are given to which dealer, and that also sometimes helps track the bikes down. There has been some discussion of using a computer, rather than microfiche, for this process but that could present problems of computer compatibility amongst the governmental entities in the valley. The City Police Department staff member I spoke with indicates that the microfiche arrangement is working well. From the several telephone calls that I have been able to make since your Committee of the Whole discussion, it appears that this system is functioning well and is of value to citizens. Every bike that goes into the evidence room is checked for a license. With the County microfiche the police can sort by serial number, owner's name or license number. If there is evidence the license was once on the bike but has been scrapped off, the Police can still look up the serial number and find out who it was licensed to. They then contact the owner. Sometimes they find that the owner has moved or sold the bike, but if they can find a way to locate him/her, they return the bike. The supervisor over this area in the Police Department indicates that the microfiche system is very helpful and estimates that as many as 90 percent of the bikes that the Department receives that have licenses are returned to their owners. The City not only sells the licenses to bicycle dealers and department stores, but also sells to the police and fire departments throughout the valley. When bikes are sold at the police auctions new licenses are issued and the appropriate records are completed. There are some department and discount stores that are not participating in the licensing program, but they have been contacted verbally by the City. As time allows, a City representative will contact them again to encourage their participation. The stores that don't participate are generally selling the lower cost type bikes for children. These are the bikes that the police have the most difficulty returning. STAFF ANALYSIS: Although at first there was confusion about whether or not this program adequately meets the needs of the citizens of the City, additional information obtained leads staff to conclude that the program is of significant value and should be continued. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Close hearing and adopt ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: 1. I move we close the hearing. 2. I move we adopt the ordinance amending subparagraphs A and B of Section 5. 18.030, Salt Lake City Code, relating to bicycle dealer licensing and registration fees. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Horse Drawn Carriages) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.37 THERETO, RELATING TO HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES, AMENDING TITLE 8 BY AMENDING SECTION 8 .04.010, DEFINITIONS, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8. 16, RELATING TO REGULATION OF HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE BUSINESSES, AND AMENDING SECTION 11.36. 120 OF TITLE 11 . The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . That Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new Chapter 5.37 pertaining to horse drawn carriages to read as follows: Chapter 5.37 HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES Sections Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 Definitions and interpretation of language. 5.37.010 Applicant. 5.37.015 Carriage or Horse Drawn Carriage. 5.37.020 Carriage Business. 5.37.025 Carriage Day. 5.37.030 Carriage Stand. 5.37.035 Driver. 5.37.040 Holder. 5.37.045 Horse. 5.37.050 Person. 5.37.055 Stable. 5.37.060 Veterinarian. 5.37.065 Work. I � Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. 5.37.080 Fees--Annual operation. 5.37.085 Existing holder's certificates. 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. 5.37.095 Minimum use of carriages required. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. 5.37.110 License display. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing. 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued. 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic laws. 5.37.135 Lights. 5.37.140 Speed. 5.37.145 Presence and control. 5.37. 150 Number of passengers. 5.37.155 Passengers restricted to passenger area. 5.37.160 Appearance. 5.37.165 Hours. 5.37.170 Routes. 5.37.175 Termini. 5.37.180 Rates. Article VI. Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. 5.37. 190 Misdemeanor. Article I. Definitions 5.37.005 The words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined and set forth in this Article. 5.37.010 "Applicant" means the person signing an application -2- r � either for a carriage business license or for a Driver' s license under this chapter. 5.37.015 "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 5.37.020 "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. 5.37.025 "Carriage day" means the operating of a horse drawn carriage for business on the streets of Salt Lake City for at least one hour during any calendar day. QJ ' 3 v i 5.37.030 "Carriage Stand" means that portion of a curb lane t hc,3 designated by the city' s division of transportation for loading iz ,i cj s' and unloading of passengers for horse drawn carriages. _*Iv 5.37.035 "Driver" means any person operating or in actual v -Y physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person IzAg sitting in the driver' s seat of such carriage with the intention erq ' . 3 kof causing it to be moved by a horse. d3_X5.37.040 "Holder" means any person to whom a certificate of co� itconvenience and necessity has been issued and which certificate . o is unexpired. . v--tea 5.37.045 "Horse" means an animal purely of the genus equus 0 caballus, specifically excluding crosses with other genera. v")� v s 5.37.050 "Person" includes any individual, partnership, in corporation, association, or other legal entity. -3- a � 5.37.055 "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 5.37.060 "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. 5.37.65 "Work, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. Article II. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 5.37.070 Certificate--Required. No person shall operate, or permit a horse drawn carriage owned or controlled by him or her to be operated, as a carriage for hire upon the streets of the city, without first having obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the city in accordance with Chapter 5.05 of this code, or its successor. 5.37.075 Certificate--Additional application information. In addition to the application information required under Chapter 5.05, or its successor, the application, verified under oath, shall show the experience of applicant in the transpor- tation of passengers by horse drawn carriage and shall show the specific route or routes within the City along which applicant proposes to operate one or more horse drawn carriages. 5.37.080 Annual operation. No certificate shall be issued or continued in operation unless the holder thereof has paid an annual business regulatory fee of eighty dollars plus fifty dollars each year for each -4- horse. drawn carriage authorized under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. 5.37.085 Existing holders' certificates. A. The three horse drawn carriage companies operating horse drawn carriages under revocable permit and licensing agreements with the city as of the effective date of this ordinance shall, upon application as provided in chapter 5.05 and section 5.37. 075 herein, or their successors, have a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to them, allowing them to operate the following number of carriages, plus one training cart as set forth in this section 5.37.085, or its successor, without the hearing provided in this article, the public convenience and necessity having heretofore been demonstrated: Carriage Horse Livery Ltd. 15 carriages Carriage For Hire 10 carriages The Carriage Connection 6 carriages Said carriages shall be of types customarily known in the carriage industry as "vis-a-vis, " "landau, " "brougham, " "victoria" and/or "rockaway, " and shall meet all of the equipment, registration, and other requirements of this chapter before being used to transport customers. Said horse drawn carriages shall operate only within specified routes and/or quadrants as set forth in Section 5.37. 170 herein, or its successor. -5- B. Each holder may operate one training cart, that is, a two wheel, horse-drawn vehicle with extra long shafts, designed for training purposes. Said training cart shall not be used for the transport of customers for hire and shall meet all of the equipment, registration and other requirements of this chapter and shall operate only within routes specifically authorized by the city' s transportation engineer as set forth in Section 5.37. 170 herein, or its successor. 5.37.090 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. A. A holder is required to have the total number of carriages authorized under such holder' s certificate of convenience and necessity and to obtain the license plate required by Section 5 . 05. 155, or its successor, for each and every carriage. B. In the event the holder does not license the total number of carriages authorized by the certificate before February 15th of any year, such holder shall forfeit the right to any carriage not so licensed, unless such carriage is licensed within five days of written notice being given by the city; that authority shall automatically revert to the city, and the certificate shall be modified to reflect the total number of vehicles actually licensed before February 15th of any year. Such forfeited right to operate any carriage may be reissued to any person; provided, however, it shall not be reissued except upon application required by Section 5.05. 105, or its successor, and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5.05 . 140, or its successor. -6- C. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a holder from having carriages in excess of the number authorized under such holder' s certificate for the purpose of replacement or substitution of an authorized carriage under repair, maintenance or breakdown; provided, however, any such carriage shall not be used as a carriage other than as a replacement or substitution as herein provided. The type or style, color, seating capacity, year of manufacture, and serial number or identification number of any substitute carriage shall be filed with the licensing office. 5.37.095 Minimum use of carriages required. A. No certificate issued in accordance with Section 5.37.070 of this chapter, or its successor, shall be construed to be either a franchise or irrevocable. It is the intent of the city that all carriages authorized be actually used for the transportation of passengers for hire. In order to implement that intent, the city hereby imposes the following requirements: 1. Each certificate holder shall have in service at least one carriage authorized under its certificate for a minimum of one hundred twenty carriage days during any calendar six months. 2. Within thirty days following each June 30 and December 31, a holder of a certificate shall file a report with the city license supervisor ' s office. Such report shall be in writing, signed by the holder or by some person authorized to sign the same on behalf of the holder, and shall be properly verified. The report shall contain the following information: -7- a. A list of all carriages licensed under a certificate during the preceding calendar six months, showing the serial number and the city business license plate number for each carriage. Such list shall include any carriage which has been salvaged or otherwise removed from the fleet, as well as the replacement thereof; b. The number of carriage days each such carriage was in service during the preceding calendar six months; c. The holder may also file with such report a written statement of the circumstances that caused the authorized carriages to be in service for less than the required number of carriage days; d. A statement that the information contained in the report was obtained from the company records, and that all statements contained in the report are true and accurate. C. In the event the carriages licensed under the provisions of this chapter are not actually in service for the minimum required carriage days during any calendar six months as set forth in this Section 5.37.095 or its successor, the right to operate one or more carriage may, upon at least ten days notice to the holder, and upon the hearing had therefor, be revoked by the city. The holder may appear in person or be represented by counsel at such hearing to show cause, if any he or she has, why the right to operate such carriage or carriages should not be revoked. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the city shall find that the holder has shown extenuating circumstances, the city may grant continuance of authority. -8- D. Upon revocation by the city of such authority, the certificate shall be modified to reflect the number of carriages actually in service for the required minimum number of carriage days during such calendar six months. No refund shall be made for any unused portion of the license fee. Such forfeited right to operate any carriage may be reissued only upon application required by Section 5 .05. 105, or its successor, and by a showing of public convenience and necessity as required by Section 5.05. 140, or its successor. E. Each holder shall maintain and keep current at the place of business a daily log showing all trips made by every operator during such operator' s hours of work showing time( s ) and place(s ) or origin and destination of trips, and the specific carriage( s ) and horse( s) operated. Such logs shall be made available to the city for inspection upon reasonable notice. 5.37.100 Compliance responsibility. The holder shall not be relieved of any responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter, whether the holder pays salary, wages or any other form of compensation to drivers. Article III. Driver Licensing 5.37.105 Licence required for operators. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for a holder to permit any person to operate a carriage for hire or a training cart upon the streets of the city without such operator having -9- first obtained and having then in force a current chauffeur' s license valid in the state of Utah. 5.37.110 License--Display. Every driver operating a carriage under this chapter shall keep his or her chauffeur' s license on his or her person while such driver is operating a carriage, and shall exhibit the license upon demand of any police officer, animal control officer, license inspector, or any authorized agent of the license office of the city. Article IV. Carriage Equipment and Maintenance 5.37.115 Carriage inspection prior to licensing. Prior to the use and operation of any carriage under the provisions of this chapter, the carriage shall be thoroughly examined and inspected by the animal control division and found to comply with the specifications of Section 5.37 . 125 herein, or its successor. 5.37.120 Satisfactory inspection--Sticker issued. When the animal control division finds that a carriage has met the specifications established by Section 5.37. 125 or its successor, the license office shall issue a sticker to that effect. 5.37.125 Periodic inspections. A. Specifications. Every carriage operating under this chapter shall be inspected by the animal control division at least once each year in order to make certain each carriage is -10- being maintained in a safe and efficient operating condition in accordance with the following inspection requirements. 1. Each carriage shall be equipped with rear view mirrors, two electrified white lights visible for 1,000 feet to the front of the carriage, and two electrified red lights visible for 1, 000 feet to the rear of the carriage. All lights shall be operational from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and during times of lessened visibility. Electrified directional signals are required at all times. 2. Each carriage shall be equipped with hydraulic or factory equipped mechanical brakes appropriate for the design of the particular carriage. 3. Each carriage shall be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem ( red triangle) attached to the rear of the carriage. 4. Each carriage shall permanently and prominently display the name and telephone number of the carriage business operating it on the rear portion of such carriage. 5. Each carriage shall be equipped with a device to catch horse manure falling to the pavement. 6. Each carriage shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Inspection fee. The carriage owner shall be required to pay an inspection fee of five dollars each time the vehicle is inspected. -11- C. Training cart. This Article IV shall be fully applicable to training carts, as described in Section 5 .37.085.B. , with the exception of subparagraph A.2. above regarding brakes. In addition, all training carts shall be clearly marked, on the rear portion of such cart, with the words: "CAUTION: HORSE IN TRAINING. " Article V. Conduct of Drivers and Operation of Carriages 5.37.130 Traffic laws. A driver operating a horse drawn carriage shall be subject to all laws of the city pertaining to the driver of any vehicle. 5.37.135 Lights. The driver of each carriage in operation from one half hour after sunset until one half hour before sunrise, and in conditions of poor visibility, shall turn on the front and tail lights of the carriage and take any action necessary to make them operational, such as by replacing a light bulb. 5.37.140 Speed. The driver shall not permit the speed at which any horse drawn carriage is driven to exceed a slow trot. 5.37.145 Presence and control. No driver shall leave the carriage unattended in a public place. 5.37.150 Number of passengers. No driver shall permit more than six adult passengers to ride in the carriage at one time, plus no more than two children under three years of age, if seated on the laps of adult -12- passengers, unless the carriage was designed to carry fewer, in which event the carriage shall not carry more passengers than it was designed to carry. With regard to a training cart, no more than two passengers shall be permitted, neither of which shall be a customer for hire. 5.37.155. Passengers restricted to passenger area. No driver shall permit a passenger to ride on any part of the carriage while in motion, unless the passenger is seated inside the carriage. 5.37.160. Appearance. Drivers shall be neatly dressed and courteous in manner. 5.37.165 Hours. Neither a licensee nor any driver shall operate or allow to be operated its carriages on the streets of the city during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9 :00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 5.37.170 Routes. A. 1 . The licensees and drivers shall operate horse drawn carriages only upon certain streets within specified routes and/or quadrants and according to restrictions authorized by the kmrSe. drRw►l carni'or_Cowtf►,t,`tte.e city' sil . In determining said routes, horse_ drawn CANri`a- restrictions, and/or quadrants, the e CmNdwc { � shall seek to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city, and shall take into consideration the location of the streets therein, the expected traffic flow upon such streets, the history of traffic accidents upon such streets, the width of such streets, and any natural or -13- man-made physical features of such streets which may be pertinent to the safe and efficient movement of transportation thereon. 2. With regard to the determination as to which holders may operate carriages and as to the number of carriages to be operated by such holders along a particular route or within a G c'-se drecwK ca wll`Q�e e-0``"�7YeE particular quadrant within the city, the eityr waglneer shall, no later than February 15, 1990, develop a process for allocating in an equitable manner such routes and/or quadrants among holders. Said process shall not unreasonably withhold entry into the market from holders which have not previously operated along a particular route or within a particular quadrant. Said allocation shall be made on an annual basis, no earlier than February 15 of each calendar year. 3. As of the effective date of this ordinance, subject to AorNe_ dMwK COPIWLWL C19140* 1`fee_ amendment by the city as provided herein below in this section 5 .37. 170, there shall be established a quadrant for the operation of horse drawn carriages which shall be bounded by the following streets: North Temple, 200 East, 400 South, and 200 West. The maximum number of carriages which shall be allowed to operate within said quadrant, unless amended Gtohsc d ezwpt carve& -e cogvit,W by the city , shall be eighteen. Subject itorsc drawn ".,Safe Co 1/Yee to reallocation by the city as provided hereinabove, the three carriage companies in operation as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed to operate the following number of carriages within the aforementioned quadrant: -14- Carriage Horse Livery Ltd. 10 carriages Carriage For Hire " carriages The Carriage Connection 4 carriages B. Licensees are barred from using streets which: 1. Have a speed limit exceeding 35 m.p.h. , unless prior approval is obtained; 2. Do not have traffic signals at major intersections; 3. Involve major arterials during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. , including but not limited to State Street, 700 East, 500 South and 600 South from 700 East west to I-15 . C. The authorized routes and termini shall be subject to h``="-- c1HQclhi c¢Htifq a Co AX/Yiee amendment from time to time by the city in order to ensure safe and efficient movement of transportation within the city, according to the guidelines set forth in this Section 5.37. 170. Advance charter tours may deviate from the route provided the driver stays on streets already approved for rioutes. A driver must receive prior permission of the C��/y/ ha"S e clea J&. G42-hHI Q 'LOmKtI,q.e ,firnrtatinn enr.�noor to deviate from streets which have not been approved for routes or destinations which require use or crossing of streets designated as arterial or collector streets on the city' s major street plan and official map. 5.37.175 Termini. Approved on-street route termini include those areas p rS e_ d^.o.WA calm by e_coital 4q.e..e._ designated by the city Drivers shall not stop on-street longer than the maximum three minutes avail- able in any designated freight or passenger loading zone unless -15- J,or'S€ ciaWst. c-afrhi(Q4j Ce itkti ye, it is at a termini location approved by the1tr-a 3porta�orr ang. eer or in a legal parking space. Each holder shall obtain permission from the property owner of all off-street staq_inq areas before using such areas. Upon request by the city Gl o,-se cfra rt Cq'Hw' e Co sf m/ L/Q-& 1 i,an engineer, a holder shall verify such permission to use such off-street staging area by submitting to the engineer evidence of such written permission from the property owner. Drivers shall not stop at designated bus stops, bus lanes, or any other restricted parking areas. 5.37.180 Rates. All drivers must make available to any person upon request, the rates for all tours and trips offered by the service. Once a vehicle has been hired for a designated route or termini, the driver may not accept additional passengers without the original contracting passengers ' consent. Article VI. Violations 5.37.185 Revocation or suspension. If any person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this chapter commits a violation of this chapter, such license may be revoked or suspended according to the procedure provided for revocation or suspension of a business license issued by the City. 5.37.190 Misdemeanor. Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a Class B misdemeanor. -16- SECTION 2. That Section 8.04.010, pertaining to Animals be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.010 Definitions. As used in Title 8 of this code: 1 . "Animal at large" *** 2. "Animal boarding establishment" *** 3. "Animal grooming parlor" *** 4. "Animals" *** 5 . "Animal shelter" *** 6. "Animal under restraint" *** 7. "Bite" *** 8. "Carriage" or "Horse Drawn Carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. 9 . "Carriage Business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. [8-:] 10 . "Cat" *** [ ] 11 . "Cattery" *** [10. ] 12. "Dog" *** [11. ] 13 . "Domesticated animals" *** 14. "Driver" means any person operating or in actual physical control of a horse drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver ' s seat of such carriage with the intention of causing it to be moved by a horse. -17- [12. ] 15. "Enclosure" *** [13 . ] 16. "Estray" or "stray" *** [14. ] 17. "Guard dog" *** [15. ] 18. "Holding facility" *** [16. ] 19 . "Impoundment" *** [17. ] 20. "Kennel" *** [18. ] 21. "Leash" or "lead" *** [19 . ] 22. "Person" *** [20. ] 23 . "Pet" *** [21. ] 24. "Pet shop" *** [22. ] 25. "Provoked" *** [23. ] 26. "Quarantine" *** [24. ] 27. "Riding school or stable" *** [25 . ] 28. "Set" *** [26. ] 29 . "Spring-loaded trap" *** 30. "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses are housed or maintained. 31. "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine. [27 . ] 32. "Vicious animal" *** [28 . ] 33. "Vicious dog" *** 34. "Work, " with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. SECTION 3. That Title 8, Salt Lake Code be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new chapter 8. 16 pertaining to horse drawn carriages, as follows: • -18- Chapter 8.16 Regulation of Horse Drawn Carriage Businesses Sections Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. 8.16.015 Identification number. 8.16.020 Examination required. 8.16.025 Certificate required. 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. 8.16.045 Police or Animal Control orders. 8.16.050 Disqualification. 8.16.055 Accidents. 8.16.060 Examination by the City. Article II. Care of Horses 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. 8.16.070 Stables and stalls. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. Article I. Suitability of Horses 8.16.010 Businesses governed. In addition to the requirements of Chapters 5.05, 5.37, and other applicable ordinances, or their successors, of this code, all holders of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city for the transportation of passengers for hire by horse drawn carriages shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter. 8.16.015 Identification number. Each horse used to pull a carriage in the city shall be identified by a brand or mark in accordance with Chapter 4-24, Utah Code Annotated, or its successor, which brand or mark uniquely identifies the horse thus marked. The identification -19- brand or mark and description of each of said horses, including age, breed, sex, color and other identifying markings, shall be filed by the carriage horse business with the city licensing office. 8.16.020 Examination required. Every horse shall be examined prior to use in a horse drawn carriage business, and every six months thereafter, by a veterinarian and at no expense to the City. The horse shall be examined and treated for internal parasites; problems with its teeth, legs, hoofs and shoes, or cardiovascular system; drug abuse; any injury disease, or deficiency observed by the veterinarian at the time or previously, and the general physical condition and ability to perform the work required of it. 8.16.025 Certificate required. No person shall cause or attempt to cause a horse to pull a carriage, unless the horse has been certified pursuant to this section. The certification of the horse may be made subject to a condition, or otherwise limited by the veterinarian. The certificate shall be kept and be available for inspection by the city at the stable where the certified horse is kept, and a copy of the certificate shall be mailed to the City within five days from its date. 8.16.030 Certificate by veterinarian--Term. After performing the physical examination required by sec- tion 8. 16.020 above or its successor, the examining veterinarian may sign a certificate attesting that the horse is in good -20- health. The certificate shall specifically identify each horse by its breed, sex, color, and identifying markings and shall state, in the opinion of the veterinarian, the maximum load which each horse can reasonably be expected to draw safely and without causing injury to the horse. The certificate, if issued, shall be valid for a period of not more than six months from the date of signature. 8.16.035 Criteria for determining health. For purposes of this chapter, a horse shall be deemed to be in good health only if the horse: A. Strength. Has, in the opinion of the veterinarian, flesh, muscle tone, and weight sufficient to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages; B. Immunization against anemia. Has been immunized against equine infectious anemia, and such vaccination will be effective at all times during the next six months; C. Coggins test. The horse has been given a coggins test with negative results on at least one certificate per year; D. In general. Is, in the opinion of the veterinarian, in general good health and in all respects physically fit to perform the work for which the horse is used, including the pulling of carriages. 8.16.040 Cancellation and suspension of certificate. A veterinarian shall cancel a certificate, if the veterinarian learns of a condition which is reasonably expected -21- to make the horse unfit for its work for a period of two weeks or more. If the horse appears to the veterinarian to be suffering from an injury or sickness from which it is expected to recover in under two weeks, the veterinarian shall suspend the certificate for such horse for the time that the veterinarian expects will be necessary for the horse to recover. Upon written request of a holder for a hearing on such cancellation or suspension of a veterinarian' s certificate, a hearing shall be held by the city within three working days of receipt of such request to determine whether said cancellation or suspension shall remain in effect. A cancelled certificate shall be destroyed by the veterinarian or clearly marked as cancelled or invalid. Suspension of a certificate shall be clearly marked by the veterinarian in non-erasable ink on the original of the certificate. 8.16.045 Police or animal control orders. A City police officer, a health department officer or an animal control officer may order that a horse not be used to pull a carriage in the City and that the horse be returned to its stable, if the officer has cause to believe that the horse is suffering from any injury, ailment, or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage safely. The order shall be effective only for so long as the officer specifies or until a hearing can be held regarding disqualification, or for three working days, whichever is shorter. -22- • 8.16.050 Disqualification. The mayor may, upon prior notice and hearing, disqualify a specific horse from use in pulling a carriage in the city, if the mayor finds that the horse presents a hazard to public or passenger safety greater than the hazard posed by a normal horse, or that the horse is in any way unfit for the work of pulling carriages in the city. Before a horse may be disqualified, a hearing shall be held before the mayor, or his/her designee, at which the carriage business and the owner of the horse may appear and express themselves. At least three working days notice shall be given of the hearing to the carriage business using the horse. A disqualified horse shall not be used to pull a carriage within the City. 8.16.055 Accidents. In addition to any other requirements of law regarding reporting of vehicle accidents, the operator of a horse drawn carriage shall report to the animal control division any accident involving such carriage, and no such horse or carriage shall again be operated until such have been inspected by an animal control officer and a determination has been made by such officer that no removal order is necessary as provided by Section 8. 16. 050 herein, or its successor. 8.16.060 Examination by the city. The City and its officials may at any reasonable time examine any horse owned by a carriage business or used by a carriage business to pull a carriage, or may have such a horse -23- examined by a veterinarian. The costs of such examination shall initially be borne by the city. Such orders shall be in writing and may be given to the driver of a carriage to which the horse is hitched, or to a carriage business owning or having possession of the horse. If such examination determines that such horse is suffering from any injury, ailment or other condition significantly affecting its ability to pull a carriage in the city, the costs for such examination shall be reimbursed to the city by the certificate holder owning or operating such horse. Article II. Care of Horses. 8.16.065 Physical condition for work. No Person shall cause a horse to draw or to be harnessed to a carriage if: A. Certifiable. The person attending to the horse knows, or reasonably should know that the horse, if then examined by a veterinarian, would probably not then be eligible for certifi- cation, or would be subject to cancellation or revocation of certification; B. Acute ailment. The horse has an open sore or wound, or is lame or appears to have any other injury, sickness, or ailment, unless the person attending to the horse has in his possession a written statement signed by a veterinarian and stating that the horse is fit for pulling a carriage notwithstanding the injury, sickness, or ailment; -24- C. Hoofs. The hoofs of the horse are not properly shod and trimmed, utilizing rubber coated heel pads or open steel barium tip shoes to aid in the prevention of slipping. Horses shall be shod and trimmed by an experienced, competent farrier at least every four to six weeks, or more frequently if necessary; D. Coat. The horse is not well groomed and/or has fungus, dandruff, or a poor or dirty coat. 8.16.070 Stables and stalls. All Stables used by a carriage business and the keeping of horses therein shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.08 of these ordinances, or its successor, as well as any and all other applicable laws and ordinances. 8.16.075 Cruelty and neglect prohibited. No horse owned by or within the control of a carriage business shall be treated cruelly, harassed, or neglected. A carriage business and its owner and managers are all individu- ally responsible to take any action reasonably necessary to assure the humane care and treatment of the horses under their control. SECTION 4. That section 11.36. 120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to criminal mischief be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 11.36. 120 Criminal mischief. A. A person commits criminal mischief if: 1 . *** -25- 2. *** 3. He or she recklessly or willfully shoots or propels a missile or other object at or against a motor vehicle, horse or carriage, operating under the provisions of chapter 5.37 of these ordinances, or its successor, bus, airplane, boat, locomo- tive, train, railway car or caboose, whether moving or standing. B. *** SECTION 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -26- (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS:rc -27- r • CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council June 27, 1989 Re: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Bicycle Dealer Fees • Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 1, 1989 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance regarding bicycle dealer fcco. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Salt Lake Ordinances requires that bicycle dealers must see that all new and used bicycles sold are licensed and registered. Some of the bicycle dealers have requested that the fee for licensing and registration of bicycles be raised from one dollar to two dollar to better cover their cost. The fee is established by ordinance and needs to be changed by ordinance. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is attached for your review and action. Submitted: fC::: CRAIG E. FEI'ERSCN Director I. lf/ Ai -- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Bicycle dealer license and registration fees) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPHS A AND B OF SECTION 5 . 18.030, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BICYCLE DEALER LICENSING AND REGISTRATION FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Subparagraphs A and B of Section 5 . 18 .030, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby are, amended to read as follows: - A. Licensing shall be required of all bicycles sold for use in Salt Lake County. Licensing shall be on a form supplied by Salt Lake City Corporation to such dealers at cost. Dealers may charge the customer no more than [one] two dollars for the license costs. B. Registration shall be required of all bicycles sold for use outside the county. Registration shall be on a form supplied by the city at cost to dealers. Dealers may charge the customer no more than [one] two dollars for the registration costs. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ", ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on _ 1 Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: 0 LVS:rc -2- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Certificate of Convenience and Necessity August 4, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5. 05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76 pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current requirements for certificates of public convenience and necessity are contained in various chapters of the City Code pertaining to ambulances, taxicabs and transportation of handicapped persons. The proposed ordinance removes the present language regarding certificates of convenience and necessity from the various chapters and combines them into one new chapter that covers all transportation means to include horse drawn carriages. STAFF ANALYSIS: The new Chapter 5.05 will standardize requirements for the certificates of public convenience and necessity for all applicants. The ordinance also provides for a $35. 00 non-refundable application fee. The purpose of this fee is to help recoup the City's cost of processing and reviewing the application. The fee is not in addition to the business license fee but would be credited towards the regular business license fee when approved. City policy historically has been to regulate transportation companies by issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The proposed amendment continues that policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the request to add a new Chapter 5.05 to the Salt Lake City Code and amend Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5.76. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • I move that we close the public hearing. I move that we amend Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code, by adding a new Chapter 5.05 and amending Chapters 5. 10, 5.72 and 5. 76 relating to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None �1 3 CRAIG • E. PETERSON �"�-" i'a��`�������� ©���10E DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-ii)/ To: Salt Lake City Council June 29, 1989 Re: Proposed Ordinance on Non-refundable Business License Application Fee Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 1, . at 6:50 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance on establishing a non- refundable business license application fee. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: This ordinance has been proposed to help:Salt -=Lake'City2recoup_some_,oLthe'costs :expended in.reviewing business license thatareTdenied. A11 business licenses are reviewed by- the-Planning Division, Building Division and the Fire Department. In many cases a review by the Police Department and/or the Health Department is also required. This is besides the time and effort required of the business license office. The review may involve written and telephone correspondence to the applicant explain deficiencies in the applications, inspecting the premises and additional follow_-up inspections. Most often there is`a greater=':amount`of effort expended and cost incurred with those applications 'which are'denied than with-those .that _are approved. The proposed _$35.:00 _fec-would not .be in addition tothe.business,license fee but would be rather-.be"paid as a part of and :credited:towards the` regular business ,license' fee. In -the event-of denial of the application by theSCity;or'withdrawal by the applicant, the $35.00 application fee would be retained from any license fees paid to the City. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office' has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E2. PETERSON Director • • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARL=R SALT 1 r�\ ��CI�TYr GDRP©RA iIO�ti j THOCIMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIALPETER V 535.7757 E. R VAI LSTYN NALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Dev m t • FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Director Planning and Zoning Division' DATE: June 14, 1989 RE: Ordinance Regarding Non-refundable Business License Application Fee Enclosed are 17 draft copies and one final copy of a proposed ordinance which provides for a charging by the Business License Office of a $35. 00 non-refundable business license application fee. If it appears to be appropriate I would appreciate your submitting this ordinance to the City Council for its review, public hearing and consideration for passage. Explanation: As you are aware, the processing of business license applications by the City staff is a process which involves the time of City staff and the use of City resources . In every case there is a review by the ,Planning and Zoning Division, the Building and Housing Division, and the Fire Department. In addition, in many cases there is also a review by the Police Department and/or the City-County Health Department. This is besides the time and effort required of the Staff of the Business License Office. In many instances, it is necessary for one or more city department to make telephone or written contact with the appli- Craig Peterson June 14, 1989 '�. Page -2 cant, explain deficiencies in the applications, and follow up with further inspections. Under the ordinance as it presently. exists, whenever an applicant withdraws the application after it has been filed or whenever the City denies the application for cause, the license fees previously paid to the City must be refunded. This means that the City has been receiving nothing whatsoever from the applicant for the time and effort expended and the costs incurred in processing and reviewing the appli- cation, inspecting the premises, and corresponding with the applicant. Most often there is a greater amount of effort expended and cost incurred with those applicants which are denied than with those that are approved. It is our feeling that it is only proper that the City charge a non-refundable application fee for the effort expended and the costs incurred by the City. In examining those costs, it appears to us that $35.00 is an appropriate fee. That fee, as provided by the proposed ordinance, would not be in addition to the business license fee but would rather be paid as a part of and credited towards the regular .business license fee. In the event of a denial of the application by the City or a with- drawal by the applicant, the $35.00 application fee would be retained from any license fees paid ,or payable to the City, unless such a fee is provided for elsewhere under City • ordinance. Fiscal Impact: This ordinance should cause no additional expense to the City. On the contrary, it should provide for additional funds to cover the actual costs of handling business license applications where the license is withdrawn or denied, which has not been covered heretofore. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification in this regard. Thank you. ACJ:rc . SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Non-refundable business license application fee) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.04.070, ' SALT LAKE CITY CODE, BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION D THERETO RELATING TO THE ESTABLISH- MENT OF A NON-REFUNDABLE BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION FEE. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 5.04.070, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new subsection D to read as follows: D. In the event any initial or renewal business license implication is denied by the City or is withdrawn by the applicant, the city shall be entitled to retain the. sum of thirty five dollars as a non-refundable business license application fee from any license fees paid or payable to the city, unless another non-refundable business license application fee is otherwise provided for under the ordinances of the city. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • ( SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: . LVS:rc -2- J ✓ 7) • AO')tjaalAr(fI ' lolll OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 July 14, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: maw GUsr-JEDSON`\�ry1G� RE: BANJ PETITION You'll recall that last week you approved the Banj alley closure petition but, due to an error in the presentation that was given, we have been informed that it would be best to re-advertise the hearing and hold it again. In Tuesday's meeting you are scheduled to set a date for August 8. When you take action on it August 8, you will need to rescind the previously adopted ordinance and adopt the new one. • • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES V =RAIL E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 4 535-7777 4 To: Salt Lake City Council April 5 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 11, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj • Investment. The petitioners are requesting that the alley located at approximately 750 South Q' West be vacated. • • • • Availability of Funds: . Not applicable Discussion and Background: The petition was originally denied because it was first believed that the alley.was not public but private -but after further checking it has been determined that the alley is public. The ' appropriate City Departments have reviewed this petition and recommend that the alley be closed and sold to the petitioner for fair market value. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: i • CRAIG E. PE ERSCN Director • lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 1989 (Closing a portion of an alley at approximately 750 South 750 West in Salt Lake City, Utah pursuant to Petition No. 400-596-88) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY AT APPROXIMATELY 750 SOUTH 750 WEST IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-596-88 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as a alley and that closure of said alley will not be adverse to the general public's interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an alley at approximately 750 South 750 West in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-596-88 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley, with the title remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value and repayment to the City of the cost of a City approved valuation appraisal : Said alley is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 13.25 RODS EAST AND 5 RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 8, BLOCK 15 , PLAT "A" , SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE 9 NORTH 38. 5 FEET; THENCE EAST 1 ROD; THENCE SOUTH 38. 5 �� FEET; THENCE WEST 1 ROD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. J1-41 SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above enclosure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE _DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date .of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- =_: " U L LI J. 1 • f J . SALT': r ;GiCril CORPORATION `•:.FINANCE ,DEPARTMENT LANCE R. BATEMAN.CPA Purchasi{lg and Property Mandgement..Division PALMER OCPAULIs DIRECTOR of FINANCE L , 324iSOUT.H:STATE STREET i -c= ST • OOR - MAYOR 'SALT LAK-/ E CITY UTAH 84111 PuRCHASING. (801) 535-7661 - PROPERTY 535-7133 April 11, 1988 • TO: Doug Dansie Planning and Zoning _FICM: Eric H. Thorpe . Property Manage •. RE: PET. 400-596, EANJ INVESTMENT . I have reviewed the subject petition and recommend that this alleyway be - closed, and that the petitioner be required to purchase the property and • reimburse the City for the cost of a market value appraisal. Please contact me at ext. 6308 if you have any questions. - EHT/b f cc: G. L. Failner • ll 3/ g1 LV NI1; ) OMmyY, p-1-)� i1'_ 4)te e SAr�L. 5Rk-_,--p . .,nn)II/D v�V TO. / /.,/ LAWGU�16. 1 E ci 7 V1 0 L)r✓io�� 7 �,��,8;1r�11',_- -/66PIs60LS Gas , -r �.� of . (-:. (, r1 r,.l • ,.% �. �, S•? �� .lv/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON / MEMBERS;j/ PLANNING DIRECTOR [`1' ^CINDY GRDD(ER. SANDRA MARL:R SALT'LAKE CITY(CORPORATION- ,,, -„ ,s°,, • SECRETARY - - ..--v•........�• � ,... i.,.,,,..,•_ -... _�-. LAV TDCLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT .OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS_ RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission' GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER - 324 SOUTH STATE STREET..ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER . SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN - _ I Y BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VAKALSTYN.- KATHY WACKER March 3 , 1989 Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development • Salt Lake City, UT RE: Petition No . 400-596 Banj Investment Dear Craig : Please find attached Petition No . 400-596 requesting SLC vacate an alley between parcels # 15 -12-233-006- and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 750 South 250 West. After reviewing the petition , it is recommended that the petition be approved and the alley be sold at market value. Respectfully , • Allen C. ohnson AICP ' • Planning Director • ACJ/jn cc: Engineering Fire Property Mgmt . Public Utilities Transportation • • • 61 AL' 'N C. JCHNSCN )t_,aNNING OIR:=":R c T ��� T�� MEMBERS: SALT.'1 i t17 1,G_'1'1'.11r CINDY CROMER SANDRA AR.=.R --..r .a,, +.-�ta....� --�.,...+� ��—�• THOMAS A. ELl.ISON SC s ECR.S7AR7 • ' - -- LAVCNE LIOOLE•GAMCNAL LY.CFFICIo DEPARTMENT OF DEVI=?OPMENT `SERV1C'cS RICHARD E LSC [a7CA CF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning CommissionRALPH P. NISCN GECRGE NICCLyTUS CM' ENGINELL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 2CO JaH1N M. SCHUMANN T" TRAFFIC _VG:N==R SALT LAKE CITY..UT.AH 84111 F. KEITH SS_PAN 3UILMING CFFIC:.:L 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WAGGER July 13, 1988 Mr, Craig Petersen, Director Cecartment of Development Services 324 S. Sate, Suite 201 Salt Dike City, Ur 84111 - • • Re: Pe_iticn No. 400-596 - Banj Investment • Dear Craig: • • Please find attached Petition No. 400-596 by Banj Investment re .sestina Salt Lake City vacate an tween parcels R15-12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 et aDc_cx;Ta_ely 250 Sou h 25 We t. • Peter reviewing the petition it was determined that the alley is a private right--F-way, not owned by the city. It is rec mrerded that this petition be filed with no action taken and the petitioner be advised of the private status of the right--oL-way. To resolve the issue, the petitioner should research the des at the County Recorders office to determine the owners and work with them individually. . Res.:ec`-nl1y, -74 /4 / • Allen C. Johnson, AICP Acting Planning Director • attac riienc ACJ:CD cc: Encincoring Fire - P-ccerty Management Public Utilities Transportation • EEPANDVD ONE STOP REVIEW DATE: May 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-596-88 • Alley Vacation - between parcels #15-12-233-015 and #15-12-233-006 =r s: Engineering:No objection. Fire: No objection, would prefer entire alley closed. Planning: No objection. • Property management: No objection. Public Utilities: No objection. Transportation: No objection, would prefer entire alley, closed. cc: Engineering Fire Property Management Public Utilities Transportation r a • • C3atr Jet ' , taefi`� Coati an D. Eric Ensign • General Manager 370 East South Temple, Suite 501 •• Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • SALT' �,.. �.. _ C( Telephone (801) 531-0364 Home (801) 943-2123 DEPARTMENT CF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ',,qIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 201 OIREC7OR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 July 20, 1988 Mr. D. Eric Ensign Banj Investment Company P.O: Box 20 - Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 . Dear Mr. Ensign: I have received your request to vacate -an alley located between parcels -15-12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 740 South 25 West. • After reviewing the petition it was determined that the alley.is a private right-of-way, not owned by the city. The City therefore, has no jurisdiction over the right-of-way. To resolve the issue, research would need to be done on the deed at the County Recorders office to determine the owners and work with them individually. If you have any questions, please contact LuAnn Fawcett of my office. • Ycurs truly, ••• I,/ CRAIG E.? PE:1'»CN W I4 Director tS S IT-'/ O� lf/ 4`.1 0GI A�r� Tr tzE C� IL (`, r �w1 tom( �T �• ( cc: Petition No. 400-596 , r pK -{-n St 6 Ifs" • _p cocsE- let=vw,ki ff mac, � �� Wt C -L